Plagiarism and Steemit - Help me find out where we draw the line?
Greetings Steemit,
Penny of Steem for your thoughts..
Yesterday I posted this article that I had originally discovered shared on another Social Media site.
The subject matter & included visual aids were both interesting & thought provoking to me, and I then had the notion that some other like-minded Steemians may also take interest - so with that intent I copy/pasted the text from the article, and then spent some time finding the same gifs to include in the Steemit post, as some of the images didn't want to display correctly when transferred. The post began with my description as to why I was sharing the information, and how much I enjoyed its original source website. As of this writing the Steemit reward sits at $3.20.
This morning I had a conversation with a friend who is both a content creator as well as being familiar with Steemit.com. My friend had seen yesterday's post, and asked this question: "so, how is your article from futurism not blatant plagiarism?"
Its a good Question.
We had a friendly discourse back & forth for a bit, and I'm only going to speak briefly to what my responses were - as I'm not going to speak for my friend or paste the conversation here.. but in short my answer was: "Since I had found the article already shared on another Social Media site, added my own context as to 'why I was sharing' while not just copy/pasting and adding nothing else, and had appropriately tagged 'newslink' & sourced the article while taking no credit for its creation - in my opinion - this is NOT plagiarism. (at least, I know my 'intent' was not to plagiarize)
After our friendly banter was over, despite my boldest honest arguments - my buddy still steadfast disagrees.
Having been a member of the Steemit community myself since July 2016 - and having discussed this EXACT topic 100 times w/ my partners in crime on The @Steemittalk Podcast - my position on this issue has wavered over time as the community and our posting environment has changed. @Steemcleaners does what they can to keep this place rid of BLATANT fraud - and I am thankful for their efforts.
With the addition of the 'newslink' tag - I personally feel that the door is opened a little wider for Steemit as a platform to host more 'day-to-day' news related topics shared - specifically prompting community conversation on those subjects - despite the Steemit poster NOT being the original creator of the content.
That said: My friend raises a valid point.. as far as their being a monetary reward offered to the person who shared the content, while no reward is going to the original author of the content.. in turn allowing someone to profit off of someone else's hard work.
As I look around me, I realize that I'm standing among a community of content creators here in this SteemMart - so I'd like to hear what you all think about this question? Mind you there is a few sides to the issue: Community Posting Rules vs Community Ethical Mindset vs Actual Legal Reality variant by location.. so there should be some room for everyone who posts on Steemit to jump into this topic with some personal insight to add.
We live in an ever-accelerating age of information, and sometimes the technology moves faster than the Law. Steemit is a new & original enough idea that it adds a 'twist' to the story, in that now people can earn rewards for simply sharing someone else's content. So in today's World I ask:
- Where does the line fall?
- Is sharing something akin to the article I posted yesterday plagiarism?
- If so: What should the community do to protect itself & its users from any potential legal ramifications after doing so?
I look forward to hearing your responses and continuing this conversation. Any comment will be met with a 100% GG upvote. (I did say 'A penny of steem for your thoughts', didn't I?)
Cheers Steemit!
~GiftedGaia
-What is: Steemit Talk Podcast
-Life is short - hence why Podcasting is Important
-My Youtube Page (lots of Drone Videos)
-GiftedGaia's Favorite Quotations on Life and Music
I have been writing for nearly a decade and can tell you, it sucks to see your work copied in completeness and posted elsewhere, even if it is prefaced with a disclaimer that it is copied/borrowed and where it was originally posted.
The many times this has happened I have asked the person 'borrowing' my work to please cut it back to a partial copy and leave something for readers to read after clicking through to my site (I monetize almost all of my content in some form). I see @denmarkguy has pretty much said the same thing. Good to know I am not alone in thinking this way.
Here on Steemit the same principle can apply. Simply take the relevant snippet you need for discussion and paste it with a preface that this is your opinion on this work by someone else and link to the full, original, work.
If people cannot be bothered to click the link to read the rest of the article they won't read it here either so it is pointless to copy the whole thing.
Your last sentence makes a lot of sense, imo.
It's definitely a tricky one as far as where exactly the line is at. To some degree we want to be able to share things we think are cool and interesting, but the ability for us to make money of them changes things compared to doing the same thing on other social networks.
I've tended to view this through the question of "What value am I adding to the original post?" This means if things are copy/pasted, I'm still providing something personal on top of that, such as a paragraph or so of my reaction to each point. Even though portions are still copied, I view this more in a sense of a review, versus copy-pasta.
I liked @inertia's option of the $0.99 max payout (which would be nice to have in the UI itself) as well as @denmarkguy's preference of giving a teaser with a link driving people to use the original creators site. As was also stated, we do have the newslink tag for copied news articles...maybe we need to start a similar link tag for just sharing cool stuff that wouldn't fall under being news.
Maybe we should bring this topic up on a @steemittalk podcast in the future.
yeah, we can 'cast it out, bruh'.
Voted and resteemed just because of the monkey.
That particular monkey.
That monkey earned you a penny.
Actually... ditto! THAT Monkey!
Also, I am an admitted plagiarizer and have even taken some hits in the community for it.
But I don't linger on THAT Term as an absolute... only Sith Deal in absolutes and I am most certainly not a Sith. Chaotic neutral maybe, but my point is that just using the P word doesn't really suggest anything. For me, using code, scripts and Bots is FAR MORE egregious than anything I do or YOU do for that matter. I happen to agree with YOU that "Context" has everything to do with THIS sort of discussion. And as an ART Dealer, I would just like to point out that F is for Frank ; )
Very interesting question... personally, it's a debate I have always skated around by not sharing other people's work (except as am function of "share" or "resteem").
In the case of your article and the article on Futurism... all I can say is that I have articles written in many places around the web over the past 20 years, and have ordered lots of DCMA "takedown requests" over the years. If someone wants to share my work, they are welcome to copy a "half-paragraph teaser" and post a link back to my work... and then write their own take on why it's cool/worthwhile/interesting.
Of course, the counterargument is that the moment you put ANYthing on the web, you can pretty much kiss any pretense of "ownership" goodbye. Which is also why I have often chosen to hide my better work behind a "paywall."
But it's a slippery slope... as a result of which, most of the content I create these days is "just for fun," (meaning I don't care where it's copied)... but that-- in turn-- makes me ponder the entire notion of "quality content."
As a DJ & Podcast Host myself - I personally wonder where I would draw the line if seen something I had created had been shared elsewhere for reward. Part of me wants the promo - part of me wants the payout. Never had to send a DCMA letter yet.. thankfully.
I say abandon the idea of intellectual property and never use the government to bully others. I prefer the BipCot license if anything needs to look semi-official.
Personally, I think cutting and pasting an article word for word (or image by image) from one website onto another without express permission of the original author is by definition plagiarism.
Worse, this article you cited appears to be grabbing gifs from elsewhere meaning those original content creators are not getting credited or compensated either, by you or futurism.
In this case, why not share a snippet with some of your own thoughts as to why you liked it and then link to original source instead vs. posting the same thing word for word?
Thanks for your insight. I honestly had not made the distinction in my mind of the difference between posting a snippet vs the entire article until today's conversation. Its a valid point.
I dig the Mimi and Eunice comic. I agree with Nina Paley's copyright positions. Copying is not theft but attribution is proper.
I do think it is a breach of etiquette to copy/paste an entire post by someone else into Steemit though, even with commentary, unless it is an old document unavailable online already.
I would personally offer my commentary, an excerpt, and a link to the full article.
I agree. The adjustment I'm taking from today's lesson is one noting the importance of 'posting in excerpt'. #ProperFormattingIsProper
This is a tough subject!
One could say that imitation is the highest form of flattery, but that doesn't put bread on the original authors table.
The very least one should do is give credit back to the original author.
Like #denmarkguy said, once you post something on the web it is pretty much up for grabs.
But, does that mean that if I retweet something on twitter am I in violation of copyright?
I tend to agree with #traverse on this.
Take a snippet that you need to make your point and give a credit to the original author.
Thoughts are free, however, when they become words are they still free?
There is something called synchronicity where two or more people have come up with the same idea in different parts of the world at the same time (think laser and telephone) and only one gets credit. In the case of Alexander Bell he beat the other guy to the patent office by a very small amount of time and no one remembers the other guys name and Bell gets the credit.
As my favorite poet, Robert Service, once wrote in "The Shooting of Dan McGrew"
"I'm not so wise as the lawyer guys, but strictly between us two—
The woman that kissed him and—pinched his poke—was the lady that's known as Lou."
It is a tough subject. I'm all tentative to post now.