Seriously...We need to know!

[jonsie]

Ok, hopefully as this is of important relevance it won't get deleted by administration or moderators who want to shy away from the subject. 

I notice that articles from other websites have been totally copied and pasted and a source link added as a footnote. 

I need to know what constitutes plagiarism and the legal implications  to members and admin should such threads be reported to the original authors or websites. 

We normally make comments in our own words when linking to something we find interesting rather than copy and paste the whole article and let members form their own opinion and respond with their own thoughts.

If I quote from an article I make it quite obvious by using quotation marks and italics. I don't find it acceptable to be posting as though I am the author. Everyone on here knows my grammar errors on occasions and knows that they are my own thought and words.

Please discuss as I for one would hate to breach the T&Cs of forum rules. Ultimately O2 are responsible and accountable for the content they allow on their community. 

[Cleoriff]

---

@Beenherebefore wrote:
"Plagiarism.org is a free resource sponsored by iParadigms LLC, makers of Turnitin, WriteCheck, and iThenticate."

http://www.plagiarism.org/ is just another person(s) opinion not a definitive decision source.

Legislation is the only definitive source.

---

There are many other sites giving definitions of plagiarism. I linked to only one. They all say pretty much the same.

Regarding 'personal opinion' as mentioned in a previous post...this only relates to me in terms of how we post as individuals. The discussions on copyright and plagiarism are based on my own knowledge of the subject in terms of marking and grading work produced by students of all ages.

[Bambino]

If posting an article in its entirety isn't plagiarism, then it's certainly copyright infringement. At least that's how I interpret what section 6 in this article says, which I'm fairly certain is a definitive source:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/intellectual-property-crime-and-infringement

[Toby]

---

@Bambino wrote:

If posting an article in its entirety isn't plagiarism, then it's certainly copyright infringement. At least that's how I interpret what section 6 in this article says, which I'm fairly certain is a definitive source:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/intellectual-property-crime-and-infringement

---

It simply doesnt apply to members' community posts @Bambino, its a different kind of content.

[Bambino]

Is that your interpretation @Toby, or does that come from O2's legal department?

[Toby]

Hi @Bambino,

It is how we have agreed to approach external content as a team and anything we do complies with current laws of course.

[Bambino]

Okay @Toby. I just wouldn't want any lawsuits landing on your desk from an author who wasn't happy about an article being copied and pasted word for word on the O2 Forum without their express permission. Personally, I think it's just easier to post a link, but that's just me, I guess.:smileywink:

[PhoneDoc]

I think if we're going to hold members accountable for alleged copyright violations then we have to be consistent in our approach and not aim outrage at any one member or post. Copyright violation may not just be limited to republishing news articles without the author's consent, but images also. 

@jonsie Since joining, you have posted 794 images on to the community forum, many of which have been copied and pasted from the internet. Were all these images released under creative commons licenses? Or did you get expressed written permission from the content owners before doing so? Or instead, have you paid royalties to the owners of these images for your republishing of them?

If not, you too have committed the same act that you are now accusing others of, only on a much larger scale and without any acknowledgement to the content owner. 

@Bambino Since joining, you have posted over 100 images. Again, many of which do not appear to be of your own creating, can be found elsewhere on the internet, and lack attribution to the original creators.

@Cleoriff Since joining, you have posted over 1000 of such images, a sizeable some of which appear to be stock photography. Have you paid several thousands of pounds in license fees to publish these images, or have you too copied and pasted them from the internet?

@Beenherebefore Since joining, you have posted nearly 300 images to the community pages. One of them includes a picture of Gordon Brown. If you look at the image in question, you'll see it even has a copyright watermark in the bottom corner from its owner - PA Images. I quote you now from PA Images terms and conditions which can be located on their website:

"All images available from paimages.co.uk are rights-managed so a licence is required to reflect your use, or intended use, of an image before it is published."

There's nothing wrong with wanting to enforce standards, or having an open discussion about the ethics and laws concerning use of other peoples content. But we should at least make a concerted effort to hold ourselves to the same standards as we demand of others. So before we turn ourselves into armchair solicitors, express outrage at others or make demands of the moderators; we should probably reflect inwardly first and realise that every member will contribute here in their own unique way and threads such as this one are unbecoming of the goodwill this community should strive to emulate. 

[jonsie]

Hopefully this has clarified things from an O2 stance but I think personally that this is a community of individuals and we all have our own style of writing and phrasing. But that is my main point, individual and personal and if you are going to copy and paste a full article, think about it, the link is irrelevant to anyone reading the thread but is included so as not to breach community guidelines or copyright infringement.

If someone posts something the whole point of a community is that you put your own thoughts down and maybe include a small excerpt from the article that is of particular interest or to highlight the thread topic as a discussion rather than just another identical media source.

We can all then make our own mind up if we wish to make comments and turn the thread into a discussion which is surely the whole idea and point of being involved in any online community. We all have the free choice as to contributing to a particular thread or not.

[jonsie]

@PhoneDoc That is totally irrelevant to the point in question. Images are used as a form of expression not as a serious thread topic.

No one is making demands of admin here and this is not the point of the thread and you know that. I asked for clarity on plagiarism, I want to see peoples' own words on here and no one has said we shouldn't use excerpts from articles.

As for this thread being unbecoming of the goodwill of the community, this is a discussion and as I said in my previous post, we are all free to contribute or not to any thread. If you feel it unbecoming then feel free not to contribute further.

[Bambino]

Okay @PhoneDoc, so if what you say is correct, then ultimately, the responsibility is not down to the members here, but to the Forum Administrators. As @Toby said in an earlier post in this thread "its our team's responsibility to make sure everything is sourced properly if shared from other sites".

If we've all overstepped the boundaries, then we all need to be mindful of how we post in the forum. That is, I believe, why this thread was started. It was a general discussion about defining guidelines and no one, until you posted, had singled anyone out.