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]

I must admit to being totally 'gobsmacked' that someone has found the time to systematically work through and count the images posted by a select few members....

It doesn't add a thing to the issue being discussed...(which was the copy and paste of full articles)

Never mind......

[PhoneDoc]

---

@jonsie wrote:

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

---

It's not irrelevant. You opened the door when you posted "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."

You're happy to challenge the legality of a post when you disagree with the members style of writing. Yet when it's pointed out that you too would also be guilty of the same alleged offence, all of a sudden legal implications are totally irrelevant? 

---

@jonsie wrote:

No one is making demands of admin here and this is not the point of the thread and you know that.

---

Yes you did. Between "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." and "Interesting nevertheless but an Admin point of view for reference is what is needed. Maybe it's just me but I think clarity is needed for all members rather than just taking the easy option (though maybe illegal) of copying and pasting a topic just for the sake of being near to month end with no other aim than rewards."

---

@jonsie wrote:

As for this thread being unbecoming of the goodwill of the community[...] 

---

@jonsie wrote:

[...] If you feel it unbecoming then feel free not to contribute further.

I think that speaks for itself.

---

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.

---

This thread seems to be prompted mainly from a thread posted two days ago from a user wishing to share an informative article that others here may have found useful. Content rights aside, the user did this in good faith. If there were legal/rule concerns, they could easily be redressed by a PM to the moderators.

Instead this thread was started. Through various posts, it's taken issue with the personal writing style some members choose to utilise, it's questioned their conformation to the community rules, it's gossiped about the legality of their actions, it's sought to use technicalities and moderators as pawns to enforce these views, it's criticsed fellow members for the dates they choose to post and accused them of milking posts for credit. It's in no way reflective of the attitudes a community should aspire to, it's ugly, and I don't care if I'm the only one that's going to speak out against it.

 Just think how would you feel, as a member of this community, if such a thread was started (and contributed to) off the back of an innocent and informative contribution you made in good faith?

[viridis]

Images, are not the same as written creative works, most of the time they are representations of a product which actually is promotion by circulation.
Plus, how the he'll do you know who has permission for pictures?
For instance, I myself, even though not named in your shame post, have used over 100 pictures of Sony products for reviews and news items on this site, many of which has resulted in sold units for both O2 and Sony.
Now, trust me, I have permission, partly because they are visual representations of a product I am currently promoting and assist in descriptive needs.....

....however, say I go to techradar etc. And just rip off a review completely and then add some pics, that's a bit naff.
Firstly someone has gone to great length to create that written work and how they wish to represent it. Secondly surely if I'm gonna use a picture as a descriptive asset, I could only base that on my own work as I would know best how to describe it.

Mass circulated Public domain images, are much, much different than created personal writing

[Toby]

Hi guys,

@PhoneDoc's original point is that this community (and most other communities) is a place where ideas, info, pictures and content is shared with each other for mutual gain, benefit and entertainment. I have clearly described the team's view on this stuff; Sources are needed and content must be recogised as something shared and not created. Its really very simple. Any issues with copyrights and plageurism are my responsibility, so do not worry, as there's nothing to worry about

[Cleoriff]

@PhoneDoc I am not sure how you know what prompted this thread?.....You said....

"This thread seems to be prompted mainly from a thread posted two days ago from a user wishing to share an informative article that others here may have found useful. Content rights aside, the user did this in good faith. If there were legal/rule concerns, they could easilyt be redressed by a PM to the moderators".

There are many members here who have had long discussions in the past about copyright infringement and plagiarism. You appear to be making an assumption...

[Toby]

---

@Cleoriff wrote:

@PhoneDoc I am not sure how you know what prompted this thread?.....You said....

"This thread seems to be prompted mainly from a thread posted two days ago from a user wishing to share an informative article that others here may have found useful. Content rights aside, the user did this in good faith. If there were legal/rule concerns, they could easilyt be redressed by a PM to the moderators".

There are many members here who have had long discussions in the past about copyright infringement and plagiarism. You appear to be making an assumption...

---

Its an assumption I have also made @Cleoriff in all honesty. Please see my post above yours for our team's thoughts on this topic. Its very simple

[Beenherebefore]

We now know @Toby has said that this is his responsibility so I can't see why anyone else should be concerned about copyright or plagiarism.

If Toby sees anything posted that contravenes Community rules and/or copyright then he will react.....as is the case with anything on this Community.

[PhoneDoc]

---

@viridis wrote:
Images, are not the same as written creative works, most of the time they are representations of a product which actually is promotion by circulation.

---

Images have the same protections as written works. Just because they are more prevelant or easier to copy, does not negate that.

---

@viridis wrote:
Plus, how the he'll do you know who has permission for pictures?

---

 I don't, that's why I asked if members had permission to republish them on the community forum.

---

@viridis wrote:
For instance, I myself, even though not named in your shame post, have used over 100 pictures of Sony products for reviews and news items on this site, many of which has resulted in sold units for both O2 and Sony.
Now, trust me, I have permission, partly because they are visual representations of a product I am currently promoting and assist in descriptive needs.....

---

You can use such images if Sony have released them under a creative commmons license (which is unlikely), or if they have given you expressed permission to do so. Other than that, it doesn't matter what your intentions are or how many devices you have sold, you wouldn't have an inherent right to republish these images as you see fit. You could publish them, and in all likelihood Sony wouldn't care (or find out) and nothing would ever come of it, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to protect their work.

---

@viridis wrote:
Mass circulated Public domain images, are much, much different than created personal writing

---

Again, no they're not. Just because something is easier to copy and more widely available does not make a difference. It's a logical fallacy called the bandwagon fallacy. If you go 5mph over the speed limit, you're still breaking traffic laws, irrespective of the fact that just about everybody has done it at one point or another.

I personally have no problem with people posting whatever content they like from wherever they want. I'm actually not interested in debating copyright law. But if you're going to start or contribute to a thread calling into question the ethics or legalities of other members actions, you should at least be held to the same account. Otherwise this isn't a community; it would be one group of users expecting that all other members be held to a completely different set of standards.

[Bambino]

@PhoneDoc What you're not aware of is that this has been an ongoing issue for some time, and in the past there was flagrant and gross abuse of copy and paste. What we don't want to see is history repeating itself.

[viridis]

I'm assuming this is all cuz I posted that huge copy paste the other day...
To be fair I did edit it to shorten the page Load.