Having co-hosted a blogstravaganza or two with Joey (Accordion Guy) de Villa (as well as having seen him bring down the house at Kickass Karaoke), I can vouch for the fact that he's a righteous dude. Helpfully, we've had over the past few days a blog post which not only demonstrated that, but also serves as a quick tutorial in the differences between copyright infringement and plagiarism, demonstrates the "horizontal editing" function of blogs, and sparks some discussion on the efficiencies and other benefits to borrowing designs.
Start here: Joey notes two "suspiciously similar subway safety posters" from Toronto's TTC and New York City's MTA. "Who plagiarized whom?" queried Joey. It should be noted at this point that Joey's question was prompted not by snark, but by that sentiment which animates so many denizens of this city of a certain generation and which must be baffling to those slightly older: pride. Why couldn't my city come up with its own damn subway safety poster? seemed to be the cry.
Helpfully, within a few hours, one commenter on the post had pointed out that the poster contained a trade-mark notice giving credit to the NYC MTA (the notice is helpfully reproduced in full in this post at Torontoist), and, even more enticingly, the TTC's Director - Corporate Communications himself commented and confirmed that the design had been licensed from the NYC MTA. (I should note at this point that the "trade-mark notice" which is apparently reproduced on the poster is likely incorrect: it should be a copyright notice, since you would not be able to register a trade-mark for the entire poster - at least I can't see how you could.) So Joey updated his post to correct the record, and then put up a second post, helpfully clarifying that "it's not plagiarism, it's just lameness". A perhaps unnecessarily cutting conclusion, all things considered, but the comments on the second post start raising the questions noted above, such as whether the TTC's limited funds are better spent creating new poster designs or licensing existing ones from other transit authorities.
Anyways. On to my point. Joey called "plagiarism". He could just as easily have called "copyright infringement" - but most people wouldn't think to do so. In this case, given the substantial similarities between posters, any unlicensed use would certainly have been infringement. But what's the difference between "plagiarism" and "copyright infringement"? There's overlap between the two concepts, but they aren't entirely continguous.
The basic distinction is that copyright is a legal matter, while plagiarism is an ethical matter (copyright, being legal, is also potentially ethical, on the theory that any violation of the law is prima facie unethical, but since laws can be themselves unethical, their breach is not necessarily so). That distinction has a number of implications - perhaps the most important being institutional. As this short note by The National Council of Teachers of English puts it, "Schools enforce plagiarism. The courts enforce copyright infringement."
This detailed post at plagiarismtoday.com offers a good overview. The American Historical Association also has a considered take on the matter, including examples. And Miguel Roig has published the amazingly in-depth "Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing", which should be enough to strike the fear of God into anyone who has ever submitted a written paper for anything.


























































