Cyber-Plagiarism and the Copyright Connection

by Claudia Holland, Head, Copyright Office

Ever since humans have been writing, ideas have been rediscovered, reworded, reworked, or reinvented and claimed as one’s own. That is, credit to the original creator has been occasionally overlooked or ignored by an idea perpetrator. Eventually the term “plagiarism” evolved to encapsulate this theft. Not a weighty crime equal to more heinous offenses, like kidnapping. . . but wait! The Latin word plagium actually means “the crime of kidnapping” (OED), so the concept of plagiarism has etymological roots in a crime of theft.

What does plagiarism have to do with copyright? Copyright law extends legal protection to a creation that meets basic criteria—it must be an expression that’s original (but not necessarily unique) and fixed in some medium so that others may experience it. As the word denotes, copying a work is a right, among others, awarded the author or creator of that work. For example, when an individual uses or “copies” information from a book—through direct quote, use of a concept, or paraphrasing—without acknowledging the original author, that action is called “plagiarism.” One is stealing intellectual property that legally belongs to another.

Accessibility to music, film, text, images, and more via the Internet has made the act of plagiarism easier than ever, although certainly no more legal. Copyright law does not take into account the form of a work, only its content. Consequently, the law protects the content on a website the same way it protects text read in a printed book, music heard on the radio, or art viewed in a museum. The difference is in digital accessibility, not tangibility.

Continued, rampant plagiarism of intellectual property via the web (also called cyber-plagiarism) may result in an array of unintended societal consequences, in addition to the immediate and long-term personal ramifications defined by one’s school, employer, or professional associates. These consequences have already emerged in twentieth-century legislation governing control over creative freedom.

Copyright duration has extended to the lifetime of the author plus 70 years, with further extensions a real possibility. Appropriate decisions for a fair use of content (a section of the law that allows one to use portions of in-copyright material for non-commercial purposes without permission of the owner) are constantly being challenged by rightsholders, to the point of inanity (YouTube posts are a case in point). Although these consequences may stem from an underlying greed, rightsholders’ concern for their lack of control over digital content is real and deeply felt. At the same time, consumers are fearful of using copyrighted content without permission, and this fear inhibits research, education, and the creation of culture, among other things.

The inexorable march toward criminalization of digital creativity may be throttled by responsible and ethical use of intellectual property. Like the daily actions we take in minimizing the impact of global warming through recycling, bicycling, or opening a window, our decisions to “give credit where credit is due” will diminish the impact of plagiarism and foster a climate of balance between creators and consumers. More importantly, our sense of self-respect will grow. [The work of Lawrence Lessig was an inspiration for this brief article.]