Plagarism: Where is the line between flattering and upsetting?

[Blakbird]

Today someone sent me an email asking how much they might expect to pay for an 8880 and whether or not they should buy one on eBay. I was happy to answer and was curious to see what the current eBay rate was. While perusing the current listings, I found this. If you scroll down to the description, you might recognize it. It is copied directly from my Technicopedia page. On the one hand, it is flattering to know that my description of this car is considered valuable enough to be used as a sales description around the world. On the other hand, it is upsetting to see my words posted as the words of someone else with no attribution to Technicopedia or me as the source. I posted Technicopedia exactly so that it would be useful to people as a source of information on Technic sets, so I can't be upset that it is widely read and people use it. But I do feel that a proper attribution is not too much to ask. Am I just being too sensitive here?

[piterx]

hmmm...nice question...

i don't know, maybe the guy didn't think about that...i mean he could have typed 8880 car, found the first aviable description and copy/pasted...

it should be something about fair play, but the 80% of people on this planet don't know anything about fair play

[Pvdb]

Since you ask for an opinion, I would say that in this particular context, I think that you should be flattered rather than upset. Perhaps the ebay seller could have added some attribution. In fact, a link to your website may have helped ther sellers cause since this would have perhaps re-inforced the validity of the text.

It would be very different if someone set up a similar website to yours and then started copying your text.

[Meatman]

Is it right? Of course not. People use other people's information and copy and paste text all of the time on the internet. It would have been nice if they would have at least mentioned the source from which it came, but I don't know if you are allowed to have links in the description of listings. I have only ever sold a few things on there. Some people flat out copy exactly what other sellers have in their descriptions.

[Anio]

It happened sometimes with SeTechnic and some other french auction/sales.

I do not know what to think about it. But I know that I can not do anything about this. So, the problem is actually not a problem, because there is no solution. :p

[1974]

Welcome to the Internet!

Am I just being too sensitive here?

No, but you'll grow old real fast if you worry 'bout crap like this

[hrontos]

It's always disapointing when somebody uses work of somebody else without any attribution. It's normal that it makes you a bit upset. In today's internet and "download everything" world people somehow lost the feeling that informations from the internet are also work of somebody and there should be some kind of reward for their usage. At least in the form of attribution. But I also see many times that it is not ignorance or any intension, ordinary people just do not know or do not have that habit. I can imagine mother or father selling old sets of their kids, and since they do not know anything about that, they take what they find on the internet, without mentioning the source. I do not try to appologize it. This kind of copying is partially acceptable in these individual cases and when I compare it to people which create their website based just on copying from other websites or when I saw somebody selling on eBay instructions created by designer Han. It is unacceptable for me, when somebody makes his regular daily bussines based on such copying.

[Ape Fight]

Hi Blakbird

Sorry, personally I do think you are being too sensitive in this case.

They're not getting paid to write a description so I don't see it as an issue (although I completely understand why others might).

If you'd written a news article for example, say for a local paper or an online news source, and one of the major newspapers re-printed it with someone else's name at the bottom claiming they'd written it (and the thief got paid for it), then I'd see it as plagiarism. I bring this up as it's happened to friends of mine.

In this case it's a description of an item, and on eBay, Amazon etc the listings often work by merging multiple descriptions from different sources anyway, so I think just be pleased that you are a source.

Hope that came across OK

Ape

[DLuders]

I agree with Blakbird -- it is Plagiarism. There's even a Plagiarism.org website that describes the various forms of Plagiarism. One does not have to be paid to "cross the line" of Plagiarism; it is basically "Submitting another’s work, word-for-word, as one’s own."

[hrontos]

They're not getting paid to write a description so I don't see it as an issue (although I completely understand why others might).

If you'd written a news article for example, say for a local paper or an online news source, and one of the major newspapers re-printed it with someone else's name at the bottom claiming they'd written it (and the thief got paid for it), then I'd see it as plagiarism. I bring this up as it's happened to friends of mine.

This "I am not making money out of it so I can copy and use it" issue is very common mistake. I work in IT and people are using illegal software just because they think that since they use it just for fun, they can use without buying a licence. Of course, it is a matter of personal taste of each author, if he will tolerate such behaviour or not. But at least attribution is something that should be always there.

In this case it's a description of an item, and on eBay, Amazon etc the listings often work by merging multiple descriptions from different sources anyway, so I think just be pleased that you are a source.

I am pretty sure, that he is pleased, problem is that nobody knows that those words are actually Blackbird's. It is not that dificult to write the description of an eBay item starting with words like "according to Blackbird's Technicopedia this set is ....".

[Kumbbl]

Blakbird, from a pure objective view: it's not correct and it's somehow also plagiarism...

But from a more subjective view: I'm convinced that the ebay-seller has not used your text black-hearted but probably he/she has simple googled for a description of the 8880 and has found your site. Of course he/she should attribute your site but: I would say, you should stand above that...

But overall this is a twilight zone, where it is hard to render a definite "white" or "black" judgement

just my 2 ct...

[Blakbird]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I have no intention of making a big deal out of this or even contacting the poster, I was just interested in opinions. Personally, I would have appreciated a "Blakbird's Technicopedia says..." at the beginning.

As a data point on the opposite side of this issue, last year I was contacted by a company who trains technicians in Michigan and wanted permission to use my "Technical Fundamentals" section as training material. I was certainly flattered in this case. This is a case in which a business wanted to use my material and to charge money for training, so it is a different matter. I probably should have asked for compensation, but I didn't.

[nychase]

I actually have a few (8) 8880's that I could sell if someone was interested.

You can always direct someone my way if they are looking to buy sets.

[Andy D]

Blakbird... I do not approve of plagarism in any form. If someone wants to use another's work, with he Internet it is so very easy to give credit where credit is due. I do believe you should contact the seller and say that you are flattered that he found your words fit his needs so well, and just request a link back to your site. Hmmm... I wonder if stealing words is not so bad, what else will a person do? How honest is he to deal with?

Plagarism is a symbol of honesty (or lack there of). No need to be confrontative with him, he probbly just doesn't know any better, doesn't know it is wrong, this is a symbol of our current education system.

Just nicely ask for a link back and than move on, but that will let the person know that pepole are watching.

We are all judged by our deeds.

Just MHO

Andy D

[Splat]

Putting anything out onto the internet and into the public domain means that it can easily be copied, especially in this digital age where it is just 1s and 0s. I have come to accept this and not let it bother me too much, but I don't think that it is right.

When writing reports/essays/papers at an academic level, we are always told to include a bibliography - to provide the source of any quotes or facts within our work. As the saying goes: "Give credit where credit is due".

When I created instructions for my Water Strider, I didn't even think twice about giving credit to Blakbird and Sinner when I used images that they created. I also asked for permission prior to using the images, which both Blakbird and Sinner were happy for me to use, and I think they both appreciated me asking beforehand.

I have had people use my photos without permission, which is bad enough by itself, but they also removed my avatar/watermark from the photos. This means that, not only have they stolen my work, they have also removed any accreditation that I was the original author of the work.

I think that in a lot of cases the original authors are just looking for some accreditation, and on the internet including a link back to the original source is the least that someone can do.

[Bytor]

I think that if someone uses someone's words on the web they should give credit to the original poster, its only fair (not to mention polite).

[Someonenamedjon]

Oh no.. Its going to tun into this again http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=76876#entry1454997n

[Paul202]

I think that although it's not directly plagiarism, I would consider it morally wrong. If I were to sell a lego set and copy the description, I would at least credit the author for taking time to write the description I used. Case in point I am planning on selling a Crowkillers Gallorado, and when I make the listing I will put his name and website all over the listing. (BTW I already PM'ed him and got his permission.)

[Paul Boratko]

It could be worse... You could be selling a custom model on Ebay, then have a rival seller buy that model and then a few weeks after he gets it, he starts reselling the exact same model while you are also selling it and also using your description... Then you message the seller and ask him what the deal is, and in response he sends you a youtube video link of something from the 70's to rebut your accusations... Yeah, a youtube video link about something from the 70's...

Edited March 30, 2013 by Paul Boratko

[Boxerlego]

That person on ebay should write a description of the model that there selling and not use a description pulled off a website. Why? Because the model their selling is not new. It is used and that means every bit of dirt, scratch, and default that could be. To say that it is in perfect condition is very misleading. Would you call a Model cover in dust in perfect condition? Sure the bricks could be in good quality but after some good use they will have some imperfection. If the seller said that I had to use my teeth to take apart some of the bricks. That would give me a better description about the model than the "available information" that was used.

[Bulle]

To me the upsetting part is that people withhold intellectual property and blame ecomomic situations for doing so.

So the answere to your question on my part is that everyone should only be flattered no matter what type of plagarism.

Edited March 30, 2013 by Bulle

[ShaydDeGrai]

I used to work in academia and so have a very strict view of plagiarism and YES you have been wronged. A lot of people made the mistake of thinking that if no money was exchanged no harm was done - this is very, very incorrect. Plagiarism is the theft of intellectual property in any form. Some argue that it can't really be theft, because the original owner still has the original copy, but then utterly fail to see that what has been stole is the uniqueness of that expression as well as the time and effort that went into producing it.

In addition to wearing their innate laziness/stupidity on their sleeve, what a plagiarist is effectively saying is "I respect your work enough to steal it, but I don't respect you enough to give you credit." Whether or not the thief profits (money, grades, promotions, fame, etc.) is immaterial to the theft itself. It is a public show of disrespect, and you have every right to take offense. (You also may have legal recourses available to you depending on where you and your plagiarist live, but over something this small and isolated it's probably not worth the hassle of pursuing.)

Unfortunately, the internet is full of plagiarists and (as some of the comments above show) many internet users have grown so used to it that they don't even recognize it when they see it or can't see the harm.

Were I in your place, I'd send a note to the sell requesting proper attribution and also add a statement to your web page to the effect of "Except where noted otherwise all content within is copyright [founding year]- 2013 [by me] fair use to copy with attribution is granted for non-commercial use." People will utterly ignore this statement (and by US law it is already implicit on all draft printed materials and websites) but it give you something to point out to the next person you catch doing the same thing.

[Erik Leppen]

But I do feel that a proper attribution is not too much to ask. Am I just being too sensitive here?

It is normal to feel that. However, can we expect proper attribution everywhere, given the astonishing rate at which information is being distributed anno 2013? This is the internet, where billions of people gather and spread information. Keeping track of what belongs to whom, is (becoming) simply impossible...

And is it important, that others know those words are your words? And can we expect other people to find it important enough to let their readers know these are your words? Information is free these days.

I don't know if I even agree with what I just posted, but it's a possibly interesting thought that crossed the mind... :)

[DrJB]

Well, Often when perusing various items on eBay, there is a link that says 'have one like it to sell?' .. and if you click yes, it simply copies that same page and asks for minor modifications. Thus, I'm tempted to say that a large number of listings on eBay are recycled versions of other postings ... Does eBay encourage plagiarism? .. Hard to tell, they simply want to make it easy for their sellers to post items ... and given that eBay charges a fee for listing .. then IT IS plagiarism (for profit) ... isn't it?

Edited September 1, 2013 by DrJB