Showing posts with label plagiarism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label plagiarism. Show all posts

Saturday, August 3, 2024

AI is complicating plagiarism. How should scientists respond?; Nature, July 30, 2024

 Diana Kwon , Nature; AI is complicating plagiarism. How should scientists respond?

"From accusations that led Harvard University’s president to resign in January, to revelations in February of plagiarized text in peer-review reports, the academic world has been roiled by cases of plagiarism this year.

But a bigger problem looms in scholarly writing. The rapid uptake of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools — which create text in response to prompts — has raised questions about whether this constitutes plagiarism and under what circumstances it should be allowed. “There’s a whole spectrum of AI use, from completely human-written to completely AI-written — and in the middle, there’s this vast wasteland of confusion,” says Jonathan Bailey, a copyright and plagiarism consultant based in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT, which are based on algorithms known as large language models (LLMs), can save time, improve clarity and reduce language barriers. Many researchers now argue that they are permissible in some circumstances and that their use should be fully disclosed.

But such tools complicate an already fraught debate around the improper use of others’ work. LLMs are trained to generate text by digesting vast amounts of previously published writing. As a result, their use could result in something akin to plagiarism — if a researcher passes off the work of a machine as their own, for instance, or if a machine generates text that is very close to a person’s work without attributing the source. The tools can also be used to disguise deliberately plagiarized text, and any use of them is hard to spot. “Defining what we actually mean by academic dishonesty or plagiarism, and where the boundaries are, is going to be very, very difficult,” says Pete Cotton, an ecologist at the University of Plymouth, UK."

Thursday, February 29, 2024

The Intercept, Raw Story and AlterNet sue OpenAI for copyright infringement; The Guardian, February 28, 2024

, The Guardian ; The Intercept, Raw Story and AlterNet sue OpenAI for copyright infringement

"OpenAI and Microsoft are facing a fresh round of lawsuits from news publishers over allegations that their generative artificial intelligence products violated copyright laws and illegally trained by using journalists’ work. Three progressive US outlets – the Intercept, Raw Story and AlterNet – filed suits in Manhattan federal court on Wednesday, demanding compensation from the tech companies.

The news outlets claim that the companies in effect plagiarized copyright-protected articles to develop and operate ChatGPT, which has become OpenAI’s most prominent generative AI tool. They allege that ChatGPT was trained not to respect copyright, ignores proper attribution and fails to notify users when the service’s answers are generated using journalists’ protected work."

Tuesday, January 30, 2024

Lawyers weigh strength of copyright suit filed against BigLaw firm; Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly, January 29, 2024

Pat Murphy , Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly; Lawyers weigh strength of copyright suit filed against BigLaw firm

"Jerry Cohen, a Boston attorney who teaches IP law at Roger Williams University School of Law, called the suit “not so much a copyright case as it is a matter of professional responsibility and respect.”"

Friday, January 26, 2024

‘Who Owns This Sentence?’ Increasingly, Who Knows?; The New York Times, January 24, 2024

Alexandra Jacobs, The New York Times ; ‘Who Owns This Sentence?’ Increasingly, Who Knows?

"David Bellos and Alexandre Montagu’s surprisingly sprightly history “Who Owns This Sentence?” arrives with uncanny timing...

They sort out the difference between plagiarism, a matter of honor debated since ancient times (and a theme, tellingly, of many recent novels); copyright, a concern of modern law and, crucially, lucre (“the biggest money machine the world has ever seen”); and trademark. If I wanted a picture of Smokey Bear to run with this article, for instance — and I very much do — The New York Times would have to fork up."...

They themselves have a wry way with technical material; this is less Copyright for Dummies, like that endlessly extended, imitatedand spoofed series, than for wits. Discouraged by their publisher from naming a chapter title after the Beatles’ “All You Need Is Love,” the authors deftly illustrate this “absurd” circumstance by only describing in close identifiable detail the band and the song."

Friday, December 3, 2021

Who Owns a Recipe? A Plagiarism Claim Has Cookbook Authors Asking.; The New York Times, November 29, 2021

Priya Krishna , The New York Times; Who Owns a Recipe? A Plagiarism Claim Has Cookbook Authors Asking.

U.S. copyright law protects all kinds of creative material, but recipe creators are mostly powerless in an age and a business that are all about sharing.

"U.S. copyright law seeks to protect “original works of authorship” by barring unauthorized copying of all kinds of creative material: sheet music, poetry, architectural works, paintings and even computer software.

But recipes are much harder to protect. This is a reason they frequently reappear, often word for word, in one book or blog after another.

Cookbook writers who believe that their work has been plagiarized have few options beyond confronting the offender or airing their grievances online. “It is more of an ethical issue than it is a legal issue,” said Lynn Oberlander, a media lawyer in New York City...

“The whole history of American cookbook publishing is based on borrowing and sharing,” said Bonnie Slotnick, the owner of Bonnie Slotnick Cookbooks, an antique bookstore in the East Village of Manhattan...

Mr. Bailey said many cookbook authors are used to the free exchange of ideas on social media, and may not be conscious of the importance of giving credit. “It has become so tempting in this environment to just take rather than to create,” he said."

Tuesday, June 6, 2017

Cupcake wars: Blogger sues Food Network over snow globe recipe video; Washington Post, June 5, 2017

Derek Hawkins, Washington Post; Cupcake wars: Blogger sues Food Network over snow globe recipe video

"Elizabeth LaBau’s holiday cupcake recipe was so popular it crashed her food blog.

It was clever, after all. LaBau, who runs SugarHero.com, had figured out a way to make edible snow globe cupcakes by coating small balloons in sheets of gelatin and letting them harden into translucent domes.

About three weeks after she published her tutorial, LaBau alleges, Food Network produced a how-to video on snow globe cupcakes that was so similar that it constituted copyright infringement."

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

As Computer Coding Classes Swell, So Does Cheating; New York Times, May 29, 2017

Jess Bidgood and Jeremy B. Merrill, New York Times; 

As Computer Coding Classes Swell, So Does Cheating


"In interviews, professors and students said the causes were not hard to pin down.

To some students drawn to the classes, coding does not come easily. The coursework can be time-consuming. Troves of code online, on sites like GitHub, may have answers to the very assignment the student is wrestling with, posted by someone who previously took the course.

“You’ve got kids who were struggling with spending a third of their time on their problem sets with the option to copy from the internet,” said Jackson Wagner, who took the Harvard course in 2015 and was not accused of copying. “That’s the reason why people cheat.”

Complicating matters is the collaborative ethos among programmers, which encourages code-sharing in ways that might not be acceptable in a class. Professors also frequently allow students to discuss problems among themselves, but not to share actual code, a policy that some students say creates confusion about what constitutes cheating."

Monday, April 24, 2017

‘Remix’ or plagiarism? Artists battle over a Chicago mural of Michelle Obama.; Washington Post, April 24, 2017

Derek Hawkins, Washington Post; ‘Remix’ or plagiarism? Artists battle over a Chicago mural of Michelle Obama.

"Devins’s mural had only been up for a matter of hours when word got back to Mesfin. She objected to the use of her work without permission in a widely circulated Instagram post that triggered a wave of outrage online, saying she felt like Devins stole her piece.

“I was very disheartened when he did that,” Mesfin told The Washington Post. “There’s a common code among all artists that you can get inspired by someone’s work but you have to pay homage and you have to give credit for it.”...

Devins said he never intended to take credit for Mesfin’s creation, which itself was based off a portrait in the New York Times by photographer Collier Schorr. Mesfin credited Schorr’s work on her Instagram post...

Devins said he came across Mesfin’s drawing on the sharing site Pinterest and was unable to track down the artist. He explained his decision to use the image without permission in an analogy, saying he was creating a “remix” of a piece of art in the way that a DJ remixes songs."

Saturday, February 11, 2017

Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle; Ars Technica, 2/11/17

David Kravets, Ars Technica; 

Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle


"Google successfully made its case to a jury last year that its use of Java APIs in Android was "fair use." A San Francisco federal jury rejected Oracle's claim that the mobile system infringed Oracle's copyrights.
But Oracle isn't backing down. Late Friday, the company appealed the high-profile verdict to a federal appeals court."

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Ed Sheeran Sued For $20 Million For Allegedly Plagiarzing ‘Photograph’; Huffington Post, 6/8/16

Julia Brucculieri, Huffington Post; Ed Sheeran Sued For $20 Million For Allegedly Plagiarzing ‘Photograph’ :
"The English musician, who happens to be BFFs with Taylor Swift, is reportedly being sued for $20 million dollars over his song “Photograph,” according to Billboard.
Songwriters Martin Harrington and Thomas Leonard and their publishing company claim the song borrows heavily from their track, “Amazing,” which was released as a single by 2010 “X Factor” winner Matt Cardle. Harrington and Leonard have written hits for some of the industry’s biggest stars, including Kylie Minogue.
To help with their case, the plaintiffs are working with attorney Richard Busch, who was involved in the copyright lawsuit between Marvin Gaye’s family and Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over the song “Blurred Lines.” If you recall, Thicke and Williams lost the case and contested a $7.4 million jury verdict that found they plagiarized the Motown great’s “Got to Give It Up.”
The lawsuit against Sheeran says “Photograph” is too similar to the original composition of “Amazing” by Harrington and Leonard and the version recorded by Cardle. The plaintiffs claim the two songs share 39 identical notes."

Sunday, March 20, 2016

Crosswords and copyright; Washington Post, 3/15/16

David Post, Washington Post; Crosswords and copyright:
"What’s interesting, to me, in all this, aside from the light it sheds on puzzle construction, is that it illustrates how “plagiarism,” though it is often conflated with copyright infringement, actually covers very different territory and involves very different interests. A crossword’s “theme” is probably one element of the puzzle-creator’s work that is not protected by copyright; copyright law doesn’t protect “ideas,” only the expression of ideas, and a puzzle’s theme is, in my opinion, just such an unprotectable “idea,” free for the taking (as far as copyright law is concerned). But it’s precisely this kind of taking — theme theft — that gets the angriest response from those in the puzzle-writing business.
This has a direct parallel in academic writing. There, too, the plagiarism norms focus on a kind of borrowing that the law of copyright deems permissible: taking another’s ideas or expression without attribution. Nobody in the academic world will complain if you use their ideas or quote their work — in fact, that’s very much the whole point of the enterprise. But to do so without citation — that will get you into the hottest of hot water. [Just ask Doris Kearns Goodwin, or Stephen Ambrose or Joseph Ellis]. Yet copyright law gives an author no enforceable right to have his/her work properly attributed to him/her — a fact that surprised the hell out of many of my law prof colleagues when they first learned of it (insofar as proper attribution was really the only thing they cared about)."

Friday, March 4, 2016

A Science Journal Invokes ‘the Creator,’ and Science Pushes Back; Wired.com, 3/3/16

Madison Kotack, Wired.com; A Science Journal Invokes ‘the Creator,’ and Science Pushes Back:
"After a couple days of getting batted around in social media and comments sections, the journal retracted the whole paper. No editors from PLoS ONE responded to requests for comment.
Since PLoS ONE is open-source, it’s tempting to wonder if this kind of mistake calls into question the quality of all open-access scientific journals? PLoS ONE‘s website describes its editorial and peer-review practices, but also says that it can publish faster than old-school journals because it leaves out “subjective assessments of significance or scope to focus on technical, ethical and scientific rigor.”
Yet somehow Creationism got past peer review.
On the other hand, the old big-dog journals have their problems, too—plagiarism, errors, and so on. “I don’t think this will mean anything for open access journals, and it shouldn’t, because it happens at top journals, too,” says Jonathan Eisen, chair of PLoS Biology‘s advisory board and a big-time advocate for open-access (though unaffiliated with PLoS ONE)."

Friday, July 27, 2012

Why Do the Chinese Copy So Much?; International Herald Tribune, 7/25/12

Didi Kirsten Tatlow, International Herald Tribune; Why Do the Chinese Copy So Much? :

"As news spread in Austria and around the world that a copy of the medieval town’s market square, a church and other important buildings had been erected in Boluo, Guangdong province (part of a bigger development designed to attract wealthy buyers to expensive villas built by Minmetals Land), a debate began in media and in private conversations: Was it OK for the Chinese to do this? And why do they copy so much, anyway?

As I report in my latest Page Two column, the Chinese didn’t ask permission: five Chinese architects walked around incognito, photographing the town, then returned to Boluo where the town square was copied at high speed.

And it’s not just a question of architecture and iPads.

In China, academic journals are riddled with plagiarism."

Thursday, January 6, 2011

Hip-Hop and Copyright Law in the [sic] Classroomleg; Chronicle of Higher Education, 1/5/11

Ben Wieder, Chronicle of Higher Education; Hip-Hop and Copyright Law in the [sic] Classroomleg:

"Kembrew McLeod’s youthful interest in 1980s hip-hop became a life-long scholarly pursuit when some of the groups he’d listened to as a teenager were sued in the early 1990s for using samples of previously recorded music.

“The issue—how the law affects sampling—is the entire reason I’m a professor,” says Mr. McLeod, an associate professor of communication studies at the University of Iowa.

It’s the subject of his second documentary film, Copyright Criminals, co-directed by Ben Franzen, which ran last year as part of PBS’s Independent Lens series and will be released on DVD in March. It is also available at Hulu.com."

Saturday, November 13, 2010

[Podcast] How to Anger the Internet; NPR's On the Media, 11/12/10

[Podcast] NPR's On the Media; How to Anger the Internet:

"Two weeks ago, the internet erupted in anger over unapologetic plagiarism by a small Massachusetts magazine Cooks Source. Bob and Brooke ponder what happens the internet becomes an angry mob."

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/11/12/04

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

The Day The Internet Threw A Righteous Hissyfit About Copyright And Pie; NPR, 11/5/10

Linda Holmes, NPR; The Day The Internet Threw A Righteous Hissyfit About Copyright And Pie:

"On Wednesday evening, a blogger named Monica Gaudio posted a story in which she told of learning that Cooks Source had taken a piece she wrote about apple pie — specifically this one — and simply copied it into the magazine. As you can see from the scanned page (Gawker, for instance, has it), the magazine credited Gaudio with a byline. It didn't pretend to have come up with her story itself; it just seemed to believe it could copy her story and run it in a free, ad-supported (and therefore revenue-generating) magazine without telling her, let alone compensating her."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/11/05/131091599/the-day-the-internet-threw-a-righteous-hissyfit-about-copyright-and-pie

The cook and the thieves: a win for internet IP; Sydney Morning Herald, 11/8/10

Sydney Morning Herald; The cook and the thieves: a win for internet IP:

"It's worth of cutting and pasting in a big chunk of what she said next for those who haven't yet seen it:

"If you took offence and are unhappy, I am sorry, but you as a professional should know that the article we used written by you was in very bad need of editing, and is much better now than was originally. Now it will work well for your portfolio. For that reason, I have a bit of a difficult time with your requests for monetary gain, albeit for such a fine (and very wealthy!) institution. We put some time into rewrites, you should compensate me! I never charge young writers for advice or rewriting poorly written pieces, and have many who write for me… ALWAYS for free""

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/blogs/the-geek/the-cook-and-the-thieves-a-win-for-internet-ip/20101108-17jmf.html

Monday, August 2, 2010

Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age; New York Times, 8/2/10

Trip Gabriel, New York Times; Plagiarism Lines Blur for Students in Digital Age:

"“This generation has always existed in a world where media and intellectual property don’t have the same gravity,” said Ms. Brookover, who at 31 is older than most undergraduates. “When you’re sitting at your computer, it’s the same machine you’ve downloaded music with, possibly illegally, the same machine you streamed videos for free that showed on HBO last night.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/education/02cheat.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=copy%20paste&st=cse

Sunday, May 30, 2010

China's Plagiarism Problem; Forbes, 5/26/10

Peter Friedman, Forbes; China's Plagiarism Problem:

"Plagiarism and the lack of academic integrity it engenders are intricately connected to the larger debate about intellectual property rights (IPR) in China and the government's promoted idea of a harmonious society to support stability. Western countries, either unilaterally or through the WTO, continually threaten to impose sanctions against China for piracy of products ranging from movies and computer software to semiconductors. IPR are hard to enforce from without, and only gain traction when there is an indigenous respect for such rights.

Running counter to IPR enforcement is the idea of community, which is very strong in China. Harmony is a historically important value in Chinese society, vigorously marketed by the Communist government to encourage stability. A strong sense of community promotes both stability and harmony, but subsumes the individual. The powerful force of community that envelopes the individual begets the idea that all parts of the community can be used by the members of that community any way that they see fit, including ideas. In this paradigm it would be absurd for an individual to lay claim to an idea and receive credit from other individuals for that idea when the community is supposed to be paramount to the individual. IPR cut across the idea of community and the ownership of ideas because they create a competitive marketplace of individual ideas, which could ultimately undermine the stability and harmony of the community.

This explanation may seem abstract, but taking this explanation and applying it to a university classroom illuminates why plagiarism will remain a serious problem for China."

http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/26/china-cheating-innovation-markets-economy-plagiarism.html