Plagairism, Copyright, Fair Use, Oh My!

            With the Internet being such a normal part of our daily lives, information is consistently at our fingertips. Although this broad access to all types of information may seem like a positive concept, it actually has some negative consequences. Now that the Internet is such a regularity, plagiarism has also become a consistently common act. However, it is hard to place plagiarism on the hierarchy of academic dishonesty. According to Russel Wiebe in “Plagiarism and Promiscuity, Authors and Plagiarisms,” it is more ethical to cheat on school tasks, “which are largely unreal and therefore, outside the realm of ethical consideration” (Wiebe 30). Even though plagiarism is seen as a negative act, Wiebe sees it as harmless in the realm of inane school tasks and actually believes it to be useful in some circumstances. In his article, Wiebe explains how Kelly Ritter “suggested that students see the plagiarism question not as a question of morality but rather as a question of utility” (Wiebe 36). In other words, students don’t care if it is morally right to plagiarize, they care if it will help them somehow advance.

            Although Wiebe sees plagiarism in the classroom as a harmless act, he still believes that plagiarism is an overall issue in our technologically advancing society and sees the need for different plagiarisms to be defined. In his article, Wiebe explains different suggestions in attempts to categorize different acts of plagiarism. For example, “Moore Howard (1995) has suggested three categories in an attempt to define what should be considered plagiarism: cheating, non-attribution, and patchwriting” (Wiebe 32). These categories reflect directly to common acts of plagiarism: cheating would be directly copying the work of another peer, non-attribution would be directly taking from a source without citing it, and patchwriting would be paraphrasing from a source without acknowledging the original source. Other theorists have attempted to define plagiarism in different, but similar ways. Brian Martin discusses word-for-word plagiarism, paraphrasing plagiarism, and secondary source plagiarism (Wiebe 33). These definitions are very similar to those presented by Moore Howard and are self-explanatory. Even though these definitions help to categorize different acts of plagiarism, Wiebe still views plagiarism as something that can be beneficial. After all “it is probably the rare academic who has not engaged in some form of ‘dishonesty’ in school or in our professional lives” (Wiebe 32). Wiebe makes it clear that most people have plagiarized in their lives and it is sort of a part of creating new discourse; similar to intertextuality.

            For centuries we have been borrowing from previous generations; even in acts of simple graphic design. In The Laws of Cool, Alan Liu explains graphic design from the nineteenth century to today. In his explanations of various types of typography he inadvertently explains how different generations take from previous generations. He explains that “modernist graphic design focused above all on a totality of design… the idea was to look at every page as a whole in which variation and unity were so tightly bound that their very nature altered” (Liue 198). This modernist view of design is later transferred over to the age of the World Wide Web. “By the time of the Web… graphics and digital information became part of the same integral design. Both were aspects of the single great canvas now subsuming all the pages… that the modernist designers had created” (Liu 207). Although it isn’t made explicit, the beginning of Web design derived precisely from the modernist design and could be considered a plagiarism of technique. However, instead of plagiarism, this is just considered an extension of “good design.” 

            Moving away from plagiarism and toward the realm of copyright laws and fair use (these concepts are also complicated to define). In a case study concerning a Michigan University student, Maggie Ryan, fair use of this student’s photo is brought into question. The issue with the use of this students photo isn’t the fact that it was used without her permission, it’s more of how the use of the photo effected the student’s rhetorical velocity. In Jim Ridolfo and Martine Courant’s case study, “Rhetorical Velocity and Copyright: A Case Study on Strategies of Rhetorical Delivery, ”They explain that “rhetorical velocity is a strategic concept of delivery in which a rhetor theorizes the possibilities for the recomposition of a text based on how s/he anticipates how the text might later be used” (Ridolfo & Courant 230).  This anticipation of how the text might later be used is the issue with the use of Maggie’s photo. Maggie intended on getting publicity, but not for her personal photo to promote the University’s campus life, she wanted publicity for her activist protest against her University joining the WRN. Instead of getting noticed for her acts of protest, she was acknowledged as a typical Michigan U student playing in the snow. The rhetorical velocity of her situation was completely skewed by the University. “In addition to directly appropriating her image, the university also remixed her image...it’s clear that not only did the Web team take a picture of Maggie out of context but they also repurposed it by adding the caption ‘winter fun learn more’” (Ridolfo & Courant 228). This further emphasizes how the University re-appropriated Maggie’s photo and remixed it for their own benefit. The issue with Maggie and copyright law is that “an individual cannot use the right of publicity to claim a property right in his/her likeness as reflected in photographs that were taken in a public place to illustrate a newsworthy story” (Ridolfo & Courant 235). So, although U.S. copyright laws are supposed to protect items that are original, it is hard to do so with a human body in a public place.

            It is easy to say that defining plagiarism and copyright issues is a complex thing; however, it is necessary to determine a line between what is considered fair use and what isn’t. “we need to stop thinking about copyright law in terms of what isn’t possible, but also in terms of what is possible—that is, how rhetors can strategically compose for the recomposition of their own intellectual property” (Ridolfo & Courant 238). The most important thing to take from Maggie Ryan's case study is that it is crucial to recognize an author’s rhetorical velocity before merely recomposing their work in order to respect the original intention of the rhetor. Copyright and fair use laws are a little more complex to define than acts of plagiarism. With plagiarism, these acts can easily be resolvable by simply citing sources correctly. Plagiarism is a commonality, especially in today’s Internet savvy society. Plagiarism can easily be turned into intertexuality by simply knowing how to properly cite quotations and paraphrased statements. Unfortunately, copyright issues are resolved in a more complex manner, requiring the author's permission and acknowledging the author's rhetorical velocity before repurposing their work.