Post Comment 1. Good advice. I once plagiarised an article without realising it. I published a press release, which I assumed to be public domain. It turned out that the PR person who had written the press release had simply copied an article from the internet. I had to apologise and remove the article. Comment by Steve Masters — July 19, 2015 @ 10:07 pm < 99 Outrageously Simple Openings For Emails Your Reader Will Be Powerless To Resist 12 steps to saying sorry > * Recent Posts + This course turns 99% of the advice you’ve heard about copywriting on its head + Three toxic errors that could kill off your copy + The single reason unsuccessful copywriting fails + 239 fake facts about traditional marketing – number 125 will shock you!!! + Why we love stories – and why copywriters should write them * Categories + advertising + Content marketing + Copywriting + Direct mail copywriting + Email copywriting + Social media + storytelling + Writing * Archives + March 2017 + April 2016 + February 2016 + July 2015 + February 2015 + January 2015 + December 2014 + November 2014 + October 2014 + September 2014 + August 2014 + July 2014 + June 2014 + May 2014 + April 2014 + March 2014 * Tags advertising content marketing copywriting direct mail Email copywriting headlines measurement punctutation social media storytelling testimonials Get in touch with us: * 0844 502 2061 * ku.oc.hsifnus@sretirw * Submit an enquiry online Hear from us: Join our list for insights into persuasive writing. Sunfish Limited Registered in England No. 3293755 Registered office: 2 West Street, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire RG9 2DU Tel: 0844 502 2061 VAT reg no: 700 5951 60 * Sitemap * Privacy & Cookies * Site Usage Copyright © 2013 Sunfish Limited. This site uses cookies (BUTTON) No problemMore info #RSS Feed Plagiarism Checker | WriteCheck by Turnitin * Features * Reviews * FAQ * Resources * Blog * Login * SIGN UP WriteCheck Blog Get Started Now! Plagiarism in the UK In the United Kingdom, the Channel 4 news program Dispatches aired a segment entitled “Exams: Cheating the System”, which looked at cheating and unethical behavior by students in primary, secondary and postsecondary schools in the country. [] [] Though much of the segment focused on cheating on standardized tests, the network used Freedom of Information requests to also gain access to statistics on plagiarism at universities in the country. According to the report, some 60,000 university students have been accused of plagiarism in the past four years, of which some 40,000 were disciplined. Of those disciplined, 400 were expelled (excluded) and another 12,000 had a deduction in their grades. Those statistics are interesting for a variety of reasons. First is that, while the majority of plagiarism cases did result in disciplinary action, a full third did not. How many of these cases were because of the student being exonerated versus a decision that it didn’t warrant disciplinary action is unclear. Still, this means that, in the UK at least, punishment for an alleged plagiarism infraction is far from automatic, resulting in a punishment rate of 67%. While those odds don’t favor students accused of plagiarism, they are more favorable than those faced by those accused of actual crimes. District attorneys in the United States, for example, routinely see conviction rates well above 90%. It’s also worth noting that only one fifth of the students accused of plagiarism suffered a reduction in their grades and only .6% of all students accused of plagiarism were expelled. This means that, in the UK, an allegation of plagiarism does not automatically mean a grade reduction, much less an expulsion. Those are actually very unlikely outcomes. However, perhaps most interesting is that the number of students accused of plagiarism is significantly smaller than the number who likely actually do it. A recent survey of college students in the U.S. showed that 38% of undergraduates and 25% of graduates admitted to copying or paraphrasing content without citation. While the United States is a different country, even if the UK rate of plagiarism is just 20% that means the vast majority of students who plagiarized never even faced an accusation. This is because there are approximately 2.3 million university students in the UK, which means approximately 2.6% were accused of plagiarism. That number, 2.6%, feels both extraordinarily high and extraordinarily low at the same time. On one hand, it’s stunning to think that, on average, in every class of 38 students, one will face allegations of plagiarism. On the other hand, given the high rate of admitted plagiarism, it means that the amount detected truly is just the tip of the iceberg. More than anything, the Channel 4 report shows just how complex the problem of plagiarism in universities is and. more importantly, how deep the issue runs. Fortunately, while there are no easy solutions to this problem, universities in the UK have made great strides in the fight. Not only have they adopted plagiarism policies and the use of plagiarism-detection software nationwide, but they’ve nearly cut in half the number of papers with high similarity rates turned in over the first 10 years of the program. Still, as these statistics show, the battle against plagiarism is not a sprint, it is a marathon and it is true in the UK and for every country. That marathon requires not just an emphasis on detection, but all areas of plagiarism policy. Further, it requires regular analysis to ensure that it’s working as designed so that adjustments can be made as time goes on. Fortunately, that is what the UK is doing and that’s why we have such powerful statistics from it. That data, in the end, is powerful and, as shown above, indicates the UK is turning the tide against plagiarism, even if there is still much work to be done. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, Jonathan Bailey of Plagiarism Today, and do not reflect the opinions of WriteCheck. Current Events plagiarism, uk Published on July 07, 2015 by jbailey. « Newer Older » RSS FEED Categories * Ask WriteCheck * Current Events * Newsletter * Plagiarism Prevention Tips * Social Networking * Surveys * Technology * Videos * Writing Skills * * * * * Newsletter Signup ____________________ Submit Copyright © 2017 Turnitin, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Center | Procedure for Copyright Claims | Contact Plagiarism checker software * * ____________________ Plagiarism Checker * Home * Features + Plagiarism detection + Plagiarism checker reviews + Types of plagiarism + Is plagiarism illegal? + Plagiarism articles + Ask the Doctor... + Plagiarism pictures * Guides + Referencing guides + Lesson plans + Free plagiarism workbook (PDF) * News * Privacy * Plagiarism scanner Is plagiarism illegal? * You are here: * Home * Is plagiarism illegal? [INS: :INS] Is plagiarism illegal? [INS: :INS] Jen Wiss-Carline LL.B, FCILEx - Chartered Legal Executive. Introduction Any attempt to define ‘plagiarism’ uncovers that there are, in fact, many different definitions currently in usage, spanning a wide range of activities. Many of these definitions contradict each other. Moreover, there is also evidence that a generation brought up using the Internet has very different views on what constitutes ‘plagiarism’. Plagiarism is usually seen as being ‘wrong’, ‘immoral’ or at least undesirable. However, as we shall see, some of these activities may be committed unintentionally and may in fact be a necessary step in the learning process. Furthermore, ‘plagiarism’ should not be confused with ‘copyright’, as what may be plagiarism is not necessarily copyright infringement. Thus while plagiarism is often ‘unlawful’ it may not always be ‘illegal’. For instance, several activities which constitute ‘plagiarism’, such as the improper referencing of sources in student essays, may come under the defence of ‘fair use’ or ‘fair dealing’. Finally, this paper considers the criminal and civil penalties for plagiarism, and the academic and professional penalties that can be imposed, as well as possible grounds for challenging findings of guilt. SECTION ONE – TYPES OF PLAGIARISM Definitions The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines ‘plagiarism’ as ‘to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: to use (another's production) without crediting the source: to commit literary theft : to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source’^1. This implies an element of dishonesty, as it involves the stealing or deception of work or ideas. However The Oxford English Dictionary is more general. There, ‘plagriarize’ is defined as ‘take and use (another’s writing’s etc.) as one’s own^2‘. This does not necessarily involve any intent to deceive. The word ‘plagiarist’ is derived from the Latin word ‘plagiarus’, meaning, ‘kidnapper’^3. Yet as we shall see, plagiarism does not need to involve dishonesty and can even be committed by mistake. As Evans points out: ‘Everyone seems to know [plagiarism] is wrong... but few know how to completely define it’^4. Oxford University states that plagiarism is ‘the copying or paraphrasing of other people’s work or ideas into your own work without full acknowledgement.’ This includes published and unpublished work^5. It also includes ‘collusion’, i.e. the unauthorised working with others. The university states that students may be guilty of plagiarism even if they ‘genuinely ignorant of referencing conventions’^6. This suggests that ‘plagiarism’ is an all-embracing term that covers a huge variety of activities. Types of plagiarism The Harvard Guide to Using Sources^7 provides useful examples of unacceptable conduct. Many of these involve the practice of ‘cutting and pasting’ from electronic sources such as the Internet^8. The Guide divides plagiarisms into several different types. The first is ‘Verbatim plagiarism’. This is word for word copying from another source without placing the copied text in quotation marks and providing a clear citation, i.e. an acknowledgement of where the material came from. Another category is ‘Mosaic plagiarism’^9. This involves copying parts of another’s material but changing a few words here and there without placing the material in quotes or providing a citation. The Guide states that this can be the result of careless note-taking, making notes which are too close to the original source, causing confusion over which words are yours and which words belong to someone else. An example can be found in How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life, an unpublished novel Kaavya Viswanathan, which was found to contain numerous instances of plagiarism, notably from two previously published books by author Megan McCafferty^10. For example, compare McCafferty’s Sloppy Firsts: ‘Bridget is my age and lives across the street. For the first twelve years of my life, these qualifications were all I needed in a best friend. But that was before Bridget’s braces came off and her boyfriend Burke got on^11’ Page 14 of Viswanathan’s novel reads: ‘Priscilla was my age and lived two blocks away. For the first fifteen years of my life, those were the only qualifications I needed in a best friend. We had first bonded over our mutual fascination with the abacus in a playgroup for gifted kids. But that was before freshman year, when Priscilla’s glasses came off, and the first in a long string of boyfriends got on.’^12 Here, mosaic plagiarism can be seen in the way certain words are changed while others are left unaltered. The result is very close to the original in its expression. ‘Inadequate paraphrasing’ is a similar type of plagiarism where the student paraphrases but uses words which are too close to the original^13. The Harvard Guide states that even if you provide a citation, this is not enough to prevent plagiarism. The new passage must instead restate the original work using completely new words. The Guide suggests that students should make accurate notes of the original text in order to avoid falling into this trap^14. According to The Harvard Guide, correctly paraphrased work, or the use of material placed in quotation marks, should always be followed by a citation immediately afterwards^15. Other types of plagiarism can include providing inaccurate information about the sources in citations and using too many sources without enough interconnecting original material, with the result that the paper contains almost no original work^16. Another type of plagiarism is ‘self-plagiarism’. This is a practice mainly found among academics where the author recycles their own work, ‘dressing up’ old research to make it appear original and new^17, and is generally a deliberate act. Problems with definitions However, though examples of plagiarism are numerous, there is much disagreement about when the rules should apply. Many institutions tend not to require that you provide citations for facts or ideas which are ‘common-sense’. For instance, from my own experience the Legal Practice Course is a professional course undertaken by students who have already passed an undergraduate law degree or its equivalent. Students are therefore presumed to possess basic knowledge about the law, so when they answer problems questions, for instance about easements in land law, student are not expected to explain fully what an ‘easement’ is by referring to case law, but to deal with the practical problems at hand. However, as Carroll notes, the problem with this is that ‘common knowledge’ varies from discipline to discipline and by academic level^18. For instance, a PhD student would be expected to know about topics which a first year undergraduate may be ignorant of. Similarly, arts students tend to cite things differently than science students^19. This undermines any solid definitions of plagiarism. Another problem when defining plagiarism is that educational institutions’ plagiarism policies tend to give students more leeway in examinations. For instance, Yale College’s plagiarism guide states that for its purposes the term ‘plagiarism’ will be usually confined to coursework only^20. In the United States of America, The Council of Writing Program Administrators (an advisory body for institutions providing writing programs) takes the view that institutions should treat intentional and unintentional plagiarism differently^21. They state that if a student tries in good faith to acknowledge their sources but fails to do so properly, such as by misusing quotations marks, this should not be classed as ‘plagiarism’^22. In fact, they regard it as part of the natural learning process for students. They also state that using ‘common knowledge’ is acceptable. However this again does not address what ‘common knowledge’ may be. By contrast, the United Kingdom’s Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) for Higher Education is more stringent. In their Code of Practice for Higher Education Institutions, they even recognize that some programs of study are stricter than others^23. The Agency includes fraud, collusion, cheating, impersonation, and the use of ‘inadmissible material’ in their definition of ‘academic misconduct’. This includes material which is downloaded from the Internet without proper acknowledgment^24. This definition appears self-contradictory, as it recognizes that some institutions and even academic programmes define ‘plagiarism’ differently. What use then is the definition? Such definitions are unhelpful and serve only to confuse the issue. ‘Patchwriting’ is another pitfall students may fall into. This technique does not involve deliberate fraud or ‘cheating’. It occurs where students borrow passages from other sources, making minor changes but paraphrasing too closely. Howard says that students unconsciously do this if they are unfamiliar with words and ideas^25. She argues it is part of the learning process, where students assimilate phrases, terminology and ideas to gain understanding of a particular subject. However she states that this is still plagiarism, regardless of whether the student acknowledges their sources^26. If that wasn’t enough for the student to contend with, there is evidence to suggest that the present generation of students views ‘plagiarism’ differently from previous generations. In American colleges 68% of all students admit cutting and pasting from the Internet without giving acknowledgments^27. Blum suggests that this forms part of a cultural pattern. McCabe and Trevino also note that this ‘may be due to a changing definition among students of what constitutes plagiarism’, particularly when it comes it paraphrasing^28. Blum says: ‘Contemporary students are swimming in a sea of texts’^29. They constantly quote from TV, movies, emails, blogs and websites. Theirs is a culture of ‘intertextuality’ where lifting quotes is so ingrained in their psyche that it comes naturally without thinking. Contrasted to this, the academic world has strict rules on referencing even when direct quotations are not used. This may explain the rise in the amount of plagiarism seen in colleges and universities recently. Conclusion We have seen that is difficult, if not impossible, to precisely define ‘plagiarism’. It can encompass a wide variety of activities, not all of which involve professional ‘cheating’. Unintentional plagiarism can also be committed. However there is disagreement between educational institutions ad advisory bodies on what should be classed as ‘plagiarism’. A problem for students is that some disciplines and forms of assessment are more stringent than others. Also, plagiarism is in some ways part of the learning process, and even a cultural norm in the digital age. Therefore it may be very difficult for the student to spot when they are plagiarizing another’s work. Copyright symbol SECTION TWO – Plagiarism v Copyright UK law Copyright is a property right that gives the owner the exclusive right to exploit a work^30. The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA 1988) governs UK copyright law. One of the main differences between copyright and plagiarism is that copyright generally does not protect ideas, only the expression of those ideas. However this distinction is not as clear cut as it sounds. What is copyright? Plagiarism covers a variety of material. It includes academic papers, professional publications, works of fiction and even scientific formulae. In short, where there is any potential for the use of original reference material. However copyright law only protects certain kinds of works. The CDPA 1988 defines these as original literary, dramatic, musical^31 and artistic works^32, films^33, broadcasts, sound recordings^34 and typographical arrangements^35. Therefore a pop star’s likeness cannot be protected by copyright law as it does not fall into one of these categories^36. Copyright material must also be sufficiently substantial. Single words, titles^37 or company names^38 will not be protected. Formats for television shows have also been held to be too uncertain to qualify for protection as a literary work without a script^39. However headlines on an Internet website have been held to constitute a literary work^40. There is no minimum requirement as to quality before a work can gain copyright protection. Bainbridge argues that even a few notes may attract copyright as a ‘musical work’^41. Copyright works must also be recorded in some permanent form, such as in writing^42. Another major difference between plagiarism and copyright is that copyright only lasts for a fixed period. For original works this is seventy years from the death of the author^43, while for sound recordings and broadcasts this is fifty years^44. Typographical arrangements last for twenty-five years^45. If a work’s copyright expires it becomes ‘public domain’ and can be used freely without a licence. By contrast, plagiarism is not concerned with whether a source is public domain or not, but whether it has been adequately referenced. Infringement Plagiarism policies and copyright law both cover a wide variety of activities. However copyright law is more rigid, in that it sets out what activities may constitute copyright infringement. s.16 CDPA states that copyright is infringed by copying a copyright work, issuing copies, renting or lending the work to the public, performing, showing or playing the work in public, communicating the work to the public, adapting the work or authorizing any of these acts to be done without a licence There is no need to show any intention on the part of the infringer. Therefore, as with plagiarism, infringement may be unintentional. Infringement is legal if you obtain permission from the copyright owner to exploit the work. A license may only be granted by the original author^46, or joint authors if there are more than one^47, of by the author’s employer if the work was created during the course of their employment^48. This is unlike plagiarism, where it does not matter whether the original author consents. Indeed, ‘collusion’ with someone else to produce a piece of work may be plagiarism in itself^49. How much can be copied? Plagiarism policies allow for some copying provided that any text lifted from the original is surrounded in quotation marks and referenced properly^50. Similarly, you can legally copy material from a copyright work provided you do not take a ‘substantial part’^51. This has been the subject of much debate. In Ladbroke v William Hill^52, the UK House of Lords stated that this was a ‘qualitative not a quantitative’ test, and that it was a matter of fact and degree. Therefore even copying a small piece of text could be infringement if that part was important in relation to the whole work. Originality To be a copyright work, UK law requires that literary, artistic, musical and dramatic works be ‘original’^53. However this simply means that the work must originate from its creator and not be copied from somewhere else^54. One of the consequences of this is that facts cannot generally be protected. This contrasts with plagiarism, which suggests that it is the failure to say where the facts came from that incurs a penalty^55. Sufficient acknowledgment Plagiarism is concerned with originality of work. For instance, plagiarists who recycle old ideas are criticized for undermining the pursuit of original knowledge and enriching themselves, sometimes at the expense of their more honest colleagues^56. However even if they are not paid, they may still be criticized for failing to produce something that is new. By contrast, even if you give a valid acknowledgement, you may still infringe copyright if you damage the economic value of the copyright^57. For instance, in Baigent v Random House Group Ltd (the Da Vinci Code case)^58, the court held that acknowledgement was irrelevant for copyright infringement purposes except for limited statutory defences. These are the ‘fair dealing’ defences in UK law which will be considered later. Publication: does it matter? Plagiarism does not require anything to be made public. However, except for ‘copying’, copyright infringement must involve the work being made available to the public^59. Bainbridge notes that the approach courts have taken is whether the copyright owner’s interests have been harmed; for example, was a public performance something the author could have expected to have been paid for? If so, this will be infringement^60. For simple copying, however, copyright law also does not require anything to be made public, so students may still infringe copyright even though their paper is only marked internally. Ideas v Expression Another major difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement is that copyright generally protects only the expression of the work, not the ideas behind it. Plagiarism however, can be committed by stealing ideas as well as by copying text. However, some UK cases suggest that ideas can be copyrighted. For instance in Ravenscroft v Herbert^61, the author of a non-fiction book sued fiction novelist James Herbert, claiming that his novel ‘The Spear’ contained ideas and conclusions copied from the earlier work. The claim was successful. In Harman Pictures, NV v Osbourne^62, a film company which owned the copyright to a non-fiction book about the Charge of the Light Brigade sued successfully for copyright infringement when a script was produced based on the same historical incident. However in the Da Vinci Code case, the Court of Appeal refused to allow a claim by the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail that Dan Brown, the author of the novel The Da Vinci Code, had reproduced a substantial part of their non-fiction book. The claimants alleged that Brown had copied the skill and effort involved in their original research that traced the bloodline of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene to the present day. The authors came up with a ‘central theme’ involving 15 elements which they alleged Brown had copied. The claim failed as the court felt that the ‘Central Theme’ was merely a fabrication for the purposes of the case and a substantial part of the non-fiction book itself had not been copied. Saunders states that this means that an academic can copy ideas from someone else’s work, as long as he presents them in an original way. Such behaviour may be plagiarism, but it is not copyright infringement^63. However in Designers Guild v Russell Williams^64, the House of Lords suggested that ideas could be protected by copyright. In that case, Lord Hoffman said copyright could be infringed by reproducing the original elements in the plot of a play or novel without reproducing a single sentence of the original. He said these were essentially ideas, which could be protected provided they were original and not ‘commonplace’. If so, they would form a ‘substantial’ part of the work. So if something of artistic originality is copied, whether it is words or ideas, this is ‘substantial’ copying and will be infringement^65. As this was a House of Lords case, it would seem to take precedence over the Da Vinci Code case. In Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc^66 Lord Hoffman stated that the Designers Guild case meant that any idea which involved ‘artistic skill and labour’ would be original and copyrighted. However Deazley states that Lord Hoffman was in fact wrong. In the Designers Guild case, the House of Lords actually ruled on the appellate functions of the Court of Appeal, therefore any comments about copyright were obiter dicta, and not binding on lower courts^67. Also, the Lords themselves were in disagreement over the copyright issue, so no clear majority view comes out of that case. However the Court of Appeal in the Da Vinci Code case did recognize that non-literal copying can be infringement. Mummery LJ said copying may include not just the language, but ‘the original selection, arrangement and compilation of the raw research material.’ However this does not mean that facts and ideas are copyright. Critics note that the Da Vinci Code judgment reflects continuing confusion about whether ideas can be copyrighted^68. The result of this is that what amounts to an idea or an expression remains vague in English law. As Lord Hailsham said in LB (Plastics) v Swish Products^69: it all depends on what you mean by ‘ideas’. Moral Rights Moral rights are additional rights contained in the CDPA 1988. These cannot be licensed or assigned^70. However they can be waived by the author^71. Under s.77 CDPA 1988, the author of an original copyright work or a film has a right to be identified as such. However the right is not automatic and must be asserted before the work is made public, for example, by placing a notice in the front of a book. If the author asserts this right, it will bind everyone who comes into possession of the work subsequently, so the right is not defeated by an intermediate possessor removing the identification^72. The right also applies to a ‘substantial’ part of the work^73. This is probably the same as for copyright infringement^74. Therefore if you reproduce a section of an original work without crediting the author, you may also violate this right as well as commit plagiarism. Under s.80(1) CDPA 1988, an author or director also has a right to object to derogatory treatment of an original copyright work or film. ‘Derogatory treatment’ is defined as any treatment that amounts to distortion or mutilation of the work, or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author^75. This could include pasting short snippets together to give a different meaning or impression from the original text. Bainbridge calls moral rights ‘half-hearted’, as they can be waived and can fail for lack of assertion^76. However they are worth considering, as failing to attribute work to the author or disrespectful handling of source material may breach these rights. Conclusion Therefore copyright infringement in the UK differs from plagiarism in that only certain works are protected for a limited duration. Infringement also requires that the amount used from the copyright work is ‘substantial’, and may not extend to ideas, only to their expression, however there is some overlap. Finally, giving sufficient acknowledgment will not stop unauthorized use being copyright infringement. SECTION THREE - COPYRIGHT LAW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Copyright law in the United States has been codified in US Code Title 17 (17 USC). Only Congress can pass copyright law^77. However the legislation has been interpreted by the federal courts, whose decisions remain important elements of US copyright law^78. Subsistence 17 USC §.102(a) states which works are copyrightable. These are literary works; musical works, including accompanying lyrics; dramatic works; choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works. §.102 states that only ‘original’ works can be copyrighted. The US Copyright Office states that this requires a minimum amount of authorship^79. As a result, you cannot copyright titles, company names, slogans, short phrases or works consisting of common property, such as charts of measurement, or facts^80. As with UK law, the work must be ‘fixed in any tangible medium of expression’ to be copyrightable^81. Infringement §.106 17 USC gives the copyright owner the exclusive right to do or authorize the following: reproduce the work; prepare derivative works; and distribute copies to the public by sale, rental, lease, or lending. This also includes displaying works publicly, and using individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, i.e. to use a still photo. Therefore to do any of these things without a licence is to violate US copyright law. Public Domain A defence to copyright infringement is that the work is in the ‘public domain’, for instance, if copyright in the work has expired. The US has rather complicated laws concerning the duration and expiration of copyright, due to the various statutes which have been replaced over time. Each new statutory regime does not have retrospective effect, meaning that there are various regimes still in place for older works. For instance, works published or registered with the US Copyright Office on or after 1st January 1978 have a copyright term of 70 years from the last surviving author’s death, 95 years for anonymous or corporate authors, or 120 years, whichever is less^82. For unpublished works created before 1978, copyright lasts for 70 years after the author’s death^83. All works published before 1923 are in the public domain. Previous Copyright Acts allowed authors to periodically renew their copyright, so that a maximum copyright term of 95 years was possible^84. However, in 1964 thousands of works lost their copyright status because they were not renewed^85. As a result, the only real to tell if older works are in the public domain is to check with the US Copyright office^86. Another important point to note is that if copyright still exists, the author’s exclusive rights can be passed on through inheritance to their family^87. This is all very different from the position regarding plagiarism, where it does not matter if the work is public domain or not. Notice If a work published before 1st March 1989 did not have a copyright notice attached (the word ‘Copyright’ or the’ ©’ symbol ) , it too became public domain and lost its copyright status^88. However absence of notice cannot be relied upon, as the copy may be unauthorized or the author may have used a legal procedure for rectifying this^89. For journal articles, the entire periodical or the individual article may have a copyright notice^90. All works are now protected the moment they are created (i.e. fixed), so a work does not need to be published. However copyright notices can still be relevant today. §.405(b) 17 USC states that a copyright notice will prevent someone from claiming the partial defence of ‘innocent infringement’, i.e. that they were unaware the work was copyrighted. Foreign works are also protected under the Berne Treaty 1989, which covers virtually all the industrialized nations^91, and the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which extended copyright protection to foreign works previously denied US copyright. Therefore you may not use a work simply because it was not created or published in the United States^92. How much can be copied? Once copying is established, the court must find there is ‘substantial similarity’ between the copied work and what was taken. This is not capable of precise definition^93, however copying has been held to include non-literal copying and structural elements^94. Ideas v Expression US law does not protect ideas, only their expression. 17 USC §.102(b) states that copyright does not extend to any ‘process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery’. The US Copyright Office Regulations state that copyright excludes ‘[i]deas, plans, methods, system or devices as distinguished from the particular manner in which they are expressed or described in a writing ‘^95, including blank forms. Critics have noted that, just as with UK law, the boundary between ideas and expressions has become impossible to define from the many court cases^96. US courts do recognize that non-literal copying can violate copyright^97. For instance, in CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. ABC, Inc.^98, a US District Court stated that a TV format could be copied if the later show copied a substantial amount of specific details. This is more generous to the copyright holder than in UK law. However, in Baker v. Selden^99, the US Supreme Court held that a system of book-keeping could not be copyrighted as it was only an idea, although the book describing the system could be as this was the expression of the idea. Also, in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Service Co. ^100, the claimants published a telephone directory containing the names and addresses of subscribers. It sought to stop Feist publishing its own directory using the same listings. The Supreme Court held that copyright required ‘originality’ which was independent creation plus an amount of creativity. Therefore although the compilation itself could be copyrighted, the raw data contained in the directory could not as it did not contain any creativity. As the Supreme Court is the ultimate case-law authority, it seems that ideas and facts will generally receive less protection than they do in UK law. So the plagiarist is less likely to infringe copyright by copying ideas or data in the USA, provided they do not copy the original work’s layout, structure and words. Another exception to copyright in the US is the ‘Merger Doctrine’. This states that works cannot be copyrighted if their expression is inseparable from their facts or ideas, or there are only very limited ways to say the same thing^101. This includes mathematical equations and reports of judicial decisions^102. Works of the US Federal Government are also expressly excluded from copyright^103 Local city or state laws have also been held to be in the public domain^104. All of these works will be treated as if they are facts and can be used without a licence. However care should be taken, as this only applies to works which have actually been adopted as law^105, and possibly not to Bills or other codes. Moral Rights Moral Rights in the US are much more limited than in the UK, and are of little assistance to the copyright owner in preventing plagiarism. Authors in the US have rights of paternity and integrity similar to those in UK law^106. There is no need for the paternity right to be asserted beforehand. However both rights only apply to works of the visual arts. Therefore this might apply to a student who reproduces a still or photo or a work of art in their own work, but not to written work. Conclusion US copyright law is slightly weaker than UK law. The Merger Doctrine means that some works cannot be protected at all. Ideas and facts are also less likely to be protected in the US than in the UK. However, confusing changes to the duration of copyright means that for works published after 1922 it may be impossible to tell unaided whether the copyright term of a works has expired. SECTION FOUR - AUSTRALIAN COPYRIGHT LAW Introduction Like the USA, Australia has two systems of law: federal and state/territory law. Under the Constitution of Commonwealth of Australia, only federal law applies to copyright^107. Therefore there is one uniform law of copyright throughout Australia. The Copyright Act 1968 regulates copyright in Australia. However as a former British territory, English case law remains persuasive^108. Copyright subsistence The Copyright Act 1968 splits copyright works into two kinds. Part III covers original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic ‘works’ and their adaptations. Part IV defines other ‘subject-matter’ as sound recordings, films, broadcasts, and published editions. The two categories are treated differently. For the student or academic writer, literary works will be most relevant. Australian law follows the UK case of Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance in requiring some degree of substantiality, so that titles or single words will not be copyright^109. However under the Australian Act. compilations and tables are expressly included in literary works^110. ‘Artistic works’ include maps, charts, and plans^111. So this is potentially wider than other legal systems. There are no formal requirements for copyright protection. Copyright is created when material is ‘reduced to a material form’^112. This raises an issue regarding the works of the indigenous peoples of Australia, as it means that unrecorded indigenous songs will not be copyrightable^113. Mere transcription of these songs will also not be copyrightable, as Australian law follows the UK case of Walter v Lane^114. Part III works must also be made by a ‘qualified person’. This is defined as being an Australian citizen or company^115. However as Australia is a party to the Berne Convention, this includes citizens of member states, which covers most of the industrialized world^116. Public Domain Copyright lasts for 70 years after the year of the author’s death^117. However if the work is not published, copyright will still exist for 70 years from the date of first publication. Part IV works created before 1969 are not protected, although those created after 1969 will be copyrighted for 70 years from the date of first publication or broadcast^118. This gives significantly less protection to older works than both UK and US law. Infringement Authors have limited exploitation rights to reproduce, publish, rent or broadcast the work to the public, or to adapt the work, or to authorize someone else to do any of these things^119. Anyone doing any of these rights without the author’s permission will infringe copyright. However the claimant must show that the defendant had access to the original work. If work was created independently by coincidence without copying it will not infringe copyright^120. In relation to copying, Part III works may be infringed if they are ‘reproduced’. This includes non-literal copying^121. However Part IV subject-matter may only be infringed if they are ‘copied’. So you can only infringe copyright by copying Part IV subject-matter if you reproduce the work directly, such as by paraphrasing or verbatim copying. For instance, in CBS Records Australia v Telmark Teleproducts^122, it was held that ‘sound-alike’ records did not infringe sound recordings. For academic writings, the only probable application of this is when writers copy the content of films. Although a screenplay is a literary work, and is therefore protected more generously, this may have ramifications for documentary filmmakers if unscripted portions of the film are written down verbatim. Such use may well not infringe copyright. This is, of course, different to plagiarism, which includes non-literal copying from any source. There must also be ‘substantial similarity’ between the infringing copy and what was copied from the original work^123. Like UK law, this is a qualitative rather than a quantitative test. If the ‘essence’ of the original work has been taken this will amount to 'substantial' copying^124. Originality Australian law requires that Part II works be ‘original’^125. Therefore it is a defence to infringement proceedings to show that the earlier work was not copyrightable as it lacked originality. Previously, to be ‘original’ simply meant that the work was created by the author, and can include compilations of works that already exist provided the act of compilation itself involved some ‘sweat of the brow’ or ‘industrious application’^126. This contrasted with the USA case of Feist Publications, Inc. However the High Court of Australia reached a different decision on the issue of copyright infringement. In IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd^127, IceTV created a similar TV guide to the weekly TV schedule produced by Nine Network. The court found this was not infringement as what was taken as not ‘original’, and therefore could not form a ‘substantial part’ of the earlier work. This seems to be a form of the idea/expression dichotomy in English and US law. Mere data belongs to the realm of ‘ideas’ whereas the way it is presented is the ‘expression’. The court stated that ‘originality’ required an element of ‘intellectual skill’ and ‘judgment’ by the author. In reaching this decision, part of the court’s reasoning was whether a human author could be identified. In Telstra v Phone Directories^128, the Federal Court held that no copyright subsisted in listings in a telephone directory as it was impossible to identify any human authors of the work, the listings being at least in part automatically generated by a computer program. The court held that an original work must involve ‘independent intellectual effort’. Just putting a process in motion was not enough^129. While you do not need to identify every human author, at least one should be responsible for some of the work without computer-generated assistance or the work will be public domain^130. Therefore automatically generated data, such as satellite photographs and computer-generated reports cannot be copyrighted in Australia, and such portions of work may be reproduced without infringing copyright^131. Moral rights Like the UK, Australian law recognizes the moral rights of paternity, integrity, and the right against false attribution. These rights apply to reproducing or exhibiting work, communicating work to public, and falsely attributing work to the author. This covers all possible forms of plagiarism and may be an alternative remedy to infringement for plagiarized authors. However these rights are more limited than in English law. The rights only apply to Part III works and to the directors, producers, and screenwriters of films. The rights may also be waived. Also, a moral right is not infringed if it was reasonable in the circumstances not to identify the author or subject the work to derogatory treatment^132. ‘Reasonable’ use can include established industry practice. Therefore although moral rights in Australia are stronger than in the United States, they are still significantly weaker than in UK. This is seen in the comparatively few number of cases involving these rights to date^133. Conclusion In summary, Australian copyright law seems much softer than English law in many respects, notably in the way it treats Part IV works very differently from ‘original’ Part III works. In terms of copyright protection, moral rights, and what may be copied, Part IV works have substantially less protection. There is also an issue regarding indigenous Australian works, which are not adequately protected by the current law. SECTION FIVE – Illegal v unlawful: defences and fair dealing i) ‘ILLEGAL’ v ‘UNLAWFUL’ Plagiarism may be unlawful, but it is not necessarily illegal. Although these two terms are often used interchangeably, they do have different technical meanings. “Illegal” has been defined as an act’ which the law directly forbids, as to commit a murder, [or] obstruct the highway’^134. By contrast, ‘unlawful’ acts are ‘ineffectual in law because... although not illegal, i.e. positively forbidden, [they] are disapproved of by the law’^135. Therefore to infringe copyright is to violate law and commit an ‘illegal’ act. However while plagiarism is considered unethical, it is not ‘illegal’ unless it also infringes copyright or some other rule of law. In fact, some plagiarisms may not even be unlawful, as even plagiarized work is capable of subsisting in copyright. A plagiarized essay still qualifies as a literary work under the CDPA 1988 even if it has not been created to academic standards. The plagiarist would still be able to enforce that copyright in law. Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code may well contain ideas copied from the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail that in a strict academic setting would require more of an acknowledgment than he provided, but this would not stop the copyright owners from enforcing their rights should anyone copy Brown’s novel. ii) FAIR DEALING Copyright infringement will also not violate the law if the infringer has a legal defence. The most common defence is ‘fair use’ or ‘fair dealing’. United Kingdom In the UK, ‘fair dealing’ means the defendant used infringing material for a permitted purpose, the use was fair, and there was a sufficient acknowledgment given as to the source^136. The permitted purposes are: non-commercial research; private study137; reporting on current events; and criticism or review^138. Sufficient acknowledgment of the original work is not required for private study. Nor is it required for research and reporting on current events if it would be impractical to provide one. This is important for students. For purely academic work, the UK law does not require that source material be acknowledged. However this will not protect students from allegations of plagiarism. Someone writing an essay or journal article may claim they are writing for the purposes of criticism, review or reporting on current events. ‘Criticism’ is a wide category and may include ideas contained in a work or even its moral or social implications^139. However in Hubbard v Vosper, it was said that if the copier was in competition with the copyright holder, the defence would be harder to justify. Therefore if the professional writer gained an economic advantage in the same market for such publications, this would not be ‘fair dealing’ The ‘purpose’ of a work is an objective term based on what a reasonable person would think the work had been used for^140. Reporting on Current Events does not apply to the use of photographs^141. Otherwise, it is a category ‘of wide and indefinite scope’^142. However the copied material should be recent and of current interest^143. Therefore if in the above example the academic was writing about a topic of current interest, they could claim this defence. Use must also be ‘Fair’. This is not defined and is a vague term in UK law. It is said to be ‘a matter of impression’^144, or anything which a ‘fair minded and honest individual’ would call fair^145. This provides little assistance, and makes cases very difficult to predict. Ultimately each case may depend on its own facts^146. There is no percentage of work that may safely be borrowed. In determining ‘fairness’, courts have drawn on a bewildering array of factors, such as: the motive of the user; excessive use by the defendant; and whether the use prejudiced the copyright holder’s interests^147. However if material was obtained in breach of confidence, this will not probably be ‘fair’^148. Also, copying will only be a infringement in the first place if the amount copes is ‘substantial’. So if the amount used is less than ‘substantial’, this defence will not be needed. Australia In Australia, the defence of ‘fair use’ is available if the infringement is one of the permitted acts and the use is ‘fair’. Permitted purposes are dealing with an original work or film for research or private study^149, criticism or review^150, parody or satire^151, reporting news^152, or the giving of professional advice by a legal practitioner or patent attorney^153. ‘Research or private study’ means ‘diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover facts or principles’^154. It must involve some evaluation of the material^155. Therefore the infringer should take care to provide some kind of analysis or opinion about the material he or she copies. Including material purely for ‘entertainment value’ is neither reporting news nor criticism or review^156. Courts will also have regard to the ‘true purpose’ of any reproduction, rather than what the copier believes they were doing^157. The 1968 Act sets out factors that may determine whether a use is ‘fair’^158. However this list is not exhaustive. Therefore whether a particular use is fair will depend greatly on the circumstances of the case^159. The relevant factors are: the purpose of the dealing; the nature of the work; the possibility of reasonably buying the original work; the effect of the dealing upon the potential market or value of the work; and the amount copied. There are several important exceptions. Under s.40(3) it is permissible to reproduce one entire article in a journal for research or study. Anything more will be infringement^160. Otherwise, the copier may use a ‘reasonable portion’ of the original work^161. There is no general rule about what a ‘reasonable portion’ is^162. However the Act explicitly states that copying up to 10% of the work is acceptable^163. Also, copying an entire chapter is acceptable even if it amounts to more than 10% of the pages or words of the original^164. For works shorter than 10 pages, less than 10% may be allowed^165. This convention provides more certainty, and allows you to copy a considerable amount more, than UK or US law. Finally, as with UK law, if you copy work for criticism, review or news reporting, you must also include sufficient acknowledgement of both the title of work and the author’s name^166. United States In the US ‘Fair Use’ provisions have been codified in Title 17 USC §§ 107-122. Permitted purposes are: criticism; comment; news reporting; teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use); scholarship and research. US law includes ‘scholarly work’ as a permitted purpose. This includes work for profit. For example, a book on abortion that borrowed heavily from a book which had taken the opposite stance was considered to be fair use, as using opposing arguments was the only effective way to educate the public^167. Use must also be fair. §.107 lists several factors courts should consider: the purpose the work was used for, the nature of the copied work, the amount taken, and any effect on the value of the copyright. American courts tend to focus on whether the use was ‘transformative’. This means that some new use must be made of the work to benefit the public, for instance providing criticism, fresh insight, or a new understanding of the subject^168. So if you simply reproduce work without adding any comment, this is probably not ‘fair use’. Unlike Australian law, there is no maximum percentage of the original work that you may safely use. Courts have reached very different decisions based upon the unique facts of each case, so this is hard to predict. For instance, an unauthorized ‘Harry Potter’ encyclopaedia was not ‘fair use’. Although it was slightly transformative (it was a reference tool for a work of fiction), the excessive verbatim copying from the original novels counted against it^169. A small amount of borrowing can also violate copyright law. In Harper & Row v National Enterprises^170, a political magazine quoted 440 words from a 200,000 word book written by former President Ford. This was held not to be ‘fair use’, as the extract concerned Ford’s pardoning of Richard Nixon, considered to be the ‘heart of the book’. Infringement will not be ‘fair use’ if it competes with the original work. For instance, in Twin Peaks v Publications International Ltd^171, a company published a guide to the TV show ‘Twin Peaks’. As the book was competition for the copyright holder in a potential market, it was held not to be ‘fair use’. Unlike UK and Australian law, §.107 does not expressly require a sufficient acknowledgment of the original work or author. However use without citation could count against it when deciding if the use was ‘fair’. Therefore anyone using another’s work would be well advised to ‘cite and cite often’^172. Conclusion Plagiarism is therefore be illegal only if it infringes copyright or some other law. Even infringement may be lawful if it amounts to ‘fair use’ or ‘fair dealing’. The UK law provides little certainty on the subject of ‘fairness’. Australian law, by contrast, is far more prescriptive, allowing up to 10% of a work to be copied. US law is also vague, although it does provide several useful factors to consider. This makes cases hard to predict in the UK and the US. SECTION SIX – CONSEQUENCES OF PLAGIARISM i) CRIMINAL OFFENCES If plagiarism involves a violation of copyright law, the infringer may commit criminal offences. United Kingdom s.107 CDPA 1988 creates several offences involving commercial dealing with infringing copies. These offences carry up to 10 years’ imprisonment. To be guilty, the defendant must know or have reason to believe that they were dealing with an infringing copy. This protects those who honestly believe they were not infringing copyright. The criminal acts are: making an infringing copy for sale or hire without a licence; importing; selling, hiring, or exposing copies for sale or hire; possessing copies in the course of a business; exhibiting copies in public; and distributing copies, whether for profit or for free if this damages the copyright value^173. Other offences include communicating a copyright work to the public in the course of a business, or if it affects prejudicially the copyright owner^174. This includes situations where the work is placed on an Internet website or blog^175. Infringers may also commit an offence under s.1 Fraud Act 2006 if they dishonestly make a representation with a view to causing gain or loss to anyone^176, for instance, if an academic secures a publishing advance for an original article but delivers a plagiarized version. Australia s.132 of the Copyright Act 1968 creates criminal offences for infringing copyright on a commercial scale, even if the person doing this makes no financial gain^177. A person commits an offence if they make, sell or hire, import, distribute, advertise or possess infringing copies of a copyright work for ‘commercial advantage’. The Act contains three levels of offence: indictable, summary, and strict liability, each with different fault levels of fault. Penalties range from imprisonment for up to 5 years to on the spot fines^178. If infringement involves converting a work from a hard copy to an electronic form, the offence is aggravated with higher penalties^179. This would include putting an infringing copy that previously existed on paper onto the Internet. United States Title 17 USC § 506(1) creates a criminal offence of wilfully infringing copyright for commercial advantage or financial gain. It is also an offence to reproduce or distribute copies with a total value of $1000 within any 180-day period. Under s.506(c)-(d) it is an offence to fraudulent publish or remove a copyright notice. There are also offences for music, film and TV piracy. The penalties for US copyright infringement are maximum imprisonment of one year. For film, TV and music piracy the maximum is 2 years’ imprisonment^180. Finally, those who infringe copyright on a global scale may fall foul of more than one copyright system. This is becoming more relevant due to the rise of the Internet where material can be accessed in any country. For instance, UK student Richard O’Dwyer found himself the subject of extradition proceedings to the USA, where he faces criminal allegations of setting up a website featuring links to pirate films and TV shows^181. Those who escape criminal lia ii) CIVIL PENALTIES bility may find themselves being sued in civil actions. United Kingdom Copyright in the UK can be enforced by granting damages, injunctions, accounts, ‘or otherwise’^182. This includes orders for specific performance^183. Injunctions are a discretionary court order to stop ongoing infringements or stop future ones. Damages may be awarded for losses suffered by the copyright holder. This is normally the price of a reasonable licence fee or royalties that the copyright owner could have charged for the work^184. Alternatively, a court may order the infringer to ‘account for profits’ and to pay the copyright owner any net profits they have made from the infringement. A court may also grant an ‘order for delivery up’^185, where the infringer is forced to deliver up or destroy any infringing copies in their possession. Courts can also grant additional damages for flagrant infringements^186, for example cynical or repeated infringements, or where the origins of a work have been deliberately disguised, such as by removing copyright notices or modifying it so it cannot be recognized^187. This may apply to plagiarized written work. Australia Injunctions, damages and account of profits and orders for delivery up are also available for copyright infringement under Australian law^188. Punitive damages may be awarded for blatant infringement^189. Converting a hard copy into an electronic copy, for instance by typing up a print journal onto the Internet, may incur higher damages^190. Damages aim to put the copyright owner in the position they would have been in had they owned the infringing copies^191. United States Title 17 USC provides for injunctions^192 and orders for impounding and disposition of infringing articles on terms similar to ‘delivery up’ orders^193. §.504 (a) allows courts to impose damages and to force the infringer to account for profits. Any profits claimed may be in additional to any damages for losses the claimant actually suffered due to the copyright infringement. Therefore the claimant could recover much more than they have actually lost^194. Courts may use punitive damages to deter future infringers^195. If a claimant’s actual losses are difficult to quantify, statutory damages may be awarded as an alternative^196. These may be up to $30,000 as the court thinks just. Statutory damages may be doubled for deliberate infringement, or reduced to as little as $200 for innocent infringement. Statutory damages and attorney’s costs may not be awarded if the original copyright work was not registered prior to publication^197. iii) ACADEMIC AND COMMERCIAL PENALTIES Even if a plagiarist escapes civil or criminal sanctions, they may still face serious consequences. Plagiarism can result in the cancellation of publishing contracts. When Kaavya Viswanathan’s novel How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life was found to have plagiarized several works, including those by Megan McCafferty and Salman Rushdie , the publishers cancelled her publishing contract ^198. The publisher may also ban the author in the future and withdraw copies already on sale^199. In extreme cases, publishers may even sue the writer for breach of contract, as most publishing contracts require the author to provide a warranty that their work is original^200 Plagiarism can cause severe embarrassment and damage the copier’s career and good standing in the academic community. The publisher may complain to the academic’s departmental head, resulting in internal disciplinary procedures being taken against the plagiarist^201. Furthermore, any previous articles written by the plagiarist may also be subjected to scrutiny^202. Academic penalties can range from being marked down to suspension, expulsion, and even withholding a degree. In the UK, higher education institutions are empowered by the Education Reform Act 1988 to provide higher education and to do anything necessary or expedient for this purpose^203. This includes entering into contracts, and setting up procedures for the appointment, suspension and dismissal of staff, and for the admission, suspension and expulsion of students^204. In the UK, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (an independent body set up to deal with complaints against universities) supported a university which gave a student no marks for an essay that contained inadequate referencing^205. However, universities may not have absolute power to do whatever they like. In the UK, universities are ‘public bodies’ and therefore governed by the Human Rights Act 1998, which enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law^206. University Disciplinary Committees decide what penalties to impose on students for plagiarism. These are distinct from Examination Boards, which grade students based on their academic performance. Disciplinary Committees are subject to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that a court or tribunal must act fairly according to the principles of natural justice, proportionality and consistency. For instance, in R v Manchester Metropolitan University ex parte Nolan^207, a refusal to allow a student to challenge the university’s decision was held to be unlawful. The court held that if an Examination Board played any role in the disciplinary process, then it would have to adopt the same procedures and take into account all the available evidence. Otherwise, the university’s decision has no force in law. In view of this, the JISC recommends keeping the functions of Examination Boards and Disciplinary Committees separate^208. Students must also be allowed to see all the evidence against them, be given notice of any proceedings, and be allowed representation by a lawyer if requested^209. Under Article 6, any penalties imposed must also be proportionate to the offence, and should be accompanied by written reasons for the decision^210. In one recent case, a student accused his university of negligence for failing to bring plagiarism to his notice. Michael Gunn sued the University of Kent for failing him for plagiarism days before he was due to graduate, having said nothing about this while he carried on his studies^211. Universities have also been ordered to pay compensation for changing a student’s grade after they have graduated on grounds of plagiarism^212. Plagiarism policies may discriminate against students from overseas. The JISC recognizes that for some students, such as those who are home-schooled, reproducing large amounts of text is a way of showing they understand and are aware of this information^213. Other foreign students may copy or paraphrase due to lack of confidence in writing English if it is not their native language^214. The JISC advises that UK institutions must still apply UK standards^215. UK law supports this stance, as non-native English speakers are not classed as having a ‘learning disability’^216. However this does not seem overly fair, especially when universities receive good money to accept students from foreign countries. As a result these policies may be open to challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998. Many academic institutions also utilize plagiarism detection sites and software such as Turnitin.com, WriteCheck.com, and plagiarismchecker.net. In the USA, their use has already sparked a court case. In AV v iParadigms LLC^217, high school students in Virginia and Arizona sued Turnitin.com’s owners, iParadigms. The students went to schools that required the use of Turnitin.com when handing in assignments. The schools also authorized Turnitin.com to keep digital copies of student papers on their site so they could be compared with future submissions. The students claimed storing the digital copies amounted to copyright infringement. The trial judge said that students had agreed to use the service by agreeing to the site’s Terms and Conditions. He rejected the argument that there was no contract because the students were only minors and that they only agreed to use it under duress from the school. The 4th Circuit Appeal Court ruled that Turnitin.com’s use was ‘fair use’, as it was transformative in nature^218. However this judgment ignores the fact that the students were only minors. The US Supreme Court has yet to rule on such a case, so this may signal the start of new challenges to the use of detection software. Conclusion Even if the plagiarist escapes criminal and civil sanctions, they may still suffer the loss of lucrative contracts, employment, academic marks, reputation and face possible expulsion. However academic decisions may be open to challenge, and may involve counterclaims of defamation, discrimination, abuse of personal information and procedural unfairness. CONCLUSION We have seen that is difficult, if not impossible, to precisely define ‘plagiarism’. Also, plagiarism is in some ways part of the learning process, and even a cultural norm in the digital age. Copyright infringement and plagiarism are not the same thing, and one may be a plagiarist without infringing copyright, and vice versa. While there are broad similarities between UK, US and Australian law, ideas are generally less well protected in the US and Australia. Also, moral rights are much weaker in these two countries. Plagiarism is not always illegal, thanks to defences such as ‘fair use’. However what is ‘fair’ can be very hard to pin down, and the potential infringer would be well advised to always err on the side of caution. There are severe criminal and civil penalties for commercial copyright infringement, and plagiarism can also have damaging academic and professional consequences. However, in a culture that is becoming increasingly reliant upon digital sources of freely available information, the next generation of scholars may well have very different ideas about what is ‘plagiarism’. One answer would be to change the way university courses are taught, placing less reliance on traditional essay-writing, which encourages students to reproduce taught information in a slightly different form. Instead universities appear to be resorting to technology themselves to stamp out plagiarism. Whether these methods are legal themselves remains to be seen. APPENDIX: BIBLIOGRAPHY LEGISLATION Berne Treaty 1989 Constitution of Commonwealth of Australia Copyright Act 1968 Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 Copyright (International Protection) Regs 1969 (Cth). Education Reform Act 1988. European Convention on Human Right 1950 Human Rights Act 1998 Fraud Act 2006 United States Constitution Article 1 §.8. US Code Title 17 (17 USC) Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994 CASES AV v iParadigms LLC Unreported March 11, 2008 (D (US)). AV v iParadigms LLC Unreported April 16, 2009 (4th Cir (US)) Baker v. Selden 101 U.S. 99 (1879) BBC v British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd (Unreported 19 June 1990) Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Service Co.499 U.S. 340 (1991) Baigent v Random House Group Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 247 Bateman v Mnemonic Inc. 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir 1996) CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. ABC, Inc2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20258 (S.D. N.Y. 2003) CBS Records Australia v Telmark Teleproducts[1987] 9 IPR 440 Corporation of America v Harpbond [1983] FSR 32 De Garis v Neville Jeffress Pidler Pty Ltd [1990] 18 IPE 292 Designers Guild v Russell Williams[2001] FSR 113 Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telsta Corpn Ltd [2001] FCAFC 112. Enderby Town Football Club Ltd v Football Association Ltd [1971] Ch 591. Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch 119 Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v 20th Century Fox Corp Ltd [1940] AC 112 Faser-Woodward v BBC [2005] FSR 762. Golan v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 873 (2012) Handfstaengl v Empire Palace [1894] 3 Ch 109 Harman Pictures, NV v Osbourne [1967] 2 All ER 324 Harper & Row v National Enterprises471 U.S. 539 (1985) HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers [2006] EWHC 11 Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84 Hyde Park Residence v Yelland [2000] RPC 604 IceTV Pty Ltd v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd[2009] HCA 14. Ladbroke v William Hill[1964] 1 WLR 273 LB (Plastics) v Swish Products [1979] RPC 551 Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell, 481 U.S. 1059 (1987) Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd v Marks & Spencer plc [2001] Ch 257 Nichols v Universal Pictures Corp 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930) Pro Sieben v Carlton Television [1999] 1 WLR 605 R v Manchester Metropolitan University ex parte Nolan [1994] ELR 380 Ravenscroft v Herbert[1980] RPC 193 Taylor v Merrick, 712 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1983) Telstra v Phone Directories [2010] FCAFC 149 Twin Peaks v Publications International Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993) Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539 Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. RDR Books, 575 F. Supp. 2d 513 (S.D. N.Y. 2008) OTHER SOURCES Attwood, R, ‘Allow me to rephrase, and boost my tally of articles’, Times Higher Education, 3 July 2008, retrieved 15 November 2012, Australian Copyright Council ‘Infringement: Actions, Remedies, Offences & Penalties’ Factsheet, Australian Copyright Council, NSW,2012 Australia Government Attorney-General’s Department, Short guide to copyright Factsheet, 2012, retrieved 15 November 2012, , Australian Law Reform Commission, Fair Dealing Exceptions, Australian Government, 2012, retrieved 20 November 2012, < Bainbridge, D, Intellectual Property, 8th edn, Pearson Education, Harlow 2010 Bainbridge, D, Intellectual Property Law, 2nd edn, Pearson, Harlow, 2011 BBC, 'Plagiarist' to sue university, BBC.co.uk, 2004, retrieved 21 November 2012, BBC, 'Piracy' student Richard O'Dwyer loses extradition case, BBC News Sheffield & South Yorkshire, 2012, retrieved 21 November 2012, Black’s Law Dictionary, Unlawful, 2012, retrieved 11 November 2012, Blum, S, My Word! Plagiarism and College Culture, Cornell University Press, New York, 2009 Caenegam, W, Intellectual Property Law in Australia, Kluwer law International: The Netherlands, 2010 Carroll, J and Appleton, J, Plagiarism: A Good Practice Guide, 2001, retrieved 7 November 2012, Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, ‘Copyright – online liability’ CTLR, vol 14, no.5, 2009, N134 Computer and Telecommunications Law Review, ‘AV v iParadigms LLC: Unites States – intellectual property – copyright (Case Comment)’, CTLR, vol 15, no.6, 2009, N173 Cornell University Law School ‘17 USC § 506 - Criminal offenses’, 2012, retrieved 20 November 2012, The Council of Writing Program Administrators, Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices, 2003, retrieved 7 November 2012, Deazley, R, ‘Copyright in the House of Lords: recent cases, judicial reasoning and academic writing’ IPQ, no.2, 2004, pp.121-137 Evans, R, ‘The New Plagiarism in Higher Education`, 2000, retrieved 14 May 2001, Golvan, C, Copyright Law and Practice, The Federation press, New South Wales, 2007 Halpern, W, et al., Fundamentals of United States Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patent, Trademark, 3rd edn, Aspen Publishers Inc., Maryland, 2011 Harvard College, The Harvard Guide to Using Sources, 2012, retrieved 20 November 2012, Howard, R, ‘Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty.’ College English, vol. 57, no.7, 1995, pp. 708-36 King, R, Understanding Copyright Law, Fair Use, Plagiarism and Public Domain, King & Associates, Arizona, 2012 (e-book). Lawrence, R and Rapalje, S, A Dictionary of American and English Law, The Lawbook Exchange, New Jersey, 1997 Merriam-Website Online Dictionary, Plagiarize, 2012, retrieved 7 November 2012, Oxford University, Academic Guidance, 2012, retrieved 7 November 2012, McCabe, D, ‘Cheating in Academic Institutions: A decade of research’, Ethics & Behavior vol. 11, no.3, 2001, pp. 219-231 McCafferty, M, Sloppy Firsts, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2001 Mobilereference, US Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Laws Quick Study Guide, MobileReference, 2010 (e-book). Paton, G, ‘Student Complaints Against Universities Soar by a Fifth’, Daily Telegraph, 14 Jun 2012, retrieved 17 November 2012, . Plagiarism.org, Types of Plagiarism, 2012, retrieved 21 November 2012, The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education: Assessment of students, QAA, Mansfield, 2006 Ricketson, S, ‘Case Comment: The need for human authorship - Australian developments: Telstra Corp Ltd v Phone Directories Co Pty Ltd’, EIPR, 2012, pp.54-60 Saunders, J, ‘Plagiarism and the law: a guide to plagiarism and the law’, Blake Lapthorn Tarlo Lyons, 2007, retrieved 21 November 2012, Stanford University Libraries, Copyright and Fair Use, 2010, retrieved 20 November 2012, < http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/in dex.php>. Swannell, J ed. The Little Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996 US Copyright Office, Circular 15a: Duration of Copyright, 2012, retrieved 20 November 2012, < http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf> US Copyright Office, Circular 34: Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, titles, or Short Phrases, 2012, retrieved 20 November 2012, Viswanathan, K, How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life (Unpublished) Wyburn, M, ‘Giving credit where it is due: the Da Vinci Code litigation: Part 2’, Ent LR, vol. 18, no.4, 2007, pp.131-134 Wyburn, M, ‘The “wrong side” of the line between ideas and protected expression: the Da Vinci Code appeal’, Ent LR, vol. 18, no.6, 2007, pp.214-218 Yale College, Definitions of Plagiarism, Cheating, and Documentation of Sources, 2012, retrieved 7 November 2012, Zhou, D, ‘Examples Of Similar Passages Between Viswanathan's Book And Mccafferty's Two Novels’, The Harvard Crimson, 23 April 2006, retrieved 15 November 2012, Zhou, D, ‘Publisher Permanently Shelves ‘Opal Mehta’’ The Harvard Crimson, 3 May 2006, retrieved 15 November 2012, .to scrutiny In-text references 1 Merriam-Website Online Dictionary, Plagiarize, 2012, retrieved 7 November 2012, . 2 J Swannell ed. The Little Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996. 3 D Bainbridge, Intellectual Property, 8th edn, Pearson Education, Harlow 2010, p.29. 4 J Evans, ‘The New Plagiarism in Higher Education`, 2000, retrieved 14 May 2001, . 5 Oxford University, Academic Guidance, 2012, retrieved 7 November 2012, . 6 Ibid. 7 Harvard College, The Harvard Guide to Using Sources, 2012, retrieved 20 November 2012, . 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 D Zhou, ‘Examples Of Similar Passages Between Viswanathan's Book And Mccafferty's Two Novels’, The Harvard Crimson, 23 April 2006, retrieved 15 November 2012, . 11 M McCafferty, Sloppy Firsts, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2001, p.7. 12 K Viswanathan, How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life (Unpublished) cited in Zhou (2006). 13 Harvard College. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Plagiarism.org, Types of Plagiarism, 2012, retrieved 21 November 2012, . 17 R Attwood, ‘Allow me to rephrase, and boost my tally of articles’, Times Higher Education, 3 July 2008, retrieved 15 November 2012, . 18 J Carroll and J Appleton, Plagiarism: A Good Practice Guide, 2001, retrieved 7 November 2012, , p. 14. 19 Ibid. 20 Yale College, Definitions of Plagiarism, Cheating, and Documentation of Sources, 2012, retrieved 7 November 2012, . 21 The Council of Writing Program Administrators, Defining and Avoiding Plagiarism: The WPA Statement on Best Practices, 2003, retrieved 7 November 2012, p.1. 22 Ibid, p.2. 23 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education: Assessment of students, QAA, Mansfield, 2006, p.28. 24 Ibid. 25 R Howard, ‘Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty.’ College English, vol. 57, no.7, 1995, pp. 708-36. 26 Ibid. 27 S Blum, My Word! Plagiarism and College Culture, Cornell University Press, New York, 2009, p.1. 28 D McCabe, ‘Cheating in Academic Institutions: A decade of research’, Ethics & Behavior vol. 11, no.3, 2001, pp. 221, cited in Blum, p.3. 29 Blum, p.4. 30 D Bainbridge, Intellectual Property Law, 2nd edn, Pearson, Harlow, 2011, p 3. 31 s.3(1) CPA 1988. 32 Ibid, s.4. 33 Ibid, s.5B. 34 Ibid, s.5A. 35 Ibid, s.3(1). 36 Corporation of America v Harpbond [1983] FSR 32. 37 Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v 20th Century Fox Corp Ltd [1940] AC 112. 38 Exxon Corp v Exxon Insurance Consultants International Ltd [1982] Ch 119. 39 Green v Broadcasting Corp of New Zealand [1989] RPC 700. 40 Bainbridge, Intellectual Property Law, p.5. 41 Ibid, p.9. 42 s.3(2) and (3) CDPA 1988 43 Ibid, s.12(1) and s.13B. 44 Ibid, s.13A and s.14. 45 Ibid, s.15. 46 Ibid, s.9. 47 Ibid, s.10. 48 Ibid, s.11. 49 Oxford University, Academic Guidance. 50 Harvard College, The Harvard Guide to Using Sources. 51 s.16(3)(a)-(b) CDPA 1988. 52 [1964] 1 WLR 273. 53 s.1 CDPA 1988. 54 Bainbridge, Intellectual Property Law, p.4. 55 Harvard College, The Harvard Guide to Using Sources. 56 R Attwood, ‘Allow me to rephrase, and boost my tally of articles’ Times Higher Education 3 July 2008 retrieved 15 November 2012, . 57 J Saunders, ‘Plagiarism and the law: a guide to plagiarism and the law’, Blake Lapthorn Tarlo Lyons, 2007, retrieved 21 November 2012, , p.2. 58 [2007] EWCA Civ 247. 59 s.16 CDPA 1988. 60 Bainbridge, Intellectual Property, p.168. 61 [1980] RPC 193. 62 [1967] 2 All ER 324. 63 Saunders, p.5. 64 [2001] FSR 113. 65 Deazley, R, ‘Copyright in the House of Lords: recent cases, judicial reasoning and academic writing’ IPQ, no.2, 2004, p.127. 66 [2001] Ch 257. 67 Ibid, p.128. 68 M Wyburn, ‘Giving credit where it is due: the Da Vinci Code litigation: Part 2’, Ent LR, vol. 18, no.4, 2007, p.134. 69 [1979] RPC 551. 70 s.94 CDPA 1988. 71 Ibid, s.87. 72 Bainbridge, Intellectual Property, p.123. 73 Ibid, s.89. 74 Bainbridge, Intellectual Property, p.125. 75 s.80(2) CDPA 1988. 76 Bainbridge, Intellectual Property, p.121. 77 United States Constitution Article 1 §.8. 78 W Halpern, et al., Fundamentals of United States Intellectual Property Law: Copyright, Patent, Trademark, 3rd edn, Aspen Publishers Inc., Maryland, 2011, p.4. 79 US Copyright Office, Circular 34: Copyright Protection Not Available for Names, titles, or Short Phrases, 2012, retrieved 20 November 2012, , p.1. 80 Ibid. 81 17 USC §.102. 82 US Copyright Office, Circular 15a: Duration of Copyright, 2012, retrieved 20 November 2012, < http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf>, p.2. 83 Ibid. 84 Mobilereference, US Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Laws Quick Study Guide, MobileReference, 2010 (e-book). 85 Stanford University Libraries, Copyright and Fair Use, 2010, retrieved 20 November 2012, < http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/in dex.php>. 86 Ibid. 87 R King, Understanding Copyright Law, Fair Use, Plagiarism and Public Domain, King & Associates, Arizona, 2012 (e-book). 88 Stanford University Libraries. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid. 91 Ibid. 92 Golan v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 873 (2012). 93 Halpern, p.152. 94 Bateman v Mnemonic Inc. 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir 1996). 95 37 CFR §§.202.1. 96 Halpern, p.9 . 97 Nichols v Universal Pictures Corp 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930). 98 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20258 (S.D. N.Y. 2003). 99 101 U.S. 99 (1879). 100 499 U.S. 340 (1991). 101 King. 102 Ibid. 303 17 USC §.105. 104 Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002). 105 Stanford University Libraries. 106 17 USC §.106A. 107 Australian Constitution s.51(xviii). 108 W Van Caenegam, Intellectual Property Law in Australia, Kluwer law International: The Netherlands, 2010, p.25. 109 Ibid. 110 Copyright Act 1968 s.10. 111 Caenegem, p.27. 112 Copyright Act 1968 s.22. 113 Caenegem, p.32. 114 [1900] AC 539, cited in Caenegemn, p.33. 115 Copyright Act 1968 s.84. 116 Copyright (International Protection) Regs 1969 (Cth). 117 Copyright Act 1968 s.33. 118 C Golvan, Copyright Law and Practice, The Federation press, New South Wales, 2007, p.10. 119 Copyright Act 1968 s.31. 120 Handfstaengl v Empire Palace [1894] 3 Ch 109. 121 Caenegem, p.42. 122 [1987] 9 IPR 440 123 Caenegem, p.42. 124 Australia Government Attorney-General’s Department, Short guide to copyright Factsheet, 2012, retrieved 15 November 2012, , p.12. 125 Copyright Act 1968 s.32. 126 Desktop Marketing Systems Pty Ltd v Telsta Corpn Ltd [2001] FCAFC 112. 127 [2009] HCA 14. 128 [2010] FCAFC 149. 129 S Ricketson, ‘Case Comment: The need for human authorship - Australian developments: Telstra Corp Ltd v Phone Directories Co Pty Ltd’, EIPR, 2012, p.54. 130 Ibid, p.56. 131 Ibid, p.54. 132 Copyright Act 1968 s.195. 133 Caenegem, p.41. 134 R Lawrence and S Rapalje, A Dictionary of American and English Law, The Lawbook Exchange, New Jersey, 1997, p.625. 135 Black’s Law Dictionary, Unlawful, 2012, retrieved 11 November 2012, . 136 Pro Sieben v Carlton Television [1999] 1 WLR 605. 137 S.29 CDPA 1988. 138 Ibid, s.30. 139 Hubbard v Vosper [1972] 2 QB 84. 140 Pro Sieben v Carlton Television. 141 s.30 CDPA 1988. 142 BBC v British Satellite Broadcasting Ltd (Unreported 19 June 1990). 143 Hyde Park Residence v Yelland [2000] RPC 604. 144 Hubbard v Vosper 145 Hyde Park Residence v Yelland [2004] RPC 604 146 Bainbridge Intellectual Property, p.207. 147 Faser-Woodward v BBC [2005] FSR 762. 148 HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers [2006] EWHC 11. 149 Copyright Act 1968 s.40. 150 Ibid, s.41. 151 Ibid, s.41A. 152 Ibid, s.42. 153 Ibid, s. 43. 154 De Garis v Neville Jeffress Pidler Pty Ltd [1990] 18 IPE 292 155 ibid 156 TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Network Ten Pty Ltd (No. 1) [2002] 55 IPR 112 and (No 2) [2005] 65 IPR 571 157 Ibid. 158 Copyright Act 1968, ss. 40(2) and 103C(2). 159 Australian Law Reform Commission, Fair Dealing Exceptions, Australian Government, 2012, retrieved 20 November 2012, <. 160 Copyright Act 1968, s.40(4). 161 Ibid, s.40(5). 162 Golvan, p.85. 163 Australia Government Attorney-General’s Department, p.16. 164 Ibid. 165 Golvan, p.85. 166 Ibid. 167 Maxtone-Graham v. Burtchaell, 481 U.S. 1059 (1987) 168 King. 169 Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. RDR Books, 575 F. Supp. 2d 513 (S.D. N.Y. 2008). 170 471 U.S. 539 (1985). 171 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993). 172 King. 173 s.107(e) CDPA 1988. 174 Ibid, s.1072A. 175 Bainbridge, Intellectual Property, p.197. 176Ibid, p.201. 177 Australian Copyright Council ‘Infringement: Actions, Remedies, Offences & Penalties’ Factsheet, Australian Copyright Council, NSW,2012, p.3. 178 Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department, p.21. 179 Copyright Act 1968, s.132AK. 180 Cornell University Law School ‘17 USC § 506 - Criminal offenses’, 2012, retrieved 20 Niovember 2012, . 181 BBC, 'Piracy' student Richard O'Dwyer loses extradition case, BBC News Sheffield & South Yorkshire, 2012, retrieved 21 November 2012, . 182 s.96 CDPA 1988. 183 Bainbridge, Intellectual Property, p.183. 184 Ibid, p.185. 185 s.99 CDPA 1988. 186 Ibid, s.97(2). 187 Bainbridge, Intellectual Property, p.189. 188 Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department, p.20. 189 Ibid. 190 Ibid. 191 Ibid. 192 17 USC §.502(a). 193 Ibid, §. 503(a). 194 Halpern, p.171. 195 Taylor v Merrick, 712 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1983). 196 17 USC §.504(c)(1). 197 Halpern, p.172. 198 D Zhou, ‘Publisher Permanently Shelves ‘Opal Mehta’’ The Harvard Crimson, 3 May 2006, retrieved 15 November 2012, . 199 Saunders, p.6. 200 Zhou, 3 May 2006. 201 Ibid. 202 Ibid. 203 s.124 Education Reform Act 1988. 204 Ibid, s.125 (3). 205 G Paton, ‘Student Complaints Against Universities Soar by a Fifth’, Daily Telegraph, 14 Jun 2012, retrieved 17 November 2012, . 206 Carroll, p.29. 207 [1994] ELR 380. 208 Carroll, p.28. 209 Enderby Town Football Club Ltd v Football Association Ltd [1971] Ch 591. 210 Carroll, p.33. 211 BBC, 'Plagiarist' to sue university, BBC.co.uk, 2004, retrieved 21 November 2012, . 212 Patton. 213 Carroll, p.14. 214 Ibid. 215 Ibid, p.26 216 S.124(6) Education Reform Act 1988 as amended by Learning Skills Act 2000 217 Unreported March 11, 2008 (D (US)). 218 AV v iParadigms LLC Unreported April 16, 2009 (4th Cir (US)) [INS: :INS] Share the love: Tweet Features * Plagiarism detection * Plagiarism checker reviews * Types of plagiarism * Is plagiarism illegal? * Plagiarism articles * Ask the Doctor * Plagiarism pictures * Plagiarism scanner (BETA) Guides * Referencing guides * Lesson plans * NEW: Free plagiarism workbook (PDF) About PlagiarismChecker.net is the free website for plagiarism software, reviews, articles, lesson plans and commentary on detection methods. Google+ Contact Us * Email:thegurusites@gmail.com Terms of use Contact XML | TXT | HTML | ROR | Images © Copyright 2015 by PlagiarismChecker.net. All Rights Reserved. | RS | PT | JP | AE | RO | MT | NL | TR | DE | ML | DN | PL * * IFRAME: //www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-PPS2SH Skip to content The Open University The Open University The Open University The Open University The Open University The Open University The Open University Toggle service links * Sign in | * Sign out | * My Account | * StudentHome | * TutorHome | * IntranetHome | * Contact the OU Contact the OU Contact the OU | * Accessibility Accessibility * Search the OU ____________________ (Search) Search * Courses * Postgraduate * Research * About * News & media * Business & apprenticeships Vocational qualifications * Vocational qualifications * About us * Qualifications * Register * Our policies * Assessing for us * Contact us 1. Vocational qualifications 2. Our policies 3. Plagiarism Plagiarism Plagiarism and Collusion Plagiarism and Collusion are considered forms of Learner Malpractice, which contravenes awarding organisation regulations and breaks the Conditions of Registration. Plagiarism may occur inadvertently due to inexperience. The temptation to plagiarise may arise from a lack of self-confidence or from a lack of understanding about the aims of the assessment and about what is required from you. Where plagiarised material is included as part of the work you want to have assessed, assessors are likely to notice the shift in styles and may be aware of the source. Copying the work of others would be counterproductive to your goal of understanding the requirements of your award and to real achievement. Most individuals will not wish to take such a negative approach towards achieving their award and the VQAC will not tolerate it. In signing your registration agreement form you are also confirming that all assessment work you submit will be your own. Submitting work that has been done by someone else is an obvious instance of plagiarism and is regarded as cheating. It is intellectually dishonest to cheat in this way. If you make available, sell or advertise for sale work in any form or by any means (print, electronic, recording or otherwise) so as to enable plagiarism whether or not the work includes marks, comments or any other materials produced by an assessor, unless prior consent has been given by the VQ Assessment Centre you are encouraging or enabling plagiarism. Such cases will be investigated as potential Collusion. You should read carefully the following information carefully, to be familiar with the definition, investigation process and potential implications regarding plagiarism and collusion. Plagarism A specific form of cheating that applies to all assessment, taking someone else’s intellectual effort and presenting it as one’s own work. Examples: * unacknowledged incorporation into a learners work of materials derived from published (such as books, articles and internet materials) or unpublished (such as work submitted or about to be submitted by another learner) work by another person and presented as if it were the learner’s own work * unacknowledged copying from published sources or incomplete referencing * using a choice phrase or sentence that you have come across * copying word-for-word directly from text * paraphrasing the words from a text very closely * using text downloaded from the internet * borrowing statistics or assembled facts from another person or source * copying or downloading figures, photographs, pictures or diagrams without acknowledging your sources * copying from notes or portfolio from another candidate doing the same award * copying from your notes, on a text, tutorial, video, etc. that contact direct quotations Collusion A form of plagiarism that involves unauthorised co-operation between at least two people with the intent to deliberately mislead or deceive Examples: * two or more learners conspiring to produce a piece of work together with the intention that it is submitted as his/her own work * submitting the work of another learner, with their consent, as his/her own individual work * working collaboratively with other candidates, beyond what is permitted * copying from another candidate including the use of IT to aid the copying * allowing work to be copied e.g. posting written coursework on social networking sites prior to an assessment * The offence of encouraging or enabling plagiarism includes the act of posting work onto any public website whether or not it is done with the intention of enabling or encouraging plagiarism. Investigation process In all suspected cases of Plagiarism and/ or Collusion, the centre is required to notify the awarding organisation within 10 working days. In most cases, this will be followed by a full investigation by the centre; including the gathering of evidence and obtaining written statements from all parties involved. The centre will then present a record of the full investigation and evidence to the awarding organisation, for consideration by the relevant independent Malpractice Panel or Committee. Further to consideration of the investigation and its findings, the awarding organisation will determine: * whether malpractice has occurred * where the culpability lies for the malpractice * the nature of any sanction or penalty to be applied to both the candidate and the centre Potential implications The conclusion of the investigation involves the awarding organisation advising the centre whether any sanctions are to be imposed. The following sanctions may be applied individually or in combination * Written warning: the awarding organisation will issue a warning to warn that if the offence is repeated further sanctions may be applied * Assessment evidence will be disallowed: submitted evidence is disallowed, either in part (for the relevant section or unit) or in full (the entire qualification) and learner must submit new evidence for assessment * Disqualification from the unit: the learner is disqualified from a unit or qualification for a set period of time, the learner can only re-submit work after the set time period has elapsed * Disqualification from the whole qualification: the learner is disqualified from the whole qualification for a set period of time, the learner can only re-enter for the qualification after the set period of time has elapsed * Further and future registration of the learner will not be accepted (for qualifications or programmes) * Certificate will not be issued, or will be cancelled: the awarding organisation may withhold a certificate that has not yet been claimed or cancel a certificate that has been issued if there is evidence to prove or found that the certificate issued is invalid due to learner malpractice Further information Each awarding organisation publishes a policy relating to Learner Malpractice. You should be aware of the policy that applies to your qualification and the awarding organisation you are registered with. City & Guilds ILM: Plagiarism, Collusion and Cheating Policy OCR: Joint Council for Qualifications Suspected Malpractice in Examinations and Assessments Our policies * + Appeals procedure + Complaints procedure + Data Protection Policy + Information, advice and guidance statement of service + Learner charter + Plagiarism and Collusion Your questions Try our frequently asked questions contact us by email or call 01908 653774 Back to top The Open University * Contact the OU Contact the OU * Jobs * Accessibility * Cymraeg * Conditions of use * Privacy and cookies * Modern Slavery Act (pdf 149kb) * Copyright * OU Community Menu toggle + Facebook + Twitter + YouTube + LinkedIn + Google+ + OpenLearn: free learning + OU on TV and radio ______________________________________________________________ OU Students Community Menu toggle * OU Students Association * OU Students Shop (including exam papers) * OU Students Forums * OU Students on Facebook * OU Students on Twitter * OU Students Freshers Support Menu toggle Find your personal contacts including your tutor and student support team: Your contacts __________________________________________________________________ For help and support relating to the University's computing resources: Computing Guide Computing Helpdesk __________________________________________________________________ For information, advice and guidance on using the library, referencing styles or finding journals, ebooks and articles for your assignments: Library help and support * Study Menu toggle + Careers + Help Centre + Library + Study planning and funding * Policy Menu toggle + Accessibility + Conditions of use + Copyright + Cymraeg + Privacy and cookies + Student Charter and policies © 9999. University of Kent - The UK's European University University of Kent - Home * Contact * Maps * Departments Shortlisted for Exceptional Performance, THE DataPoints Merit Award 2016 * About Planning and strategy + University Plan 2015-20 + UK's European university + Annual review and reports How we operate + Committees + Governance + Constitution + Regulations + Charity information + Modern Slavery Act Transparency Statement People + Vice-Chancellor + Executive Group + Principal officers + Honorary graduates Departments + Schools and faculties + Professional services + External services + Complete A-Z More about Kent + Career Opportunities + Essential Kent + Eastern ARC + Regional impact + Community relations Events and what's on + Full calendar + Undergraduate term dates + Gulbenkian * Research Excellence at Kent + Latest research news + REF 2014 + Research impact + Expertise + Publications + Public engagement Departments/people + Find a Kent expert + Schools and faculties + Research Services + Innovation & Enterprise + Graduate School + Academic/research jobs Research degrees + Search courses + Research degrees + How to apply + Postgraduate funding + Graduate school * Courses Undergraduate 2018 + Search courses + How to apply + Fees and funding Undergraduate 2017 + Search courses Study abroad + Go abroad Postgraduate 2018 + Search courses + How to apply + Research degrees + Taught courses + Fees and funding Part-time and short courses + Online prospectus + Summer schools International + Foundation (IFP) + Pre-sessional English + Graduate Diplomas (GDip) + Short-term programmes Visit Kent + Open Days + Applicant Days + Informal visits + Kent around the world Useful links + Accommodation + Fees and funding + Scholarships + Locations Information for... + International students + Parents and family + Applicants + New students * Locations UK locations + Canterbury + Medway + Tonbridge + Partner colleges + Validated institutions European centres + Brussels + Paris + Rome + Athens Other locations + Exchanges with over 100 overseas universities * International Courses + Study and work abroad + Double-degrees + Short-term study options + 'International' courses + Erasmus exchanges International students + Study at Kent + Application process + When you arrive International Partnerships + Worldwide partnerships + International exchanges + Alumni groups/networks Contacts + International Recruitment + International Partnerships + English & world languages Strategy & reputation + International impact + World-leading research + UK's European university Maps + International impact + International Research Impact + Campus locations * Business International expertise + Business services + Collaborative projects + Consultancy + Facilities + Employability points Courses + Undergraduate + Postgraduate + Part-time (undergraduate) + Executive education Contacts + Careers & Employability Service + Innovation & Enterprise + Kent Business School + Conferences and functions + Sports centre and facilities * News News Centre + Latest stories + Expert comment + Press office + Social media + RSS feeds Students and staff + Student news + Staff news + Campus transport news + IT service alerts + Submit a story * Alumni Lasting connections... + Alumni and friends + News + Events + Community + Alumni groups + Former staff Useful links + Telephone Campaign 2016 + Congregations + Honorary graduates + Discount on fees + Alumni scholarships + Online giftshop * Giving Major projects + Kent Law Campaign + Kent Opportunity Fund + Hong Kong & China Portal Ways to give + Telephone Campaign 2016 + Online + By post or phone + Other options.. ____________________ Search site Academic Integrity Academic Integrity * Home * Referencing Style Guides * Academic Policies * Using Turnitin * ASK: Assignment Survival Kit * Guide for Students * What is academic integrity? * What is plagiarism? * How do I avoid plagiarism? * What is referencing? * Why should I reference? * Achieving good academic practice * Working with text based sources * Glossary * Useful links * Your questions Guide for Staff Contact Us * University of Kent * Academic Integrity * Glossary Academic Integrity The attitude of approaching your academic work honestly, by completing your own original work, attributing and acknowledging your sources when necessary and not relying on dishonest means to gain advantage. Annotated bibliography Bibliographical list (ie a list of materials giving full bibliographical details) which includes a paragraph outlining the contents and main points of the item listed. Attribution Formal acknowledgement of source used to support your arguments, backed up with an accurate reference. Bibliographical details The publication details of the source used. These details vary depending on the type of source, but will include the author and title of the work plus publication information so that the exact source can be found again. Bibliography List of all sources used in preparing your work, including those that inspired you but which you did not cite in your work. Sometimes this term is used interchangeably with the term reference list. Check with your tutor. Citation (in-text) The short, formal acknowledgement of a source within your work (how this is done exactly depends on the particular referencing style you are using) whenever you paraphrase, quote, make use of an idea expressed by somebody else or refer to a specific body of work. Also used to mean the reference. Collaboration Students working together on a group assignment where this is expressly permitted. See also collusion. Collusion Students working together where this is not permitted, with the intention of gaining an unfair advantage or cheating in the preparation of coursework. A form of plagiarism. See also collaboration. Common knowledge Information that is widely accessible and well-known, i.e. that London is in the southeast of England . What constitutes common knowledge may vary across subject areas. Endnotes Notes at the end of your paper, to acknowledge a source or give additional information (depending on the referencing style used). Footnotes Notes at the bottom of the page, to acknowledge a source or give additional information. Use of footnotes depends on the referencing style used. Good academic practice The process of completing your academic work independently, honestly and in an appropriate academic style, using good referencing and acknowledging all of your sources. Good academic practice involves developing: * study skills (eg reading, note-taking, research etc) * critical enquiry and evaluation (eg balanced opinion, reasoning and argument) * appropriate academic writing (eg essays, reports, dissertations etc) * referencing skills (eg when and how to reference) * exam techniques (eg preparation, timing, etc). Plagiarism In general this refers to the act of taking someone else's words, ideas or writings as your own without acknowledgement. In an academic context (see page What is is plagiarism?). This includes taking another person's work intentionally or unintentionally in order to gain an academic advantage. The University of Kent gives this definition of plagiarism in the General Regulations Appendix A: * reproducing in any work submitted for assessment or review(for example, examination answers, essays, project reports, dissertations or theses) any material derived from work authored by another without clearly acknowledging the source. Paraphrase Restate a text in your own words. This does not need to be placed in quotation marks but it must be fully referenced. Go to Working with text-based sources. Quote A quote is the word for word repetition of the original text. Quoted sources need to be either shown in quotation marks or indented depending on whether the quote is long or short. What is considered a long quote or a short quote and exactly how to present these depends on your particular referencing style. For information on particular referencing styles, see the referencing style guides. For more information on using sources, go to Working with text-based sources. Reference A reference (noun) means the full bibliographical details of a source. This should include: name, initial, date of publication, publisher, publishing location and title, but may also include subtitle, chapter, editor, edition, date accessed etc. depending on the source and the referencing style you are using. The sequence in which this information is presented is also determined by the particular referencing style. To reference (verb) means to acknowledge your sources by giving an in-text reference or citation in the body of your work plus the full bibliographic details of the source (the reference) in your list of sources. Reference list (also called works cited ) List of only those sources cited in your work. Sometimes this term is used interchangeably with the term bibliography. Check with your tutor. Referencing style There are three basic formats for referencing (i.e. numbered, in-text and footnote styles) with many variations on these basic styles. Several different styles are in use at Kent, e.g. Harvard, MLA, MHRA, APA, Chicago. Ask your department or lecturer for the preferred style and for guidance on how to use it. You should also be able to find information about the preferred style for presenting your work in your handbook or on the department's website. For information on particular referencing styles, see the referencing style guides. Referencing styles differ in the layout of the bibliography, in-text citations, what is considered a long or short quotation and how to indicate these in your work. Whichever style you use, you must be consistent and ensure that you acknowledge all of your sources fully and appropriately. Secondary citation Citing an author or work which has been cited in another author's work. This practice is not recommended. You should find the original work and cite that. In this way, you can be sure that you fully understand the original work and that you are not relying on someone else's interpretation of the particular work you wish to cite. Source Sources can be books, articles, reports, websites, newspapers, video/DVD, pod casts, radio or TV programmes, interviews/conversations, lectures, data, graphs, pictures, maps, questionnaires, performance art, productions, leaflets, brochures, plus work of other scholars, including yourself and other students (it does not matter whether these are published or unpublished). Summary A summary, when used in the context of referencing sources, means that you are writing a shorter version of the original work, in your own words. This does not need to be placed in quotation marks, but it must be fully referenced. See Working with text-based sources. Turnitin In full this refers to the Turnitin Plagiarism Detection Software supplied under license from Turnitin UK . Submitted work is matched against a database of previously submitted work from every institution which subscribes to Turnitin, (including international institutions); current and archived internet pages and databases of journals and periodicals (Gale and Emerald). Turnitin does not detect plagiarism: it is a text-matching software which provides a report on whether a student's work is original (no matching text) or unoriginal. All instances of matching text should be checked for full and correct referencing. Information about Gale and Emerald databases can be found at http://www.gale.com/onefile/ and http://www.emeraldinsight.com/. Academic Integrity, UELT, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NQ Telephone: +44(0)1227 824016 or contact us Last Updated: 29/10/2012 * Kent on facebook * Kent on twitter * Kent on linkedin * Kent on youtube * Kent on flickr * Kent on rss * Instagram * Google Plus Social media at Kent © University of Kent - Contact | Feedback | Legal | FOI | Cookies * SGroup: European Universities Network * Eastern Academic Research Consortium * Universities UK * Queens Anniversary Prize IFRAME: //www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-TL3R5X * PlagiarismDetection.org * plans & pricing * faq * contact * login Reliable plagiarism detector Fast and accurate plagiarism checker for teachers, students, publishers, bloggers. Since 2008. Plagiarism prevention in Europe Plagiarism is a controversial issue in institutions of higher learning across Europe. Various views have been raised concerning this topic vividly indicating autonomy in terms of thinking among different European countries. It is prudent to understand what each country perceives regarding plagiarism for the sake of students who wish to study in different countries. This paper seeks to understand what the plagiarism policy means in countries such as Poland, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Lithuania and, Bulgaria. According to recent survey conducted on what various students thought about the definition of plagiarism, different answers were gathered. This question seems to have worked magic in understanding various attitudes towards plagiarism. According to the respondents, students from Czech Republic highlighted that plagiarism simply meant “copying without referencing the original author”. British students simply stated that it had something to do with “taking another person’s work or, cheating”. Students from Lithuanian had a different view saying it simply meant “copying”. Polish answers were a bit long making reference to intellectual property rights, illegal, copying and cheating. Plagiarism policy in Europe has had different opinions. This may be attributed to the differences in existing education systems due to measures taken by institutions to control and prevent plagiarism. As much as the situation may look similar in most countries, a few scenarios differ. A clear similarity is apparent between Cyprus and the UK given the fact that CY was a former British colony. Other countries display conformance to the communist history. Whether or not students get guidance in their institutions on academic writing is another question to ponder. Again, Cyprus and UK students receive training and instructions on this. According to survey, students from Lithuania, Poland and Czech Republic receive little training on appropriate academic writing. Most universities and colleges in the US and UK report high cases of plagiarism despite plagiarism checkers put in place to avoid it. A number of universities in the UK have published guidelines to students and lecturers concerning plagiarism. Despite having these guidelines, originality detectors, each institution has its own notion regarding what really constitutes plagiarism. In some instances, poor academic discipline may qualify as plagiarism as opposed to the actual misconduct. This has been labeled as a demeaning factor in achieving consistency among institutions of higher learning. In 2012 an anonymous survey of 617 students conducted at the University of Graz in Austria showed that about one-third students reported that they had already plagiarized at least once. Reasons for plagiarism were comfort (63 percent), time savings (54 percent), lack of ideas (40 percent), unintended plagiarism (34 percent) and uncertainty about the source of information (19 percent). Such an explanation shows that "comfort", which primary reason for students to plagiarize is indeed lack of a plagiarism checker being used by teachers to control works submitted by students. With advancement in technology, almost all Universities in the US and the UK have adopted plagiarism detectors. In the UK, much emphasis has been relayed on penalties on students who plagiarize. Universities in the US are quite strict on matters of plagiarism hence prompting students to pay attention to details when attributing works. In contrast with Europe, university students in the US are constantly reminded to acknowledge intellectual property through appropriate citing and referencing of works. Universities and colleges in the US insist on three most important attribution systems- Modern American Association (MLA), American Psychological Association (APA) and Havard. According to this attribution systems, students are advised to have a reference list and parenthesis on materials cited in the text. To some extent, these attribution systems have managed to streamline issues of plagiarism as well as bring consistency in the US. Institutions of higher learning in both countries have equally faced challenges on general knowledge and especially that which in the public domain. In the current era of information explosion, more knowledge is becoming common hence presenting the challenge on what is plagiarized or not. This means that not all information requires citation yet, plagiarism checkers think otherwise. On the contrary, it is easier to assume that all information found on the web is general knowledge and does not require citing. In the overall, plagiarism is still an issue to solve in many countries given the fact that knowledge is dynamic. all articles * Academic plagiarism * Checker supports English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish languages. * plans & pricing * faq * contact * login * Facebook * Google+ * Twitter+ © 2008-2018 PlagiarismDetection.org ____________________ ____________________ Login ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Send message [x] close [tr?id=117077788871029&ev=PageView &noscript=1] StudentCircus - Logo * For Students * For Employers * For Universities * Browse Jobs & Internships * Browse Jobs & Internships Login image_map (BUTTON) Logout (BUTTON) Close popup Are you sure you want to logout? (BUTTON) CancelOk StudentCircus - Banner Student Circus Blog Plagiarism – what is it and how to avoid it? Categories: Study Tips 0 Comments Plagiarism – what is it and how to avoid it? 14 Nov,2016 Plagiarism is a foreign word for most of the international students coming to the UK. Plagiarism means copying someone else’s ideas or work and representing it as your own, without mentioning the original author. Copyright issues are taken very seriously in the UK; if you are found to be plagiarising your content, you could fail the exam or assignment, or even be asked to leave your course. Apart from the UK, Europe and the USA, especially in South-east Asian countries, plagiarism is not strictly enforced or frowned upon, which leads to complacency and lack of knowledge of plagiarism when students go to west for further education. Plagiarism can be of various types such as*: a.Copying or paraphrasing text from websites, articles, research papers, or papers written by other pupils, without acknowledging the source. b.Paying somebody to pen an essay or assignment for you (known as ‘ghost writing’). c.Duplicating your work, for instance by submitting almost the same work for two different tasks. So, how to avoid plagiarism? The answer is referencing, paraphrasing and citing the sources. The most common citation styles are as follows: a.Harvard Style – Used to cite information sources. There are two ways to go about it: i.In-text references are used when directly quoting or paraphrasing a source. They are placed in the body of the work and contain a fragment of the full quotation. ii.Reference Lists are located at the end of the work and to display full citations for sources used. b.Oxford Style – Commonly used in document-style assignments. Similar to Harvard-style, there are two ways to go about it: i.A superscript number is to be inserted in your text at the point where you want to cite your source of information. This superscript number then appears at the underside of the page where the footnote is read. ii.References are to be listed in alphabetical order by author's surname. If you have cited multiple works by the same author, arrange them by date, the earliest first and alphabetically within a single year. The usage of the citation style depends on the university’s policy and selection of the course; therefore, it is necessary that you assure that you format the document in the prevalent citation style so as to ensure the paper does not stand invalid as well as to achieve higher marks. *Avoiding plagiarism: A guide for international students. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.educationuk.org/india/articles/avoiding-plagiarism-guide-for -international-students/ Disclaimer: www.studentcircus.com (Student Circus UK ) is not responsible for any action taken as a result of the information or advice provided in the blog. Readers must seek specialist advice from lawyers or other professional immigration consultant regarding their case before taking any action. Leave A Reply ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Comment ____________________ (BUTTON) Categories * Internships (1) * Study Tips (1) * Immigration News (2) * Travel in Europe (0) * Travel in UK (0) * Graduate jobs (4) Got A Question? ____________________ ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Submit StudentCircus - Logo * Login Login * For Students For Students * For Employers For Employers * For Universities For Universities * Browse Jobs & Internships Browse Jobs & Internships * About Us About Us * Student Circus Blog Student Circus Blog Student Circus * About Us * Browse Jobs & Internships * For Students * For Employers * For Universities Partners Image Partner With Us img Connect With Us * Facebook Icon * Twitter Icon * LinkedIn Icon Blog image Student Circus Blog * Birmingham * Cardiff * Edinburgh * Glasgow * Liverpool * London * Manchester * Terms & Conditions * Privacy Policy * FAQ * © Copyright All Rights Reserved, Student Circus 2016 This website uses cookies to help us provide the best possible personalized user experience. We will take your continued use of the site as your consent to use cookies. For further information view our Privacy Policy. close Partner With Us (BUTTON) Close popup ____________________ ____________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Submit Scroll Top Please fill in the following to continue Level of study: (*) UG ( ) PG ( ) PhD Nationality: (*) British ( ) EU ( ) International (BUTTON) Save #Teaching Matters blog » Feed Teaching Matters blog » Comments Feed Teaching Matters blog » Guarding against PhD Plagiarism – an unmet need? Comments Feed Exploring research-led teaching at Senate Training and support for postgraduate students who teach (PGWT) alternate alternate University of Edinburgh logo Teaching Matters blog Promoting, discussing and celebrating teaching at the University of Edinburgh Menu Skip to content * Home * About * Contributors * Videos * Browse by theme + Academic and personal support + Academic communities + Assessment and Feedback + Curriculum development + Digital education and online and distance learning + Experiential learning and community engagement + Learning environments + Student employability and career development + Student-led learning + Supporting staff development in learning and teaching + Understanding and supporting diversity and inclusion * Browse by School/Centre + Business School + Careers Service + Deanery of Biomedical Sciences + Deanery of Clinical Sciences + Deanery of Molecular, Genetic and Population Health Sciences + Edinburgh College of Art + Edinburgh Law School + Edinburgh Medical School + EUSA + Institute for Academic Development + Learning Teaching and Web + Moray House School of Education + Office of Life Long Learning + Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies + School of Biological Sciences + School of Chemistry + School of Divinity + School of Economics + School of Engineering + School of Geosciences + School of Health in Social Sciences + School of History, Classics and Archaeology + School of Informatics + School of Literatures, Languages and Cultures + School of Mathematics + School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences + School of Physics and Astronomy + School of Social and Political Science + Student Disability Service * Twitter * Instagram * YouTube 27th July 20175th September 2017IAD user Guarding against PhD Plagiarism – an unmet need? PhD nightmare crop Poor academic practice and academic misconduct cases are much more visible and frequent among taught undergraduate and postgraduate assessment than they are in PhD work. However cases do occur and the consequences are potentially catastrophic and extremely distressing for all concerned. Cases we are aware of have involved the external examiner identifying plagiarised material with an almost forensic level of rigor – exactly what we expect of any external examiners doing their job. It has struck us that there is currently an unmet need to help protect students and supervisory staff from this occurring in the first place. This academic year we have piloted the use of Turnitin in the School of Education to screen PhD work at four points in the PhD lifecycle. The time points are; Pre-supervision 1. PhD Proposal Not saved in Turnitin repository During Supervision 2. Year 1 progression paper 3. Completed manuscript version (pre-submission) Post-PhD 4. Final accepted version of thesis Saved in Turnitin repository In this role Turnitin is not primarily intended as a deterrent or as evidence for academic misconduct investigations. Instead it provides information for supervisory teams to use as part of the research training process for the students they supervise. Use of Turnitin in this way should help; * Alert supervisors to poor scholarship habits in new postgraduates arriving at Edinburgh, and * Protect against problematic student work leaving the university destined for external examiners and the wider academic community. Our pilot of this approach has already proved valuable by identifying patterns of poor scholarship including plagiarism among year 1 progression papers; issues we have identified would definitely land students in trouble if they had submitted work for UG or taught PG assessments. We then alerted the supervisory teams to these observations so that the student practices and understanding can be addressed at the supervisory level. PhD Supervisors found this useful “…very helpful indeed…… forewarned is forearmed.” We would urge great caution if supervisors are tempted to use ad hoc Turnitin dropboxes to ‘see what is happening’ in their doctoral students’ work; it is important that drafts of PhD work are not saved to the Turnitin student repository as this interferes with future similarity checking. Instead, organising these efforts within PhD programmes at School level involving the School Academic Misconduct officer (SAMO), may be the best way forward. If the SAMO, as well as the supervisors, view submissions this would ensure a uniform level of scrutiny. This is simple to do, uses existing resources and involves little effort. This approach may help ‘nip in the bud’ problematic studying and writing habits which may be really difficult to spot without the help of Turnitin. Undetected problems could persist within a final submitted thesis and this could be catastrophic; in 2013 the Education Minister for Germany had their PhD rescinded because of plagiarised content. PhD theses are still a special case and the nature of similarity needs to be interpreted from an academic perspective. It is common for students to publish sections of their work and in these cases a degree of similarity between thesis chapters and published material is inevitable. Next steps: Find out more about using Turnitin at the University of Edinburgh Read the Teaching Matters post on Improving Academic Practice with Turnitin Dave Saunders Dave is Programme Director for BMedSci(Hons) Sport Science Medicine and previously Programme Director for BSc(Hons) Applied Sport Science at the Moray House School of Education. Dave is also the School Academic Misconduct Officer for the School of Education (dave.saunders@ed.ac.uk). Tonks Fawcett Tonks is the Professor of Student Learning for Nurse Education in the School of Health in Social Science and the Associate Dean Student Conduct for the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Science (T.Fawcett@ed.ac.uk). Share this: * Twitter * Email * Facebook * Reddit * LinkedIn * Tumblr * Print * * Academic and personal support * Assessment and Feedback * Dave Saunders * Digital education and online and distance learning * Moray House School of Education * School of Health in Social Sciences * Tonks Fawcett * academic support * assessment * feedback * learning technology * PGR * supervision Post navigation Previous Exploring research-led teaching at Senate Next Training and support for postgraduate students who teach (PGWT) Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Comment _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ Name * ______________________________ Email * ______________________________ Website ______________________________ Post Comment [ ] Notify me of follow-up comments by email. [ ] Notify me of new posts by email. Teaching Matters For videos, features, case studies and events visit: Teaching Matters at the University of Edinburgh Subscribe Sign up to receive new articles and updates by email Search the blog Search for: ____________________ Search Contribute to Teaching Matters If you'd like to write a post or contribute to Teaching Matters please contact teachingmatters@ed.ac.uk Please refer to our Teaching Matters style and content guide. Twitter Tweets by @UoE_Teaching Tags academic support accessibility accreditation assessment careers collaboration communities community curriculum design digital education distance learning diversity Edinburgh Award employability engagement equality EUSA teaching awards evaluation experiential learning feedback feedforward graduate attributes group teaching inclusion international learning technology lectures MOOC networks online open education outreach peer learning personal support PGR promotion research-led learning reward SLICCs student-led learning supervision transitions tutors and demonstrators widening participation Recent posts * Supporting student transitions into online learning * Digitisation at Edinburgh * Enabling equitable access * Shanghai College of Fashion Collaborates with Edinburgh College of Art * Internationalisation and Teaching The University of Edinburgh Contribute to Teaching Matters ​ * Terms & conditions * Privacy & cookies * Website accessibility The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336, VAT Registration Number GB 592 9507 00, and is acknowledged by the UK authorities as a “Recognised body” which has been granted degree awarding powers. Powered by WordPress (Apostrophe theme) Send to Email Address ____________________ Your Name ____________________ Your Email Address ____________________ _________________________ loading Send Email Cancel Post was not sent - check your email addresses! Email check failed, please try again Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. IFRAME: https://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-MKRDZM Skip to content [English_________________] ____________________ Create Account | Log In * K-12 * Higher Ed * Resources * Community * Support Contact Sales [English_________________] * K-12 * Higher Ed * Resources * Community * Support * Create Account * Log In Subscribe to Turnitin Blog Posts Email Address ____________________ Subscribe ____________________ Blog Top 15 Misconceptions About Turnitin Written on May 23 2013. Misconception 15: Turnitin employs legions of writing experts to read and evaluate papers for plagiarism.
 Reality: Turnitin receives over 200,000 papers daily, and no human reads the papers at Turnitin. All papers are processed by our software, servers and databases. Misconception 14: Turnitin automatically evaluates and grades papers . . . eliminating the need for instructors to grade them.
 Reality: Turnitin matches text similarity and does not grade papers for the instructors. It is up to the instructor and/or student to determine whether the assignment exhibits plagiarism. Misconception 13: Turnitin has expertise in plagiarism and can render judgment on specific cases. 
Reality: There is no "threshold" Similarity Index that is either "good" or "bad"--each Originality Report needs to be examined to understand what a student did and whether or not there is a problem. Misconception 12: Turnitin compares a paper against everything ever written . . . web pages, books, publications, unpublished works, etc . . . 
Reality: There are sources that are not in Turnitin--especially if that material is only available in print. But the sources that students typically use are largely included in Turnitin. Misconception 11: Matched text is likely to be completely coincidental or common knowledge. 
Reality: The likelihood that a 16-word match is "just a coincidence" is less than 1 in a trillion. Turnitin also includes the ability to exclude "small matches" if the instructor wants to exclude common phrases. Misconception 10: Students can easily "game" Turnitin to escape detection.
 Reality: Once the student receives an Originality Report, they have to wait 24 hours to get another report on a re-submission, preventing students from wordsmithing and re-submitting repeatedly. Misconception 9: All students hate Turnitin.
 Reality: Many students have stated that they like the fact that Turnitin helps maintain a level playing field. Turnitin protects students' work from unauthorized use, and gives students who want to do their own work a good reason not to share their work with others. Misconception 8: Student copyrights are compromised in some way by Turnitin.
 Reality: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed that Turnitin's archiving of work was not a copyright infringement because it falls within the fair use exception. Please see our "Answers to Common Legal Questions about Turnitin."

 Misconception 7: Every student paper submitted becomes part of the Turnitin database--forever.
 Reality: Turnitin has many options--including the ability to offer students an "opt out" of the database and the option of having an institutional database of student papers. Student papers may be removed only by request of the instructor of the class. Misconception 6: The source named in the Originality Report is the exact source used by the writer.
 Reality: There can be many matches because of extensive duplications of material on the web. The source named may not be the exact source the student used. Misconception 5: Papers in the Turnitin database are easily accessible by others so privacy is not protected. 
Reality: Papers are secure from prying eyes. No one can go into the student database. Misconception 4: An instructor can determine if a paper is OK or not from the Similarity Index % and doesn't need to look at the Originality Report. Reality: The Similarity Index must be interpreted in the context of the assignment and the actual writing. The only way to do this is to look at the Originality Report. Misconception 3: The "Similarity Index" shows the percentage of paper that is plagiarized.
 Reality: The Similarity Index is just a percentage of material in the paper that matches sources in the Turnitin databases. Text that is quoted and cited will be included in the Similarity Index, which offers a great opportunity to check for proper citation. Misconception 2: Turnitin works the same in all situations and is not flexible. 
Reality: Turnitin has many options and settings for adapting Turnitin to your various institutional departmental, and individual needs. Instructors can decide to let their students see their reports, do re-submissions, get revised reports -- or not. Misconception 1: Turnitin detects plagiarism.
 Reality: Turnitin matches to text in our databases and leaves the judgment up to the instructor. As mentioned above, instructors MUST look at the Originality Reports to determine if there is a problem. Sign up for our Newsletter We're Hiring! Products * Turnitin Feedback Studio * Turnitin Revision Assistant * iThenticate * WriteCheck by User * K-12 * Higher Ed Training * Instructor Training * Administrator Training * Student Training * Revision Assistant Training * Live Expert Training Support * Help * Integrations * Manuals and Guides * System Requirements * System Status Community * Turnitin Educator Network * Education Spotlight Series * Teaching Tools * Blog Resources * Papers, Infographics, and Webcasts * Success Stories: K-12 * Success Stories: Higher Ed Stay Connected * Twitter * Facebook * LinkedIn * Tii Newsletter Company * About Us * Media Center * Careers * Privacy Pledge & Usage Policy * Accessibility Turnitin 2101 Webster St., Suite 1800 Oakland, California 94612 Copyright © 2018 Turnitin, LLC. All rights reserved. JavaScript is currently disabled.Please enable it for a better experience of Jumi. IFRAME: https://www.googletagmanager.com/ns.html?id=GTM-MKRDZM Skip to content [English_________________] ____________________ Create Account | Log In * K-12 * Higher Ed * Resources * Community * Support Contact Sales [English_________________] * K-12 * Higher Ed * Resources * Community * Support * Create Account * Log In Subscribe to Turnitin Blog Posts Email Address ____________________ Subscribe ____________________ Blog Is Recycling Your Own Work Plagiarism? Written on July 20 2016. [self-plagiarism-blog-image.png] This post is excerpted from an article originally published on iThenticate.com in 2011. iThenticate is Turnitin's sister service for publishers and academic researchers. Writers often claim that because they are the authors, they can reuse their work, either in full or in excerpts, over and over again. How can republishing one’s own work be defined as plagiarism if the author has only used his or her own words and ideas? This article explores the definition of self-plagiarism, how it crosses into copyright laws and ethical issues, and the different ways an author can avoid this increasingly controversial act of scholarly misconduct. __________________________________________________________________ What is Self-plagiarism? Let's look at one scenario: Leslie is an assistant professor going through tenure review with significant pressure to publish. An article she is writing for a journal piggybacks on a recent conference presentation that was also published by the conference sponsor. Leslie would like to integrate the writing from the conference presentation into the article. She faces an ethical dilemma: to repurpose her own writing from one text and use it for another, thereby increasing her number of publications for tenure, but from the same work. Doing so, Leslie might commit what Scanlon (2007) calls “academic fraud,” a form of selfplagiarism (pg. 57). Self-plagiarism is defined as a type of plagiarism in which the writer republishes a work in its entirety or reuses portions of a previously written text while authoring a new work. Writers often maintain that because they are the authors, they can use the work again as they wish; they can’t really plagiarize themselves because they are not taking any words or ideas from someone else. But while the discussion continues on whether self-plagiarism is possible, the ethical issue of self-plagiarism is significant, especially because self-plagiarism can infringe upon a publisher’s copyright. Traditional definitions of plagiarism do not account for self-plagiarism, so writers may be unaware of the ethics and laws involved in reusing or repurposing texts. The American Psychological Association (2010) explains how plagiarism differs from self-plagiarism: “Whereas plagiarism refers to the practice of claiming credit for the words, ideas, and concepts of others, self-plagiarism refers to the practice of presenting one’s own previously published work as though it were new” (pg. 170). As Roig (2006) suggests, self-plagiarism occurs “when authors reuse their own previously written work or data in a ‘new’ written product without letting the reader know that this material has appeared elsewhere” (pg. 16). Roig identifies a few types of self-plagiarism: * Republishing the same paper that is published elsewhere without notifying the reader nor publisher of the journal * Publishing a significant study as smaller studies to increase the number of publications rather than publishing one large study * Reusing portions of a previously written (published or unpublished text) __________________________________________________________________ Definitions of Plagiarism The question of whether self-plagiarism exists or not—is it possible to plagiarize oneself?—is rooted in the definition of plagiarism. Plagiarism is typically defined as stealing the work of another and presenting it as if it were one’s own. The Oxford English Dictionary (2011) defines plagiarism as taking the work of another as “literary theft.” The verb to “plagiarize” is defined as: * “To take and use as one's own (the thoughts, writings, or inventions of another person);” * “To copy (literary work or ideas) improperly or without acknowledgement; (occas.) to pass off as one's own the thoughts or work of (another)” According to the OED definition, in the strict sense recycling papers would not be plagiarism. However, Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2011) defines to “plagiarize” similarly with the addition description in the second definition below: * To steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: use (another's production) without crediting the source * To commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source So, in the Webster definition, recycling one’s own papers would fall under “to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source” and is, therefore, considered plagiarism. But what is more important than the definition of plagiarism, and whether it is possible to “self-plagiarize,” is the ethics behind self-plagiarism. __________________________________________________________________ Ethical Issues of Self-plagiarism Publications manuals have a set standard regarding self-plagiarism. When an author publishes in a journal, the author often signs over rights to the publisher; thus, copyright infringement is possible if an author reuses portions of a previously published work. Copyright law “protects original works of authorship” (www.copyright.gov). The Chicago Manual of Style (2010) provides the author’s responsibilities in guaranteeing authorship: “In signing a contract with a publisher an author guarantees that the work is original, that the author owns it, that no part of it has been previously published, and that no other agreement to publish it or part of it is outstanding” (pg. 142). Authors can quote from portions of other works with proper citations, but large portions of text, even quoted and cited can infringe on copyright and would not fall under copyright exceptions or “fair use” guidelines. The amount of text one can borrow under “fair use” is not specified, but the Chicago Manual of Style (2010) gives as a “rule of thumb, one should never quote more than a few contiguous paragraphs or stanzas at a time or let the quotations, even scattered, begin to overshadow the quoter’s own material” (pg. 146). In addition to following fair use guidelines, authors need to recognize that copyright is not merely for published text. According to the U.S. Copyright Office (2010), a “work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.” Biomedical journals in particular have had significant problems with copyright due to self-plagiarism and many have taken a stance against the practice in publication. Some have gone so far as to request the author’s previous manuscripts to ensure that the work is original (Roig 2006). It seems that even the American Psychological Association (APA) has taken a recent position against the practice by addressing self-plagiarism in the 2010 sixth edition of the publication manual, a discussion, which is absent from previous editions. The American Psychological Association (2010) suggests the following regarding reusing one’s own text: “When duplication of one’s own words is more extensive, citation of the duplicated words should be the norm” and “must conform to legal notions of fair use” (pg. 16). The APA also gives some guidelines for writing practice: “The general view is that the core of the new document must constitute an original contribution of knowledge, and only the amount of previously published material necessary to understand that contribution should be included, primarily in the discussion of theory and methodology. When feasible, all of the author’s own words that are cited should be located in a single paragraph or a few paragraphs, with a citation at the end of each” (pg. 16). __________________________________________________________________ Avoiding Self-plagiarism Roig (2006) offers writers a comprehensive list of guidelines for avoiding plagiarism, four of which deal specifically with self-plagiarism, as follows: * Guideline 10: Authors who submit a manuscript for publication containing data, reviews, conclusions, etc., that have already been disseminated in some significant manner (e.g., published as an article in another journal, presented at a conference, posted on the internet) must clearly indicate to the editors and readers the nature of the previous dissemination. * Guideline 11: Authors of complex studies should heed the advice previously put forth by Angell & Relman (1989). If the results of a single complex study are best presented as a ‘cohesive’ single whole, they should not be partitioned into individual papers. Furthermore, if there is any doubt as to whether a paper submitted for publication represents fragmented data, authors should enclose other papers (published or unpublished) that might be part of the paper under consideration (Kassirer & Angell, 1995). Similarly, old data that has been merely augmented with additional data points and that is subsequently presented as a new study is an equally serious ethical breach. * Guideline 12: Because some instances of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and even some writing practices that might otherwise be acceptable (e.g., extensive paraphrasing or quoting of key elements of a book) can constitute copyright infringement, authors are strongly encouraged to become familiar with basic elements of copyright law. * Guideline 13: While there are some situations where text recycling is an acceptable practice, it may not be so in other situations. Authors are urged to adhere to the spirit of ethical writing and avoid reusing their own previously published text, unless it is done in a manner consistent with standard scholarly conventions (e.g., by using of quotations and proper paraphrasing) (pg. 19-25). Technology like iThenticate by Turnitin is another way to avoid self-plagiarism. By comparing written work against the largest database of scholarly, full-text content, authors and researchers can screen their work prior to publication submission and organizations can protect intellectual property by verifying original content. __________________________________________________________________ Conclusion The issue of self-plagiarism is becoming more and more prevalent, and some fields, particularly in STM organizations, such as biomedicine, have seen a rising trend in self-plagiarism. The APA publication manual has no discussion of self-plagiarism in its fifth edition, but addresses it twice in the sixth edition, perhaps to prevent such practices. Organizations and individual authors and researchers can take preventative measures in their writing practices and editing processes, including the use of technology that helps detect potential self-plagiarism before submitting their work for publication. References * American Psychological Association (2010). The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Sixth Edition. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. * The University of Chicago Press. (2010). The Chicago Manual of Style Chicago. 16th Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. * “Plagiarize.” (2011). Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com. * “Plagiarism, n.” (2011). OED Online (3rd. ed.). Retrieved from http://www.oed.com. * “Plagiarize, v.” (2011). OED Online (3rd. ed. ). Retrieved from http://www.oed.com. * Roig, Miguel. (2006). Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. Retrieved from http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism.doc * Scanlon, Patrick M. (2007). Song from myself: An anatomy of self-plagairism. Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification, 57-66. * Frequently Asked Questions About Copyright. (2010). Copyright. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Copyright Office. Retrived from http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/. Sign up for our Newsletter We're Hiring! Products * Turnitin Feedback Studio * Turnitin Revision Assistant * iThenticate * WriteCheck by User * K-12 * Higher Ed Training * Instructor Training * Administrator Training * Student Training * Revision Assistant Training * Live Expert Training Support * Help * Integrations * Manuals and Guides * System Requirements * System Status Community * Turnitin Educator Network * Education Spotlight Series * Teaching Tools * Blog Resources * Papers, Infographics, and Webcasts * Success Stories: K-12 * Success Stories: Higher Ed Stay Connected * Twitter * Facebook * LinkedIn * Tii Newsletter Company * About Us * Media Center * Careers * Privacy Pledge & Usage Policy * Accessibility Turnitin 2101 Webster St., Suite 1800 Oakland, California 94612 Copyright © 2018 Turnitin, LLC. All rights reserved. JavaScript is currently disabled.Please enable it for a better experience of Jumi.