Re: plagiarism/copyright violation

From: Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 13:37:13 -0700

On 6/18/98, Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> 1) What is the difference between plagiarism and copyright violation?

The first is a moral or ethical wrong, and the second is a legal wrong.

> Suppose I wish to make a lettering font (such as used on computers like
> Macs and PC's) that is closely modelled on a sample of a twelfth-century
> manuscript, to sell for profit. Let us say that the my source for this
> sample is a photograph of a single page of the manuscript printed in a
> recent book, published in the 1980's. Further, let us say that I
> "reproduce" the letter forms from the photograph in the book not by
> scanning or tracing or any mechanical device, but solely by my own hand
> using a mouse and Corel Draw. I should make it clear that the font was
> based on the source.
>
> 1. Am I violating the book's copyright? I say no, because my
> "reproduction" is not of the photograph or a part of it, but rather a
> re-creation of the letterforms that are the subject of the photograph.

I agree that you are not violating the book's copyright but I would like to explain my reasoning a little more carefully. First, you are correct that in reproducing the 12th century font you are not violating any reproduction right that the author of the photograph may have, but it's not because you are not scanning or tracing, but because what you are producing is not substantially similar to the expressive elements of the photograph. A violation of the reproduction right does not require perfect copying, it only requires something that the law calls substantial similarity. Second, what you are actually copying is in the public domain because the manuscript and the font of the manuscript were created 800 years ago. Thus far, we have not extended copyright quite that far (give Congress a little more time). Thus, what you are copying is not copyrightable.

> 2. Is there any plagiarism? I say no, because I am simply providing a
> service to anyone who wishes to have an "electronic version" of this
> lovely handwriting that otherwise would not exist. I am not passing it
> off as my own creation.

Plagiarism requires both theft and lack of attribution. So I agree again. That means I've agreed already twice in one day, thus exceeding my quota. Good thing you didn't ask a third question.

---

Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]ucla.edu>
UCLA School of Law '98
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1206/

---

Received on Fri Jun 19 1998 - 23:37:22 GMT