Register  |   |   |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
IYER1945

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #1 
True, it is  necessary to portect the rights of the original contributor.
1. I contribute articles for a BPO on various subjects after searching connected websites. Normal procedure is: I digest the information and then write it on my own words. When writing technical subjects we need to use the technical terms as such. But the copyscape detects it as copying.
The similarity report goes to the extreme of reporting even words like "a", "an" "the" "flag" "rectangular" etc., which are common words, as copied from the site, just because the site also contains these words. If anyone disbelieves me I can send a copy of this report.
BPO wants me to change them obviously because their contractors may reject the article.
How is it to be solved?

2. Normally, when we write a technical article, we can use the reports or parts of reports as such, provided we give due credit to the original contributor by acknowledging the source, author etc. People who have published scientific papers can easily understand what I mean. For example, I can say John (1998) reproted this etc. If we do the same with respect to websites, is it considered copying?
In fact, by quoting the original author's work, we are giving more publicity to his good work in the field. In scientific work it can be freely done and nobody says it is infringement on their rights. What is the position regarding this when do the same from websites?
Can be there be an authoritiative answer to the above issues?
With best regards to all.

stapel

Registered:
Posts: 140
Reply with quote  #2 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IYER1945
I digest the information and then write it on my own words....But the copyscape detects it as copying.

If "your own words" are so similar that they can be found using Copyscape, then it is extremely unlikely that you have actually written your own article. I'm sorry, but changing every fifth word or adding extra modifiers in an attempt to break up blocks of copied text does not result in "original" content. The "new" work is still derivative, and thus remains a violation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IYER1945
Normally, when we write a technical article, we can use the reports or parts of reports as such, provided we give due credit to the original contributor by acknowledging the source, author etc. People who have published scientific papers can easily understand what I mean. For example, I can say John (1998) reproted this etc.

Well, which one are you actually doing? Using the copyrighting content itself "as such", or merely making reference to works with justify your own (original) content?

Science articles include footnotes and bibliographies, and they do this without copying any of the actual content (other than, perhaps, for very short quotations).

To "use the report...as such" is quite a different matter, and mentioning that you are aware that you are incorporating copyrighted content into your article does not provide any legal protection. If anything, it strengthens the owners claims against you (or your employer).


Quote:
Originally Posted by IYER1945
In fact, by quoting the original author's work, we are giving more publicity to his good work in the field.

Ah, yes; the ever-popular "but stealing is a form of flattery" argument....

Republishing copyrighted content (especially when getting paid for it) is no kind of "compliment" of the original creator. If you'd wanted to "give more publicity" to the author, you would have created your own content (such as a review) and you would have provided a link to the original or to a source of purchase. By instead using the original as your own, you have only diluted and diminished the creator's "good work". This might be why original authors don't generally appreciate your kind of  "compliment".


Quote:
Originally Posted by IYER1945
In scientific work it can be freely done and nobody says it is infringement on their rights.

You might want to keep up with current events. People who plagiarise in the sciences lose their jobs, and are often publically humiliated. And that's before any lawsuits come into play. The scientific community has created and maintained very specific rules regarding quotation, referencing, and plagiarism. When one presents research, it is required to be his own, not a copy of somebody else's, whether footnoted or otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IYER1945
How is it to be solved?

Stop using other peoples' work, and start creating your own original content.

Eliz.

IYER1945

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #3 
1. WHEN I SAID I WRITE IN MY OWN WORDS I MEAN IT. SIMILARITY OF JUST A FEW COMMONLY USED WORDS CANNOT BE BRANDED AS MY COPYING. I NEED NOT TO AS I AM TECHNICALLY EQUIPPED TO WRITE THE ARTICLE ON THE SUBJECT. IT IS NOT DONE BY CHANGING A FEW WORDS HERE AND THERE AND PRETENDING TO BE MY OWN. AT LEAST I DO NOT HAVE TO DO SUCH THINGS AS I HAVE GOOD COMMAND OVER ENGLISH.
2. I THINK YOUR REMARK ABOUT SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES COMES FROM NOT COMPLETELY KNOWING HOW THEY ARE WRITTEN. PLEASE REFER ANY ARTICLE IN ANY STANDARD RESEARCH JOURNAL ON MEDICINE, AGRICULTURE, BIOTECHNOLOGY, WHAT HAVE YOU. I MEAN ORIGINAL RESEARCH JOURNAL NOT WEBSITES.
3. YES, IN SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES THERE ARE BIBLIOGRAPHIES. THIS IS MY EXACT POINT. "IF I ACKNOWLEDGE BY QUOTING THE SOURCE AND THE AUTHOR".
4. I DO NOT MEAN STEALING TO GIVE PUBLICITY. IT IS ONLY BY DULY RECOGNIZING HIS WORK, AS I HAVE MENTIONED ALSO IN THE POINT NO.3 ABOVE. SO THE QUESTION OF STEALING FOR FLATTERY DOES NOT ARISE.
IT CAN BE PROVIDING A LINK AS YOU OBSERVE.
6.WHEN A WORD "RECTANGULAR" USED IN A SENTENCE IS ALONE UNDERLINED AS COPIED, DO YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT THE WORD IS HIS ORIGINAL. THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE USED THE WORD BEFORE HIM AND WILL DO SO AGAIN AS IT IS A COMMON WORD.
7.THERE ARE FAMOUS QUOTATIONS WE STUDIED DURING OUR HIGH SCHOOL CLASSES, WHICH WE REMEMBER STILL. DOES IT BECOME COPYING IF I GIVE THAT FAMOUS QUOTE JEST BECAUSE IT IS GIVEN IN A WEBSITE?
8. ONE ISSUE I FORGOT TO RAISE IN MY EARLIER ONE IS THE CASE OF PROPER NOUNS. HOW CAN "MEDITERRANEAN "BE SOMEBODY'S PRIVATE PROPERTY WHEN IT IS A PROPER NOUN USED VERY COMMONLY MUCH BEFORE THE SO CALLED ORIGINAL WORK.
9.COMING TO THE "ORIGNAL WORK" ITSELF, I CAN SHOW THAT THE SO CALLED ORIGINAL WORK ALSO IS PUTTING TOGETHER SOME INFORMATION FROM HERE AND THERE MAY BE IN HIS OWN WORDS. JUST BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN HIS OWN WORDS, THE FACTS ARE NOT ORIGINAL. THEN WHAT IS THIS FALLACY ABOUT ORGINALITY, COPYING ETC. ORIGINALITY SHOULD COME INNOVATIVE MINDS TO GIVE SOMETHING NEW. I CAN GIVE YOU AMPLE
PROOF OF REALLY ORIGINAL THINGS IN THE WEBSITE.
ANYWAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST AND RESPONSE.
I AM MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE LEGAL ISSUE.
stapel

Registered:
Posts: 140
Reply with quote  #4 
Unless Copyscape is returning hundreds of millions of results for each of your searches, then it is not matching random common words such as "and" or "the" in your articles. It is matching something rather more substantive. This is probably why your employer (?) wants you to rewrite the articles.

I could be wrong, of course. If you really haven't created derivative works and there is really only trivial overlapping between your articles and the various sources, then why don't you make your case with your employer? If the situation is even vaguely close to what you claim, then there should be no difficulty.

Eliz.


IYER1945

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #5 
The percentage of overlap for nine sites in this particular instance were 4% maximum one site, 2% for another and 1% each for the rest seven sites. So, as you inferred, the overlap is trivial.
Secondly, most of these overlaps were related to underlined technical terms and proper nouns as I have said earlier. I do not think it is very serious. But the issue assumes seriousness if the contractors of my employers (BPO agency) reject the article as they are scared of legal action in such cases, however trivial or genuine the case may be. That is the real problem.
Thirdly, when I send the article, as per their own specifications, I have to list the website references and indicate from which site I have used which information. I have to give the serial number of the site in the article at the appropriate places. So on my part, besides writing in my own words, I also acknowledge the source. This is the point you also asserted. When the similarity report comes to me, my numbering disappears. Evidently the contractors use the articles showing them as independent and original work.
I hope this is clear.
I am extremely thankful to you for your interest and response on this. aspect.

stapel

Registered:
Posts: 140
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IYER1945
...the issue assumes seriousness if the contractors of my employers (BPO agency) reject the article as they are scared of legal action in such cases, however trivial or genuine the case may be. That is the real problem

Then your employers need to be conferring with their legal counsel and working with their contractors.

Visitors to this site (such as myself) can help neither them nor you with "the real problem".

Eliz.

relgycandy

Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #7 
You might want to keep up with current events. People who plagiarise in the sciences lose their jobs, and are often publically humiliated. And that's before any lawsuits come into play.




___________________________________________
wow gold|diablo 3 gold|g√ľnstig wow gold


__________________
relgycandy
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: