Plagerism

[felixofgolden]

Well, not 3 days later, the images are back, but lo and behold, they made them black and white and inverted them in photoshop. Wow, such creativity.
And of course, *still* no credit to where the images came from. Under resources they have everything *but* where the images actually originated. Except to slap their logo on someone else's work and take credit yet again.
Incompetence or just stupidity?
What's with these guys anyway?

 

[Captain Robert April]

Some of them are still blue on white.

At least the original credit is on some of the pics.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I guess they figured no one would be watching them intensely after they took them down so they put them back up.

 

[Squiggy]

What a loser.

"Well, I made the original image black and white and then reversed the colors. Therefore, the image is my own creation."

I'd love to see that in court.

 

[Griffworks]

felixofgolden said:
Incompetence or just stupidity?
What's with these guys anyway?

I'd argue that both of your comments above are correct, which means they're incompetent idiots.

Shame they've got just enough mental processing power to work a computer.

 

[ancient]

Wow, that's even more pathetic than I was expecting!

But this level of non-skill is to be expected I suppose.

 

[Changeling]

So After reading all this...
Is David's complaint that this guy took a Section of "Sheet 4" and made it a separate graphic, or that he didn't list David (or Quantum Reality, Inc.) as the original Author of the graphic?

Question:
Does anyone here know (by Law) what % of change to the original material is required to no longer be considered Plagiarism? 10%? 20%? More?

Also... There WAS a resource link on his page to "Cygnus-X1". After poking around, I found the entire set of full sized Nova plans there (NOT the thumbnails). Using this link to the "hidden" files, replace the "sheet-4" with the sheet number you want to view.
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/sd-uss-nova-nx-72228-sheet-4.jpg

I'm guessing that this guy did not "Buy and Scan" David's blueprints, but saved $20 and simply downloaded the set from Cygnus-X1!

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Changeling said:
So After reading all this...
Is David's complaint that this guy took a Section of "Sheet 4" and made it a separate graphic, or that he didn't list David (or Quantum Reality, Inc.) as the original Author of the graphic?

Question:
Does anyone here know (by Law) what % of change to the original material is required to no longer be considered Plagiarism? 10%? 20%? More?

Also... There WAS a resource link on his page to "Cygnus-X1". After poking around, I found the entire set of full sized Nova plans there (NOT the thumbnails). Using this link to the "hidden" files, replace the "sheet-4" with the sheet number you want to view.
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints/sd-uss-nova-nx-72228-sheet-4.jpg

I'm guessing that this guy did not "Buy and Scan" David's blueprints, but saved $20 and simply downloaded the set from Cygnus-X1!

Plagiarism is simply the uncredited use of another person's work, claiming credit for the work yourself.

That applies whether the amount used is one paragraph out of a book or if it's the entire book. The same logic can be extended to these prints as well.

There are entirely UNRELATED issues by taking someone's work and using it for profit, or in a way that deprives the owner of the work of said profit, or even which distributed a non-profit work in a way that the owner of the work doesn't approve. That's called COPYRIGHT LAW.

In this case, we're looking at both plagiarism AND copyright infringement. (Notice that I've left TRADEMARK out of the discussion entirely, since David cannot own the trademarks for this stuff and, depending on his relationship with PPC, might or might not be in compliance with trademark law in this regard... but that's a separate issue.)

 

[Changeling]

Cary L. Brown said:

That applies whether the amount used is one paragraph out of a book or if it's the entire book. The same logic can be extended to these prints as well.

In this case, we're looking at both plagiarism AND copyright infringement.

Ah ok... Since he (apparently) D/Led his set of plans from Cygnus, and he Cited Cygnus on his page and (in turn) Cygnus credits Creative Design, that should (loosely) cover the Plagiarism part.

My original question should have been regarding Copyright Infringement... what % of change to the original material is required by law to no longer be considered Copyright Infringement? 10%? 20%? More?

As the Original Creator/Designer of the Nova Class is Rick Sternbach and his Okudagram MSD and it's Copyrighted by Paramount, how is Creative Design avoiding Copyright Infringement, since they're making money of these plans?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Changeling said:

Cary L. Brown said:

That applies whether the amount used is one paragraph out of a book or if it's the entire book. The same logic can be extended to these prints as well.

In this case, we're looking at both plagiarism AND copyright infringement.

Ah ok... Since he (apparently) D/Led his set of plans from Cygnus, and he Cited Cygnus on his page and (in turn) Cygnus credits Creative Design, that should (loosely) cover the Plagiarism part.

My original question should have been regarding Copyright Infringement... what % of change to the original material is required by law to no longer be considered Copyright Infringement? 10%? 20%? More?

As the Original Creator/Designer of the Nova Class is Rick Sternbach and his Okudagram MSD and it's Copyrighted by Paramount, how is Creative Design avoiding Copyright Infringement, since they're making money of these plans?

It's not COPYRIGHT infringement in any way, since the drawings (while based, obviously, upon someone else's work) were made, from whole cloth, by David.

The issue you're really addressing is TRADEMARK infringement. It is possible, if he has not arranged a license of some form with PPC, that he could be in violation of that. But since the work is his original work, HE is the sole holder of COPYRIGHT on the work in question.

And again, in answer to your prior question (which I answered once already... ANY PERCENT of reuse of someone else's work, claiming it as your own, is COPYRIGHT infringement. There is no "cut-off" except that ABSOLUTELY NO REUSED MAY BE MADE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE ORIGINAL CREATOR. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.

You can't plagiarize one chapter out of a book, or even one particularly noteworthy SENTENCE, without being in violation.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of time..." isn't the entire text of "A Tale of Two Cities," but it's still enough that (if this were a new book rather than something well past the limitations of the law) it would have rendered ST-TWOK in violation.

Get it now?

 

[ancient]

How Exactly would you measure the "percentage" of a diagram anyway? I hear this a lot, about percentages. Is changing the title and changing some of the colors 5% or 10% change? That's a useless concept to begin with.

 

[Changeling]

ancient said:
How Exactly would you measure the "percentage" of a diagram anyway? I hear this a lot, about percentages. Is changing the title and changing some of the colors 5% or 10% change? That's a useless concept to begin with.

Just as a SWAG, I'd say possibly trying to count the total individual components (let's make it easy and say 80 components) and make that number = 100%. IF this were so, changing 8 out of the 80 components would constitute a 10% change. Thus the question.

Changing the title and color component could be 2 parts of it. Changing the viewing angle from Horizontal to Vertical might be another. "Mirroring" it might be another. I dunno... That's why I asked if anyone DID know. I guess nobody here does either.

Obviously anyone wanting to do deck plans for a Constitution Class ship would NEED to use the outlines of the Dorsal, Ventral, Profile views and each deck, or it would no longer be a Constitution Class... Right? I've found at least 8 Constitution Class plans on the net and they all seem to have copyrights. Does it make sense that there HAS to be SOME benchmark of necessary change to have kept these guys from going to court with each other?

It's not useless... It's necessary. It's what keeps Auto Manufacturers, Furniture Makers and especially Dress Designers from sitting in court and is what allows knock-offs to legally exist. It's also what allows GM to make 5 (almost) identical cars and label one a Chevy, one a Pontiac, one a Buick, one an Olds and yet another one a Cadillac. They're all basically the same cars, but they're all X% different. Same goes for the Ford/Lincoln/Mercury Company. (I know... You're talking starships and I'm now talking cars... But Blueprints are blueprints, Designs are designs.

 

[Sec31Mike]

Just a note on the Cygnus site and the plans, they Intrepid plans are available using the same trick as the Nova class.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Changeling said:Changing the title and color component could be 2 parts of it. Changing the viewing angle from Horizontal to Vertical might be another. "Mirroring" it might be another. I dunno... That's why I asked if anyone DID know. I guess nobody here does either.

Either you're blocking me for some reason or you just don't read very well.

I DO know. I've been in actual court cases involving exactly this sort of thing.

ANY REUSE of another person's work... ANY... DO YOU GET THAT?... without appropriate credit and permission is plagiarism.

THERE IS NO THRESHOLD.

THERE IS NO PERCENTAGE OF STEALING WHICH IS CONSIDERED "OK."

PERIOD.

SHEESH!

 

[TrekFanOh]

Reading all of this in one sitting. Interesting thread. So the gist of this is that this first fellow is upset that a second fellow used his graphic and claimed it was his own. So the entire argument would be moot if the second fellow had simply said "derived from original artwork by 'first fellow'?. I look at Trek sites all the time, startrek.com included. Some share aspects of each other, some copy, derive, or redo ideas and concepts from each other. Its how these sites proliferate. Did this first fellow contact the second fellow and simply ask for credit, or did he come off like he did on this thread, all indignant and accusing? I do graphics, logos, and animated icons, and I have to tell you that I'm kinda thrilled when I see them used on other sites. Someone thought my work was cool enough to use. Of course, I don't sell my work, and to use the first fellow's words, I don't have the "cojones" to sell something derived from Paramount. I kinda find it ironic that the first fellow is all up in arms over his graphics being used on a simple fan site, when he sells the material first derived from Star Trek. The second fellow isn't selling this material is he? I browsed that site and found it pretty cool. They seem like a bunch of folks who enjoy Trek and keep folks like the first fellow in business. Would it be naive to wonder if the first fellow's reaction to the second would have any impact his sales of the aforementioned material? Would anyone associated with this site use or recommend it based on the interaction? I think that is why Paramount (CBS now?), doesn't deal heavy handedly with sites which display (and SELL?) THEIR copywrited, trademarked, or generally protected material. They know that we as fans keep the interest in Trek and keep the money engine rolling. Now, if fans who produce Trek material start quibbling over material derived from Trek, in what light does that cast them? My opinion on this whole thread is that folks should try to resolve differences between themselves instead of blasting others on these sites. It makes us all look bad. I wonder if first fellow and second fellow could reach a compromise where words like plagiarism aren't used, credit given where credit is deserved, and we don't debate about what percentage of the original work comprises a new work?

 

[aridas sofia]

You might have a point if "the second fellow" had even attributed his stolen illustrations to "the first fellow". But as it is "the first fellow" doesn't even get the credit for coming up with the interiors, or doing the illustrations. He just gets the satisfaction of having had his work credited to someone else. As if the footprints back to the original author had been carefully hidden to... what? Perhaps hide the fact the work was stolen?

 

[ancient]

Not stolen, "liberated".

 

[Forbin]

"Permanantly borrowed."

 

[Changeling]

Cary L. Brown said:
Either you're blocking me for some reason or you just don't read very well.

I DO know. I've been in actual court cases involving exactly this sort of thing.

ANY REUSE of another person's work... ANY... DO YOU GET THAT?... without appropriate credit and permission is plagiarism.

THERE IS NO THRESHOLD.
THERE IS NO PERCENTAGE OF STEALING WHICH IS CONSIDERED "OK."
PERIOD.

I did read your reply regarding Plagiarism being an all or nothing situation and I did indeed acknowledge it. You might have MISSED the part where we eased from "Plagiarism" into "Copyright Infringement". That's what my last post was talking about... Not Plagiarism.

Sorry Commodore, I'm new to this site. We probably should have made a new thread as to not confuse you.

 

[Squiggy]

1. Don't call people by their ranks in here...makes you look like a n00b. Even if you are one, you don't want to look like one.

2. For these purposes, copywrite infringment is the unauthorized use of material which is covered by copyright law, in a manner that violates one of the original copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it.

See what I did there? I took wikpedia's definition without letting anyone where I got it from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

There.