Often in introductory technical communication text-books, the concept of copying is equated with intellectual“theft,” which is contrasted with the notion of “originality”of words and ideas.
This strict definition of plagiarism leaves no breathing room for work that is derivative of another work, but in a way that expands upon the original's ideas rather than simply taking credit for them.
1.The purpose and character of the use2.The nature of the copyrighted work3.The amount and substantiality of the portionused4.The effect on the potential market for the work
If the purpose and character of the use is comment or criticism than I imagine it is protected under the 1st Amendment. Whereas, if you are reproducing it for resale, that the use is intellectual property theft, plain and simple. These four factor can be very helpful when discriminating what is criticism protected under freedom of expression from what is simply a re-purposing of owned work.
he concept of “work-for-hire” is an excellent startingpoint for illuminating these differences. The “work-forehire” clause in U.S. copyright law identifies the legal authorof a work as the employer, not the writer, for:(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope ofhis or her employment; or(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use asa contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motionpicture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as asupplementary work, as a compilation, as an instruc-tional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or asan atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a writteninstrument signed by them that the work shall be con-sidered a work made for hire. (Title 17, Chapter 1,Section 201, U.S. Copyright Law)
If a contracted writer wanted to include their work in a portfolio, would they have a right to do so, or are they technically plagiarizing the legal (but not actual) author of the work?
A technical writer has been hired on a limited-term contract to create, with the help of another writer,the user and administrator guides for a software tool.Who is the “author” of the guides?
It this scenario is a great example of how technical writers often rescind ownership of the work and credit is instead granted to whoever contracted them.
This Idea is addressed at the beginning of the paper, with reference to "honorary authorship."
Instructors or practitioners of technical communicationwho wish to research plagiarism and technical communi-cation, whether for pedagogical, scholarly, or practical pur-poses, will currently find it quite difficult. They will findrich scholarly literature and engaged academic debate inthe related fields of rhetoric and composition, computersand composition, writing center studies and writing pro-gram administration, but will find a dearth of materials thatspecifically address programmatic or pedagogical concernswithin the scholarship of our own field.
The lack of academic discussion on the topic of plagiarism demonstrates how much influence the concept of original ownership has over the academic world.
While this type of policy change may not be feasibleon a departmental level, especially for technical communi-cation programs that are housed within English depart-ments, policies might be incorporated into the syllabi fortechnical communication classes in particular.
The fact that a new definition of plagiarism cannot be instituted on a departmental level really accentuate how removed academic plagiarism is from professional plagiarism.
Introducing scenarios, both in the classroomand in textbooks, that ask students to wrestle with under-standings of the legal and ethical implications of copyingand re-use allows for exploration of plagiarism as acontext-specific concept.
Scenarios would make an excellent addition to the investigation of plagiarism as they recognize that different situations come with different expectations of what is considered ethical reuse.
As I have discussed above, there are problematic assump-tions inherent in the ways we discuss plagiarism in ourtextbooks, and as a result, likely a problem with how wediscuss plagiarism in our classes.
What is considered plagiarism in an academic setting and what is considered plagiarism in a professional setting differs greatly. Teaching plagiarism in this consistently single-minded way may leave students unprepared for adherence to professional standards.
Another distinction is between “common knowledge,”which includes those ideas that one cannot “own” becausethey are publicly acknowledged and accepted as true, andoriginal ideas. These distinctions—between original ideas,owned knowledge
This relates back to the other reading which, at one point, addresses the purpose of copyright law and a public domain.
While copyrights exist to incentivize to creation of new ideas after a while the ideas are added to the public domain (the enormous collection of older works to which everyone has a right to access and reproduce). "Common Knowledge" is an blanket term for that which is in a sort of informal public domain.
Rockley also argues that “technical communicatorsneed to understand how information can be used in mul-tiple ways as they write to ensure that their content isreusable” (191
Whereas, in an academic context, writing is an exercise meant to demonstrate one's comprehension of a course's content, in a technical writing context writing is an instrument by which information is condensed into a simple and easily shared and reproduced format.
It makes sense that in one scenario making reusable content is frowned upon, and in another it is practically expected.