Critical Conversations About Plagiarism. Michael Donnelly

misconceptions about copying in composing processes presented here are only two among many. Broadly speaking, the approaches to plagiarism and copyright infringement in writing classrooms and on college campuses often appear to have a common goal of exposing intellectual thieves, with the ultimate intention of denouncing and punishing them. Students who commit ethical infractions by cheating certainly deserve punishment within the academic setting, and students who knowingly commit copyright infringement are certainly liable under the law. Unfortunately, contemporary approaches to the two offenses do not offer effective strategies for addressing the range of activities that student writers engage in that might be allowable copying. Too often, a student writer engaging in any of a wide range of activities may be unfairly accused of either plagiarism (at the academic level) or copyright infringement (at the legal level) while performing the processes inherent to composing in a digital age.

Conclusion: Toward an Understanding of Allowable Copying

      In light of public discourse surrounding recent offenses of plagiarism and copyright infringement, the writing activities that many students encounter might be unfairly characterized as illegal and/or in violation of plagiarism policies. If we, as students and instructors of writing, seek to better understand the dangers of the label “stealing” as applied equally to all copying, we need to more openly acknowledge the range of acceptable copying and reuse of intellectual property that is inherent in many composing practices. With the aim of distinguishing between acceptable copying and theft, it’s useful to make explicit those types of composing that occur within the gray areas that exist between original composition, copyright infringement, plagiarism, copying, and reusing text. To do so, let’s return to the three scenarios presented at the opening of this chapter. Based on the content of this chapter, each might be considered as copyright infringement, plagiarism, both, or neither.

      In Scenario #1, where the student relies on a model for a formal report, this student is behaving in a manner consistent with common workplace practices (for more on the discrepancies that exist between professional writing practices and plagiarism, see Logie; Reyman). Recall that this student uses the formatting and structure of the report, but plugs in her own content. In determining whether this copying is acceptable or not, we will need to consider the circumstances of the particular situation. It is essential to know whether the student has provided attribution for use of this template. If not, this copying may very well constitute plagiarism, particularly if a requirement for the assignment were to create a professional layout and design for a report. Without attributing the source of the model, the student could be accused of misrepresenting the design and layout as her own. On the other hand, if the assignment did not ask the student to demonstrate design skills, then the student may meet instructor expectations by following a stock format for a particular type of report (such as the IMRAD format for scientific reports). This type of copying would most likely not be considered copyright infringement. Because a model for a report likely constitutes an idea, rather than an original expression of an idea, it would not likely constitute a legal offense.

      Scenario #2 involves the copying of lengthy passages of text into a research report, with correct attributions of all passages. Attribution counters accusations of plagiarism, even though the essay may not offer as much of the student’s voice or thoughts as the instructor would like, but the act of attributing to its source a copied passage does not necessarily allay all claims of copyright infringement if this essay were published or distributed outside of the classroom. In this case, the student would need to consider the four factors of Fair Use to determine whether this copying is lawful. While it is for a nonprofit, educational purpose, the student would also need to consider the other three factors—the amount of use, the nature of the work, and the potential effect on the market for the original work—to determine whether or not this is an example of allowable copying. The length of the passages the student has copied could weigh against Fair Use when considering the four factors.

      Finally, in Scenario #3 we see the copying of HTML code for a website. Again, considering the context for the use is essential. Since the instructor may expect students to demonstrate that they understand the principles of good Web design by creating their own architecture, navigational structure, and page design elements for a website, then this copying would likely be considered plagiarism. Attribution of the source of the code may serve to counter such accusations. At the same time, plagiarism would not be an issue if the instructor explicitly recommended that students use an existing website template to present original content. Further, because some HTML code is protected by copyright and presumably, the websites are available to the public, the student would need to consider carefully whether the copying might also be an infringement of copyright. She would need to consider whether her copying of the code might be considered Fair Use according to an analysis of the four factors.