Plagiarism or not?

[disney junky]

I got a pamphlet in church on Sunday. In the preface, it says, adapted from with permission...and the name of another church. Also, credit was given to the member of our church committee for his work adapting it to us.

As a former English teacher/community college instructor, I was curious, so I Googled the other church and found the original document. The only changes were the name of their church was replaced by the name of our church, and a couple minor editorial changes here and there. No real context changes.

From an academic perspective, this really bothers me because someone took a lot of time to create the original pamphlet. If a student had submitted something like this, I would have called it out. But this isn't an academic setting.

It was not sold. There was no money exchanged for this by either church. It's intellectual property at most.

That's my vent. I'm curious what others think.

 

[Soldier's*Sweeties]

I don't think so since it says the other church gave their permission.

Your church didn't try to pass it off as their own words, know what I mean?

 

[pryncess527]

Assuming they really did have permission, and since they cited their source, I don't think this falls under an IP violation. I'll admit it's far from my area of expertise though! I'm good friends with an IP law prof, if she drops by the office today I'll be curious to see what she thinks.

 

[rastahomie]

The key word here, in my opinion, is "permission." If the original writer gave permission to someone else to "adapt" it, then no harm no foul.

I say this as one who has been plagiarized, by the way.

 

[DopeyDame]

As long as they got permission from the other church, it's not plagiarism, it's using something from the other church. They didn't try to pass it off as their own work and they didn't use it without letting the other church know. My guess is the other church is thrilled their effort is getting wider dissemination.

 

[Adkeesee]

As long as they got permission from the other church, it's not plagiarism, it's using something from the other church. They didn't try to pass it off as their own work and they didn't use it without letting the other church know. My guess is the other church is thrilled their effort is getting wider dissemination.

Also my thought. Not sure of the context of the pamphlet, but isnt the goal to
spread the word ?

 

[sunshinehighway]

They gave credit to the original so I wouldn't consider it plagiarism.

 

[Wishing on a star]

No, it is not plagiarism, at all.

It is churches sharing material.

I guess I don't even begin to understand the concern and research and possible judgement????

 

[Poohforyou]

I was a church warden for 4 years. I also have a full time job and a family. When I prepared anything for the church I googled and used tons of stuff I found online. A good part of those years we were without a permanent rector so I did what I had to.

I don't believe in reinventing the wheel, particularly for volunteer work. Had it have been a paying job that would have impacted my career I might have thought differently.

I got no benefit out of what I was doing so I don't look at it as plagiarizing. Obviously others might think differently.

 

[SMD]

I got a pamphlet in church on Sunday. In the preface, it says, adapted from with permission...and the name of another church. Also, credit was given to the member of our church committee for his work adapting it to us.

As a former English teacher/community college instructor, I was curious, so I Googled the other church and found the original document. The only changes were the name of their church was replaced by the name of our church, and a couple minor editorial changes here and there. No real context changes.

From an academic perspective, this really bothers me because someone took a lot of time to create the original pamphlet. If a student had submitted something like this, I would have called it out. But this isn't an academic setting.

It was not sold. There was no money exchanged for this by either church. It's intellectual property at most.

That's my vent. I'm curious what others think.

It sounds like it wasn't adapted and, assuming they really did have permission, they should have just credited the other church and not the committee member. In academia, publishing or journalism, I'd say representing something as based on, citing or adapted when you made at best minor changes does not pass the smell test. But with an informational pamphlet, the line might be slightly more blurry.

 

[Wishing on a star]

In this case, I don't think 'semantics' and the use of the word 'adapted' are even valid or applicable.
Again, this is not a person or company or student using somebody else's work for their own gain....
It is Churches sharing information.
Don't see a concern of problem, at all.

Maybe it is just one of my things, but I hate it when people try to use semantics to justify an issue.

 

[disney junky]

No, it is not plagiarism, at all.

It is churches sharing material.

I guess I don't even begin to understand the concern and research and possible judgement????

As I indicated, I was a former English instructor at both the high school and college level. It's second nature to me. Not judging.

 

[amberpi]

Sounds like they had permission and cited the original. Seems ok to me!

 

[Luv Bunnies]

I agree that since the church had permission and cited the original author, it's not plagiarism.

It would be a totally different issue if a student handed in something similar. Students are supposed to cite their sources, but they need to create original material. Of course you would call out a student for doing something like this. Students can't learn anything or demonstrate their skills by simply copying and citing an existing work.

If I wrote something for a church publication and another church wanted to share it, I would say sure, just cite me as the author. The key is to get the information and the message out to as many people as possible. Student papers have an entirely different purpose, so it's hard to compare the two.

 

[Magpie]

As I indicated, I was a former English instructor at both the high school and college level. It's second nature to me. Not judging.

My mother is a university professor, and when I was young she'd pay me to check her students' papers for plagiarism. In the old days, this involved a fair bit of detective work at the library. It was my job to seek out and identify plagiarism, wherever it was hiding - a job I likely tackled with entirely too much glee.

I currently work as an academic tutor.

Here's my take on this... your church's handout is NOT, by any definition of the word, plagiarized. It is properly cited and credited and they used it with permission.

Was it original work? No, absolutely not. But, original work is not required here.

If I asked a student to write me a research paper, and they gave me a curated collection of quotes (with attribution, of course), I would kindly point out to them that this does not meet the requirements of the assignment. I would explain why and show them an example of what I expect. And then I would ideally direct them toward some sort of appropriate writing class, because it's clear they haven't the faintest clue what they're about. Full props to them, though, for citing their sources!

I would not castigate them, or accuse them of plagiarism, since that's clearly not what they're doing.

pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun

1. the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.
   synonyms: copying, infringement of copyright, piracy, theft, stealing;
   informalcribbing
   "accusations of plagiarism"

I think the confusion here comes with the synonym "copying". Copying with permission is not plagiarism. Copying without permission and passing it off as your own work is plagiarism. The critical difference here lies in "with permission".

 

[rastahomie]

On the subject of plagiarism, I learned recently that in academia, you can be castigated for plagiarizing yourself.

Say a university freshman writes a paper for History 101, discussing the Soviet Union's austere architecture as a visual extension of communism. A year later, the now-sophomore writes a paper for Architecture 202, discussing the Soviet Union's austere architecture as a visual extension of communism. She copies herself word-for-word, for several paragraphs. If she doesn't cite herself, it's considered plagiarism.

 

[SMD]

On the subject of plagiarism, I learned recently that in academia, you can be castigated for plagiarizing yourself.

Say a university freshman writes a paper for History 101, discussing the Soviet Union's austere architecture as a visual extension of communism. A year later, the freshman writes a paper for architecture 202, discussing the Soviet Union's austere architecture as a visual extension of communism She copies herself word-for-word, for several paragraphs. If she doesn't cite herself, it's considered plagiarism.

I had the same professor for both my science labs in the same semester and got the same assignment in both classes. It was a worksheet, so I submitted it twice. It seemed like there was a definite answer to each question, so I didn't even think about making them different. I got charged with plagiarizing myself, and they applied the credit to the class where I needed it less, which was the part that really sucked.

 

[Magpie]

On the subject of plagiarism, I learned recently that in academia, you can be castigated for plagiarizing yourself.

Say a university freshman writes a paper for History 101, discussing the Soviet Union's austere architecture as a visual extension of communism. A year later, the freshman writes a paper for architecture 202, discussing the Soviet Union's austere architecture as a visual extension of communism She copies herself word-for-word, for several paragraphs. If she doesn't cite herself, it's considered plagiarism.

I think this is a result of the way teachers check for plagiarism these days. Some universities submit all student papers to a central database, which then automatically flags any matches. So if the student's paper matches another of her's, she might be able to plead the case that it's not technically plagiarism and she's unlikely to face the kind of penalties she'd normally face for "real" plagiarism, but it won't look good regardless. Everyone knows you're suppose to write a whole new paper each time, and not just lazily cut and paste in your previous work.

Full disclosure, I was exactly that lazy, in my day! Another naughty thing I used to do was cite books I hadn't actually bothered to read, just to pad out my bibliography. Whenever I'd find a source cited in one book, instead of citing the book I found it in, I'd cite the original source instead. One good book can easily give you all the bibliographical references you can possibly want, and there's no need to read anything else - whee! Important caveat, though - always make sure the other books are in print and available. Or your teachers may get suspicious.

"Where did you find this book!?"

"Uh... inter-library loan?"

 

[rastahomie]

I think this is a result of the way teachers check for plagiarism these days. Some universities submit all student papers to a central database, which then automatically flags any matches. So if the student's paper matches another of her's, she might be able to plead the case that it's not technically plagiarism and she's unlikely to face the kind of penalties she'd normally face for "real" plagiarism, but it won't look good regardless. Everyone knows you're suppose to write a whole new paper each time, and not just lazily cut and paste in your previous work.

Full disclosure, I was exactly that lazy, in my day! Another naughty thing I used to do was cite books I hadn't actually bothered to read, just to pad out my bibliography. Whenever I'd find a source cited in one book, instead of citing the book I found it in, I'd cite the original source instead. One good book can easily give you all the bibliographical references you can possibly want, and there's no need to read anything else - whee! Important caveat, though - always make sure the other books are in print and available. Or your teachers may get suspicious.

"Where did you find this book!?"

"Uh... inter-library loan?"

Been there done that. How I got through college I'll never know, lol.

 

[scrapquitler]

If it says "with permission", then they had permission to do this. It wouldn't even be on my radar.