Wow.

  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    16 hours ago

    You can’t publish an entire NYT news article verbatim and then claim, “I’m just reacting.” The GN article is copyrighted.

    • MajorasMaskForever@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Are we talking copyright or plagiarism here? GN is claiming plagiarism, not copyright infringement

      Edit: spelling

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Plagiarism is when you don’t make legal claims on someone copying your work or where the work wasn’t copyrighted.

        GN was being nice about it by calling it plagiarism instead of invoking lawyers.

        Edit: don’t just downvote. Explain why plagiarism of copyrighted work isn’t a copyright violation.

        • MajorasMaskForever@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          That is not what plagiarism means

          Oxford English Dictionary

          The action or practice of taking someone else’s work, idea, etc., and passing it off as one’s own

          Merriam-Webster

          to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own : use (another’s production) without crediting the source

          Dictionary.com

          an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author’s work as one’s own, as by not crediting the original author

          All three definitions clearly state that Plagiarism is taking some production of someone else’s and claiming it as your own. That there is some kind of deception going on as to who created the original thought/work. Merriam-Webster’s definition has that second component talking about the act of using without crediting the source, which LMG didn’t do at first but later added a pinned comment. While not immediate and the barest amount of effort on LMGs part, but it still is credit.

          Plagiarism has no legal component to its definition.

          Copyright does have legal implications as it is someone’s right to duplicate a work. In general a creator of a work has exclusive rights to reproduce it, but there are exceptions (everyone’s favorite Fair Use laws). With LMG being Canadian the legal side is more complicated but in US courts it’s been tested that one such exception is around additional commentary and that the usage of the work was limited as to what was relevant to being actively discussed (big case here being H3H3 a few years back). Even by GN’s own admission the WAN show was taking phrases and repeating them verbatim, but just that, only phrases. Ones pertaining directly to the on hand topic of EVGAs ending partnership with Nvidia. They were not showing GNs video, reading his script word for word start to finish. Again, IANAL but I find it highly unlikely that a US or Canadian court would say that what LMG did on WAN Show meets the definition of a copyright violation

          Edit:

          And to answer your last point directly, Plagiarism and Copyright are orthogonal to each other. You could plagiarize by not giving public credit but still get copy permission from the copyright holder. Semantically kinda weird to think about

          • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            49 minutes ago

            That’s the point I was attempting to make. Linus used Gamers Nexus copyrighted work without permission or even attribution. It was both plagiarism and a copyright violation. Steve was being polite by only calling Linus out on the plagiarism.

            • MajorasMaskForever@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              49 minutes ago

              Did you not understand anything I typed out?

              LMG used GN material, yes.

              LMG did not commit plagiarism

              LMG did not violate copyright law

              Words have meanings, and by the definitions of the words plagiarism and copyright LMG does not meet the criteria. You and I do not get to change the definitions to fit whatever narrative we have in our heads on who we want to be the good guys and who we want to be the bad guys

              • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                42 minutes ago

                From the Gamers Nexus website:

                “The script nearly identically matched the order, topics, and words.”