Michael - The Great Album Debate

[Korgnex]

If you have permission from the respected copyright owner(s), yes. This is the current legal framework.

There are currently no codes of ethics within the music industry.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Now, I am tired of being misquoted and having my words twisted. Here I am providing what I said. So please, if I am mistaken somewhere in my claims and sources, then bold it, underline it and clearly tell me where did I mix up or made up things regarding the inexistant credits on the copy-pasted material?

In return all I got were answers without sources, yet I am accused of mixing up things and being a so called expert when in fact I was just wondering how come there are no credits for the copy pasted material.

I was just wondering... We've all heard that some portions in the Cascio songs are clearly copy-pasted from previous work. Wouldn't that be considered either as:

-plagiarism, since MJ himself didn't do it himself?
-self-plagiarism, since the Estate (legal MJ representatives) allowed the copy-pasted material?
-illegal, since it isn't credited on the album?

If those copy-pasted vocals from previous songs (mostly from the Invincible album) are legally considered as "fair use", since MJ is not here to record those portions, is it legal not to credit those portions?

I know Branca acted as a lawyer and made sure everythingis legal, but I just wonder if he's aware of those copy-pastes.

So, in a nutshell, my big question is, is it legal to re-use, as in copy-paste, portions of "your own" previous work without giving it a credit or mentioning it at all anywhere in the booklet where the credit is due?

I know, but self-plagiarism exists too. Anyway, my question refers to the fact that the re-used/copied work (even if it's MJ's) is not credited. So I wondered two things:

-is it legal not to credit the re-used/copied work
-was Branca aware of this

and a subquestion, if it is considered as "fair use", the question is again the same, shouldn't it be credited?

Well, this is how I see the things:

If I was to write a PhD thesis for example. Imagine that in order to write it, some parts of my thesis are based on my previous research that had been previously published either in some articles or in my previous thesis. Needless to say that those parts would be essential to my new thesis.

So in order to avoid self-plagiarism, I normally should give reference, hence credit these essential parts of my previous parts of the thesis and research even if I was the initial author.

If the university asks me for copyright authorization to use my research by others, despite having copyright authorization, they ought to give credit if they use essential parts of my research.

Assuming some people had read my thesis (including myself of course), and they/I didn't quote me/myself, or they/I just paraphrased me/myself in order to prove a different point of view than what had been written in the thesis, then it wouldn't have been considered as (self-)plagiarism, but probably as "fair use". However, in the credits, they/I would have been supposed to duly credit me/myself despite the copyright authorization.

In the music scenario case, if I am not mistaken, it is similar. Despite copyright owner's authorization, it is illegal to use/re-use previous parts of officially published work without credits, even if there's "fair use", as in many hip hop songs for example.

My main concern is that MJ's previous parts of songs have been used to create a new one. It is true that in the case of "Take Me Away", its creator didn't have the copyright authorization, but that was not the only issue. The issue is that if he had had the copyright authorization, he would have been obliged to credit all the essential parts that allowed the song to be created. So it's a credit related issue too.

Hence, this leads me to the fact that we have clearly identified copy-pastes from Invincible in the middle of the sentences on the Cascio songs in order to fabricate a new sentence. I am not questioning whether the copyright authorization is given or not, as I assume it probably is, since the songs are officially released and labeled. I am questioning whether Branca was aware of the sentences fabrication with copy-pastes in the middle of the sentences (not ad-libs), because they haven't been credited at all, yet at the same time those copy-pasted bits of sentences from Invincible are so essential that the new sentence on the Cascio songs wouldn't have existed.

To me this case is similar to including in my thesis essential bits from my previously copyrighted and officially published work without which my new thesis wouldn't be possible, yet without crediting it. Which means that it would be considered as self-plagiarism. Regarding (self-)plagiarism in general, there is no minimal number of words, notes, etc. as long as it is clearly established what comes from where and when it is not duly credited.

IMO, a seriously done work should be duly credited not only for legal reasons, which is obviously understandable and as a matter of fact an obligation, but also for the ethics out of respect for the initial work without which the new one wouldn't be possible, and also, why not, for the sake of transparency.

So, either Branca is unaware of this, because it's been hidden to him (as to us since not credited), or he was aware and thought nobody would notice it. But if this latter was the case, why taking such a risk?

I disagree. When you publicly release something that wouldn't have been possible without previouysly released work, even if you are the author of the initial work, it is considered as (self-)plagiarism if you don't credit the parts that allowed you to create new parts --in this case the words in the middle of the sentences creating a new sentence. I know that it sounds silly (self-plagiarism), but it does exist. It's not because some people do it that it makes it more legal.

If you record a song and I copy your words from your song and insert them in the middle of the sentences of my songs and if I don't credit you, I am clearly doing an infraction, and could be considered as text and voice plagiarism. Well, the same goes if you did the same thing to your own song, which means self-plagiarizing, if you don't credit it.

p.s. And what you seem to refer to could be considered as "fair use", which means using parts of a song, or the text or the voice and include it/them into your own creation. Many hip hop artists do it. However, legally, even if it is considered as "fair use", you must credit the parts that you used. You can't just vaguely say "we used copy pastes from previous work" without crediting what was used where. Because of the fact that some parts are not clearly credited, we are misled to believe that some sentences were recorded by Michael as such. But in reality they were fabricated without due credits.

It is not what I think about it. It is the law to credit the parts that had been previously published. If you wrote a thesis at the uni, you know what I am talking about.

Ghost and Is it scary have been released at the same time and were duly credited by the artist who created them.

I am a loser hasn't been released yet, so it can't apply to it. And I don't see any plagiarism between Beautiful Girl and Stranger in Moscow.

p.s. Where did you read that there is no legal obligation to credit previously released work in order to create the new one?

Well, did MJ copy-paste things from SIM to BG or vice versa?

p.s. You can download digital booklets and credits. I think you are giving your interpretation here of a non-obligation. Writing a thesis is a good example for the simple reason that it is exactly the same law. No matter what you do, a thesis, a song, a book, an article, a painting, plagiarism apply to all fields.

Again, where did you read, what are your sources for the non-obligation of writing down the due credit?

Oulala, I see there is some confusion here. Let's make things clear first.

What you call similarity, is as a matter of fact "inspiration" and not plagiarism. And the credit is not necessary as anyone can be inspired by anything and create their own work from their inspiration. See for example Billy Ocean's Carabbean Queen which contains Vincent Price's laugh from Thriller, some basic meldody from billie Jean and even some words from Human Nature. But Billy Ocean created a completely new song. The same goes for Michael Jackson's Smooth Criminal video, he got inspired from Fred Astaire. In thsi case the credit is due to the creator, not to the one who inspired the artist. (Same goes for Stranger in Moscow, Beautiful Girl, Ui Am a loser, Gjosts, Is It Scary, etc)

What you call "borrowed" is in fact legally "fair use". Which means that artists borrow melodies or parts of melodies, like Rihanna from MJ's Wanna Be Startin' Somethin', etc, Yet, she had her own song, she didn't copy Wanna be startin' somethin'. The "fair use", even if used in the songs should be credited. She probably credited MJ's wana be startin' somethin', but she didn't credit the initial artist of the "Mamasemomamamsamomakusa" part and she got sued by the initial artist for plagiarism. Which means, that when you use "fair use", you legally MUST credit the artists.

Third, plagiarism is something you blatantly copy-paste without giving the credit at all, which means that you mislead people into believeing that you have just created that as it is. So, if those words in the middle of the sentences aren't credited although they are from previous tracks, we are misled to believe that those sentences were recorded as such by MJ. That is plagiarizing his own work, because if there were no copy-pastes in the middle of the sentences, those sentences wouldn't have existed at all. They depend on those copy pasted material. The problem is that the copy pasted matrial isn't credited. And that, as far as I am concerned isn't legal.

I am not talking in my name when mentioning all what I mentioned. So it is not me not accepting. I am simply asking you where did you read that there is no legal obligation to credit previously released and then re-used work?

p.s. Why do you mention "Stranger in Moscow / Beautiful Girl / I am a loser" and "Ghosts / Is it scary" as if tehy were plagiarisms then?

Umm, "my defintion"???? I clearly mentioned that copy-pasted material weren't credited on the Cascio songs. I never said that Is it scary/Ghosts were copy-pasted, nor did I call them plagiarism as they were released at the same time and duly credited. You brought them into the discussion.

Now look at the definition of plagiarism and self-plagiarism (not my definition, but the official one) and see if it applies to the parts that have been copy pasted on the Cascio songs.

And I am still waiting for the source where it says that we are not obliged to credit previously released work which has been used for creating another work as claimed by you. Where did you read that?

Korgenx, I am sorry, but here you clearly show a subjective and selective plagiarism. Dissertations, thesis, music, songs, texts, you name it, plagiarism apply to all.

But you confused inspiration, fair use and plagiarism and gave examples of SIM/Beautiful Girl/ I am a loser etc, which have nothing to do with copy-pastes.

Let me rephrase it for you:

-Invincible was officially released
-Cascio songs were officially released

-Cascio songs do not need legal credit if they were inspired from other songs, but the portions that are exact the same as in the Invincible must be credited, be it the text, the music, the vocals, you name it.
In our case, we have on those Cascio songs parts of the words that have been used/copy-pasted/borrowed/fairly used from Invincible, you name it, but the issue is not the fact that they have been used, but the fact that they have not been credited.

Now, you are telling me that legally it is not necessaty to credit soimething you copy-paste from previous work? This is new to me, so I am asking you where did you read that you don't need to give credit when you copy paste things from previously released material and then re-use it on a new material? How did you come to the conclusion that it is not a legal obligation?

My definition is clear: uncredited copy-pastes are plagiarism. SIM/Beautiful Girl/ Ghosts/Is it scary, etc. are not copy-pastes, so I don't know how they are related to "my" definition of plagiarism.



I don't want to be involved in a conflict between members. I don't have other camp than MJ's camp. All I did was asking questions to those who would know the answer with sources. For the moment you just answered that legally there is no obligation to credit the copy-pastes from Invincible to create a sentence in the Cascio song, but I am still waiting for you to provide me the source where you have read that or at least an explanation how you came up with that conclusion? By reading which legal document specifying that credits can be exempted when copy-pasted on a new material?

The work must be released in order to be plagiarised. If you create work without releasing it you have to prove that you had created it before someone else plagiarized your work.

I didn't limit plagiarism to a copy paste only, I was specifically pointing out the copy-paste on the Cascio songs from the Invincible, which is inevitabely plagiarism because it hasn't been credited.

And for the last time, it is not "my" definition, I was merely paraphrasing and summerizing the official definition that you can easily find on any legal web site.

However, your claim that there is no legal obligation for crediting those parts. And I have been asking you at least five times to explain how did you come up with that conclusion, where did you get that info from?

Here is a definition of self-plagiarism that doesn't come from me, so I won't be accused of inventing definitions:

Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing
Miguel Roig, Ph.D.


SELF-PLAGIARISM

When plagiarism is conceptualized as theft, the notion of self-plagiarism may seem impossible. After all, one might ask: Is it possible to steal from oneself? As Hexam (1999) points out, it is possible to steal from oneself as when one engages in embezzlement or insurance fraud. In writing, self-plagiarism occurs when authors reuse their own previously written work or data in a ‘new’ written product without letting the reader know that this material has appeared elsewhere. According to Hexam, “… the essence of self-plagiarism is [that] the author attempts to deceive the reader”.


source: http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/self plagiarism.html

It's the same law: copyrighted texts, music, paintings, films, using someone's voice etc. All that has already been created and credited once, must be credited when re-used in newly created and credited material. It is illegal to make people think that something is "new" when it clearly isn't and especially when something is copy-pasted to make that new what it is.

"In writing" is just an example of (self)plagiarism, but it doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to other fields. The author chose to give an example of self-plafiarism, so he stated "in writing..."

Now, you still haven't provided a single document stipulating that:

a copy-paste from a previously copyrighted and officially released work can be used on the newly released work which is copyrighted as "new" without clearly informing the public that the parts have been used from the previous copyrighted material. How can that be legal? Again what are your sources?

Fabrication of a sentence with copirighted and credited material from previous work and not crediting those copyrighted material that has been used has one purpose in this case: to deceive public by misleading them to think that MJ recorded that sentence as a new one. It wouldn't be an issue if those copyrighted and credited (on Invincible) parts were duly credited on the Cascio songs in which those sentences were brought to completeion and without which those sentences would not have existed at all. That's what make them (self)plagiarized. If you don't understand this, then you clearly don't seem to be familiar with what plagiarism is, unless you show me a written legal document stipulating that for reason A or reason B such credits are exempted.

You are mixing up ad-libs from previous work and a fabrication of a new sentence and misleading to believe that Michael recorded the sentence as such when it clearly is not the case.

I have not been talking about ad-libs, there are many and it is probably credited one way or another. I personally haven't checked each credit.

What bothers me is the fabrication of a sentence by inserting copy-pasted material in the middle of it in order to create a new sentence and make believe the public that Michael recorded it that way. When you do such things, legally you should credit it, or else it is considered as plagiarism since not credited.

In case of Dangerous Live ad-lib on Behind the Mask, you see that SONY/ATV is credited. I don't know if you will have the same credit on other songs, I havn't checked other songs as they don't have the same kind of sentence structures.
But what I see is that MJ's Invincible is not credited on the Cascio songs. The songs are presented to the public as if they were recorded as such. Not creditting is illegal.


p.s. I know my English sucks, I just woke up.

Well, to me mentioning Sony/ATV indicates that the ad-libs have been credited on Behind the Mask, even if it hasn't been clearly stated where. So it can't be considered as plagiarism, but as fair use.

But the issue with the Cascio copy-pastes, there is nowhere any mention that parts from Invincible have been used, and that is illegal.

Let's imagine I record a song. And I ask the permission from the Estate/SONY to use the copyrighted material from Dangerous Live as ad-libs for the "fair use" sake. In the credits I mention SONY/ATV among other credits, so that way I at least inform that I have used something from previously released and copyrighted material.

Now, if in the same song, I embezzle a part of MJ's Invincible song and insert it in the middle of my own sentence and I don't mention it in the credits, that would be considered as plagiarizing previously released and credited work, not because I embezzled it and copied it (since I would have the copyright authorisation for fair use), but because I omitted to credit that that part was used from another previosuly credited song.

For example, both, respectively in their timeframe, MJ and Rihanna were sued by the same creator of "mamasemomamasamomakusa" part because he wasn't credited.

If you read or watch the interview of the author of that part of the song, the creator was surprised to hear on a MJ album (Thriller) his "mamasemomamasamomakosa". And as far as I remember this author did not intend to sue MJ for it, because he at least expected to see his part of creation credited on Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'. But, as a matter of fact, he wasn't. So he sued MJ and they reached an agreement.

Rihanna made the same mistake. She didn't ask for permission nor did she credit the author of "mamasemomamasamomakusa" part, so she got sued. But, luckily for her, if I remember correctly the author lost the case because the court estimated that he was waiting too long (in other words, he was waiting for Rihanna to collect success, hence collect money) before he decided to sue her.

All in all, the due credit legally must be mentioned. It is purely illegal to fabricate things from previous work and make believe public that it was created as such, even if you are the author of both creations/fabrications. It's considered as deceiving the public.

Hence my surprise, was Brance even aware of this, because the inserted copy-pasted words are quite subtle.

According to whom it isn't illegal?

You keep repeating that it isn't illegal without mentioning a single source for your claim.

But ok, fine, I am not going to repeat it any more, since for you copy-pasting previous material without crediting it is perfectly legal.


p.s.

Copyright and Plagiarism

• Copyright
• Plagiarism

Copyright

Copyright laws (title 17, U. S. Code) provide protection to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. For complete copyright information, see the United States Copyright Office's web page.
Under copyright law, if you don't own the copyright to a work, you cannot do the following without permission from the copyright holder:

• Reproduce copies of the work
• Create derivitave works based on the work
• Distribute copies of the work
• Perform the work publicly
• Display the work publicly

However, under certain circumstances, using parts of copyrighted works is considered “fair use,” and is allowable under the law. Courts consider these four factors in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
  amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Information on fair use from the U.S. Copyright Office.
Educational uses of copyrighted works, such as class presentations, often fall into the “fair use” category. Find out more about what copyright means to you as a student in UCLA's tutorial on Intellectual Property.
Many authors, musicians, and other creators have begun using Creative Commons licenses, which allow others to use their work in certain ways without asking permission. For more information about Creative Commons, watch this flash movie.
Copyright-Fair Use

Are you starting a new research paper, a video, or other project that involves using and citing sources? This guide presents the basics of copyright, fair use, and citing materials. Links to great library resources for digital media projects are also shared. Download the new Copyright-Fair Use brochure.



Plagiarism


When you use information in a paper or presentation for a class, you're following the “fair use” doctrine, and you don't need to get permission from the copyright holder. You do, however, need to properly cite the source for any text, images, or other media you use in a class project in order to avoid plagiarism.
Using someone else's thoughts or ideas as your own without properly giving credit is plagiarism. It is your responsibility to understand what plagiarism is and know how to avoid it. The following resources offer some information and guidance.

• Plagiarism & You - University Libraries/Library Learning Services
  This interactive tutorial will show you how to use information correctly without plagiarizing. You will learn how to recognize plagiarism, and how to tell the difference between plagiarism and appropriate use of information in research papers.
• Plagiarism Handout (PDF, 129KB)
• Plagiarism Prevention Resources from Penn State Teaching and Learning with Technology

source: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/psul/lls/students/using_information.html

p.p.s. @Ivy, I hope Korgnex will believe you if you try to explain to him what (self-)plagiarism is.


p.p.p.s.

Meaning? Intellectually inferior?

By the way I never claimed I wasd a legal expert, but I do know what (self-)plagiarism is. No need to be expert for that. I am still waiting for your sources though, because you sound as someone who knwos about it without citing a single source.

Please Ivy re-read all my posts, I have clearly mentioned the difference between copyright permission and uncredited issues.

I am not going to repeat everything but basically I said that you can have copyright permission, but it doesn't mean that because you have copy-right permission that you are not obliged to cite it when yhou use it.

The length of plagiarism isn't the issue, but the lack of credits even if it is one single note.





Source?





Again, it's the same law, written or audio or any other format. If some musicians do it, it doesn't make it legal.

By the way, a simple question:

do you consider legal to:

copy-paste a word from previously released and credited song insert it in the middle of the sentence of a new song without crediting the copy-paste to make believe the listener that the sentence was recorded as such? Are you saying that that would be legal? If so, I need the source. To me the law is clear, be it for re-using the written texts or audio formats.

And as I said, the issue itself is not the copy-paste, but the inexistence of the credit.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

If you have permission from the respected copyright owner(s), yes. This is the current legal framework.

There are currently no codes of ethics within the music industry.

You MUST cite the copyrighted material even if you have the permission to use it. If you don't cite credit for it, your used material is assumed to be your own, hence plagiarism.

 

[ivy]

Can someone check something for me ? I'm at work

Look to invincible album credits for "unbreakable" for notorious b.i.g. credits. Does it include the mention of "You Can't Stop the Reign" by Shaquille O'Neal ?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Can someone check something for me ? I'm at work

Look to invincible album credits for "unbreakable" for notorious b.i.g. credits. Does it include the mention of "You Can't Stop the Reign" by Shaquille O'Neal ?

I am personally busy right now, so I'll be back in few hours.

But let's say that if it wasn't credited what you are looking for, it either means:

A) there is plagiarism (but nobody sued MJ)
B) there is some kind of law giving the right to exempt the credits under certain circumstances, but then it should be written in the law and easy to find. For the moment I haven't found it yet.

 

[ivy]

Well first we need to check to see if it's credited or not. I can't do it till late tonight.

But for time being

A) there is plagiarism (but nobody sued MJ)

or it's not plagiarism as long as you got the permission of the author and credit them (in this example notorious b.i.g.) and it's not necessary to credit the source it's first used (in this instance Shaq song)

and in our example even it satisfies your "sef-plagiarism", it's also obvious that Michael won't sue Michael. So if the action becomes "it's okay as long as you aren't sued" then we know MJ Estate won't be suing themselves for using Michael's old adlibs on Cascio songs - hence it kinda makes self-plagiarism non problematic.

B) there is some kind of law giving the right to exempt the credits under certain circumstances, but then it should be written in the law and easy to find. For the moment I haven't found it yet.

remember when I said "Rules for credit are a lot more relax and subject to interpretation and unless you show a law about it , it can't be classified as "illegal"." and you asked for "source". What is your source for "album credit law"? I don't think it exists and that's why I called it "relax". If you have the "album credit laws" then we can look to see what it illegal and what's not. Until then it's premature to call anything "illegal".

 

[Korgnex]

It is credited. But Bumper was talking about self-plagiarism. Not sure, ivy, why you brought this in.

 

[ivy]

It is credited. But Bumper was talking about self-plagiarism. Not sure, ivy, why you brought this in.

Shaq's song "You Can't Stop the Reign" is credited? Interesting. I just wondered it when driving to work that's all.

 

[Korgnex]

Shaq's song "You Can't Stop the Reign" is credited? Interesting. I just wondered it when driving to work that's all.

Yo. I also looked up "The Ultimate Collection". It's there as well.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Well first we need to check to see if it's credited or not. I can't do it till late tonight.

But for time being



or it's not plagiarism as long as you got the permission of the author and credit them (in this example notorious b.i.g.) and it's not necessary to credit the source it's first used (in this instance Shaq song)

and in our example even it satisfies your "sef-plagiarism", it's also obvious that Michael won't sue Michael. So if the action becomes "it's okay as long as you aren't sued" then we know MJ Estate won't be suing themselves for using Michael's old adlibs on Cascio songs - hence it kinda makes self-plagiarism non problematic.



remember when I said "Rules for credit are a lot more relax and subject to interpretation and unless you show a law about it , it can't be classified as "illegal"." and you asked for "source". What is your source for "album credit law"? I don't think it exists and that's why I called it "relax". If you have the "album credit laws" then we can look to see what it illegal and what's not. Until then it's premature to call anything "illegal".

Of course that "Michael" (The Estate) is not going to sue Michael for self-plagiarism. I was referring to the fact that self-plagiarism is "theft" from previous work if not credited, hence illegal.

Let me give you another example. The fan who created "Take me away" doesn't credit anyone else but Michael Jackson. So imagine he gets the permission from the Estate to use the copyrighted material from previous songs in order to create "Take me away". Well, it is clear that the Estate is not going to sue him for claiming that it's Michael Jackson's voice on the fabricated song.

However, fabricating such a song without mentioning credits from which previous songs the words come from would be considered as self-plagiarism and deceiving the public. Nothing is new in "Take me away".

So hypothetically speaking, if he doesn't credit the parts of the songs, the public would assume it's new, which is clearly illegal because it is not new.
Also, hypothetically speaking, if the author credits the parts of the previous songs which allowed him to construct "Take me away", no one ever would assume that it is new material, because the public would be informed about it.

 

[Korgnex]

However, fabricating such a song without mentioning credits from which previous songs the words come from would be considered as self-plagiarism and deceiving the public. Nothing is new in "Take me away".

Huh??? This cannot qualify as self-plagiarism as it was done by someone else. For self-plagiarism it must have been done by the person(s) who created the original work.


And you should not always repeat here that "self-plagarism" would be illegal. It is widely accepted as illegal in academic fields but not in the music and movie industry.

the public would assume it's new, which is clearly illegal because it is not new.

Bumper, it doesn't matter what you or the general public think. It matters whether the law declares it as illegal or not.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Huh??? This cannot qualify as self-plagiarism as it was done by someone else. For self-plagiarism it must have been done by the person(s) who created the original work.


And you should not always repeat here that "self-plagarism" would be illegal. It is widely accepted as illegal in academic fields but not in the music and movie industry.



Bumper, it doesn't matter what you or the general public think. It matters whether the law declares it as illegal or not.

Korgnex, for the last time, read what plagiarism is, I provided you the sources.

Now when you counter-argue something, provide sources other than your own opinion based on seemingly nothing else than your own opinion.
What do you base your opinion on? Show me. How do you come up with such conclusions when the law clearly stipulates that it is the same law for music, texts, movies, etc.

p.s. My post regarding "Take me away" applies even if Michael jackson himself had created it. He'd need to cite where those parts come from as they had already been credited and released.

 

[Korgnex]

I said it isn't a case of self-plagiarism (yes, even if you assume he would have the estate's permission), Bumper. Nothing else.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I said it isn't a case of self-plagiarism (yes, even if you assume he would have the estate's permission), Bumper. Nothing else.

And you know this because....?

 

[Korgnex]

And you know this because....?

For starters: You have 4 methods of interpretation:
1) philological
2) systematic
3) historical
4) teleological


1) the prefix "self" is a clear indicator that you have to do it yourself (and not others)
2) not applicable as the term is not enshrined in the act (as a matter of fact the term "plagiarism" is not defined in any law)
3) all historic records show that self-plagiarism is described as a form of plagiarism that you do yourself. you can find a lot about it in the context of "dissertations" and "multiple publication" which is considered as illegal
at the same time you will find that "self-plagiarism" has always existed in the fine arts and is considered as unavoidable
4) the sense of distinguishing this form from "plagiarism" (without the prefix "self") is to emphasize that you have to do it yourself

 

[LLCz]

Any new information or leaks recently (past 3 months)?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

[h=1]Self-Plagiarism: Ethical Shortcut or Moral Scourge?[/h]Written on: September 7, 2011

<iframe src="http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2011/09/07/self-plagiarism-ethical-shortcut-or-moral-scourge/&layout=box_count&show_faces=false&width=80&action=like&font=arial&colorscheme=light&height=65" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" style="border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden; width: 80px !important; height: 65px; "></iframe>
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.1326407570.html#_=1328719660039&_version=2&count=vertical&counturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plagiarismtoday.com%2F2011%2F09%2F07%2Fself-plagiarism-ethical-shortcut-or-moral-scourge%2F&enableNewSizing=false&id=twitter-widget-0&lang=en&original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plagiarismtoday.com%2F2011%2F09%2F07%2Fself-plagiarism-ethical-shortcut-or-moral-scourge%2F&size=m&text=Self-Plagiarism%3A%20Ethical%20Shortcut%20or%20Moral%20Scourge%3F&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2Fqql5BV&via=plagiarismtoday" class="twitter-share-button twitter-count-vertical" title="Twitter Tweet Button" style="height: 62px; width: 55px; "></iframe>
<iframe allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" hspace="0" id="I1_1328719661744" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="I1_1328719661744" scrolling="no" src="https://plusone.google.com/_/+1/fastbutton?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plagiarismtoday.com%2F2011%2F09%2F07%2Fself-plagiarism-ethical-shortcut-or-moral-scourge%2F&size=tall&count=true&hl=en-US&jsh=m%3B%2F_%2Fapps-static%2F_%2Fjs%2Fgapi%2F__features__%2Frt%3Dj%2Fver%3Dz_g-2-TP2W8.fr.%2Fsv%3D1%2Fam%3D!n_yunSsn15SIR87Grw%2Fd%3D1%2F#id=I1_1328719661744&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plagiarismtoday.com&rpctoken=572120410&_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart" tabindex="-1" vspace="0" width="100%" title="+1" style="width: 50px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; height: 60px; position: static; left: 0px; top: 0px; visibility: visible; "></iframe>
​

When it comes to matters of duplicate content, we are often our own worst enemies. Poor content planning, bad site design and general writing mistakes can make it seem as if we&#8217;ve ripped ourselves off many times over.
But what about those who deliberately copy their older works and writings in order to pass them off as newer creations? They are in a much different category and one that has given academia and the business world alike a significant problem.
Simply put, self-plagiarism raises a slew of ethical and even legal questions for which there are no easy answers. Unlike traditional plagiarism, which much more clearly-defined rules and consequences, self-plagiarism often exists in a gray area, one where it is hard to determine what action should be taken or even if anything wrong was done.
So what is self-plagiarism and is it an ethical issue? The answers aren&#8217;t easy, especially with so many contradictory rules and views on the subject.
[h=4]What is Self-Plagiarism?[/h]Fundamentally, self-plagiarism is when an author or other content creator uses portions of an earlier work in a new one without citing the original content. This can happen in academia as researchers often use bits of old papers in newer ones, but it can also happen in creative and business environments as well.
The nature of this reuse can vary. Some consider it self-plagiarism to repeat ideas and concepts from earlier works without attribution while others limit it only to the use of actual words, images, etc.
To further complicate things, most of the definition of what is and is not self-plagiarism, as with regular plagiarism, depends heavily on the the arena the accusation is being made in and the expectations that come with it.
However, the main concept remains the same, the author using their own previous works in a newer one without attribution.
[h=4]Is Self-Plagiarism Unethical?[/h]The ethics of self-plagiarism is where the debate truly begins. Where some wonder why there is an issue at all with self-plagiarism, others call it a scourge. Likewise, some see self-plagiarism as a contradiction even as others develop tools to root it out.
The reason for this conflict is the nature of plagiarism itself. The word &#8220;plagiarism&#8221; comes from the Greek root meaning to &#8220;kidnap&#8221;. The idea behind plagiarism is that you are &#8220;stealing&#8221; your words from somewhere else. However, with self-plagiarism there is no such &#8220;kidnapping&#8221; as you are putting your name to your words.
With no lie of authorship and no victim, at least in the sense that no 3rd party is plagiarized, many see self-plagiarism as a non-crime and a legitimate shortcut.
But at the same time, self-plagiarism does carry with it some level of dishonesty, at least in some situations.
The problem is that, when an author, artist or other creator presents a new work, it&#8217;s generally expected to be all-new content, unless otherwise clearly stated. For example, you, as the reader, have an expectation that the content of this article is new to me and Plagiarism Today,even if I have touched on these issues before, albeit comically.
This creates a situation where the audience of a piece is, to some degree, misled about it. But how much this harms the audience isn&#8217;t clear and varies wildly from situation to situation.
For example, with an academic paper, one is generally expected to showcase what they have learned most recently, meaning that self-plagiarism defeats the purpose of the paper or the assignment. On the other hand, in a creative environment, however, reusing old passages, especially in a limited manner, might be more about homage and maintaining consistency than plagiarism.
All of this, however, raises the question of what can or should be done about self-plagiarism?
[h=4]Dealing with Self-Plagiarism[/h]When deciding if and how to deal with self-plagiarism, the first thing that has be decided is &#8220;What are the expectations of the audience?&#8221;
In some cases, the audience has no expectation that the work is new. For example, in the legal industry, self-plagiarism is virtually a necessity to survive. Copying passages from previous documents is essential not just to save time, but ensure validity.
Another potential example is on this site in the 3 Count column. I reuse the same text every edition for the calls to action at the beginning and at the end. Reusing the text, which isn&#8217;t part of the actual content, saves time and, in my opinion, isn&#8217;t expected to be original with each column.
An honest look at the expectations of the audience goes a long way in deciding what, if anything, should be done. This can be tricky though as different members of the same audience often have different expectations but, taken as a whole, it is usually easy to understand.
If the self-plagiarism does mislead the audience or otherwise defeats the purpose of the work. Then action should be taken. What that action is depends on the situation but schools have honor codes and contracts are written between creatives just for this purpose.
Generally, it&#8217;s best to err on the side of caution, both avoiding self-plagiarism and treating cases of it as an offense. Legally, it&#8217;s also best to play it safe and make sure to mention self-plagiarism in any authenticity guarantee you propose or sign. It&#8217;s important to be clear that &#8220;original&#8221; also means &#8220;new&#8221;.
Playing it safe is definitely the best approach as no one wants to be the case study about the ethics and/or legal implications of self-plagiarism. Even if it isn&#8217;t wrong, it certainly isn&#8217;t a good thing either.
[h=4]Bottom Line[/h]In the end, the debate about the ethical and legal implications of self-plagiarism will go on for a long time. As long as there are authors who are looking to take short cuts, those that see self-plagiarism as an ethical solution will do so and continue to re-raise the debate.
In the meantime, the best thing you can do is avoid it completely, both by being careful not to self-plagiarize unless clearly appropriate to do so and make it clear your expectations of others not to do so.
For those most part, these issues arise when the creator and the audience have different expectations of the work. Make those expectations clear and the issue disappears.
It may be an awkward thing to do, but it avoids a much more awkward and difficult discussion later.
Credit: Comic image from Cyanide and Happiness. Some comics NSFW.

source: http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2011/09/07/self-plagiarism-ethical-shortcut-or-moral-scourge/

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

For starters: You have 4 methods of interpretation:
1) philological
2) systematic
3) historical
4) teleological


1) the prefix "self" is a clear indicator that you have to do it yourself (and not others)
2) not applicable as the term is not enshrined in the act (as a matter of fact the term "plagiarism" is not defined in any law)
3) all historic records show that self-plagiarism is described as a form of plagiarism that you do yourself. you can find a lot about it in the context of "dissertations" and "multiple publication" which is considered as illegal
at the same time you will find that "self-plagiarism" has always existed in the fine arts and is considered as unavoidable
4) the sense of distinguishing this form from "plagiarism" (without the prefix "self") is to emphasize that you have to do it yourself

Again, you are talking about self-plagiarism without citing any source except your own approach. Read the article above.

 

[ivy]

Question is it illegal or unethical? Its frown upon and you can fail a class and so on but i have never seen a lawsuit due to plagraism

 

[Korgnex]

This is mainly about papers. The author is mentioning creative environments but he's avoiding this topic at large. You'll find lots of opinions and (wrong) definitions of "self-plagiarism".

See above why this person is wrong when he simply ignores the prefix "self".

And like ivy said, there are no lawsuits in the music or movie industry for self-plagiarism. It's broadly considered a natural phenomen and essential component of the creative work.
The only thing you can do is to file a consumer fraud lawsuit. But you will have severe difficulties to justify it.

Again, you are talking about self-plagiarism without citing any source except your own approach. Read the article above.

I have given you the forensic approach. Why should I care about a wrong definition by one person that is not following it?

*Edit*
I just re-read the section. Bumper, he's saying the same thing as I am. His wording is a bit bad (he's not writing for the casual reader).

"an author or other content creator"
I thought he would mean "the author(s)" (=creator) and a third party - which would be wrong. But actually he's just saying that the creator(s) is/are not limited to author, a "content creator" (and his article is mainly about papers) can be people who helped researching an article. That's what he means.

It MUST be someone that was part of the original work. Every other definition of "self-plagiarism" is against the forensic approach, thus useless.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Question is it illegal or unethical? Its frown upon and you can fail a class and so on but i have never seen a lawsuit due to plagraism

Please read the article above, it is very interesti,g. It seems to me that in the Cascio song the sentence was carelessly fabricated because the credits were not cited. This isn't MJ's will to reuse it in order to make it easy, but a clear attempt of dishonesty of those who did this to MJ in order to make people believe that MJ recorded it the way we hear it in the song. This kind of dishonesty is more than just unethical, it's a false sentence. As false as the sentences in "Take me away".

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

This is mainly about papers. The author is mentioning creative environments but he's avoiding this topic at large. You'll find lots of opinions and (wrong) definitions of "self-plagiarism".

See above why this person is wrong when he simply ignores the prefix "self".

And like ivy said, there are no lawsuits in the music or movie industry for self-plagiarism. It's broadly considered a natural phenomen and part of the creative work.

Oh God. Nevermind. Drop it.

 

[Korgnex]

I just re-read the section. Bumper, he's saying the same thing as I am. His wording is a bit bad (he's not writing for the casual reader).

"an author or other content creator"
I thought he would mean "the author(s)" (=creator) and a third party - which would be wrong. But actually he's just saying that the creator(s) is/are not limited to author, a "content creator" (and his article is mainly about papers) can be people who helped researching an article. That's what he means.

It MUST be someone that was part of the original work. Every other definition of "self-plagiarism" is against the forensic approach, thus useless.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I just re-read the section. Bumper, he's saying the same thing as I am. His wording is a bit bad (he's not writing for the casual reader).

"an author or other content creator"
I thought he would mean "the author(s)" (=creator) and a third party - which would be wrong. But actually he's just saying that the creator(s) is/are not limited to author, a "content creator" (and his article is mainly about papers) can be people who helped researching an article. That's what he means.

It MUST be someone that was part of the original work. Every other definition of "self-plagiarism" is against the forensic approach, thus useless.

The person who wrote the article holds a university degree with honors in journalism, so excuse his bad wording.

He is not avoiding anything, read the article and understand implicit messages.

And regarding the Cascio songs, did MJ himself copy-paste those words? No, so it is not really self-plagiarism, but plagiarism by those who made the song. Yet as the Estate represents MJ the clear line between plagiarism and self-plagiarism disappears. My questions were:

-why is it not credited (because obviously Michael didn't record that sentence per se. You don't ask yourself what happened to the supposeed word that is missing in the sentence?)?
-was Branca aware of this?

 

[Korgnex]

The person who wrote the article holds a university degree with honors in journalism, so excuse his bad wording.

Well. I did understand it (after re-reading that section). It was you who insisted that "self-plagiarism could also be done by a third party.

He is not avoiding anything, read the article and understand implicit messages.

Bumper, if you was to publish essays on a regular basis you would understand how to see through a text and decompose it and see how a reference or a further illustration is added to the base frame. This article is mainly about papers. This section alone and the words he has chosen to use show this for a skilled academic.

Yet as the Estate represents MJ the clear line between plagiarism and self-plagiarism disappears.

This is wrong! Even though the MJ Estate is legally representing Michael Jackson, they are a legal body and cannot qualify for "self-plagiarism". A person is making the copy-paste jobs. It doesn't matter whether the estate have ordered or approved this, only natural persons can qualify for "self-plagiarism". John Branca or John McClain cannot, they have nothing to do with the original work.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Question is it illegal or unethical? Its frown upon and you can fail a class and so on but i have never seen a lawsuit due to plagraism

The question is also was the public deceived and misled to believe that MJ recorded the entire sentences as heard on the tracks or was the public duly informed?

Well. I did understand it (after re-reading that section). It was you who insisted that "self-plagiarism could also be done by a third party.

I never insisted on that. You are interpreting my words. I clearly wondered in my very first post in which category to put the case of copy-pastes on the Cascio tracks, because Michael himself never copied those words, yet those who represent him allowed it without crediting anything. How many times do I have to copy-paste different definitions of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other stuff in order to make you understand that I do not mix up the terminology. For God sake I am not a lawyer, but I do work as a forensic I am extremely careful with terminology.

Bumper, if you was to publish essays on a regular basis you would understand how to see through a text and decompose it and see how a reference or a further illustration is added to the base frame. This article is mainly about papers. This section alone and the words he has chosen to use show this for a skilled academic.

Well ok, I am challenging you then to copy paste anyone's vocals onto a song that you would create without crediting the person for his already copyrighted and credited vocals elsewhere, see what happens.

This is wrong! Even though the MJ Estate is legally representing Michael Jackson, they are a legal body and cannot qualify for "self-plagiarism". A person is making the copy-paste jobs. It doesn't matter whether the estate have ordered or approved this, only natural persons can qualify for "self-plagiarism". John Branca or John McClain cannot, they have nothing to do with the original work.

Hence my question, was Branca aware of this?

 

[ivy]

I read the article during my break and it prompted my question. The article talks about it being an ethical issue with some seeing no issues with it and some people thinking new material is required. So again my question on what basis do you call it illegal?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I read the article during my break and it prompted my question. The article talks about it being an ethical issue with some seeing no issues with it and some people thinking new material is required. So again my question on what basis do you call it illegal?

I call it illegal because:

"Invincible" words/vocals have already been credited as belonging to "Invincible" and not to another work.

Now, on the Cascio songs we have some inserts in the middle of the sentences from the credited Invincible, yet the public does not know that. So, my question was how can something like that be legal -credited as Invincible, and used on the Cascio songs without any credit? I am not accusing the Estate, on the contrary I am wondering if Branca/The Estate were aware of this?

With re-use of Invincible on a newer song, people are clearly misled because misinformed by the complete absence of credits.

My question again is can we consider something legal without giving due credit?

 

[StellaJackson]

@Stella It would be fraud if it was proven "Fake" which after 1 year no one can prove it.

And I know what your gonna say here I'll write it for you "No one can prove it real either" well 2 forensic musicologists have and that is what is legal in a court of law not just someone saying "It's not him because I don't hear him".

I haven't seen the results of those tests, nor do I know what they tested, what they tested it against and what the margin of error was. They didn't even identify who the so called experts were. For those reasons I am not going to just accept at face value what that statement says. Without more clarity, that statement has no worth whatsoever. I also doubt, based on the timeline, that the supposed testers were even aware of the existence of Jason Cupeta, much less did any kind of testing of Cascio vs Mj vs Jason. Either way, the results clearly weren't conclusive enough for various people involved.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

@Ivy,

I was thinking of another thing as well. If there are copy-pastes, how can we refer to them? They're clearly not original works, are they?

So, correct me if I am wrong, but if those copy-pastes are legally considered as non-plagiarism, then it means that they fall in the category of fair use. But the tricky part is that according to the U.S. law any fair use must be credited.

reference:

fair use

Under the doctrine of fair use, an author may make short quotations for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, or scholarship, without first obtaining permission of the copyright owner of the quoted work. However, every quotation must be clearly identified with the source of the quotation and the name of the author of the quoted text.

For many years, fair use in the USA was common law (i.e., law created by judges), but the Copyright Act of 1976 included fair use:<dl><dd>Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include &#8211;

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.</dd><dt>17 USC § 107 (amended 1992).

source: </dt>http://www.rbs2.com/copyr.htm#anchor222222</dl>