nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 182:
Line 182: + + + + +
→copying from US Gov sites: Not as simple as that.
::"We, as taxpayers, own it and paid for it." Do you mean that the ''taxpayers'' own the material, or that ''everyone'' owns the material because the 'taxpayers' have presented it as a gift? Could I, as an American, copy and paste British government materials without citation?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 20:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::"We, as taxpayers, own it and paid for it." Do you mean that the ''taxpayers'' own the material, or that ''everyone'' owns the material because the 'taxpayers' have presented it as a gift? Could I, as an American, copy and paste British government materials without citation?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 20:42, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Following this logic, Andy, would you approve of articles in the ''Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons'' using CDC statistics and information from NIH-funded research without proper citation? I doubt it. Just because something does not violate copyright law doesn't make it not plagiarism. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:11, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
:::Following this logic, Andy, would you approve of articles in the ''Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons'' using CDC statistics and information from NIH-funded research without proper citation? I doubt it. Just because something does not violate copyright law doesn't make it not plagiarism. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:11, 26 October 2008 (EDT)
::: The situation is not as simple as that, Andy. You as American taxpayers paid for it; I as an Australian did not. Because it's in the public domain, I can legally use it, but I can't say that I paid for it. So that means two different rules depending on what nationality we are. Conservapedia itself is based in America, but its contributors are not all American, so given that Conservapedia articles are a joint effort by both Americans and non-Americans, where does that leave the principle of "we paid for it, so we own it"? It's more like "some of us paid for it, so some of us own it, but without going through the history of who added what, one would not know if it was written by someone who 'owned' it or not". (Of course that doesn't affect the ''legal'' situation, but it does affect the ''ethical'' aspect.)
::: If we hired and paid someone to ghost-write an autobiography, for example, then although the hired writer does most of the work, we have the final say and it reflects what ''we'' want. But if we hire and pay someone to write something that is ''their'' words, then it is unethical to claim it as our own. It should be obvious which case U.S. Government publications are most like. When we own the copyright of someone else's written work, that does not include the author's natural rights to have his name on it.
::: And then we have Commandment 2 that says that all copied works must be attributed. And that's much simpler than having different rules for different nationalities.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:19, 27 October 2008 (EDT)