‘I know It When I See It’: On Academic Plagiarism,and How to Assess It

Abstract

In the academic context, plagiarism is usually seen as an ethical offence, the boundaries and definition of which are often unclear. However, in some countries, plagiarism is also a legal wrong, amounting to copyright infringement. This article proposes a test for assessing plagiarism of academic works. The test is based on the law and jurisprudence of a particular country, Portugal, where plagiarism is framed as copyright infringement. Article 196 of the Portuguese Copyright Law sets four elements that must be fulfilled for a finding of plagiarism: There must be a protected work; the alleged plagiarist must have used a partial or total reproduction of that work; the alleged plagiarist must have failed to attribute the authorship of the work to its rightful creator; and the work of the alleged plagiarist must lack its own individuality. The authors argue that, even if the law of a particular country does not frame plagiarism as a legal offence, these elements should be part of a test to be adopted and applied by academic institutions for the sake of legal certainty.

Keywords

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ang

(1994). The idea-expression dichotomy and the merger doctrine in the copyright laws of the US and the UK. International Journal of Law and Information Technology , 2(2), 111–153.

Band

Schruers

(2005). Dastar, attribution and plagiarism. AIPLA Quarterly Journal , 33(1), 1–23.

Fisher

(2001). Theories of intellectual property . Oxford. Retrieved from http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/tfisher/iptheory.html.

Gaut

(2009). Creativity and skill. In Krausz

Dutton

Bardsley

(Eds.), The idea of creativity (pp. 83–103). Brill.

Green

S. P.

(2002). Plagiarism, norms, and the limits of theft law: Some observations on the use of criminal sanctions in enforcing intellectual property rights. Hastings Law Review , 54(1), 167–242.

Green

(1998-1999). ‘Haven’t I heard this song before? Subsconscious plagiarism in pop music and the infringement of copyright-towards a partial defence of cryptomnesia’, 13. Intellectual Property Journal , 53.

Hausman

(2009). Criteria of creativity. In Krausz

Dutton

Bardsley

(Eds.), The idea of creativity (pp. 3–16). Brill.

Hughes

(1988). The philosophy of intellectual property. Georgetown Law Journal , 77, 287–366.

Hughes

(1998). The personality interest of artists and inventors in intellectual property. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal , 16, 81–182.

10.

Kampylis

Valtanen

(2010). Redefining creativity—Analysing definitions, collocations, and consequences. Journal of Creative Behaviour , 44(3), 191–204.

11.

Latourette

A. W.

(2010). Plagiarism: Legal and ethical implications for the university. Journal of College and University Law , 37, 1–92.

12.

Murray

L. J.

(2008). Plagiarism and copyright infringement: The costs of confusion. In Eisner

Vicinus

(Eds.), Originality, imitation, and plagiarism: Teaching writing in the digital age (pp. 174–183). University of Michigan Press.

13.

Ramalho

(2017). Will robots rule the (artistic) world? A proposed model for the legal status of creations by artificial intelligence systems. Journal of Internet Law , 21(1), 12–25.

14.

Ramalho

(2018). Originality redux: An analysis of the originality requirement in AI-generated works. In AIDA (pp. 23–41). Giuffré.

15.

Ricketson

(1987). The Berne convention for the protection of literary and artistic works: 1886–1986 . Kluwer.

16.

Rosen

(1992). Reconsidering the idea-expression dichotomy. University of British Columbia Law Review , 26, 263–280.

17.

Samuels

(1989). The idea-expression dichotomy in copyright law. Tennessee Law Review , 56(2), 321–463.

18.

Samuelson

(2016). Reconceptualizing copyright’s merger doctrine. Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA , 63, 417–470.

19.

Shemtov

(2017). Beyond the code: Protection of non-textual features of software . Oxford University Press.

20.

Sterling

J. A.

(2015). World copyright law . Sweet & Maxwell.

21.

Stearns

(1999). Copywrong: Plagiarism, process, property, and the law. In Buranen

Meyers Roy

(Eds.), Perspectives on plagiarism and intellectual property in a postmodern world (pp. 5–17). State University of New York Press.

22.

Sundara Rajan

M. T.

(2002). Moral rights and copyright harmonisation: Prospects for an ‘international moral right’. 17th BILETA Annual Conference Proceedings . Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/fd3e/d01b642720a2b86023c59adf7899e4daf939.pdf

23.

Trabuco

(2006). O Direito de Reprodução de Obras Literárias e Artísticas no Ambiente Digital . Coimbra Editora.

24.

Tushnet

(2007). Naming rights: Attribution and law. Utah Law Review , 789–821.

25.

van Eechoud

Hugenholtz

P. B.

van Gompel

Guibault

Helberger

(2009). Harmonizing European copyright law: The challenges of better lawmaking . Kluwer Law International.

26.

Wachowicz

(2015). Noções fundamentais sobre o plágio académico. In Moura Vicente

(Eds.), Estudos de Direito Intelectual em Homenagem ao Prof. Doutor Jose de Oliveira Ascensão. 50 Anos de Vida Universitária (427–430). Almedina.

27.

Weber-Wulff

(2014). False feathers. A perspective on academic plagiarism. Springer.

28.

Zanini

(2016). Notas sobre o Plágio e a Contrafação. Revista Brasileira de Direito Civil , 10(4), 74–84.