Cynthia wrote:A lot of people are surprisingly ignorant of the concept of plagiarism being unethical and/or illegal.
Yes, it's shocking. Recently, I was talking to a restaurateur who needed photos of his place of business for a magazine. He didn't have any of his own available and wanted to just grab some that were online, taken by other publications or customers. I told him the publication would not be able to use those, due to copyright issues.
He said, "Oh, the photos aren't copyrighted."
(In the United States, the law states, "A work that is created and fixed in tangible form for the first time on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation," whether it contains a copyright notice or not.)
Your writers apparently failed to learn this in college, Cynthia, but in academia the rules are, in some ways, even stronger than copyright law. Copyright law says you may not use another's exact words without permission. Academic codes say you may not present another's
ideas without precise attribution.
So, for example, if X writes a paper on Author Y, cribbing most of his analysis from Expert Z but presenting it as his own, he's going to be in trouble for plagiarizing if caught, even if he never used any of Z's actual words (and, for that matter, even if Z's work is in the public domain). It's considered plagiarism even if he properly quotes and attributes Z's sources, because then it looks as if he's presenting Z's research as his own. At most institutions, plagiarism is grounds for expulsion for students and dismissal for faculty.
In journalism, the rules are somewhat looser, and the concept of plagiarism typically is applied only to the actual words or close approximations. Members of the media may (and frequently do) swipe ideas and sources from other media and get away with it, as long as they write in their own words, add in original material and sprinkle in a few "reportedly"s. While not considered good reporting, such mashups are typically not a firing offense.
This Australian piece crosses the line, though, so very stupidly that I'm wondering whether a chunk containing attribution is missing in what appeared online. A little more reworking and an "as quoted in the
Chicago Tribune," and the item might have looked unoriginal, but honest.
You have to wonder whether the editors were asleep -- why would a Brisbane reporter be quoting all American sources? Even Down Under, they must have heard of Jayson Blair. (And even had she done her own reporting, why would a Brisbane paper want a story about American cooks?)
Bill, I hope you'll let us know what happens.