There have been a couple of interesting discussions online regarding plagiarism and the use of creative material, with and without permission this week. One involved a church who recently discovered that their web site had been jacked by another church. Ripped off. Like even using the same stock photos. Amazing! I don't think anyone would disagree that is just flat wrong. Sometimes, though, the line is not quite so clear.
Over at the Swerve blog, Craig Groeschel asked the question about when it's appropriate for a pastor to use material from another pastor's sermon, and when credit should be given.
Lots of interesting responses in the comments.
Here's my take, for what it's worth.
Reference. Footnote. Attribute. Always. Every time. Without fail.
Why?
Because if you don’t, it will be discovered, and that has the potential to harm the cause of Christ. It’s SEEN as inappropriate.
Some folks questioned whether this is a thinly veiled attempt to seek credit. I don't think so. Attribution and credit are not the same thing. Even when credit isn’t sought, attribution is still appropriate.
Use of material unattributed can be a huge barrier to the reception, and ultimately the emotional and intellectual integration of that message by the person hearing it. It doesn’t diminish the message, or the messenger to acknowledge where material has come from.
Posts
4 comments:
Convicted! *wince*
REALLY LONG URL WARNING:
https://sites.google.com/a/allisonparkchurch.com/apc-tech-info/Home/policies---acceptable-use/copyright-issues
I posted that yesterday, and credited you and added a link, but perhaps I should have asked you before I posted.
I apologize if I should have asked you first, but it was such a great article you posted I wanted to add it to our info pages asap.
Sometimes as a Department of One, I hurry too much.
God Bless.
Not sure about the design, but the get connected copy is being used by numerous churches. Plug the URL into copyscape.com.
I dealt with content theft about a year ago when I found out the editor of a seminary newsletter had plagiarized the work of about a dozen authors, including myself.
It's a struggle for me to decide what license to offer content under and how to respond when no attribution is used.
Hey Cindy... No worries here! Thanks for the link love.
You did get me to thinking and I'm working on a quick post for tomorrow morning on the ethics of linking in an online world. Good topic, and thanks for the inspiration to go there for a few minutes!
Hi there Josh! I appreciate your comments on all three fronts. Copyscape is new to me. I'll be looking at it carefully.
I've been in the position of discovering plagiarized material myself. Not fun at all.
As for licensing... creative commons is a great way to go when you're looking simply for attribution. I think it helps, by telling the person that you're serious about the material. I think a simple copyright symbol is sometimes blown off. If you make reference to a creative commons license, hopefully a person contemplating "borrowing" your content might make the effort to attribute.
As for those who don't, your response can be as gentle, or harsh as you prefer!
Post a Comment