How to deal with plagiarism in the scene?
category: general [glöplog]
Prompted by the Nike promo / Ocean Machine comparison posted by Gloom, because this subject is a bit too big for the one-liner…
I think the first thing to make clear is that this is a largely separate issue to copyright (although copyright *is* a very real concern whenever demos and the commercial world meet - such as large parties with sponsors and publicity - and compo organisers are right to take a hard-line stance on it if necessary). I think most people on the scene appreciate the absolute creative freedom they get here which doesn't exist in the 'real world', and a zero-tolerance approach to remixes of commercial material would shit on that from a great height. (My most recent scene production blatantly relies on uncleared copyrighted material for its entertainment value, and - hopefully - nobody sees it as any less legitimate as a result.)
And conversely, we've had cases which are strictly within the letter of copyright law but clearly against the spirit of the scene: namely, graphics compo entries that consist of 95% stock photography. It's all about fair competition, and not misleading the audience about the original work you've done.
It's pretty clear that Gloom, myself and others feel misled by this latest incident, and saying "it happens all the time" or "the scene should be unregulated" doesn't excuse the fact that this is basically unfair on the sceners who produce fully original art. However, like Suicide Barbie, Agenda Circling Forth and a million other incidents before it, I don't think there was any malicious intent here - just an author taking a more liberal view of what's acceptable as "inspiration" than the rest of us - and until there's a way to demonstrate that they were deliberately out to mislead, there's no point talking about ways to enforce anti-plagiarism rules (aside from the question of how to revoke a compo prize from four years ago).
So, I think the answer is a social approach - to set up a culture where authors are openly encouraged to list their sources. Adding it as a field in compo submission forms would be one way, or just a standard section in .nfo files. Crucially, mentioning a source should NOT automatically disqualify the from competitions, but obviously compo organisers are free to consider that information at their discretion (and undoubtedly some will be more permissive than others).
I don't believe for one moment that it will stop ripping completely, but if it catches on to the point where there's no reason *not* to be open about your sources, then it should hopefully put an end to the grey area between legitimate remixing and plagiarism.
I think the first thing to make clear is that this is a largely separate issue to copyright (although copyright *is* a very real concern whenever demos and the commercial world meet - such as large parties with sponsors and publicity - and compo organisers are right to take a hard-line stance on it if necessary). I think most people on the scene appreciate the absolute creative freedom they get here which doesn't exist in the 'real world', and a zero-tolerance approach to remixes of commercial material would shit on that from a great height. (My most recent scene production blatantly relies on uncleared copyrighted material for its entertainment value, and - hopefully - nobody sees it as any less legitimate as a result.)
And conversely, we've had cases which are strictly within the letter of copyright law but clearly against the spirit of the scene: namely, graphics compo entries that consist of 95% stock photography. It's all about fair competition, and not misleading the audience about the original work you've done.
It's pretty clear that Gloom, myself and others feel misled by this latest incident, and saying "it happens all the time" or "the scene should be unregulated" doesn't excuse the fact that this is basically unfair on the sceners who produce fully original art. However, like Suicide Barbie, Agenda Circling Forth and a million other incidents before it, I don't think there was any malicious intent here - just an author taking a more liberal view of what's acceptable as "inspiration" than the rest of us - and until there's a way to demonstrate that they were deliberately out to mislead, there's no point talking about ways to enforce anti-plagiarism rules (aside from the question of how to revoke a compo prize from four years ago).
So, I think the answer is a social approach - to set up a culture where authors are openly encouraged to list their sources. Adding it as a field in compo submission forms would be one way, or just a standard section in .nfo files. Crucially, mentioning a source should NOT automatically disqualify the from competitions, but obviously compo organisers are free to consider that information at their discretion (and undoubtedly some will be more permissive than others).
I don't believe for one moment that it will stop ripping completely, but if it catches on to the point where there's no reason *not* to be open about your sources, then it should hopefully put an end to the grey area between legitimate remixing and plagiarism.
For me personally when I saw that in ocean machine my immediate inclination was that it was based on some photo someplace. It totally does not look like free-hand. Seeing the original now I'm sad that it doesn't look very transformative, I'm ok with transformative-but-based-on-something type are. Fortunately for me it was pretty clear in this case. Some other demos... not so clear that some things are original or not.
"it happens all the time" stop whining
I've seen a lot of demos with cubes and/or ribbons. That is plagiarism!
The cube patent has expired.
But what about ribbons! Not to mention bloom D:
Hypnoglow patent has also expired.
I think it's time we had an attitude shift in the scene. We need to *stop* looking at demos and thinking about how much of it is unoriginal, and *start* looking at them and thinking about how much of it is *new*. It would change things completely.
But how do you know which parts are new when sources are not credited?
Kill the plagiarists! NO MERCY!!!1
This same issue cropped up on the Amiga in the mid-'90s. A lot of the artists started writing "100% original, no copy" on their work, so just chuck something similar at the start of the demo if you want to emphasise the point I guess. Personally I don't care, there's plenty of demos I like with ripped art or samples or whatever, knowing what the sources are doesn't take the enjoyment away. Demos were doing 'found media' in a new context since the beginning.
smash: hard to know how much is new when the sources arent mentioned. does having more obscure inspiration sources have more creative value? it certainly might feel more fresh to people seeing it, but in practical terms its just as unoriginal as any other thing bluntly ripping a track or reusing a photo.
an important question that follows on what gasman said: if viewers dont recognize a hacked up copy from something brand new, then whats the incentive for doing something truly original from scratch? human society has thrived with sharing and reuse of concepts idea. the copyright / patent system only surfaced on the industrial age, and plenty of industries disregard it for being impractical - in fashion for example a design has no copyright, labels reusing a certain design thrive on the quality associated to their name, and aiming for a specific profile niche to sell, not the design itself.
an important question that follows on what gasman said: if viewers dont recognize a hacked up copy from something brand new, then whats the incentive for doing something truly original from scratch? human society has thrived with sharing and reuse of concepts idea. the copyright / patent system only surfaced on the industrial age, and plenty of industries disregard it for being impractical - in fashion for example a design has no copyright, labels reusing a certain design thrive on the quality associated to their name, and aiming for a specific profile niche to sell, not the design itself.
All groups that ever plagiarized something should be banned forever!
Oh wai-
Oh wai-
Didnt the whole demoscene thingy start out of software cracking?
Just sayin :D
Just sayin :D
someone should make a demo about it.
Quote:
Didnt the whole demoscene thingy start out of software cracking?
Does that mean we don't need to wash our hands just because we came from bacteria?
LoL sorry sorry, my post was nonsensical
what smash said.
i mean, think of it: outlawing ocean machine because of one still image. nah, that would be way over the top.
i mean, think of it: outlawing ocean machine because of one still image. nah, that would be way over the top.
4mat:
The problem with labelling things as "100% nocopy" is that it creates a false dichotomy: either you stick religiously to the 100% originality rule, or you're one of the dirty ripping scum, which might in practice mean anything from all-out-Timbaland to "went to an art gallery once and thought 'ooh, that's quite neat'". And since the majority of prods are in the latter category (if only because they're in there by default by not being labelled as NoCopy), it ends up discouraging people from disclosing their sources, even if the ripping/remixing is within sensible, acceptable limits.
The problem with labelling things as "100% nocopy" is that it creates a false dichotomy: either you stick religiously to the 100% originality rule, or you're one of the dirty ripping scum, which might in practice mean anything from all-out-Timbaland to "went to an art gallery once and thought 'ooh, that's quite neat'". And since the majority of prods are in the latter category (if only because they're in there by default by not being labelled as NoCopy), it ends up discouraging people from disclosing their sources, even if the ripping/remixing is within sensible, acceptable limits.
oh comeon
ripping commercial art always was a tradition on all commodore platforms!
tbl just keeps up the spirit!!1
ripping commercial art always was a tradition on all commodore platforms!
tbl just keeps up the spirit!!1
If a party state in their rules that no copyright material may be used, it's against the rules and should be disqualified. If it is noticed after the party I would demand that the prizes were given back. And shame on you.
If the rules say it's ok, and you state your sources, fine with me.
If you lie about it and hope noone notices, fuck you.
This basicly is just a rule for animations, graphics and music... but then again.. "remixing" should be ok if it's done to the level that it is no question that it is reworked enough to be called original. Still, if one states the sources nothing can be wrong with it.
If the rules say it's ok, and you state your sources, fine with me.
If you lie about it and hope noone notices, fuck you.
This basicly is just a rule for animations, graphics and music... but then again.. "remixing" should be ok if it's done to the level that it is no question that it is reworked enough to be called original. Still, if one states the sources nothing can be wrong with it.
and btw, that graphics in ocean machine is about the worst thing with the demo so not exactly a compo winner fact... but still doesn't make it ok in my eyes...
i suggest before every competition all participants need to hand in a urine sample so that the UCI can check whether they're cheating or not!
