femkes_follies (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
femkes_follies) wrote2009-11-07 09:41 pm
femkes_follies) wrote2009-11-07 09:41 pm
Entry tags:
The SCA and Intellectual Property
A general update later on doings and goings on - travel, sewing, chickens, children and the like.
For the moment, I pose a philosophical question to the air:
Where do you draw the line between using research and plagiarism?
If you take a class on a technique is it appropriate to:
Enter an identical item to the one taught in A&S competition?
Teach a class on the same technique?
Teach a class using the instructor's class notes - after all, they're on the web. With the author's permission? Without permission, as long as you leave the author's name on it?
Is there, for instance, a difference between using someone else's classnotes for a calligraphy class, and using their published ductus but teaching the technique with your own notes?
When developing a class to teach, is it appropriate to:
Print off someone else's website to use?
Photocopy a section of a book to use? How much of a section?
Copy occasional paragraphs from others' work into your notes - not directly credited, but listed in a bibliography as a source?
Copy images from other sites and print the images alone to use?
Base a class entirely on someone else's research, but put it in your own words? Does your answer change if the research in question is unique in nature?
Does your answer to any of the above change based on the person? Do you expect more of someone actively pursuing the Arts and Sciences than you would, say, a relative newcomer? DO you consider there to be two groups of instructors: One that does and presents original research, and one that teaches how-to and technique based on others' work?
Lastly, do you feel that it is necessary upon reaching a certain level of achievement within an art or science to branch out of what has been done before and begin to make your own conclusions and interpretations - not based on someone else's work but based purely on the evidence at hand? In other words, is a "thesis topic" a necessary element? Rather than merely using others' redaction of recipes, there is a point at which you need to not only redact a few yourself, but to compare similar recipes of a region and time and begin to reconstruct flavor profiles, for example.
Speak to me of the boundaries of intellectual property. For myself, I feel like the raw information is available for anyone to use. But the theories, conclusions, and interpretations I present are mine alone. Support them, discredit them, argue till you're blue in the face - but credit the source. Yes, it's possible for someone to independently have found the same sources and reached the same conclusions, but is it likely?
What say y'all?
For the moment, I pose a philosophical question to the air:
Where do you draw the line between using research and plagiarism?
If you take a class on a technique is it appropriate to:
Enter an identical item to the one taught in A&S competition?
Teach a class on the same technique?
Teach a class using the instructor's class notes - after all, they're on the web. With the author's permission? Without permission, as long as you leave the author's name on it?
Is there, for instance, a difference between using someone else's classnotes for a calligraphy class, and using their published ductus but teaching the technique with your own notes?
When developing a class to teach, is it appropriate to:
Print off someone else's website to use?
Photocopy a section of a book to use? How much of a section?
Copy occasional paragraphs from others' work into your notes - not directly credited, but listed in a bibliography as a source?
Copy images from other sites and print the images alone to use?
Base a class entirely on someone else's research, but put it in your own words? Does your answer change if the research in question is unique in nature?
Does your answer to any of the above change based on the person? Do you expect more of someone actively pursuing the Arts and Sciences than you would, say, a relative newcomer? DO you consider there to be two groups of instructors: One that does and presents original research, and one that teaches how-to and technique based on others' work?
Lastly, do you feel that it is necessary upon reaching a certain level of achievement within an art or science to branch out of what has been done before and begin to make your own conclusions and interpretations - not based on someone else's work but based purely on the evidence at hand? In other words, is a "thesis topic" a necessary element? Rather than merely using others' redaction of recipes, there is a point at which you need to not only redact a few yourself, but to compare similar recipes of a region and time and begin to reconstruct flavor profiles, for example.
Speak to me of the boundaries of intellectual property. For myself, I feel like the raw information is available for anyone to use. But the theories, conclusions, and interpretations I present are mine alone. Support them, discredit them, argue till you're blue in the face - but credit the source. Yes, it's possible for someone to independently have found the same sources and reached the same conclusions, but is it likely?
What say y'all?
no subject
IN fact, legally, you can't. MSU got into ALL kinds of trouble about it. Even a lot of the course packs aren't legal. Kinko's refused to do them without written copyright permission from each publisher after the initial dustup. Not sure if they were actually fined, or not.
It's just that the publishers don't have time to police every book at every school.
no subject
Not sure if it's true or not, but that's what they say.
no subject