Code plagiarism

Question

In the academic world, plagiarism and referencing are taken seriously. And when it comes to our intellectual creation, to what extent would it be plagiarism to copy and paste snippets of another code, available on the Internet, into my?

Particularly I have never referenced the code snippets I copied. Is this plagiarism? The legal punishment is the same for plagiarism in the academic world?

Answer 1

When it comes to our intellectual creation, to what extent would plagiarism copy and paste excerpts of another code, available on the Internet, in my (common practice)?

It all depends on the code license and how you got this code. If the site in question does not clearly mention any kind of license, the information is public and does not constitute plagiarism.

Some types of license (like the MIT License) only ask for the license to be mentioned within the code. Others, like the GNU Icense, asks also that you, when informing that you have obtained certain code, inform somewhere that your version of the code is modified from another. Still, in licenses open source, the copied code is not considered plagiarism precisely because the licenses allow it.

Particularly I have never referenced the functions I copied. Is this plagiarism? The legal punishment is the same for plagiarism in the academic world?

Hardly, unless you get a proprietary code and redistribute it without modification as your own. In this case, the code holder could claim plagiarism in court.

The punishments are different from those of the academic world precisely because software, a priori, is not an academic production. When it is academic production, the @Luizvieira response has a good explanation.

Answer 2

Plagiarism and referencing

Whether or not "in the academic world", plagiarism and referencing are complicated concepts. Plagiarism is essentially you appropriating something that was done by someone else and saying that you did it. And it is something somewhat greater than just forgetting to quote a source (by error or bad faith), since it usually involves the theft of a whole contrition (that is, a result). So plagiarism is something that is treated rigorously. I even think that in industry this rigor is greater, because it involves money directly. That is, in academia plagiarism is essentially an affront to ethics. In industry it is, in addition to an ethical flaw, also an impediment for the original author to receive the benefits due to him by the work.

Referencing is a fundamental part of science, where explicit knowledge is constructed from more explicit knowledge. In other words, an author studies, understands, questions, and reuses formal knowledge he has learned from others to advance science a little beyond its current frontier (this post from Gizmodo Brasil reproduces in English a brilliant illustration of this).

Engineering, as an "applied science", also has the same ideal. After all, when building a building an engineer does not need to explain every time why a certain material is tough enough for the proposed project. It can be based on knowledge already well-founded, often studied by others, to build other things on that knowledge already explored. In many cases, when knowledge is already well-founded enough to be common sense, the reference to the original author is not even necessary (you do not need to quote Pythagoras to use his famous equation in the calculation of distances between objects).

But this is not to say that you can appropriate the work of others by making yours, even if derivative and even if referencing!. The problem is precisely in interpretation about whether or not someone is appropriating the work of others.

For example, imagine a scientific article (totally "academy", in which the author is not making any money with the material) that mentions a book. Something like, for example:

"In his book 'The Design of Everyday Things', Donald Norman introduces the concept of Affordances to design, dealing with how attributes of the objects themselves assist or conduct interaction with they."

First of all, this quote does not reproduce anything from the book directly. Moreover, it only presents an opinion, an interpretation of the reader (the author of the article) regarding certain content of the book. It must be very clear that she is quite different from a quote like that:

"According to Norman (2002, p. 9):

'Affordances provide important tips on how things can be operated. Dishes serve to be pushed. Handles serve to be turned. Spans serve to have other things inserted on them. Balls are meant to be thrown or hit. When affordances are used appropriately, the user knows what to do just by looking: no image, label or instruction is required. When simple things need images, labels or instructions, design simply failed.'

Free translation of the English original:

'Affordances provide Strong Clues to the Operations of Things. Plates are for pushing. Knobs are for Turning. Slots are for inserting Things into. Balls are for Throwing or Bouncing. When affordances are Taken Advantage of, the user Knows what to do just by Looking: no picture, label, or Instruction is required. Complex Things may require explana- tion, but simple Things should not. When simple Things need Pictures, Labels, or Instructions, the design has failed.'"

In this other case, one is reproducing directly a part of the original work. And there lives the danger.

Fair Use (Fair Use)

There’s a legal concept called fair use (which I freely translate as "fair use") which deals with this second type of quote. The idea is precisely to indicate when the reproduction or use of part of another’s original work is done with more "noble" motives (i.e., righteous).

The fair use indicates that this partial appropriation is fair when it is intended to analyze or criticize a work, even if it is restricted by copyright:

Fair Use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public has the right to freely use portions of materials restricted (copyrighted) for comment or critical purposes.

English translation of the original (from the website Fair Use):

"Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is Entitled to Freely use portions of copyrighted Materials for purposes of Commentary and criticism."

It turns out that judgment on what is fair use or what is not subjective. The professor and his students at a college may find it fair to distribute 40 Xerox copies of just one page of a book, but the author of the book may find that this "noble educational gesture" deprived him of receiving the proceeds of selling 40 books. If the plaintiff sues the professor or the university, the outcome will depend on what the judge finds.

Quoting again the fair use page (and even providing an example of delicate use right here! hehehe):

"Some people mistakenly believe it is permissible to use one work (or a portion of it) if they give due recognition to source. For example, it is believed that it is ok to use a photograph in a magazine as long as the photographer’s name is included. That’s not truth. The recognition of the source of the material (such as the citation to the photographer) can be considered in a fair use trial, but not will protect against the allegation of violation of rights. In some cases, as in advertisements, the source recognition can come out through allowing for additional allegations such as violation of the right to advertising. When in doubt about the use permission or the recognition of the source, the most prudent course of action is to request the permission to reproduce rights holders."

Free translation of the English original (from the same page cited previously on fair use):

"Some people mistakenly Believe it’s permissible to use a work (or Portion of it) if an acknowledgment is provided. For example, they Believe it’s okay to use a Photograph in a magazine as long as the name of the Photographer is included. This is not true. Acknowledgment of the source material (such as citing the Photographer) may be a Consideration in a fair use Determination, but it will not Protect Against a Claim of infringement. In some cases, such as Advertisements, acknowledgments can Backfire and create Additional legal Claims, such as a Violation of the right of publicity. When in Doubt as to the right to use or acknowledge a source, the Most prudent Course may be to Seek the permission of the copyright Owner."

So you have to be careful. You will not necessarily be sued if you do not request permission for reproduction, especially if your use is really fair and if you cite the source. But one should be aware that problems can occur, especially if the part you reproduce is essential to the original work (have had cases of parodies - something allowed by the same principle of criticism or commentary - that have problems for playing parts considered essential/striking music or movies, for example).

And the reproduction of code?

Of course, the total and exact reproduction of all the code of a system is simple plagiarism is pure, and will certainly result in processes by the original author. Even code with open licenses usually have clauses that prevent you from providing the original code to third parties (because it is intended to preserve the original source, even if access is released there). The reproduction of open source parts in a larger system can be considered derivative, and so in principle there would be nothing wrong. At least, that is my understanding (and I may be mistaken - caution is always useful to you).

But even the reproduction of parts of restricted property code could be treated as fair use if:

1 - Is reason for criticism or comment. You could post on your blog a piece of code from a proprietary system that you found to comment on the brilliant aspects of the implementation, or on a kind of mistake to avoid committing.

2 - Do not reproduce an essential part of the proprietary code. Of course, if you reproduce the implementation of an excerpt from a secret algorithm, even if it is for criticism or comment purposes, you can be processed because this algorithm can be considered as an essential part of the original author’s product or business.

Using pieces of proprietary code within your also proprietary code is wrong from an ethical point of view, but it’s also hard to stop. Algorithms are essentially ideas of solving a problem, and unfortunately (or fortunately - I’m adept at it) you can’t stop ideas from being distributed since authorship (copyright) protects expressions (that particular implementation of the algorithm) and patents protect inventions (something that solves a real problem and is easy to reproduce by someone with the necessary skills), but none of them protect ideas.

This means that if you open a page from another author, copy the idea of his code and redo it in your own way, you can hardly be accused of plagiarism. In some cases, it may even be enough to change a few lines so that the code is different (and in case of an eventual process you argue that it was a coincidence that they used the same variable names).

Anyway, this subject is complex and should still give room for many discussions. What I have expressed here is my interpretation based on the sources I quoted. The summary of the opera seems to be as follows:

• If the work you are creating will be published or made available to others. If you use part of other people’s work and are unsure about the permission to do so (that is, the author does not make it clear in the source that the work is freely available), it is best to take care that its use is fair. This will not prevent you from being sued, but it increases the chances that you will do well if a lawsuit is filed. When in doubt, ask permission.

• If the work you are creating will not be published, it will be for your own use or for use of a group in a restricted context. In that case, it is almost certain that no one will know of your use of other people’s work. Moreover, it is also almost certain that you will not prevent the original authors from having any gain from the original work at scale. This is equivalent to you reading a book and telling the whole plot to a colleague. Because it is tacit knowledge, and not explicit, it is essentially its interpretation of the content, of the exchange of ideas, and so it cannot simply be prevented.