Senator Rand Paul Plagiarized from Wikipedia

[USincognito]

Apparently not sinc we have four sources all repeating the same info

If by "info" you mean a description of a movie, then you would almost have a point. What we actually have are to nearly verbatim summaries of Gattaca, (IMDB and Metacritic) and one very different except for two phrases summary (Wikipedia), a synopsis from which a few verbatim sections appear in the Wikipedia summary (IMDB), and one direct, dishonest example of plagiarism (Paul's speech).

eta - need to clarify based on new info in blue.

 

[AceHero]

Just Mach?

Sorry you missed it.

I have to admit I'm a pretty popular subject in the threads

You do seem to enjoy attention.

 

[USincognito]

Of course they're different, if you quote the wrong section. But if you quote IMDB where the wikipedia account seems to come from they aren't so different:

"In "the not-too-distant" future, where genetic engineering of humans is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class,"

I thought you were quoting the Summary, not the Synopsis. It threw me off because I'm not used to you providing links. There is language that appears in the synopsis that appears in the Wiki plot section verbatim but, according to you, as long it's attributed it's not plagiarism:

"Paul included a link to the Heritage case study in the book’s footnotes,"

Attribution is not plagiarism

and as SummerMadness has pointed out repeatedly, there's a link to the imdb page at the bottom of the Wikipedia page.

So, while this red herring makes for a time consuming intellectual exercise, it's little more than an effort by a-Paul-ogists to distract from Paul's direct and blatant plagiarism of the Wikipedia page. Morningstar even cut and pasted a breakdown from Salon. Here it is again:
Rand Paul-Gattaca: Did Rachel Maddow catch Rand Paul plagiarizing Wikipedia during a speech?
Blue = plagiarism, black = not good enough of an effort to cya

1) Rand Paul: “In the movie Gattaca––in the not-too-distant future,{snip liberal} eugenics is common. And DNA plays a primary role in determining your social class.”
Wikipedia: “In the not-too-distant future, liberal eugenics is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class.”


2) Rand Paul: “Due to frequent screenings, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way to achieve his dream of being an astronaut is he has to become what’s called a ‘borrowed ladder.’”
Wikipedia: “Due to frequent screening, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way he can achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut is to become a ‘borrowed ladder.’”

3) Rand Paul: "He assumes the identity of a Jerome {snip Eugene} Marrow, a {snip former} world-class swimming star whose genetic profile is said to be 'second to none,' but he's been paralyzed in a car accident..."
Wikipedia: "He assumes the identity of Jerome Eugene Marrow, a former swimming star with a genetic profile 'second to none,' who had been injured in a car accident..."


4) Rand Paul: "Jerome 'buys' his identity, uses his DNA—his blood, his hair, his tissue, his urine—to pass the screening."
Wikipedia: "Vincent 'buys' Jerome's identity and uses his 'valid' DNA in blood, hair, tissue, and urine samples to pass screening."​

 

[JCSr]

a-Paul-ogists

Good word!

 

[morningstar2651]

Copying large quantities of text verbatim is still copyright infringement even if footnoted. You can't copy large portions of other people's work without explicit written consent from the holder of the copyright.

 

[MachZer0]

If by "info" you mean a description of a movie, then you would almost have a point. What we actually have are to nearly verbatim summaries of Gattaca, (IMDB and Metacritic) and one very different except for two phrases summary (Wikipedia), a synopsis from which a few verbatim sections appear in the Wikipedia summary (IMDB), and one direct, dishonest example of plagiarism (Paul's speech).

eta - need to clarify based on new info in blue.

First you said we don't have four very similar descriptions, then you name the four sources which provide very nearly the same description, just like I said

 

[MachZer0]

I thought you were quoting the Summary, not the Synopsis. It threw me off because I'm not used to you providing links. There is language that appears in the synopsis that appears in the Wiki plot section verbatim but, according to you, as long it's attributed it's not plagiarism:

and as SummerMadness has pointed out repeatedly, there's a link to the imdb page at the bottom of the Wikipedia page.

So, while this red herring makes for a time consuming intellectual exercise, it's little more than an effort by a-Paul-ogists to distract from Paul's direct and blatant plagiarism of the Wikipedia page. Morningstar even cut and pasted a breakdown from Salon. Here it is again:
Rand Paul-Gattaca: Did Rachel Maddow catch Rand Paul plagiarizing Wikipedia during a speech?
Blue = plagiarism, black = not good enough of an effort to cya

1) Rand Paul: “In the movie Gattaca––in the not-too-distant future,{snip liberal} eugenics is common. And DNA plays a primary role in determining your social class.”
Wikipedia: “In the not-too-distant future, liberal eugenics is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class.”


2) Rand Paul: “Due to frequent screenings, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way to achieve his dream of being an astronaut is he has to become what’s called a ‘borrowed ladder.’”
Wikipedia: “Due to frequent screening, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way he can achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut is to become a ‘borrowed ladder.’”

3) Rand Paul: "He assumes the identity of a Jerome {snip Eugene} Marrow, a {snip former} world-class swimming star whose genetic profile is said to be 'second to none,' but he's been paralyzed in a car accident..."
Wikipedia: "He assumes the identity of Jerome Eugene Marrow, a former swimming star with a genetic profile 'second to none,' who had been injured in a car accident..."


4) Rand Paul: "Jerome 'buys' his identity, uses his DNA—his blood, his hair, his tissue, his urine—to pass the screening."
Wikipedia: "Vincent 'buys' Jerome's identity and uses his 'valid' DNA in blood, hair, tissue, and urine samples to pass screening."​

What has been produced is who actually wrote the original comments. Subsequently, at least three other entities made similar descriptions, yet only one is being accused of plagiarism. How odd

 

[MachZer0]

Copying large quantities of text verbatim is still copyright infringement even if footnoted. You can't copy large portions of other people's work without explicit written consent from the holder of the copyright.

What are the rules that determine how much can be reprinted?

 

[morningstar2651]

What are the rules that determine how much can be reprinted?

TL;DR - Always ask for written permission. It's better to ask for permission than to ask for forgiveness

This is an excellent question Mach, and it really is a complex issue that takes into account many different things such as the intent of the copying and the affect the infringement may have on the marketability of the original work in addition to the amount that was copied. I need to preface my response.

I am not a lawyer and my post does not constitute legal advice. I have completed a 300 level university course on intellectual property law and have a better understanding of these issues than a layman, but if you're seeking advice you should hire a lawyer that specializes in intellectual property law.

There is no law that specifies a number of words, a number or paragraphs, or a percentage of a work that constitutes infringement. Whether or not using someone else's work is considered infringement or not depends on the circumstances. It's safest to assume that copying even a single sentence without permission constitutes infringement. You'll usually find something like the following written in the front matter of books:

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without the written permission of the author, except where permitted by law.

The holder of the copyright holds the right of reproduction, meaning that if you want to use their work in a book you should contact the holder of the copyright and ask them for their explicit written permission to use the specific section of their work with attribution. For material in other books, the copyright holder is usually the publisher. Their website is usually pretty easy to find and they get back to you pretty quick about what they want in return for the use of their work. It's usually a nominal licensing fee. If it's a small enough section, they'll probably just say yes.

Fair use is a defense to charges of infringement, but as a general rule: if you are profiting off of someone else's copyright, using large sections of their work without permission, or not citing their work, then you're not protected by fair use.

 

[MachZer0]

TL;DR - Always ask for written permission. It's better to ask for permission than to ask for forgiveness

This is an excellent question Mach, and it really is a complex issue that takes into account many different things such as the intent of the copying and the affect the infringement may have on the marketability of the original work in addition to the amount that was copied. I need to preface my response.

I am not a lawyer and my post does not constitute legal advice. I have completed a 300 level university course on intellectual property law and have a better understanding of these issues than a layman, but if you're seeking advice you should hire a lawyer that specializes in intellectual property law.

There is no law that specifies a number of words, a number or paragraphs, or a percentage of a work that constitutes infringement. Whether or not using someone else's work is considered infringement or not depends on the circumstances. It's safest to assume that copying even a single sentence without permission constitutes infringement. You'll usually find something like the following written in the front matter of books:



The holder of the copyright holds the right of reproduction, meaning that if you want to use their work in a book you should contact the holder of the copyright and ask them for their explicit written permission to use the specific section of their work with attribution. For material in other books, the copyright holder is usually the publisher. Their website is usually pretty easy to find and they get back to you pretty quick about what they want in return for the use of their work. It's usually a nominal licensing fee. If it's a small enough section, they'll probably just say yes.

Fair use is a defense to charges of infringement, but as a general rule: if you are profiting off of someone else's copyright, using large sections of their work without permission, or not citing their work, then you're not protected by fair use.

In other words, the section of Paul's book which gives attribution to the original author cannot be considered plagiarism

 

[morningstar2651]

In other words, the section of Paul's book which gives attribution to the original author cannot be considered plagiarism

No. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

 

[MachZer0]

No. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

And what evidence do we have that there was no permission?

 

[NightHawkeye]

No. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

From Wikipedia: Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders.
​

 

[morningstar2651]

And what evidence do we have that there was no permission?

Well, if Rand Paul has written permission, then he can present it as evidence that he has written permission.

Since he has not presented the one piece of evidence that would resolve the issue, we must assume that he does not have it.

 

[MachZer0]

From Wikipedia: Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders.
​

You have to admit though that it is heartwarming to see so many liberal suddenly finding an absolute for morality and ethics,

 

[morningstar2651]

From Wikipedia: Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders.
​

Fair use is a very limited defense, and the copied section in Rand Paul's book is not likely to be protected under fair use. The link I keep posting is from the copyright office about the fair use doctrine.

U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

 

[NightHawkeye]

You have to admit though that it is heartwarming to see so many liberal suddenly finding an absolute for morality and ethics,

 

[morningstar2651]

You have to admit though that it is heartwarming to see so many liberal suddenly finding an absolute for morality and ethics,

I have a few years of experience in legally working with intellectual property. I didn't just discover it today.

You may be surprised to discover that I have ethics and morality, but that is only because you assumed that I am an unethical and immoral creature.

 

[morningstar2651]

Does this comic suggest that Republicans set their moral standards so high that even they can't abide by them, or that it's okay for Republicans to fall short of their moral standards?

I'm not quite sure what the artist is trying to say matches what the artist drew...

 

[MachZer0]

I have a few years of experience in legally working with intellectual property. I didn't just discover it today.

You may be surprised to discover that I have ethics and morality, but that is only because you assumed that I am an unethical and immoral creature.

I don't recall saying anything of the sort