Laws only matter if you're not rich.
Laws only matter if you're not rich.
You're viewing a single thread.
Is it safe to assume that every single author (apart from the ones that cannot prove their works were in any of those archives at the time) can sue meta for plagiarism and theft?
It's possibly classed as fair use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.
plagiarism is an academic crime, not a civil tort.
It’s a copyright violation to use someone’s work without permission. (Regardless of your feelings about copyright or intellectual property)
plagiarism is neither a civil tort nor a criminal offense.
Back when I worked as a designer, using work without paying for usage rights leads to exposure of being civilly sued for copyright violations.
You’re wrong. Confidently wrong.
if you were sued civilly for copyright violations, that's not plagiarism. That's copyright infringement. plagiarism is something else.
Plagiarism is an infringement against copyright.
if I plagiarize The Bible, that has nothing to do with copyright. it's still plagiarism.
The Bible is well past the copyright period which IIRC is 70 years in America. The Bible is free use at this point. No different than the original Mickey Mouse which is also out of copyright protection. Or the Mona Lisa.
The fact that you reference the Bible of all books shows how unbelievably confidently incorrect you are. Are you chatgpt?
you don't seem to know what plagiarism is, so I don't see the point in continuing this conversation.
no it's not. it's an academic crime.