Every year, the Cromwell Center for Teaching and Learning hosts a series of discussions based on publications addressing current issues in higher ed. The first meeting of the semester took place on September 17. Dr. Austin Lobo, Associate Professor of Mathematics, led our discussion, sharing a series of thought-provoking questions and examples that help us think critically about our own understandings of and responses to potential plagiarism. What follows are his extended notes from that discussion.
The goal of the No-Fuss CTL gatherings is to make participation a pleasant excursion, rather than a duty, by making the reading not an obligation but a prelude to a casual, unhurried conversation among people who have varying levels of interest, as used to happen in the social group that Ben Franklin organized and called a “junto”. There is only one article to read and reading it is optional. Holding an opinion and having the will to express it, is required.
What are some attributes of plagiarism? From David Bell’s article, we first pose two questions:
- What is our definition of Plagiarism?
Bell says that there is no universal definition and further suggests that one definition does not fit in all cases. Bell exasperatedly quotes an “ostentatiously self-exiled philosopher” who wrote that the “mere overlap of sentences” is not plagiarism. Bell warns that AI will upend our current understandings and then springs on us a three-sentence summary of the paragraph, that was written by ChatGPT.
- Indirectly, how much plagiarism is too much?
In the absence of a robust definition, can there be flexibility?
So, we ask the question:
- What are some good guidelines for the proper level of justice, penalties, or punishment?
Sometimes, we can understand our situation better if we look at things like it from outside contexts, so I am purposely moving away from talking about AI or about cheating on homework. Three cases, out of many, come to mind.
Spirit vs Led Zeppelin is a 2014 court case in which the estate of a musician filed suit that Robert Plant and Jimmy Paige had plagiarized the introductory guitar riff of “Stairway to Heaven” from Spirit’s 1968 instrumental.
Larrikin Music vs Men at Work Larrikin Music Publishing purchased the copyright to the 1934 children’s song “Kookaburra” in 1990 and brought a lawsuit in 2009 alleging that a flute riff in the “Down Under” was copied. The connection between was highlighted on an Australian TV quiz show in 2007.
Mark Landis painter and art forger with a not entirely unnoticeable resemblance to Alfred E. Neumann, donated paintings of less-known artists to more than fifty museums over a period of nearly a quarter century. Eventually, the museums discovered that he had painted them himself.
The outcomes were as follows: After a case lasting six years, during which Jimmy Paige famously answered “Well yeah” when asked by the plaintiff’s attorney if he had a gift with the guitar, Zeppelin was found to not have copied the riff.
In 2010, Men at Work were found to have copied the riff and were ordered to pay 5% of all royalties from the song. Greg Ham, the flautist, who suffered depression and serious emotional distress, passed away two years later.
Mark Landis was found not guilty because he didn’t charge for his forgeries. He continues to paint and to legitimately donate his own paintings. His facial appearance does not significantly overlap with Neumann’s today.
What are some appropriate consequences for plagiarism? That’s the subject for future discussion.
What I think is this: we must temper justice with mercy. In the days of old, heretics were burned and traitors executed in public. What seemed to be legal and essential then is not so now. Today’s moral and legal proscriptions on heresy and treason have been toned down and the consequences for infringements, if any are imposed, are mild. And, finally, is duplication always duplicity?