Reply #139: Thanks for the obviously well thought out answer

[daleo]

For artwork, I was under the impression it was OK to 'copy' if the new work is obviously a different work (i.e. not an art fraud), and attribution is given (e.g. "interpretation of Van Gogh's Starry Night, by J. Blow"). I was told something along those lines by an art student, who said a fair bit of latitude was given because re-interpretations are so common in visual art, especially in training. But that may only apply to work in the public domain, not more recent stuff covered by copyright. In any case, it sounds like Churchill didn't give quite that full a disclaimer.

I agree that the case of academic works is made difficult because there is often not much money at stake, but rather issues of priority and reputation. That makes it difficult to litigate (and pay the lawyers). I suppose a truly egregious case of academic plagiarism might be grounds for losing tenure, but probably the evidential bar would be pretty high. Many academics would probably be leery of going down this road too far, as claims might become never ending. After all, it isn't at all uncommon for grad students to claim their supervisors took credit for their ideas - that sort of thing.