I partially agree. If we are talking about a work whose author is known and recognized, like Stephen King, for example, everyone knows that he wrote it, and even if someone takes a less famous work and tries to take the credits, everyone will know what original author. What I meant by "plagiarism" was not modifying the original work, but copying the entire work and changing only the author's name, this I think is wrong for numerous reasons, mainly because, if the plagiarist was luckier than the original author , the original author will get little or no recognition while a guy who didn't even bother to write more than five lines will get all the credit and all the benefits that should belong to the original author. This is completely different from writing a new work using the same characters, the same world and certain elements characteristic of that universe
RE: [ EN ] What do I think about copyright?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
[ EN ] What do I think about copyright?
Indeed which is why it would constitute fraud and defamation. With that said, its very unlikely that the original author could suffer significant damages since it'll be unlikely they could get away with claiming they created something that another already published at an earlier date so such a discrepancy of an earlier publishing date will hopefully save the author his due credit, and I believe that would be all it's owed to them, anything else is based in copyright and the inherent licensure of ideas. There was a study regarding creating art to sell without any copyrights, in Germany I believe. They concluded that letting people reimburse the artist based entirely on what the " patrons " deemed fair and obviously without any constraints on reselling or reusing the work proved to be far more profitable for the artist.