Variances in attribution norms

The New York Times on a controversy over whether a recent article was properly credited. Of note: (1) The author denies even reading the allegedly similarly structured pieces, but the article proceeds mostly as if he did, or might have. (2) The similarities are pretty clearly what copyright calls scenes a faire; the question is whether norms of attribution were violated, not copyright. But the author's defenders argue that such norms were not violated because the topics are scenes a faire, such that any treatment of the subject–the effect of linguistic differences on thought–would cover the same ground. (3) The norms of scholarship are not the norms of journalism; journalists treat citation as minimally required for aesthetic reasons. Should aesthetics weigh against attribution in this way, as Zahr Stauffer argues it should weigh against disclosure of commercial sponsorship in many cases? (Aesthetic here means readability, but then don't aesthetic claims often really mean "not as many people will like/watch this if I do it differently?) (4) The article concludes that web versions of articles can do better in giving credit–which in this specific case would bring us back to question (1), whether the author had read the other scholar's work. HT: Francesca Coppa.

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law Posts –

Legal notice about the Variances in attribution norms rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.

Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Variances in attribution norms?

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply