Copying Someone Else's Idea

by Jet
14 replies
The Internet is rampant with information that is not original.

A lot of the stuff you read is somebody else's idea or work.

Have you ever read an e-book thinking, "I've read this before, but with a different explanation?"

In fact, many of the online courses you buy regarding Article Marketing advise you to pick an existing article and rewrite it in your own words to save you time.
Is this unethical?

Of course, if you took somebody else's work and republished it exactly how it was originally, then this would indeed be not only unethical, but downright illegal.

Most of the info we buy online is in some way, a recreation of another product or idea. The new author read somebody else's work, absorbed the idea and then went on to create a similar product in his own words.

Is this ethical?

In my humble opinion, if the new author does not take anything away from the original author, then there is no harm.

He doesn't mention the original author's name.
He doesn't mention the original author's product.
He doesn't mention the original author's website.

To the reader of the new product, its the same as any other product. He has no idea as to the origins of the product. He has no idea who the original author is.
In some cases, people (big time marketers) rewrite someone else's work and don't even hide the fact that its a rewrite (like the famous rewrite of Think and Grow Rich).
In fact, they market it as a plus.

In my opinion, as long as the original author remains unnamed and the end user has no idea who the original author is and what product it originally was, then there's no problem because no sales were taken away from the original author.

If you try and get on a high horse and claim that a rewrite of someone else's work would be stealing and unethical, then you would be right in one regard and wrong in another.

It would only be classed as stealing if the content remained the same. In other words, he took the original and republished it as his own. This is indeed illegal.

As for the idea, this cannot be copyrighted. This law is universal. No idea can be copyrighted. If it was, you'd have to arrest half the Internet.

Ok, what about ethics? Is it ethical to copy someone else's hard work and rewrite it as your own?

Again, if this was done in a way where the original author lost out in any way, then yes, it would be unethical.
But, if you rewrote the content in your own words and you never mentioned the original author's name or product name, then this would not be unethical.

After all, you are also putting in your own effort to creating your own work (although not as much as the original author) and therefore, this work would be legally and morally yours since it's in no way connected to the original author except for the idea.

If this was unethical then, again, most of the works on the net (especially in IM) would be unethical.
All those courses teaching you to take people's articles and to rewrite them would all be teaching stuff which was unethical.

So to conclude, I would take the logical approach and say:

a) If it's republished information without any changes then = Illegal and Unethical
b) If it's republished information with complete changes, but advertised as a rewrite of such and such product, then = Legal but Unethical
c) If it's republished information with no reference to the original work, then to its reader, its just a normal product. The fact that it is not plagiarized (pasted word for word) and not advertised as being a rewrite of such and such a product, then = Legal and Ethical

I say this because an idea cannot be copyrighted.

Taking the above points into consideration, I would like to see what other Warriors think about this subject and what their opinions are.

Please chip in with your thoughts,

JH
#copying #copyright #idea
  • Profile picture of the author wtatlas
    There is no copyright on ideas so your option at c) would appear at first sight to be okay. However, if you were to re-write something that had someone else's experiences or achievements documented then this could be a problem in certain circumstances.

    As an example, if you took a method to make money that someone had written and had used to make $5,000 a month for the past 6 months and you understood it and thought it was a good idea, would you:


    a) Re-write it saying it could earn someone $5,000 a month?


    b) Re-write it claiming you had made $5,000 a month from it?

    c) Use it, make whatever per month, and then re-write it quoting your own earnings?

    In my view only the latter option would be ethical.

    The thought also crosses my mind "How much satisfaction would anybody get from doing this? If someone is so devoid of ideas that he or she has to pinch someone else's, whether it is legal and ethical, would that give him/her any feeling of achievement?

    It might be more acceptable if someone added a new twist to an existing idea, or improved it in some way, anything but just copying it out and re-phrasing it.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3597850].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author christopher jon
    But, if you rewrote the content in your own words and you never mentioned the original author's name or product name, then this would not be unethical.
    If I steal your car and repaint it, is it still your car?

    If it's republished information with no reference to the original work,
    Last I checked, this was plagiarism.

    I think it's even less ethical if you are simply spinning somebody else's work and pretending it's your own.

    I think your interpretations of plagiarism, intellectual property and other such things may be a bit skewed.

    How about this: take an idea, cite your sources and expand on it with your own original content. You could even throw in an affiliate link to the source reference as an upsell.

    You know, System X suggests you do Y but I found that by doing Z my results increased by 200%

    Content doesn't have to be an endless cycle of rehashed material with a fresh cover.

    If a persons only means of creating content is by reworking other content they shouldn't be creating content at all. Anybody can create a carbon copy but that doesn't mean they should. Unfortunately, there is money to be made by doing exactly that.

    Now excuse me while I finish up my latest novel, Perry Hotter and the Wizards Stone.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598006].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garben2011
    Originally Posted by Jet View Post

    He doesn't mention the original author's name.
    He doesn't mention the original author's product.
    He doesn't mention the original author's website.

    To the reader of the new product, its the same as any other product. He has no idea as to the origins of the product. He has no idea who the original author is.

    In my opinion, as long as the original author remains unnamed and the end user has no idea who the original author is and what product it originally was, then there's no problem because no sales were taken away from the original author.

    Ok, what about ethics? Is it ethical to copy someone else's hard work and rewrite it as your own?

    But, if you rewrote the content in your own words and you never mentioned the original author's name or product name, then this would not be unethical.
    If you wrote an article based on your knowledge, experience and views of a subject. Then I came along... oh what a damn fine article - this person obviously has a lot of knowledge on this topic. COPY! PASTE! SNIP a bit here. REWRITE a bit there! EDIT a bit everywhere. Sign my name to it. Completely leave out any reference to you as an inspiration for the article.

    Yeah, I think this would be quite unethical.

    However, if I read your views on the topic. Read several others views on the topic. Formed my own views on the topic. Then wrote an article from scratch based on my own understanding & views on the topic. Then it would truly be my article. I might still credit you and others as inspiration but certainly mention this is my view, the way I see it. Or I might just leave out any reference to you and others since, again, I am truly writing my own opinions, my own understanding & views of the topic.

    But simply rewriting anything of yours... no matter how much I spin it... I am still rewriting your knowledge, your views and your experience. And to me that is unethical and seems to be what nearly everyone is doing.

    I think the important question here is... if I am not adding any value at all. Not presenting the information in any unique way. Not giving my understanding, my knowledge, my views and experience on the topic. Then why am I even bothering to rewrite your article at all? Wouldn't it make much more sense to simply say Hey I found an excellent article on this topic and then link to your article?
    Signature

    Interested In Easy Micro Projects You Can Do In Your Spare Time? Get Paid To Help Me!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598179].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author marcuslim
      Originally Posted by garben2011 View Post

      However, if I read your views on the topic. Read several others views on the topic. Formed my own views on the topic. Then wrote an article from scratch based on my own understanding & views on the topic. Then it would truly be my article. I might still credit you and others as inspiration but certainly mention this is my view, the way I see it. Or I might just leave out any reference to you and others since, again, I am truly writing my own opinions, my own understanding & views of the topic.

      But simply rewriting anything of yours... no matter how much I spin it... I am still rewriting your knowledge, your views and your experience. And to me that is unethical and seems to be what nearly everyone is doing.

      I think the important question here is... if I am not adding any value at all. Not presenting the information in any unique way. Not giving my understanding, my knowledge, my views and experience on the topic. Then why am I even bothering to rewrite your article at all? Wouldn't it make much more sense to simply say Hey I found an excellent article on this topic and then link to your article?
      I think this is an excellent point. While it is true that there is no 'original' idea under the sun, the fact is that most research is about aggregating views and research from people who've gone before, and then arriving at one's own unique view on the topic, and this is what makes it new.

      Consider what Eben Pagan does with most of his info courses. This is a guy who is very very well read, and in many of his courses he will cite his sources. But he then goes on to put them together and repackages things in a unique angle that provides the most value to his customers. So in a way he is being a content aggregator, doing the research for his customers, while adding his own unique touch.

      The following is an example excerpt from Eben's course on time management - Wake Up Productive -
      Another thing that we need to train ourselves to do is invest time in focused, uninterrupted blocks. Now this is an idea that all the great time management gurus teach. All the way from Peter Drucker back in The Effective Executive. The modern experts like Dan Sullivan, Jim Lare, and Tony Schwartz who wrote The Power of Full Engagement. It's very important to just focus on one thing for an extended period of time. Cultivate the ability to focus your mind. And when you're focused on one thing for an extended period of time and you block out all the distractions and interruptions, and I mean turn off the phone, turn off the computer, turn off everything else, you don't have anything to do but that one thing.
      See what he does? He takes the same idea - "to train ourselves to do is invest time in focused, uninterrupted blocks" - and then gives some practical applications - "and I mean turn off the phone, turn off the computer, turn off everything else, you don't have anything to do but that one thing...etc." He's not rewriting the work of those he's read. He's taking views and ideas from them but then putting his own stamp on it.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3605230].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author iAmNameLess
    well ideas can be patented... but I get the point.

    It is very rare to see an article and really believe it says something that has never been said before!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598193].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alex Frei
    The problem is that articles are not supposed to be unique.
    They're too small and they always have to be based on something. A research, some data, experience. And any credible article should have references.

    A product is a different story. A product, say a manual, describes the world. The world is same, so the only thing that can be different is author's perspective. And the perspective can be based on experience, on ideas by other people.
    It's like cooking. One cook can't complain about another using same vegetables for a salad. Vegetables are given, what you do with them is what's important.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598284].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author garben2011
      Originally Posted by Alex Frei View Post

      It's like cooking. One cook can't complain about another using same vegetables for a salad. Vegetables are given, what you do with them is what's important.
      That is true. The vegetables themselves are specific. But like you said what you do with them is what matters. If I am simply using your recipe and process then even if I make subtle changes here and there in the wording then I am still using your recipe. So, it makes sense to simply say hey I found this great recipe over here (linking to your site) rather than copying your recipe, mixing it up a little on paper, and then calling it my own recipe.

      However, if I experiment and try something a little different at different steps along the way, maybe even improve upon the recipe through multiple experiments, then I can say here is my recipe. I might still link to your recipe as an inspiration but it is not necessary since I am now sharing my own unique method. My own experience.
      Signature

      Interested In Easy Micro Projects You Can Do In Your Spare Time? Get Paid To Help Me!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598366].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Jarrett
        Banned
        If You Steal From One Author, It's Plagiarism; If You Steal From Many, It's Research.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598852].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alex Frei
        Originally Posted by garben2011 View Post

        However, if I experiment and try something a little different at different steps along the way, maybe even improve upon the recipe through multiple experiments, then I can say here is my recipe. I might still link to your recipe as an inspiration but it is not necessary since I am now sharing my own unique method. My own experience.
        Yes, exactly! Then, it's not stealing at all.
        Teaching and information exchange become much more simple if you compare them to cooking
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3600639].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kevinw1
    Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work. " (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism )

    Note the "close imitation" part. Rewriting someone else's article is still plagiarism.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598363].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author BlondieWrites
    Ideas are not copyrighted. To take an idea and run with it is fine. To rewrite someone's material is not the same thing and is not okay UNLESS its PLR, which should be rewritten.

    Reading someone's material and rewriting it in your own words is called plagiarism and it's not okay. Taking an idea and using it in your own way and your own method is okay because you are not reading someone's material and rewriting it and calling it your own.

    Committing plagiarism and simply taking an idea and using it are two totally different things. One is legal and one is not.



    Cindy
    Signature
    Content Niches

    Content Niches - Niche Content, PLR Content, One Owner Content, PLR Articles, PLR Ebooks, Ebook Content, Printables, and More.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3598895].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
    While it's true that ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, the law does allow for claims of infringement based on creating something called "derivative works."

    Even if your version fits your criteria, i.e., does not mention the original author's name, etc., it can still violate the copyright of the original creator.

    Here's an example using one of the IM teacher's favorite examples - dog training.

    Idea: Reward the behavior you want repeated.

    Ethical re-write: "If you want your dog to follow a certain command, set up conditions so that the dog does what you want, then give it a treat. Repeat this command-action-reward sequence until the dog has formed the association between command and action."

    Unethical rewrite: Taking a paragraph from a psychology textbook on the experiments of B. F. Skinner and simply rewording the text by changing the words "maze" to "trick" and "rat" to "dog".
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3599275].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulie888
      Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

      While it's true that ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, the law does allow for claims of infringement based on creating something called "derivative works."

      Even if your version fits your criteria, i.e., does not mention the original author's name, etc., it can still violate the copyright of the original creator.

      Here's an example using one of the IM teacher's favorite examples - dog training.

      Idea: Reward the behavior you want repeated.

      Ethical re-write: "If you want your dog to follow a certain command, set up conditions so that the dog does what you want, then give it a treat. Repeat this command-action-reward sequence until the dog has formed the association between command and action."

      Unethical rewrite: Taking a paragraph from a psychology textbook on the experiments of B. F. Skinner and simply rewording the text by changing the words "maze" to "trick" and "rat" to "dog".
      Great illustration that clearly delineates what's permissible and ethical when writing about existing ideas (after all, there are really very few "new" ideas out there), and what's not. The second example is basically what article writing software does, but in a slightly more sophisticated manner - it still remains unethical, though.
      Signature
      >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3600676].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Devid Farah
        Hey Jet,

        the reality is that if you have an original idea and then 'legally patent it' then someone attempts to claim it then it can be fought in court.

        With respect to the example that you mentioned in content online, there is the DMCA violation notice that you can use to punish the fraud. Report it to Google or elsewhere and the person will have to remove it.

        Not to worry copyright is alive and well.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3603957].message }}

Trending Topics