Shouldn't this be treated as an obvious plagiarism case?

[Badmanthought]

The issue of plagiarism can't be over emphasize, most especially when it comes to art, graphics, videos etc.

No doubt most people claim others materials as there's base on there present emotional drive (such as over excitement) at that particular time, it can be just to pull peoples leg most especially there loved ones without thinking about the consequences there of.

Example, When you post bitcoin logo on social and add a caption text " my name is bla bla bla, and I am the original creator of bitcoin"
At first people will be curious and want to ask lot of questions, with this, you've already got the of the audience which was your primary aim. After this it necessary for you to clear the air that the material is not actually us.
No body will kill you for doing this, rather people will laugh over it and see it as fun. But when you choose to go further than this, then you're being considered a theft!

There's a limit to everything we do, and we should not do things because other are also doing it. Everyone goes to the bank, but there's a way you will go to the bank and you will be considered a suspect

[NotATether]

If I want to post this image below with the original link I found when I searched for bitcoin logos, I don't think it's needed to post the source. It's right there when you quote my post (https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ca/c5/af/cac5af954a16f01409a4d61d79b5a540.jpg).

Someone correct me if I am wrong.
I am nowhere claiming to have made the logo or that it originates from me. But what the accused user did is totally different. He claimed it was his work several times.

If you post this in the Wall Observer thread for example, nobody's going to come after you because it's not in a place where it can be viewed as the logo being yours and Internet forums are not known for their users claiming ownership of copyrighted stuff.

But say you put this image on your website or blog. That is not OK without permission from or attribution to the author since it could potentially be viewed as the site's property.

One of attribution or permission to use it without attribution (i.e. licensing) is necessary to use the image in content on a site.

Again, technically forums are not exempt from this rule but at the same time, lawyers don't expect forum users to follow them. But other forum users might call them out for doing that (like everyone is to bitcoinermatt right now).

[zasad@]

A recent story about using someone else's photos
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1926895.msg55511429#msg55511429

Global moderator's answer on this issue:

Thank you all for your answers, I think the discussion of this issue has been exhausted. / Below is the answer by mprep (Global Moderator).

33. Posting plagiarized content is not allowed.[e] - Does this rule apply to images?

AFAIK no, it doesn't apply to images.

Thank you, can I quote you?

Feel free.

I have already met several times accused of plagiarism due to the use of other people's images.
If this issue were clarified in the annexes to the rules, there would be less controversy.

[actmyname]

I have already met several times accused of plagiarism due to the use of other people's images.
If this issue were clarified in the annexes to the rules, there would be less controversy.

Would you not agree, though, that this situation is different?

Did you ever post an image and say, "this is mine"? You weren't taking credit for other peoples' ideas and content - the user in this case was.Even if you don't call it plagiarism, are we going to let people get away with spam by letting people post images and pretend they drew them? Might as well start scraping content from popular crypto artists and make threads out of them.

[Rikafip]

A recent story about using someone else's photos
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1926895.msg55511429#msg55511429

That case is not similar to the one I reported. From what I could see, @icopress didn't explicitly claimed anywhere that those photos were made by him and no one reasonable would assume that just because he shared some photos, while @bitcoinermat did exactly that and not only once, but he wrote in several posts confirming that claim. And why? To farm some merit.

That's why I wanted the opinion of the forum staff as the way I see it what @bitcoinermat did was textbook example of plagiarism and it shouldn't be allowed.

Even if you don't call it plagiarism, are we going to let people get away with spam by letting people post images and pretend they drew them? Might as well start scraping content from popular crypto artists and make threads out of them.

Since there was no clarification of the rule and @bitcoinermatt is still not banned and my report is unhandled I guess plagiarism rule doesn't apply to images even in obvious cases like this.

[zasad@]

I have already met several times accused of plagiarism due to the use of other people's images.
If this issue were clarified in the annexes to the rules, there would be less controversy.

Would you not agree, though, that this situation is different?

Did you ever post an image and say, "this is mine"? You weren't taking credit for other peoples' ideas and content - the user in this case was.Even if you don't call it plagiarism, are we going to let people get away with spam by letting people post images and pretend they drew them? Might as well start scraping content from popular crypto artists and make threads out of them.

I agree, only the question will remain unanswered.
For example, consider 3 cases:
1. The user publishes someone else's picture.
2. The user publishes someone else's picture but does not say "this is mine" (you can not say "that it is mine", but feed it so that everyone would think "that it is mine"    )
These cases are not considered plagiarism on the forum.

3. The user publishes someone else's picture and says "this is mine"

If this should be understood as a fraud, then the fraud on the forum is not moderated, then the flag should be set.

[actmyname]

I agree, only the question will remain unanswered.
For example, consider 3 cases:
1. The user publishes someone else's picture.
2. The user publishes someone else's picture but does not say "this is mine" (you can not say "that it is mine", but feed it so that everyone would think "that it is mine"    )
These cases are not considered plagiarism on the forum.

3. The user publishes someone else's picture and says "this is mine"

If this should be understood as a fraud, then the fraud on the forum is not moderated, then the flag should be set.

The difference between 1 and 2 is that 1 has omission of attribution whereas 2 would have the user to have the intent of misleading others.

Without getting too pedantic into the epistemic technicalities of plagiarism via lying vs. misleading, I think you should be able to conflate 2 and 3 in certain cases.Suppose in an example scenario that the user fulfills #2 by neither confirming nor denying ownership of the art: when one asks about the origin of the picture or if they applaud the user for their work and the user in question doesn't respond, it's in bad faith. Sure, people may skim over a few posts here and there, but if thinking in absolutes there's a certain threshold where you would have to disagree with the willful ignorance.

What would they even say when posting the image, anyway?
"Here's a piece of art:"

[zasad@]

What would they even say when posting the image, anyway?
"Here's a piece of art:"

"Here is a work of art:" it seem to be mine.
You are right that point 2 can become point 3 in a certain situation, but if users are not banned, then, according to the forum rules, this is not plagiarism.
If this is a scam, then a flag should be set for this behavior. I read that some tribes had a custom at the beginning of our era. If a person was caught cheating, a flag was attached to him and taken through the streets so that everyone could see that this person was a deceiver.