Comments on: Week 2 Post – 9/5

By: Bryson

Bryson — Sat, 14 Sep 2024 02:55:56 +0000

To answer your question about where we draw the line between remixing and plagiarism, I would say it is based on what the author says their work is. Are they creating a piece and saying, “This is brand new, I did it all by myself, there are none like it!” or are they saying, “I was inspired by a piece of art and created this”, “I took pieces from this and made it my own”, or just straight up citing the original work as well. If they claim it entirely as their own, yet there are obvious traces back to the original work, then it is safe to call that plagiarism.

By: Baileycrosslin

Baileycrosslin — Fri, 13 Sep 2024 23:22:43 +0000

You bring up a really interesting question about where the line between remixing and plagiarism lies. I think that plagiarism is more about giving credit where it’s due, and if credit is given in the process of remixing, then there’s no issue there. However, an issue arises when we think about the difference between remixing and simply copying one’s work, making a small adjustment, and calling it remixing. One question that I would pose is where do we draw the line between remixing a piece of media and simply copying it and calling it one’s own?

By: Frog

Frog — Fri, 13 Sep 2024 17:09:51 +0000

The line between remixing and plagiarism is whether or not there is proper credit being given. The thing about the Ridolfo and DeVoss article is that I don’t see much of a difference in what they are saying and what people are already doing. You said it yourself: “Reusing and remixing content is such a common thing nowadays.” When we write a research paper, we gather sources to remix with our words. We are trying to add our voice to the conversation that the existing works are already talking about. Doing that already composes for the hope that someone else will continue the conversation. I guess I just don’t see how we can control what others will remix our voice into besides doing that.