Ahem, .. He posted a link to the original source video on YT. For plagiarism he would have had to copy the video and claimed it as his own or not revealed it's original source. I'm not flagging this one as it does not meet the definition of plagiarism. According to a Dutch dictionary, Copyright 1974 H.D. Tjeenk Willink bv. Groningen, The Netherlands, ISBN 90 0196822 8, 27th print since 1897, the definition requires that the poster must claim the work of another as his own and publish it as his own.
The original poster on YT still gets the views, likes and any revenue from YT/advertisers and if he was smart enough he would have posted this video here himself. You could also argue that by posting the video here, more traffic was driven to the video that it would otherwise not have. Nothing was copied, nothing was stolen and no false claims were made. When you click on the video, you get to see the original and not a copy.
Your interpretation of plagiarism means that if I let you read a book out of my collection, you would accuse me of plagiarism eventhough you could have purchased the book yourself.
How about a public library, they have nothing but other people's work on their shelves.
Plagiarism:
The deliberate and knowing presentation of another person's original ideas or creative expressions as one's own. Generally, plagiarism is immoral but not illegal. If the expression's creator gives unrestricted permission for its use and the user claims the expression as original, the user commits plagiarism but does not violate copyright laws.
The Youtube licensing agreement allows for videos to be embedded in an unrestricted way by users of Youtube, provided the videos are available to be embedded. By embedding a video there is no inherent violation of the rights, IP, copyright or any other conceptual property relating to the video.
Since the definition of plagiarism requires absolutely that the user of the material claims the material as their own and this did not occur in this post, it is not correct to state that this post is an example of plagiarism.
Flagged for spam @steemflagrewards
Steem Flag Rewards mention comment has been approved! Thank you for reporting this abuse, @slobberchops.
This post was submitted via our Discord Community channel. Check us out on the following link!
SFR Discord
Ahem, .. He posted a link to the original source video on YT. For plagiarism he would have had to copy the video and claimed it as his own or not revealed it's original source. I'm not flagging this one as it does not meet the definition of plagiarism. According to a Dutch dictionary, Copyright 1974 H.D. Tjeenk Willink bv. Groningen, The Netherlands, ISBN 90 0196822 8, 27th print since 1897, the definition requires that the poster must claim the work of another as his own and publish it as his own.
I see no such claim here. Greetings!
Aherm matey...
Plagiarism is to commit literary theft (words, video etc) - Source
Also from Wikipedia
Since Steemit posts are monetized except when the account holder declines rewards, this is flaggable.
We don't want to hurt people. We just want to take the rewards away so we don't flag when payout is zero except for phishing.
The original poster on YT still gets the views, likes and any revenue from YT/advertisers and if he was smart enough he would have posted this video here himself. You could also argue that by posting the video here, more traffic was driven to the video that it would otherwise not have. Nothing was copied, nothing was stolen and no false claims were made. When you click on the video, you get to see the original and not a copy.
Your interpretation of plagiarism means that if I let you read a book out of my collection, you would accuse me of plagiarism eventhough you could have purchased the book yourself.
How about a public library, they have nothing but other people's work on their shelves.
From Black's Law Dictionary (8th):
The Youtube licensing agreement allows for videos to be embedded in an unrestricted way by users of Youtube, provided the videos are available to be embedded. By embedding a video there is no inherent violation of the rights, IP, copyright or any other conceptual property relating to the video.
Since the definition of plagiarism requires absolutely that the user of the material claims the material as their own and this did not occur in this post, it is not correct to state that this post is an example of plagiarism.