This article has me feeling a bit torn in two directions. On one hand, I completely understand why Dorothy Lewis feels the way that she does about having a character based off of herself. This character, although fictional, was recognizably Lewis to many of her peers. This character had done things within the play 'Frozen' that Lewis hadn't done in real life, and this could have an effect on her reputation. People who were able to see the resemblance between Lewis and the character of the play may think that Lewis had partaken in an affair and or done things that Lewis hadn't done. If I were in a similar situation, I'd be upset as well. Although, it does appear that the only possibility of plagiarism that occurred was when Lavery took the work …show more content…
Plagiarism is more specifically geared towards taking someone else's work and claiming it as your own, or using another person's work without properly crediting the original author. Whereas, copyright infringement is using the work of someone else's creation without seeking out permission from all parties involved in ownership of said piece of work. Again, the notion that one "owns" or is the original creator of a series of words or a set of chords, is a bit cloudy. This brings me back to the Vanilla Ice argument. Queen and David Bowie had created a unique riff at the beginning of their song "Under Pressure". This sound is nearly identical to the beginning of the song "Ice Ice Baby". However, in Vanilla Ice's version there is slight variance of the original sound, a simple sound of cymbals clashing together. Initially Vanilla Ice had tried to argue that the added symbols made the intro of his song distinctly different. The case never went to court, as Vanilla Ice settled out before a lawsuit was drawn up. So where do we draw the line between plagiarism and copyright …show more content…
The author seems to sum up the fact that, although their words were used without their knowledge or permission and without being properly credited, they question whether or not they owned the words at all, as they had been said before to some extent. Their words were essentially reborn within the play and used for a new purpose, which is all part of the creative process. Perhaps I interpreted this article all wrong by the end of it. Although, I have to disagree and say that is someone takes your exact words, it's still plagiarism and should be viewed as such if you received no credit. It's often taught that should you utilize another person's work, you should credit them and/or paraphrase their work into your own unique words. As for copyright infringement, I feel that an expiration date being placed on someone's original content or ideas isn't quite right. It was still their idea 20 years ago and it's going to be their idea in present day. If someone wants to play upon that idea and conduct their own research and build upon the original idea, then so be it. I suppose the same could be said for music. Many songs are inspired. Although not asking for permission from the correct people isn't quite right either. I understand that there are only so many words, ideas, and chords. I still believe people can build upon those original words, ideas, and chords to create their own