Cameron Neylon

Following my hopefully getting towards [three-quarters baked
post](http://blog.openwetware.org/scienceintheopen/2008/11/09/my-bador-how-far-should-the-open-mindset-go/)
there has been more helpful comments and discussion both here and on
friendfeed. I wanted to pick out a specific issue that has come up in
both places. At [Friendfeed the
discussion](http://friendfeed.com/e/e68cde42-fa05-fc6c-cd3c-a42b217dce7f/My-Bad-or-how-far-should-the-open-mindset/)
ran into the question of plagiarism more generally and why it is bad.
[Anders Norgaard](http://andersnorgaard.blogspot.com/) made the point
that plagiarism is bad regardless of whether it breaks rules or not and
a discussion on why that is followed.Â  I think the conclusion we came
to is that plagiarism reduces value by making it more difficult to find
the right person with the right expertise when you need something done.
It reduces the value of the body of work in helping you find the person
who can do the job that you need doing.

[David Crotty](http://www.cshblogs.org/cshprotocols/), in a comment on
the blog post makes a comment that I think probes the same issues:

> Do you mind if I start a blog called "Science in the open" and pretend
> that my name is "Cameron Neylon" and then fill that blog with
> dreadful, hateful nonsense? After all, your name and your blog's name
> aren't limited physical resources, right?Â Â Â  Does ownership extend
> to your online identity?Â  Isn't using someone else's logo a
> misrepresentation of identity?

Now this is important for two reasons, firstly because it probes the
extreme end of my argument that â€œobjects that can be infinitely copied
should not be treated as propertyâ€? and also because it revolves around
the issue of identity. Reliable identity lies at the core of building
the trust networks that make social web tools work. Does that mean it is
one area where the full weight of property based law should be brought
to bear? So I think this is worth unpicking in detail.

So, letâ€™s start with the honest answer. If this happened I would be
angry and upset. I would be likely to storm around the office/house a
bit and possibly rant at people and objects that were unfortunate enough
to cross my path. But after, hopefully, calming down a bit I hope I
would follow something like the following course.

1.  Write the person a polite note explaining that they seem to have
    both the same name and same name of blog and that this probably is
    bad for both of us as there is the potential for confusion.
    Ambiguity is bad because it reduces trust in attribution. As I used
    these names first I would ask them to consider changing. I would
    assume it was a simple coincidence, a mistake made in good faith.
2.  If they did not I would dissociate myself publically from their work
    making a clear statement about where my work could be found. I would
    consider changing the name of my blog (after all it is the feed that
    people follow â€" does anyone care that much what it is called?),
    but not my name.
3.  If it was clear that this was a case of deliberate misrepresentation
    I would present the evidence that this was the case and request the
    help of the community to make that very publically clear.

My case is that allowing the free re-use of my name and my blog name
ought to add value on average. Indeed my experience thus far is that,
allowing people to use these names, to point to me and the work I have
generated has indeed been net positive. Iâ€™ve never objected to people
quoting me, using my name, reproducing blog posts, or whatever. Whether
itâ€™s â€œfair useâ€? or a copyright violation, or appropriately
licensed re-use is irrelevant. Itâ€™s all good because it brings more
interested people to my blog and to me. One negative experience would
probably not actually tip that balance.Several nasty ones might.

The key here is that the real resource is me. I am not infinitely
replicable, no-one else can write my posts. The name is just a pointer.
An important pointer and one which I will defend, in as much as I will
try to make clear what I think and why I think it, as well as to be
clear about who I am and why I say what I do. Someone who plagiarizes my
work or reproduces it without attribution or someone who deliberately
misrepresents what I write reduces the value of my work because they
reduce the ability of people who are looking for someone with my
expertise to use that work to find *me.*

But it is not the reproduction of work that is the problem here, it is
the misrepresentation of its origin, either by an author falsely
claiming it as theirs, or by some mis-attributing someone elseâ€™s work
or views to me. The problem is not the act of copying but the act of
lying. The problem with lying is that it reduces trust, the problem with
reducing trust is that it reduces the value of the networks we used to
find things that are useful and the people who have the expertise to
make them. Identity is crucial to trust and trust is what adds value to
networks. Very few things reduce the value of web based networks more
effectively than lying about identity.

We will never build a perfect system that solves this problem. My belief
though is that it will be more effective to build strong social and
technical systems rather than to apply the rules of â€œownershipâ€? to
my name. Do I own my name? No idea. Will I defend my name and ask others
to help me do that if someone attacks it? Yes. Will I use the best
technical systems to try to be clear about who I am in all the places
where I act? Well I could do better on this, but then a lot of us could
really. I will work to build trust in my name, in my brand if you like,
and if that trust is attacked I will defend it.

So where does this leave the story of Ricardoâ€™s logo? Well the first
point was the plagiarism of the image. This breaks the link between the
image and the author which reduces its use to Ricardo. The lack of
attribution means that people who think â€œwhat a cool logoâ€? will not
be able to find Ricardo to do them a cool logo of their own. But it is
not the copying *per se* which does the damage but the plagiarism, the
lack of attribution. Arguably, as the community leaps to Ricardoâ€™s
defence (and points out what a cool logo it is) he actually benefits
from a raised profile across a wider community. I had seen a few
examples of his work before but hadnâ€™t realised how many he had done
and how good they are. Ricardo pointed out in the [original Friendfeed
thread](http://friendfeed.com/e/cc145da2-dedc-4464-b0ba-1842bbf8f0ec/Now-here-s-an-example-of-shameless-stealing-ref/)
that the reason the image was copyright was that he was making a living
at the time from design. It is not inconceivable he may be better placed
to do that now than he was before the logo was misappropriated. That is
for Ricardo to decide though, not me.

Does the use of the logo by a company selling hokum misrepresent
Ricardo? Well given they didnâ€™t attribute it to him not directly. But
letâ€™s imagine that the image was CC-BY and that the company did
attribute it. Arguably Ricardo would not want to be associated with that
and that would be fair enough but there wouldnâ€™t be anything he could
do about it from a legal perspective. Because the image is actually
copyright all rights reserved he can prevent these kinds of re-use. Or
can at least in principle. He retains control in a way that CC-BY
licenses do not allow. My argument is that to legally defend this
position would take much more money and energy than clearly and
publically distancing yourself from the re-use of the work. And probably
wouldnâ€™t be much more effective. Furthermore my argument is that the
good that comes from allowing re-use outweighs the bad. The re-use of
your work actually gives you a platform to distance yourself from that
re-use if you so choose. Once that is made clear it is just more good
publicity for you.

More importantly if you believe, as I do, in the value of allowing
re-use then you cannot reasonably pick and choose who and what re-uses
are appropriate. Consistency requires that you allow re-use that you do
and do not disagree with. I may not approve of that re-use, and it is
perfectly reasonable to say so, but that gives me no right to object. To
mis-quote Hall channelling Voltaire â€œI disagree with the way you have
re-used my work, but I will defend your right to do so and the value you
add by doing it â€? â€" and no I will not defend it to the death. I
donâ€™t take it *that* seriouslyâ€¦


Following my hopefully getting towards three-quarters baked post there has been more helpful comments and discussion both here and on friendfeed. I wanted to pick out a specific issue that has come up in both places. At Friendfeed the discussion ran into the question of plagiarism more generally and why it is bad.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

More on â€œtheftâ€ and the problem of identity

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

More on â€œtheftâ€ and the problem of identity

More on â€œtheftâ€ and the problem of identity