Opinion - News Analysis   

“Frightening reality” that is often overlooked

Plagiarism is a dread word for newspersons. But that does not prevent subtle resort to the practice by some, in the hope that they will not be found out. And when they are, the ignominy sticks and sticks.

In an earlier column (“Unfair omission: an author’s protest,” May 1, 2006), I dealt with the issue of plagiarism, which in simple terms, can be described as stealing and passing off another person’s ideas or words or work as one’s own. Reproducing copyrighted material improperly is also a form of plagiarism.

The resources available on the Internet and the ease of extracting and using them lure many on to the easy path. Material sent over the Internet or stored on web servers is protected by copyright law in the same way material in other media is protected. Permission of the owners is generally needed when the material is downloaded for use in another publication. This, of course, does not apply when it is done for personal, non-commercial use.

* * * 

“The Copyright Website” ( http://www.benedict.com) says: “Copyright works on the net include news stories, software, novels, screenplays, graphics, pictures, Usenet messages and even e-mail. In fact, the frightening reality is that almost everything on the net is protected by copyright law. That can pose problems to the hapless surfer.”

Works that are no longer protected by copyright (or never have been) are considered “public domain” and one can borrow freely from these sources. Many people assume that everything on the Internet is public domain. It is not. “Once expression is committed to a tangible medium (and computer media is considered tangible), copyright protection is automatic. So postings of all kinds are protected the same way as published printed works” ( http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/IntellectualProperty/permissn.htm). And there is no need for a notice of copyright for this protection to be effective.

* * * 

Is it ignorance of the copyright provisions or is it intentional infringement? The pace of newspaper production virtually rules out checking, at the final stage, material submitted for the news pages for its resemblance to any other published material. But no newspaper of standing will knowingly “dismiss a bit of plagiarism with a wink and a nod,” as Prof. Rahul Basu of the Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai, alleges. And he feels the Readers’ Editor “apparently sees nothing wrong with what is clearly a case of plagiarism.”

What led to Prof. Basu’s lament? On September 10, 2007, The Hindu published a news item on an elephant herd on the prowl in the plains of Kodagu district (Karnataka). The accompanying picture happened to be one of African elephants! Quite a few readers pointed out the bloomer. As an immediate response, this was noted in the daily “Corrections and Clarifications” column. The correction said that according to the correspondent, the photograph had been downloaded from a website.

* * * 

The correction was meant to set the record straight, and was not a “somewhat casual attitude of the Readers’ Editor,” as Prof. Basu characterises it. It was undoubtedly plagiarism, but we had to find out how it happened before commenting on the larger issues involved. That process took time and it revealed some disturbing patterns.

The first response of the reporter concerned was that the demand for a picture came from the Bangalore desk on the afternoon of Sunday, September 9. He conveyed this to a freelance photographer who provides pictures on a regular basis. “He downloaded it from a website; he was not aware whether it was Asian or African and it escaped my attention too,” the reporter said. In reply, the Bangalore bureau chief pointed out to him that his action amounted to violation of copyright and plagiarism. It was also unprofessional as a photograph should have been filed along with the story; and what was supplied was not properly verified.

The reporter, admitting his error which had “dispirited and demoralised” him, said he became aware that it was a downloaded picture only when he checked it with the photographer, following a query from the Readers’ Editor.

* * * 

I am glad there is awareness that downloading from a website violates intellectual property right and that it amounts to plagiarism. That message has to percolate to all levels, with the warning of severe action when it is done wilfully.

There are some other fundamental questions that need answers. First, the choice of an illustration and its description (caption). Some newspapers have the practice of using some picture, related or unrelated to the text, with a news story to provide visual relief. This does look odd and amusing at times. The Hindu does not do it and selects only a graphic relevant to the story. In the particular story under reference, the caption read: “Marching ahead: an elephant herd on the prowl in the plains of Kodagu district.” Even if the herd had comprised Asian elephants, it would have been a wrong and misleading caption, as it was not in Kodagu district.

The reporter has been blamed. But what was the role of the editorial desk in this episode? The sub-editor and finally the news editor are responsible for what goes on a page. Was the picture examined — every picture has to be, for various aspects — at any stage for its appropriateness? (The African variety is easily identifiable as different from the Asian. In this particular picture, what struck me was the large number of tuskers: an impossibility now in India, where tuskers in the wild are few.) In theory, the desk is the last gate a news item has to cross before it is finalised for printing; in this case, the gate was dysfunctional.

* * * 

A related point is the use of pictures from the files — what the reporter says he suggested. Here again, the question of copyright can arise. Some of these pictures may have been got on a one-time use basis. There is generally nothing to indicate this on the files. The reuse can lead to complaints, and I have come across at least one such instance. I had suggested that the Photo Index should have all the necessary details, including copyright, about a stored picture.

And finally, to answer Prof. Basu. Such serious issues are not ignored, do not get lost in The Hindu. They are followed up, and action taken. And the 129-year-old newspaper has its own internal news ombudsman arrangement, the first of its kind, that has been institutionalised.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Modi’s triumph, Congress debacle
India 2007: high growth, low development
The road beyond the Gujarat victory
“Frightening reality” that is often overlooked
On the campaign trail with Hillary Clinton
Gujarat verdict
EC’s displeasure
Haneef vindicated
Taslima issue
Basic education
Caring for the old

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu