Should I worry about code plagiarism if it&#39;s my code? If I wrote a code by myself, which I know is my code because I myself have thought about the logic and code while developing it. But if the same logic and code was thought by somebody else and is used by somebody else, what am I supposed to do if a plagiarism check happens?
If it's patented then it doesn't matter that you independently came up with it. Most software is not patented, though. Most developers do not even think about patents when writing code. In theory you could spend your time keeping up to date on software patents so that you avoid infringing. But this probably only makes sense for specialists who would want to read the latest patents in their field anyway. All software is protected by literary copyright, though. In this case they will try to prove that you did not independently created it, and did copy it. Whelan v. Jaslow in 1986 ruled that structure, sequence and organization of a computer program were protected by copyright. So you could be liable even if you did not just copy and paste sections of code. But even if you're worried the court would get things wrong and think you copied a program when you never even saw it in the first place, there is really nothing you can do about it.
As @amon stated in a comment, copyright requires creativity. If the author of a tool wants to claim copyright on the output of that tool, then that output must contain something that required the creativity of the tool author. For a tool that just re-indents its input, the output is created from the input with a mechanical, non-creative, transformation and the output does not contain any creative content that wasn't already present in the input. For that reason, authors of such tools can't claim any copyright on the output. For a tool like bison, which was mentioned in the comments, the output contains a measurable amount of creative content that was not present in the input, but which was provided by the authors of bison. For that reason, the authors of 'bison' do have a copyright claim on the output of the tool (for which they give a broad permission to use). So, the basic question becomes, how much of the (creative) content of the output can be traced back to the tool itself and not to the input that the tool processed. For linters/formatters, that is likely to be very little. For code generators, it can be anywhere between very little and all of the output. The license restrictions on the code produced by the tool itself are by default the same as the license restrictions on the source of the tool, but the tool author can choose to apply any other license to the tool code that ends up in the output. If the output of the tool is, at least in part, dependent on an input file, then the authors of the input file also have a copyright claim on the tool output (as their creative work influenced the output), so the tool author can not claim exclusive ownership. The usual situation is that for tools that don't add creative content to the output, the author explicitly states that the don't have any copyright claims on the output. For tools that do add creative content, that content might be released under very permissive conditions (like, "you can use the output as a whole for any purpose, but you can only separate out the code that comes from the tool's codebase if you adhere to the &lt;X> license")
Software qua property is protected by copyright *perhaps patent, in some jurisdiction). The general rule is that whoever creates the thing (book, song, software) has the exclusive right to the thing. If an employee of Company 1 writes software for Company 2, that employee might (rarely) hold the copyright, but typically that scenario would involve a "work for hire", where the employee is hired by Company 1 to do such tasks as part of his duties with Company 1 (which might then be given to Company 2). This would then be a work for hire, and the copyright is held by Company 1. If the actual author was an independent contractor, he would hold the copyright – see Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reed for analysis of the subtle nuances in making that determination. The concept "work for hire" which crucially involves the "employee" relationship would not be applicable to Company 2 paying Company 1 for a product, and as long as the actual author is an employee of C1, C1 has not created a "work for hire" in the legal sense. Without some explicit disposition of copyright, Company 2 is in a sketchy position. Since C1 holds copyright, they must grant a license to C2 so that C2 can legally use it; or, C1 must transfer copyright to C2. This does not happen automatically, and (if C1 does not want to remedy the situation after the fact) C2 would need to take C1 to court to force a resolution to the situation. At that point, the issue would be what C1 implicitly promised, even though they didn't put it in writing. It is likely that the initial exchange was along the lines "Can you make us a program that will do X?", and the answer was "Sure, that will cost Y", and then "Okay, go ahead, looking forward to the product". The courts would not simply say "Well, you didn't explicitly require a license, so you don't get to actually use the software that you paid for". However, it's a somewhat open question whether the court would order a license (of what nature?) or a transfer of copyright. The disposition would depend heavily on the facts of the case (what was said, what C1 actually did, what kind of business they are, what did creating the work involve...).
You can read it, you can examine it to the point where you understand it, and then you can get inspired by the code and write your own code, without copying the code on the website, which does the same thing. If there is no license, then you can do what copyright law allows you to do. You are not allowed to copy the code, or create derived works by taking the code and modifying it.
The words "proprietary format" are important. Are you sure the format is proprietary? If it is, then it's likely protected in which case they might have grounds to sue (but that does not mean they would definetly win). If the format is not proprietary, and so long as you don't share data which is proprietary then I believe you fine. I'm not a lawyer - but I cite GIF files as an example. They were still protected by the US and some other countries until at least the late 90s and there were various threats to open source linux companies who shared code that used the file format. I'm not aware of anything other than threats and never heard of any company being sued, let alone winning or losing. Another example that comes to mind is the RedHat ISO format. My understanding is RedHat could not stop anyone from sharing open source, but they could prevent folks from sharing the format they assembled and shared the open source. Again, I am not sure if it was ever tested in any court of law anywhere.
First of all, &quot;plagiarism&quot; is more of an academic than a legal term. It means using another's work without proper credit, and particularly in a way that falsely makes it appear to be ones own work. This is severely criticized in academic and journalistic circles, and may result i a person losing a job or being expelled from a degree program, but it is not in and of itself a legal issue. What a court is concerned with is copyright infringement. Some things are plagiarism but not copyright infringement. For example, copying without acknowledgement from a work written two hundred years ago might well be plagiarism , but would not be infringement because the soruce is not protected by copyright. i can, for example copy from the music of Bach all that I want, because it is long out of copyright. On the other hand, if I copy a recent work without permission but properly attribute my source, it is not plagiarism, but may well be copyright infringement. When faced with a claim of copyright infringement, a US Federal court will look at several things. First of all, it will check if the copyright has been registered within eh copyright office. Under US law, one must registered before bringing a copyright suit. If there has been no registration, the suit will be dismissed. The court will also consider evidence of similarity, unless the defendant admits copying. Usually if this is disputed there will be expert testimony that the similarity is so great that simple coincidence cannot explain it. Thsi will consider the notes, the duration of each tone, rhythm, chords, keys, and other musical elements. To establish copying there should normally be a significant similarity over an extended passage at least. I have read of cases where similarity of a passage 35 notes long was enough to m establish copying. But there is not clear cut rule on this. A passage just a few notes long could be identical by accidental recreation, and will not generally prove copying. The court will also consider evidence of access. The plaintiff will often introduce evidence showing that the alleged infringer had access to a copy of the source work. This is not absolutely essential, but is very helpful to the plaintiff's case. The court can also consider claims of common source. If the defendant says that the allegedly infringing work was in fact based on an older work now out of copyright, which the plaintiff's work was also based on, that would tend to defeat a claim of infringement. The court might also consider claims that the alleged source work was not in fact original and should not have copyright protection. And if the defendant admits copying, but claims that this was a fair use of the source work, the court will analyze the statutory dour factors, and possibly other relevant factors to determent whether this is valid fair use or not. This is where claims of &quot;influence&quot; tend to be resolved. There is no clear cut set of criteria for how much copying is allowed. I have not followed the links, because I am not a musical expert and my judgement of the degree of similarity would not be meaningful, and even if it were, the degree of similarity alone would not prove whether there has been infringement. Note that it is also possible that one of these composers has actually gotten permission from the other, perhaps in return for a fee, to use part of the other's work. In that case there would be no infringement, as long as there was permission. The book My Life in Court by Louis Nizer has a detailed description of a successful suit for infringement of a copyrighted song, the so-called &quot;rum and coca-cola&quot; case (Baron v. Leo Feist). The book describes in detail the evidence presented by plaintiff and defendant. See also the Music Copyright Infringement Resource provided by The George Washington University Law School &amp; Columbia Law School, which lists many cases of alleged copyright infringement of music, from 1844 to 2021, giving results and excerpts of court opinions as well as other information about each case.
You are in breach of Copyright. Plain and simple. Certain websites allow you to use the website content as long as a link is made, but the website must clearly state that. You may also use a tiny portion of the content if it falls under Fair Use, where "Fair Use" does not mean "I want to". The best thing to do is not to do it. You can't copy anybody's work without consent. If you're thinking about Google specifically then they offer multiple APIs so that you can use their content in a wide variety of ways.
Copyright requires originality Your infinity hard drive appears to be a machine designed to violate copyright by immediately copying anything presented to it. Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin were creating original melodies. These do not have copyright until they are fixed in a tangible medium. That's what the hard drive is for. This is insurance against them being sued if they release a song and someone claims it violates that person's copyright - they can produce in court the melody with a date stamp of 2015 (or whatever). GitHub or similar would be even better evidence. In this context there is a specific allegation that melody X infringes copyright. Riehl &amp; Rubin can then go to their records (including metadata) and say no, here is melody X version 1 through n and they all predate your release so we didn’t violate your copyright.