Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on May 26, 2019, 12:43:53 PM

Quote from: hilariousetc on May 26, 2019, 11:48:31 AM

What's next? Banning people for memes?

No, but there is a difference between using a random picture or meme like in your example, and posting someone else's infographic without a source. Something like this (https://thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com/bitcoin-infographic_5029189c9cbaf_w1500.jpg) contains far more information and took far longer to produce than most of the content which is plagiarized around here. I'd argue trying to pass off something like this as your own is a far greater offense than the usual "Great project can't wait for it to go to the moon" plagiarism, and the latter does result in a ban.

I've used infographics occasionally to illustrate a point I'm making within a thread and would say that it's up to the compiler/author of the graphic to include their signature/attribution (as they have in your example) if they want to ensure being credited for it.
Also, of course, quite often the infographic's linking text is itself plagiarised (as in your example.)
The key condition imo is whether or not the motivation for using it is to "pass it off as your own", i.e. to gain some advantage, like reputation or credibility enhancement, by omitting to mention that you are not the creator. So what is the default assumption then? That if something is not attributed then its reproduction in any context is an attempt to do this? I think that's too simplistic.
What are we to think of hilari's meme? Do we see it as just an amusing way of sharpening a point by using a publicly available image, or are we to think that he's a good meme creator because, as he didn't provide a link to the image source, he must have created it himself?