Yeah, it was just a few paragraphs and Michelle delivered hers better anyways.
Honest enough to admit what? That there's such thing as an automatic copyright? Well, yes there is, but it's not an unlimited term - every work created does not qualify. And I didn't think Melinda's case qualified.
Maybe I was not clear, all I was saying is (from one of my official links):
You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work.
Not that there was no such thing as an automatic copyright at all. But it's best to be aware of the laws in any event, you may write a book or something one day.
OK knowing a
little bit about this from another venue - one account showed the sentences that Melania spoke and then Michelle's original sentences and in each case at least one word was different which technically speaking probably absolves a plagiarism charge. It was an obvious copy situation but technically would probably fall down in court.
Any lawyers or para-legals out there to verify this?
Having been a software engineer for over 40 years when a charge of source code copyright violation is issued against a programmer a board reviews the two source codes and it takes very little in command source code difference to prove
against plagiarism. That's why I don't think it would hold up in court and why I'd like (if possible) a lawyer or para-legal to comment. It may be different for a speech but the principle seems the same.
A lot depends upon the object of the program e.g. a payroll program which calculates wages, tax withholding, etc being so standardized it would be nearly impossible to prove plagiarism.
As for comparing words to poison, who decides when a string of identical words is used that it is deliberate and not coincidental which has been a long time plague in the creation of software and similar source code commands.
With Melania it was fairly obvious and then later attested to that it was a form of plagiarism probably not provable in court (apart from the confession).
HankD
