Since it is a new word, there is definitely no concept of "washing manuscripts" in our country's law. However, everything remains the same. Once we grasp the purpose, we can easily make judgments. The phenomenon of manuscript washing mainly involves a principle of my country’s copyright law: the dichotomy of ideological expression.
The dichotomy of ideological expression, that is, the law only protects expression, not ideas. In fact, many people know this principle, but sometimes they are not clear about what Thoughts and expressions are.
Emotions, theories, ideas, concepts, creativity, etc., belong to the category of thoughts; words, pictures, videos, etc., belong to the category of expression. You can write a book called "Romeo and Juliet", and I can write a book called "Butterfly Lovers". The ideas are basically the same. They are both stories about sacrifice for love, but the expressions are different. Even if he lived in modern times and Zhang *xu wrote "Spring River with Flowers and Moonlight Night", he could not prevent others from composing a guzheng song "Spring River with Flowers and Moonlight Night". The music has the same artistic conception as the poem, but uses different expressions.
Copyright law stipulates the dichotomy of expression of ideas, both to encourage creation and to disseminate knowledge. Copyright is a monopoly right. Once it is monopolized, others cannot use it. Therefore, the law cannot monopolize ideas.
The above examples of what is thought and what is expression only mention the clearest parts of thought and expression. Thought and expression are not completely separate, but integrated. Walking from both ends to the middle, it becomes increasingly blurry and no clear dividing line can be found. For example, for novels, words are expressions, and stories are also expressions. The characters, complex relationships, and development context of the story may all be expressions; the emotions to be expressed in novels are thoughts, the themes are thoughts, and the synopsis may also be thoughts. In many cases, judging whether a work uses the expression of another work requires case-by-case analysis, and there is no such thing as a yardstick that can measure everything.
After talking about "zong", let's look at "change". The method of infringement that keeps appearing is "change", such as "washing manuscripts".
Washing the manuscript, there are probably several ways:
1. Synonym substitution, that is, using synonyms, negation + antonyms.
Editing the manuscript by replacing synonyms will generally constitute an infringement of the copyright of others.
Whether you use synonym substitution to rewrite a novel or an article, it is mainly the expression of other people's works, not ideas. Because the meaning is the same, the structure is the same, the context is the same, so many things combined together will not fall into the category of thought in the category of expression.
2. Adjust the sentences, that is, change the order of words, change the sentence structure, and reverse the sentences.
Refining the manuscript by adjusting sentences will generally infringe the copyright of others.
Changing the order of words can actually only fool the computer program. Chinese sentences have grammatical constraints and cannot be changed too much. Simple changes are actually more practical for other people's expressions. The same goes for changing sentence patterns. Fine-tuning a sentence is still within the scope of using other people's expressions.
If you reverse the sentence, you can easily tell that you are using someone else's expression. In a paragraph, which sentence comes first and which sentence comes after often has a certain logical structure, which cannot be randomly adjusted or completely disrupted. Adjusting or reversing the order of some sentences does not affect the expressive content of the article, and still uses other people's expressions.
3. Quote the same material.
References to materials reflect the author's selection and arrangement and are part of the original expression of the work. If one article cites four materials A, B, C, and D to illustrate a point, and another article also cites these four materials to illustrate the same or similar point, it may still be in the same order and with the same logic. structure, it may infringe the copyright of other people's works.
Of course, the random overlap of one or two quoted materials will not be considered to constitute infringement.
4. Use your own words to express your views on other people’s works.
Using your own words to talk about other people's opinions is different from synonym substitution. Synonym substitution is also usedIt is an expression of other people's articles, but if you use your own words to talk about other people's opinions, you may be using other people's thoughts.
Whether you use the ideas or expressions of other people's works, the key lies in: what point of view refers to. If it is the central point of an article, its use will not constitute infringement. This central point belongs to the category of ideas and should not be monopolized.
However, if this point of view is the point of view of each natural paragraph, combined together to form a logical sequence, and finally prove the central point of view. Using it may constitute infringement, because in this case it may have entered the scope of expression of other people's works.
5. Use your own language to talk about the opinions of others’ works and add your own opinions.
Whether it constitutes infringement in this case still depends on what the point of view is. Everyone's language style is different, and everyone understands the same concept differently. If it is the central point of the work, it certainly does not constitute infringement. If you use the point of view of each natural paragraph and add some of your own opinions, it is very likely to constitute infringement.
Finally, we would like to mention the infringement identification capabilities of certain online platforms. Some online platforms can only make a judgment on whether two identical works constitute infringement, but they cannot make a judgment on some advanced plagiarism or so-called manuscript cleaning behavior, and even refuse to confirm infringement. In fact, this simple judgment method of these online platforms is risky and may constitute joint infringement. According to the provisions of the Civil Code of my country, the liability of network service providers is generally based on the "notice + delete" principle. If the article is not deleted after notification and the article is determined by the court to actually constitute infringement, the network service provider will bear joint and several liability. Therefore, if some online platforms do not identify infringement, it does not mean that there is no infringement. The final infringement will be determined by the court, and the online platform may bear joint liability.
In summary, we should correctly understand the dichotomy of ideological expression, and understand why domestic and foreign laws must stipulate the dichotomy of ideological expression, encourage originality, and encourage Protect your rights and abandon the alleged infringement and unfair competition of manuscript laundering. If you have any other questions or if your rights have been infringed and need to be defended, you are welcome to go to the Legal Savior website to find a lawyer for professional consultation.
