4 ms·

Who, do you think, copied who? http://www.houseofpaine.org/CastIron/ http://www.houseofpaine.org/CastIron/ Scroll down to "The Recipe for Perfect Cast Iron Se

Who, do you think, copied who? http://www.houseofpaine.org/CastIron/ http://www.houseofpaine.org/CastIron/ Scroll down to "The Recipe for Perfect Cast Iron Seasoning" and compare with her "The Recipe for Perfect Cast Iron Seasoning" I remember reading that other webpage some years ago, while her post is brand new. This kind of un-credited copying might well be called "plagarism"

gareim 12y ago
Well, it looks like they're only months apart from each other. The House of Paine one refers to 1999 in the html file, and this post was published February 2000. Is it possible they're the same person? Either way, it's kind of interesting. Nice find. EDIT: ignore what I said about 1999. Clearly wrong now that I looked more at that page. They even reference 2000 in the House of Paine page.
- msandford 12y ago
  I can tell you that her blog post states that it's from 2010, not 2000. So that's a big gap.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nkurz 12y ago
Since you ask, I think that House of Paine copied much of the article from Sheryl Canter without offering her credit. Sheryl's article was clearly published in January 2010. But although http://www.houseofpaine.org http://www.houseofpaine.org has been archived by http://archive.org http://archive.org since 2005, the CastIron page does not appear until 2013: http://web.archive.org/web/20130517140647/http://www.houseofpaine.org/CastIron/ http://web.archive.org/web/20130517140647/http://www.houseof... Other than your recollection, I can find no evidence that Sheryl plagiarized this article from HouseOfPaine.org. Additionally, the archived version of the first blog post from House of Paine confirms that they intend to republish copyrighted material of others without authorization: This website contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. houseofpaine.org is making this material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of economic policy, educational, environmental, political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe that this constitutes a “fair use” of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. http://web.archive.org/web/20090825155249/http://www.houseofpaine.org/blog/?p=1 http://web.archive.org/web/20090825155249/http://www.houseof... While this statement doesn't offer any confirmation, it seems fair to say that their beliefs regarding fair use are not in line with the usual interpretation of the courts, and indicate at least a willingness to commit acts that others would typically refer to as plagiarism.

gareim 12y ago

Well, it looks like they're only months apart from each other. The House of Paine one refers to 1999 in the html file, and this post was published February 2000. Is it possible they're the same person? Either way, it's kind of interesting. Nice find. EDIT: ignore what I said about 1999. Clearly wrong now that I looked more at that page. They even reference 2000 in the House of Paine page.

msandford 12y ago
I can tell you that her blog post states that it's from 2010, not 2000. So that's a big gap.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

nkurz 12y ago

Since you ask, I think that House of Paine copied much of the article from Sheryl Canter without offering her credit. Sheryl's article was clearly published in January 2010. But although http://www.houseofpaine.org http://www.houseofpaine.org has been archived by http://archive.org http://archive.org since 2005, the CastIron page does not appear until 2013: http://web.archive.org/web/20130517140647/http://www.houseofpaine.org/CastIron/ http://web.archive.org/web/20130517140647/http://www.houseof... Other than your recollection, I can find no evidence that Sheryl plagiarized this article from HouseOfPaine.org. Additionally, the archived version of the first blog post from House of Paine confirms that they intend to republish copyrighted material of others without authorization: This website contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. houseofpaine.org is making this material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of economic policy, educational, environmental, political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe that this constitutes a “fair use” of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. http://web.archive.org/web/20090825155249/http://www.houseofpaine.org/blog/?p=1 http://web.archive.org/web/20090825155249/http://www.houseof... While this statement doesn't offer any confirmation, it seems fair to say that their beliefs regarding fair use are not in line with the usual interpretation of the courts, and indicate at least a willingness to commit acts that others would typically refer to as plagiarism.