Abstract

Plagiarism may have accompanied acts of creation, either endorsing or contradicting them. Esteemed as a general rule of literature or censured as literary larceny, it embodies the disavowal of authorship in the intellectual works of others and thus breaches their right to be acknowledged as authors, while also feasibly deceiving the public and, in any case, contradicting the universal rule of creative imitation. Historically entangled with the concepts of counterfeiting and piracy, it only later reached an autonomous collocation as a violation of the moral right of attribution. Placed in the broadest context of copyright law, it yet struggles against its confinement to a strict legal characterisation, given its colourful appearance and inherent inconsistency according to the type of works or field of knowledge to which it relates, thus refuting any unyielding interpretation. In such a mutable context, the purpose of this research, which revolves around the systems of Italy and the United Kingdom, is to explore a view of plagiarism that appreciates the different instances in which a genuine borrowing or a deceitful practice appear, considering the dimension of copyright infringement, but also looking at other possible legal and non-legal means of construal. Given these premises, an accurate exploration of the phenomenon requires a preliminary consideration of the manifold literature on the subject, which increasingly progresses together with the development of technology and social practices. Furthermore, its literal absence in statutory law does not impede finding a collocation in the context of the judiciary, which is analysed with reference to the legal systems of both Italy and the United Kingdom. This does not infer that courts deliver a flawless and unfailing interpretation of plagiarism. On the contrary, a careful reading of the ruling confirms that the narrow realm of copyright law is shrinking. However, the unpredictability of the statutory and judicial approach towards plagiarism may also be welcomed as an attempt by the law to acknowledge the difficulty to appraise its complexity. Therefore, the present study openly adopts an interdisciplinary and comparative analysis that may help to describe its controversial legal breadth while also possibly unravelling any other principled range.