Turnitin.com: Copyright Infringement?

The web is continuing to change the way in which we view intellectual property. Infringements of copyrights and violations of privacy are far harder to define than they once were. With so much content “out there,” lines become blurred as to what is acceptable use, and even if something is being used inappropriately, it becomes difficult to find a manner in which to stop the misuse.

Copyright infringement issues have been raised by students over Turnitin.com, an online anti-plagiarism service for educational institutions. iParadigm, the maker of the service, however, has achieved a hero’s status in the minds of many educators. To them, Turnitin is a long overdue weapon in the fight to protect the integrity of academics in our copy and paste culture. Teachers simply have their students upload completed essays and papers to the site and within moments, Turnitin will scan the document and produce an originality report that shows whether or not parts (or all parts) of a piece have been borrowed from another source. The service now allows teachers the GradeMark option to even grade the papers on the site, making the transaction paperless.

The backgrounder on the Turnitin.com website explains the system in this manner:

“At the heart of Tunitin’s easy-to-use service is iParadigms’ proprietary and complex document source analysis technology. This technology creates unique digital “fingerprints” of each text document, including those submitted through the Turnitin plagiarism prevention system; these finger prints are then compared with the fingerprints of other data in iParadigms’ databases. The system locates and catalogs information from other sources likely to be used for plagiarism, searching billions of Internet pages, millions of student papers, and commercial databases of journal articles and periodicals. Comparison of new submissions against this database ensures that papers can never be sold, recycled, or traded among students from different years, in other classes or other institutions.”

On the surface, Turnitin sounds like a handy tool for teachers to catch cheaters and discourage plagiarism. An overwhelming number of educators agree on its utility and the service has been adopted by over 6,000 institutions in 90 countries, including Harvard and Georgetown universities [1]. However, there has been an international outcry over the role of student papers in this system.

As the backgrounder alludes to, Turnitin contracts with an institution and then student papers are uploaded and archived as these “fingerprints” or copies. These works are kept indefinitely in the database and add to the effectiveness of the tool. The database boasts over 22 million student papers and claims to archive 100,000 student papers a day [1, 6].

Four students, two from McLean High School and two from Desert Vista High School in Arizona, filed suit in 2007 in Virginia against Turnitin for archiving six essays that the students had obtained copyright registrations for [1]. At these schools, students must agree to iParadigms’ terms or fail the assignment, or risk expulsion [6]. The lawsuit seeks $900,000, $150,000 for each of the six papers. One of the students even requested that Turnitin not archive a particular essay, and they did anyway.

The real question is if whether taking essays, converting them to electronic files, and then keeping them in the online database is “fair use” or not.

According to the United States Copyright Office, fair use of copyrighted material depends on:

- “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes”

- “the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole”

- “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work” [7].

The Purpose

Most of the time, using copyrighted works in a non-profit educational setting is considered appropriate. While Turnitin may argue that they are for educational pursuits, the company is certainly not a nonprofit. A subscription for unlimited use of Turnitin services for a mid-sized college or university runs about $5,000 [2].

Nature of Copyrighted Work

Facts cannot be copyrighted, but original and creative works can be, and that type of work constitutes a large part of what Turnitin is receiving from students. The student’s essays constitute copyrightable material and they were able to obtain a copyright already in this case.

Substantiality of Use

Typically, if only an excerpt of a piece is used, or a part substantially less than the whole, then it is considered fair use. In this case, Turnitin copies the entire work to the archives and scans new student documents with the entire copied/archived work.

Effects on the Potential Market

While it is not clear how or if the students were planning on profiting from their essays, Turnitin argues that the work is only archived for the digital fingerprint which does not threaten marketability. The work is not copied, displayed or published in its entirety from the database [4].

Ultimately, on March 2008 the district judge threw out the case, ruling that the school systems should deal with the issue, not iParadigm [4]. In a press release on the Turnitin site, it explains that the judge sees the use of the documents to be fair and that such use “provides a substantial public benefit through the network of institutions using Turnitin.”

Turnitin simply adds “a further purpose or different character” to the works and works of this “transformative” nature are not in violation.

In April 2008 the students appealed the judgment.

Beyond the McLean and Desert Vista high schools, students believe that iTurnitin taking their work without permission and profiting from it is inherently wrong.

In other countries, students don’t like that they have to upload their work to this website. Many universities are going to a “guilty-until-proven-innocent policy” where all students must have their work vetted by Turnitin first [2].

Trustworthy students worldwide seem to be the ones made to be uncomfortable – Maggie Woodley of Ryerson University in Toronto said “I’m an honest student, but I don’t like the way they’re using my paper. They’re keeping my work for their own purposes and I have no choice” [2].

Another student, Jesse Rosenfeld, from McGill University in Montreal is fighting McGill’s use of Turnitin. He received a zero when he refused to turn in an assignment via the site. “I’m supposed to hand in my paper to a private company, which is then entered into a database, which the company in turn profits from,” explained Rosenfeld. “I’m indirectly helping a private company make a profit off my paper” [2].

Students in Australia, specifically at the University of Melbourne, are demanding a form of compensation against risk of commercial gain by Turnitin [5]. The administration there is negotiating with Turnitin to have the students’ assignments purged every few years from the database, instead of holding on to them forever.

In a very different attack on Turnitin, students in London who do plagiarize have simply figured out a way to outsmart the system; they are adding symbols to their words, making them immune to scans because the copied text is no longer similar enough to the original work [3]. Students add $$**@ and accents onto words that the program cannot detect.

While iParadigm was able to escape from a copyright infringement charge this time, I wonder if they will be so lucky in the future. It sounds like institutions will need to rethink their usage of what they considered to be a benign online tool that ended up being a smoldering hot button among students for the past six years.

[1] TechNews – “McLean Students Sue Anti-Cheating Service; Plaintiffs Say Company’s Database of Term Papers, Essays Violates Copyright Laws” by Maria Glod, Washington Post Staff Writer, 3/29/07

[2] National Post – “Presumed Plagiarists: An American company is making money helping universities detect non-original assignments. Students who object to the practice want turnitint.com to bear the cost of a test case in the courts” by Sara Schmidt, 12/10/2003

[3] The Guardian – “Education: Crib sheet: Who are you calling a %*@*!* cheat?”by Jessica Shepherd, 6/3/08

[4] The Washington Post – “Virginia Briefing: Students Appealing Dismissal of Plagiarism Suit”, Associated Press, 4/24/08

[5] The Australian – “Plagiarism Risk Irks Students” by Jim Buckell, 03/17/04

[6] TechWeb – “Students Sue Turnitin Anti-Plagiarism Service for Copyright Infringement” 4/3/07

[7] United States Copyright Office – “Fair Use” http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

The “originality” image is from turnitin.com, while the logo image is from the Cal State Fullerton web site.

Links to shoes I created

Just for fun, here are the links to the shoes!

NikeID

Puma Mongolian Shoe BBQ

Mass Customization Case Study: Nike vs. Puma

Puma and Nike appear to be right on track with Web 2.0 by allowing consumers to call the shots, to “customize” their own shoes online. The current marketplace is dominated by online shopping and reciprocal brand-customer interactions. The NikeID and Puma Mongolian Shoe BBQ initiatives offer interactivity and ultimately bring value to the customer in the form of a shoe that is of his/her own creation and is exactly what he/she wants. The concept of mass customization certainly isn’t new; the marketing world now studies the successes of the likes of Scion and the mass customization darling, Dell. Nike actually kicked off the trend of the mass customization of shoes online, as did Converse, back in 2007.

Customers don’t ask for much, as of late they never ask, but rather demand. They throw their weight around by purchasing or not purchasing, visiting sites or not visiting and most of all, by sharing their opinions with millions of other online “friends.” At the end of the day, they demand the freedom to choose…between about five to 10 different colors of shoelaces.

In a recent article in AdWeek [1], writer Barry Wacksman explains that “we are now in the era in which brands must create new transformational technologies,” and what Nike and Puma are doing is reinventing their brands through technology that allows users to transform the products themselves. The online interface that both companies use goes far beyond simply exploiting the online space through Facebook or YouTube.

Wacksman claims that “four C’s” describe the way a brand innovates and brings value to customers. These are content, commerce, community and customization. The NikeID and Puma Mongolian Shoe BBQ sites truly embody these aspects, making the “C’s” an excellent manner in which to compare and contrast the two.

Content

In Web 2.0, it really seems endless what a brand can do. It appears that content is very much the tone, use of technology, customer experience and offerings of a site. Both the NikeID and the Mongolian Shoe BBQ sites are Adobe Flash extravaganzas. The latest in flash technology dominates these sites filled with moving pictures, hotspots and flying text. Interactivity in the form of clicking and choosing what type of shoe and what colors one wants for the different parts of the shoes is a given. A countdown charts your progress through the stages of customization until you have personalized every possible element from the soles of the shoes to the eyeholes. As I arrived at the end of the process, I felt so empowered and amazed by the fact that if I gave my credit card information and clicked “Buy Now,” I could have a tangible version of what I created on my computer screen. Although the process was similar on both sites, the tones did vary considerably.

The NikeID website has a sports-specific feel and seems to emphasize that the shoes serve a purpose. The homepage is a split screen featuring basketball shoes and the

animated text of “Sport: Customize your game, take off in team colors” on one side, and what appears to be a pair of more casual wear shoes with the text “Style: Customize your look, from head to toe” on the other side. The site must be geared towards males as the basketball shoes have a picture of Kobe Bryant in the background and the “style” shoes appear to be superimposed over a male skateboarder. The hues are gray and black and just reek of “cutting edge technology.” The NikeID site features basically every style and make of Nike shoes, except customizable, and is very integrated into the flagship site, Nike.com. The design scheme of Nike.com is continued throughout NikeID. The shoe that the consumer gets to customize looks very realistic without the telltale signs of typical computer graphics. I made a "style" shoe that can be seen here on the left.

The Puma Mongolian Shoe BBQ is far quirkier than the NikeID site; it is a funny idea that they have run with and perhaps speaks more to a major

Puma target market which does not include the hardcore athletes that belong to the Nike brand. The Puma site is its own character and has a story, which adds another level of customer

engagement. I found myself trying to figure out what it was all about. Cooking analogies abound and a smiling chef greats visitors on the homepage, inviting

customers to “Grab Your Chef hat…and Preheat Your Creativity.” The explanation for the name is that the soldiers in the era of Genghis Khan would combine various ingredients and meats at a feast and then create their

own individualized meals. It is a bit of a stretch, but it works. You can design funky and outrageous shoes with more customizable features than on the NikeID website, but with fewer models of shoes. The shoe image is not quite as realistic as on the Nike site, but it still looks terrific and makes for a fun experience. I made quite the crazy shoe that can be seen on the left.

Commerce

“E-commerce” has now officially been dropped to simply “commerce” these days. The web is an expected distribution channel for goods and customers have grown accustomed to buying online. The Puma BBQ and NikeID sites use the same tried and true methods for exchange of goods for money online: after the shoe has been created, the price is calculated and with a credit card payment the new kicks are sold. The pair comes direct from the company, cutting down retailer costs in a big way. The price range is comparable, from $100 - $130 per pair. Puma says that the shoes will arrive within 5-7 weeks, while Nike claims that expected delivery is about 4 weeks.

Although this particular case study is addressing specifically the NikeID and Puma BBQ websites, it is important to know that this customization of shoes also takes place in the bricks and mortar stores of both brands. This means that customization is a part of the brand and the business model, not just a fad or purely an online endeavor. I have not actually seen the store version of the customization process, but according to Promo magazine [2], on the fifth level of certain NikeTown stores appointments can be made with a design consultant and the customer can design his/her own shoes made to order. Puma shops in London, according to the The Advertiser [3], have cabinets that look like Mongolian shoe BBQ fridge-like cabinets filled with pairs of shoes and computers next to the display where customers can create their own shoe that will then be sent to them in a matter of weeks.

Customization

Simply put, the trend of mass customization has morphed into a consumer expectation. This is great news for brands like Nike and Puma who have responded to the cry for customization, but other brands have a lot of work to do yet.

Customers want products that are special and define the wearer. Nike and Puma aren’t really changing the product here – the actual shoe doesn’t change. These companies are simply allowing customers to make easily manufactured alterations to a basic shoe, mainly in the form of color, although decisions between certain materials such as mesh and suede are also given. By handing over the control to the customer to pick the colors, Nike and Puma have just added incredible value to customers and instilled in them a powerful sense of brand loyalty. It is very intuitive that someone will love something they made themselves. Consumers will become brand evangelists, showing everyone their unique shoes.

As far as the customization experience on each site goes, one of NikeID’s offerings is competitive-level sports shoes, therefore when altering a running shoe or another performance shoe, there is a sense of catering to the athlete who needs these shoes to perform. For example, when customizing Nike Shox running shoes on the Nike site it is possible to purchase varying widths of the pair of shoes and even pick different sizes per individual shoe. For the “style” Air Morgan shoes on the Nike site, however, the options are just like Puma’s, which are limited to simply designing it and then picking a size.

The Puma site gives a few more options for customization and works more with textures and materials than simply colors. It feels more like an experience, however, than Nike in the context in which the custom colors and materials are chosen. The very special aspect of NikeID is that you get to put your “ID” on the shoes. This means that on the back of every pair of shoes you can choose to write whatever you want. On that pair of Shox you might put “run” on one shoe and “faster” on the other. In the athletic sense, Nike is allowing athletes to customize the shoes that they spend so much time in and depend on. On the puma site, style is the name of the game. Nike also addresses the style department, so in a way reaching both audiences – the stylish and the athletic, while Puma BBQ is just reaching one segment. Puma as a brand does offer performance athletic shoes, but just not in a customizable format on the Puma Mongolian Shoe BBQ site.

Community

The major concern of a forward-thinking brand is how to make a brand relevant by adding a community element, and rightfully so. An article from OPTIMIZE [4] states that, “There’s ample evidence that when consumers interact with one another around a product or brand, they’re more likely to buy.” Considering the trends, I think it is safe to say that this statement is undoubtedly correct.

Part of the fun of creating an outrageous shoe online is sharing it with friends. Plus, it seems ingrained in human nature to seek the approval of a friend or family member before purchasing anything, making it part of the normal process to send the design along to someone else first.

Both sites have acknowledged this and added buttons to click to email the designs, embed the link in a profile or print the shoe. Puma BBQ goes far beyond NikeID in recognizing the import of social media in this situation. After creating a shoe on Puma Mongolian Shoe BBQ you can send it right to a Facebook profile with a preset button, add it to Google bookmarks or to a Reddit, Digg, or Delicious account. They even have a button to add it to Windows Live favorites, StumbleUpon and Furl. Puma understands the viral implications of the customization experience they are offering online. NikeID, however, only offers, beyond an email link, buttons to send the completed design via Facebook or MySpace to friends.

Conclusion

Analyzing these sites has been fascinating. While NikeID is more concerned with offering a service to customize mainly sport-specific shoes as a part of the flagship identity, Puma Mongolian Shoe BBQ is a mini-site that is viral, quirky and offers customizable shoes in a way that detaches itself slightly from the core brand. The target markets are a bit different, therefore the product available to customize and the aspects that are customizable are different for each site. NikeID offers a service, while Puma BBQ offers an experience. Puma is using the technology to truly use the online space in a different way, and perhaps in terms of this case study, a better way. The goal for future online exploitation should be to do something different, while speaking to the popular social media and using them in an advantageous manner. Nike began customizing shoes far before Puma, but it might just be time to up the ante.

[1] AdWeek -"Mother of Invention" by Barry Wacksman, 05/19/08
[2] Promo Magazine - "We Know Better" by Charlie Horsey 02/01/08
[3] The Advertiser (Australia) - "Buzz Street Revival" by Brian Crisp 09/03/08
[4] Optimize - "Demand-Side Innovation: Where IT Meets Marketing; It's not a better mousetrap that will set businesses apart. In the online social-networking marketplace, customers can make or break a product. How will businesses tap into this new world?" by Jeffery F. Rayport 02/01/07