this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
988 points (97.2% liked)
Comic Strips
19386 readers
1463 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- AI-generated comics aren't allowed.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I could have sworn there was an xkcdsw exactly like that, but there doesn't seem to be. Some of them are a bit happier though
E.g. http://xkcdsw.com/3968 , http://xkcdsw.com/2485 , and others if you click "browse by source" at the bottom and search for "spirit"
Wow that entire site is full of plagiarism
Plagiarism, by definition, is taking the work of someone else without attribution. If you've provided attribution, it cannot ever be plagiarism.
Note that this is not the same as copyright infringement. If I upload the complete 3rd season of Knight Rider to YouTube, that's copyright infringement, no matter what. But if I were to do it and say "created by Glen Larson for NBC" in the description of every video, it would not also be plagiarism.
The above site cannot be plagiarism because every single one points back to a specific XKCD comic or comics that it used as its source. It could be copyright infringement, although I suspect it would probably qualify for a fair use defence due to being parody.
I guess my definitions were a bit loose, but isn't it extremely in poor taste to emulate the exact formatting of the website? An unsuspecting user might genuinely believe they were at the original XKCD site.
The formatting of the website looks completely different to me. The buttons don’t look similar, they’re not in the same place. It has its clear logo which basically tells you it’s not Randall Monroe’s site: "Making XKCD Slightly Worse".
The only thing that’s similar is the art style of the comic itself. Which like…yeah? That’s the point.
I think you're being very generous, but we can agree to disagree