I think it's you who are confusing the semantic relationship between the two (three?) concepts.

Plagiarism is not a legal term; it refers to using someone else's intellectual work (which may or may not be under copyright), without credit, in a way that violates the cultural standards of an academic (or other) community.

Plagiarism may or may not be copyright infringement -- even if the materials plagiarized are under copyright, it may be fair use. Or in some cases you can plagiarize by stealing someone's ideas but not their text or other fixed expression (ideas are, in general, not protected by copyright; but stealing someone's ideas without attribution is still plagiarism in an academic context).

But the defenses against an accusation of copyright infringement, like fair use , do not serve as defenses against an accusation of plagiarism in an academic community. Plagiarism in and of itself is not illegal, there is no law against plagiarism. (Unless maybe in extreme cases it could be fraud?). Still, plagiarism may get you kicked out of school or denied tenure, or generally cause you to lose respect and trust. But some instances of plagiarism may, of course, also be illegal copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement is, of course, a legal term.

"Piracy", to me, in this context, is simply another term for copyright infringement. Isn't that how the large content owners use it? If it's copyright infringement, it's piracy.

Of course, whether an individual instance is copyright infringement or not, is decided for certain only in court. But there are cases reasonably educated observers would predict with high confidence as being determined (or not) to be copyright infringement; and others that might be considered a strong-but-not-certain case, etc.

Something can be both plagiarism and copyright infringement, or only one (either one), or neither. They are entirely separate.

In this case, I think it's likely fair use, and also perhaps not likely to be considered plagiarism (rather, isn't it documentary realism?). But the reason people get so excited to call it copyright infringement -- is because the movie studios get so excited to call copyright infringement uses of _their_ IP that reasonable people think ought to be obviously fair use too. "And since the producers of the movie consider it fair use to copy 14 of my slides without giving me credit, it must also be fair use to quote the scene of the movie here" The irony is entirely intended by the author of the OP.

I don't believe I claimed Plagiarism is a legal term, nor is piracy in my view. I said there is a semantic difference and they both are effectively Copyright infringement - which is a legal term.

Depending on your world view and what you do; you can plagiarize and infringe, you can pirate and not break a law. This synopses should help muddle things up nicely https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130925/09523724654/diffe...

I do not feel that 'Documentary Realism' gives the film makers a right to lift the text from the original slides verbatim without attribution. Fair use though, I can agree with you.

It is simply not true that "Plaguirism is effectively copyright infringement." As I tried but failed to explain!

I am not sure what definition of 'piracy' you are using where it's not simply a synonym for 'copyright infringement', but I'm not really sure it matters.

For better or for worse, your "world view" is pretty irrelevant in determining whether you infringed copyright or not.

I disagree; the use of the stills from the movie to make his point is fair use. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

I didn't say usage of stills wasn't fair use, you are correct. My point was the op claimed the film directly copied his stills, they do not appear to have done so.

Fair use is a defense for infringement, it doesn't mean that infringement didn't happen. It more like a get-out-of-jail-free sort of thing--you did the deed, but you don't do the time.

Right to quote.

Quoting requires attribution.

My question is under what license (if any) the deck was released. Depending on that, even attribution may not have been required...

EDIT: The CCC wiki mentions material being released under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA, but from context that appears to be referring to recordings of the lectures.

If I do a fictional movie about Martin Luther King, and quote part of his "I Have A Dream" speech, citation is assumed.

Interesting example, as MLK's estate in fact will try to make you pay licensing fees to do this, claiming they own the copyright and recognizing few instances of 'fair use'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Have_a_Dream#Copyright_disput...

And attribution actually has little to do with copyright infringement (in the U.S. anyway). It is important not to confuse the legal concept of copyright from the social/academic concept of plaguirism, they are different things. Whether you have a fair use to quote MLK's speech without permission from the King estate is something you'd have to take up in court -- but whether you properly attributed it or not is not really of significant relevance in determining whether it was copyright infringement or not. (In the U.S. anyway)

(An interesting exception might be CC-BY licensed things -- which offer anyone interested an automatic license to use a copyrighted work without fee, but only if the user attributes properly. But the attribution is a term of the license, not a part of copyright law in general.)

Ditto for Winston Churchill's estate: http://freakonomics.com/2013/01/17/who-owns-the-words-that-c...

(Although the linked piece suggests that the Churchill situation is at least somewhat specific to British law.)

Interestingly enough the IP of MLK's speech is vigorously enforced.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-you-wont-see-or-h...