Question 1
plagiarism is making work crafted by others look like one's own and an individual saw as liable of
such an offense can be lawfully indicted. Likewise, it additionally establishes scholarly burglary and is
a big deal will have genuine results in task appraisal.
The entirety of coming up next are viewed as counterfeiting:
• turning in another person's work as your own
• copying words or thoughts from another person without giving credit
• failing to place a citation in quotes
• giving mistaken data about the wellspring of a citation
• changing words yet replicating the sentence design of a source without giving credit
• copying such countless words or thoughts from a source that it makes up most of your work,
if you give credit (see our segment on "reasonable use" rules)
Most instances of counterfeiting can be stayed away from, nonetheless, by referring to sources.
Essentially recognizing that specific material has been acquired and giving your crowd the data
important to find that source is normally enough to forestall copyright infringement. See our
segment on reference for more data on the most proficient method to refer to sources
appropriately.
examples:
A photograph or scan of a copyrighted image (for example: using a photograph of a book
cover to represent that book on one’s website)
Recording audio or video in which copyrighted music or video is playing in the background.
Re-creating a visual work in the same medium. (for example: shooting a photograph that
uses the same composition and subject matter as someone else’s photograph)
Re-creating a visual work in a different medium (for example: making a painting that closely
resembles another person’s photograph).
Re-mixing or altering copyrighted images, video, or audio, even if done so in an original way.
, The legality of these situations, and others, would be dependent upon the intent and context within
which they are produced. The two safest approaches to take in regards to these situations are: 1)
Avoid them altogether or 2) Confirm the works’ usage permissions and cite them properly.
Question 2
LUKHAIMANE AJ:
1. The unjustifiable handling of trust money is totally untenable and not only frustrates the legal
requirements relating to trust money but also undermines the principle that a trust account is
completely safe in respect of money held therein by a legal practitioner on behalf of another person.
About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria Support SAFLII
You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2021 >> A
legal practitioner must scrupulously comply with the provisions of the Legal Practice Act (Act 28 of
2014), the Attorneys Act, and the Rules for the Attorneys Profession especially in relation to the
money of a client which is placed into his/her custody and control.[1]
Point in lime
7. This matter was under the steady gaze of court as an application for the suspension of the
Respondent from training as a legitimate specialist, on the other hand, for the expulsion of his name
from the job of the lawful expert.
plagiarism is making work crafted by others look like one's own and an individual saw as liable of
such an offense can be lawfully indicted. Likewise, it additionally establishes scholarly burglary and is
a big deal will have genuine results in task appraisal.
The entirety of coming up next are viewed as counterfeiting:
• turning in another person's work as your own
• copying words or thoughts from another person without giving credit
• failing to place a citation in quotes
• giving mistaken data about the wellspring of a citation
• changing words yet replicating the sentence design of a source without giving credit
• copying such countless words or thoughts from a source that it makes up most of your work,
if you give credit (see our segment on "reasonable use" rules)
Most instances of counterfeiting can be stayed away from, nonetheless, by referring to sources.
Essentially recognizing that specific material has been acquired and giving your crowd the data
important to find that source is normally enough to forestall copyright infringement. See our
segment on reference for more data on the most proficient method to refer to sources
appropriately.
examples:
A photograph or scan of a copyrighted image (for example: using a photograph of a book
cover to represent that book on one’s website)
Recording audio or video in which copyrighted music or video is playing in the background.
Re-creating a visual work in the same medium. (for example: shooting a photograph that
uses the same composition and subject matter as someone else’s photograph)
Re-creating a visual work in a different medium (for example: making a painting that closely
resembles another person’s photograph).
Re-mixing or altering copyrighted images, video, or audio, even if done so in an original way.
, The legality of these situations, and others, would be dependent upon the intent and context within
which they are produced. The two safest approaches to take in regards to these situations are: 1)
Avoid them altogether or 2) Confirm the works’ usage permissions and cite them properly.
Question 2
LUKHAIMANE AJ:
1. The unjustifiable handling of trust money is totally untenable and not only frustrates the legal
requirements relating to trust money but also undermines the principle that a trust account is
completely safe in respect of money held therein by a legal practitioner on behalf of another person.
About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria Support SAFLII
You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2021 >> A
legal practitioner must scrupulously comply with the provisions of the Legal Practice Act (Act 28 of
2014), the Attorneys Act, and the Rules for the Attorneys Profession especially in relation to the
money of a client which is placed into his/her custody and control.[1]
Point in lime
7. This matter was under the steady gaze of court as an application for the suspension of the
Respondent from training as a legitimate specialist, on the other hand, for the expulsion of his name
from the job of the lawful expert.
