Le plagiat, le pas factice de la création

Whether through etymological, historical, sociological or legal investigations, studies on plagiarism sow and flourish. However, the main point is often ignored. Also, it is no longer a matter of thinking about plagiarism. It is, now, the matter of digging in the notion of plagiarism, to elucidate its significant question, the nucleus around which plagiarism is only an outgrowth: the consistency of creation. In this direction, it's firstly to philosophy to spread its lights, in order to illuminate in what consists, for an author, the act of creating. In a first part, a subtlety is cleared: the difference between art and creation. Distinguished from each other, creation is no more confused with art. Distinguished, creation is rather the movement by which the author makes his way to art, understood as the space of ineffable, veiled behind sensitive appearances and belonging to no one. Then, once this background has been discovered by the author, he must cast it into a form, the artwork, both a particular and personal manner for him to reveal it to others, and epilogue crystallizing his creative work. This form, therefore, to be discerned from the mere support, is a donation made by the author to others, the sharing of his work and discovery, art. In turn, it's by the breeding of this form that the others recognize the author, in his ipseity. Which means that creating, is to discover art, then to present it into a form, where is gathered and expressed the effort of the author, his personality. Inversely, neither the elements he used to create - appearances he has explored -, neither what he tends to demonstrate - art, as a discovery -, belong to him. Discovering, forming, such is the sense of creation. This definition exposed, the second part confronts it with the law, to check the correspondence. As much in the attribution of the copyright as in its sanction, counterfeit, a concord is sealed. On one side, the law protects the author's creation, his effort, by granting him a right of ownership. However, because a minimum of materiality is necessary for the application of a norm, this effort must be materialized by the production of a form, here qualified as a work of mind. In other words, what is called a work of mind, in law, provides the creative effort evidence, and it is through it, once again, that the author is recognized. On the other side, the creation of the author labels, also, the limit of his copyright. Thereby, he cannot claim any right on what is outside his creation. This explains the scope of counterfeiting - as a legal apprehension of plagiarism -, punishing only the reproduction of a form generated by another, emanation of his singularity, of his personal research. On this way, just as the author, in the first part, could not be assimilated, neither to the elements he used to create, neither to the art he tends to demonstrate, so are excluded from counterfeiting the elements of nature, the historical facts, ideas, theories, scientific discoveries, unless their demonstration innovates. In short, a laudable harmony appears between philosophy and law. Disturbing it by an enlargement of copyright would indeed deprive other creations of their sources and, consequently, dry up their possibility. That's why, concerning plagiarism in academic research, opportunely raised and studied by the Comets' report No. 2017-34, the third part of this paper warns against temptation to break this balance by exceeding the limits set by the intellectual property law. Rather than extending the scope of counterfeiting, is argued a strengthening of ethics, especially by the development and imposition of disciplinary penalties. Through this implementation, cure would be applied to an impunity caused by a taboo, more than a lack of rights, in the academic community.