How to avoid Plagiarism

Yes. Where the source indicates the author’s designation, the author’s name must also be cited, Art. 25 para. 2 CopA. It should be noted that quotations are not only governed by copyright law; it is also good scientific practice to provide correct quotations.

The scientific idea is not protected by copyright. This includes statements, discoveries and results from states, events, research and other facts. These have no creative content of their own.

No, because biographical data is considered to be in the public domain as it was not creatively developed by the PhD student (for more information, see the decision of the Federal Supreme Court BGE 113 II 306).

Yes and no: the theory is not protected by copyright in its semantic content. It is a scientific statement and must be freely available to science. If the theory is designed creatively and individually in linguistic terms, it is at least protected in this linguistic form. If the theory is used word-for-word by a third party, the exception of quotation must be observed pursuant to Art. 25 CopA; otherwise, the presumption of a work exists (plagiarism).

Basically yes, when the textbook or parts of it have creative and individual elements. The form of representation in particular can be protected, i.e. the structure of the textbook, the way the contents are put together, the form of linguistic communication (e.g. through images, tables, diagrams, etc.), the language itself (e.g. for laypeople without specialist vocabulary or humorous descriptions).However, the (teaching) methods or the knowledge about them which is transmitted by the book are not protected because parts of already known, tested and researched matter are summarised for the purpose of knowledge transfer.

No, only when the developed formulas, regulations or algorithms are only rewritten exactly. Then there is no space for any creativeness. However, if they are recorded in specially thought up plans, tables, images, text descriptions, etc., they can be protected works if they are sufficiently original and individual.

Any person who intentionally omits to indicate the source used where required by statute and where the author is named therein, and to provide the name of the source is liable to a fine on the complaint of the person whose rights have been infringed (Art. 68 CopA). Failure to indicate the source is punishable only following a complaint and is not considered to be a serious enough contravention to be entered on the offender’s criminal record.

In addition, failure to indicate a source at an academic level or in research is considered to be unethical (violation of good scientific practice) and may lead to disciplinary action.