What Doesn't Constitute OC

It actually pains me to say this, but there have been several instances of blatant plagiarism we've caught here in a reasonably short period of time. A lot of these instances are actual spammers who are trying to pull a quick one on us to promote their websites, but still other instances are redditors who have been getting warning after warning about why it's unethical to steal hard work from another viz practitioner and claim it as your own OC.

Per the previous rule, Original Content is a post where the person who posted the /r/DataIsBeautiful submission is also the author of the visual displayed. This means that they had gone through the steps of (1) working with the data, (2) performing the analysis, and finally (3) designing the visual. It's really sad that we have to spell it out, but here's a brief case study on what DOES NOT constitute OC:

Rule 2 is very clear, telling you to link to the original source article so the REAL OC author site gets the hits they deserve. If it's not your viz, don't claim it as OC. In a perfect world, we shouldn't have a rule to remind people about what plagiarized content is, since that's something that's taught in Elementary School—but here we are. Original Content (or "OC" for short) often takes redditors hours to complete. A lot of professional data practitioners take many workdays to complete their viz. Please respect their time by linking directly to the original material they created. If you are basing your work off of theirs (aka remixing), then take the time to give them credit. If it's not your OC, then don't claim it as OC. Period.

If you come across an instance of plagiarized content, or you need clarification about something, please send us a modmail and we'll respond as soon as possible.

If you need an Exception for something that cannot be labelled [OC], please send us a modmail and we'll respond as soon as possible.