Can "copycats" and "plagiarists" be used interchangeably in business contexts?

Question

Imagine that I am building an application in public and someone copies my work and starts making money from it. Can I refer to the guy who's copied my product a 'copycat' and a 'plagiarist' interchangeably?

I did some research before and know that "plagiarists" originates from 'plagiarus' which was first used to call someone who recited Martial's books without his permissions. And most intellectual properties related to plagiarization I've found are textual.

However, I also found the following definition of copycat from Wiktionary, and then I thought copycats and plagiarists are interchangeable:

(informal, derogatory) One who imitates or plagiarizes others' work. [from late 19th c.]

I think 'work' has a much larger scope than textual content. What's more, I don't think 'copycat' is informal anymore, since you can find its uses in many academic contexts/papers, for example Making the Chinese Copycat: Trademarks and Recipes in Early Twentieth-Century Global Science and Capitalism, and Rocket Internet: organizing a startup factory, and MIT: THE CHINESE COPYCAT AND THE MAKING OF MODERN CAPITALISM.

Plagiarism also covers copying of ideas, as written in this Tweet by an American politician:

Looks like Trump is committing straight up plagiarism of DeSantis' ideas. Again.

Then in my case, my product is text based, i.e., code, and the pirate also stole my ideas.

If I am not wrong, in my scenario copycats and plagiarists are interchangeable, right?

Answer 1

Here is the distinction between "plagiarist" and "copycat:"

"Plagiarist" specifically refers to copying another person's writing or research. It does not -- for instance -- refer to music, clothing, or software.

"Copycat" refers to something that is a copy of something else, usually as it applies to taste or style. You could say, for instance, "Joan is always wearing what you wear -- she's a total copycat!" or "That new car is a real copycat of last year's model."

To that end: if the person has taken code from your (or anyone else's) research project and submitted it as their own code and/or research project, then sure, you could say they've plagiarized. It would likely be more correct to say "stole," or "ripped off," but in that specific context, sure, it's plagiarism.

If the person has taken the look and feel of a software project you've created, then you could say the the software is a "copycat" of your software. Again, applying to look, feel, or functionality, but I'm not so sure it applies to one person copying another's software.

You have quoted two sources from the web -- one from Generative AI and another from "The Visual Communications Guy." Generative AI is always going to try to answer your question whether or not it can correctly do so. "Visual Communications Guy" seems to be writing a surefire way to never, ever be accused of copying from someone or something else, but I don't get the sense that he's any kind of expert or reference as much as a guy just saying what he thinks about what he's seen in his line of work.

Answer 2

In the setting you described, neither plagiarist nor copycat would be a natural choice. Plagiarist is descriptive / literary and might be used in a book or news publication. It attributes an identity to the person. It implies that is "what they do" generally. Copycat is informal, as FumbleFingers pointed out, and isn't a "serious" word. That is, you wouldn't use it for a serious transgression.

You would refer to the person as something like "the person who plagiarized the paper" instead of using a term that defines the person as a plagiarist or copycat.

That aside, copycat is one who copies someone's work or style. Plagiarist is someone who plagiarizes. Plagiarizing is more specific: it is actually using someone's work and passing it off as your own, not just copying their style. Copycats may or may not attribute the original authors (though likely not) and they may not copy to the extent of actual plagiarizing. All plagiarists are copycats but not all copycats are plagiarists.

In the scenario you described, you can indeed refer to the person as both a copycat and plagiarist, but that only means "it is okay / correct English to think those terms in your head about that person" and not "it is acceptable to use those terms in some particular context."