You already know how much of your day runs through apps, posts and shared files. Today the question is sharper: when you reuse something you found online, when is that fair, and when is it taking someone else's work?

You will sort everyday reuse cases into clear categories, then try a grey case where both sides have a real argument. By the end you should be able to say, in your own words, when it is fair to reuse someone's work.

Work the interactive activity on the board together. For each invented situation, drag it into the bucket that fits best:

• Fair to reuse
• Needs permission or credit (almost fine: credit is missing or you still need a yes, but you are not claiming it as yours or using the whole work publicly for free)
• Plagiarism or infringement (not OK as described: you claimed it as yours, or you used the whole work, sold it, or posted it publicly without any right to)

There is a defensible home for each card, but if your group disagrees, say what would make you move it. Talking the placement through is the point of the sort.

Now try a case that does not sort cleanly. Work as a class tribunal. Sides are already on the board as you start.

The case

Jamie makes a 90-second school project video reviewing a new game. Jamie records 25 seconds of their own gameplay, talks over it with praise and criticism in their own words, and shares the video only on the class learning platform. Nobody is paid. The game company's logo is visible in the footage.

How the tribunal runs

1. Half the class builds the strongest case for fair reuse (use the prompts below).
2. Half the class builds the strongest case against (needs permission / risks infringement).
3. Each side gives a one-minute argument.
4. The class names a provisional verdict: fair to reuse, needs permission, or still too unclear.
5. Together, list what evidence would change the verdict.

Strongest case for fair reuse

• Purpose is school learning and genuine review, not replacing the game.
• Jamie added original commentary; the clip is not posted as "the game itself".
• The audience is limited to the class platform, not a public channel.
• The clip is a short part of a longer project, recorded from play Jamie already had access to.

Strongest case against

• Gameplay and branding are still the company's intellectual property.
• Twenty-five continuous seconds is a solid chunk, not a tiny still.
• Class platforms can be forwarded; "school only" is not a perfect wall.
• A company could reasonably say it never agreed to this use, especially with its logo on screen.

Before you finish, check

• Both sides heard at full strength
• A provisional class verdict, without pretending there is only one correct answer
• At least three things written on the board that would move the call (for example clip length, public vs class-only sharing, monetisation, how transformative the commentary is)

Pull the thread together. Clear cases often fail one of the four checks: ownership ignored, too much taken, the wrong purpose, or honesty missing. Grey cases need those same checks, plus a willingness to say what would change your mind.

Say that principle once in your own words before you leave today. You will meet it again when you source material, credit work and publish your own pieces later in the course.