tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post4527389071735522532..comments2024-03-26T23:41:10.319+00:00Comments on Authors Electric: COPYRIGHT AND COPYWRONG by VALERIE LAWSKatherine Robertshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17196712319655603442noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-23277539038073539902015-07-03T10:05:02.674+01:002015-07-03T10:05:02.674+01:00it's pretty violating when a more famous perso...it's pretty violating when a more famous person plagiarises an unpublished writer as no-one will believe they thought of it first, so they are very much deprived of the use of it. So you think Lee that plagiarists who are good at marketing themselves (and they often are, they have plenty of time for it while others are actually creating the work) in some way 'earn' the right to use others' work? This seems an odd viewpoint. Lydia Bennethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09328239009863878547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-67295804237442428522015-07-03T08:41:18.208+01:002015-07-03T08:41:18.208+01:00If a plagiarist takes work in manuscript and publi...If a plagiarist takes work in manuscript and publishes a plagiarism of it, Lee, then the stolen-from poet often doesn't publish his or her original: just like a car.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09925490640862176918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-72840708748083576862015-07-03T06:34:46.706+01:002015-07-03T06:34:46.706+01:00Susan, the comparison with scathing reviews refers...Susan, the comparison with scathing reviews refers to the sense of violation -- Valerie's word -- a writer,if plagiarised, might feel regarding a profound life event. Any writer who chooses to make her work public risks exposing herself to all sorts of hurts, and should keep this in mind when deciding to publish those pieces which are particularly sensitive.<br /><br />I understand your point about reputation, but even in the case which Valerie discusses, it doesn't seem that the plagiarised poets were deprived of the use of their work. At best, the plagiariser was better at marketing herself. But Valerie can correct me if I'm wrong.<br /><br />Take the Dan Brown example: has the publicity hurt Lewis Perdue? I'd love to know if his sales i.e. use of his work actually increased?<br />Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13770069472552779217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-75523651197297158932015-07-02T21:19:30.779+01:002015-07-02T21:19:30.779+01:00"Because it is my name! Because I cannot have..."Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!"<br /> The Crucible, 1953<br /><br /><br />There have been historical times when the attribution of a name to a piece of work was not deemed important - but that could be argued to have had its root in political/sociological periods where the "rights of the individual" had not yet come to the fore. Certainly the "rights of the individual" can be at times imposed to the detriment of the whole, but, overall, I think it would be a step backwards to return to a time when "Anon" could be the only "name" accurately attributed to a beautiful, or uniquely personal, fragment of art, which, much the same as a fragment of the Soul, is an individuation set out from the peninsula of general thought...it belongs Uniquely to Somebody...and to that Somebody alone... <br /><br /><br />Well done, Valerie, for standing up for Common Sense/Common Decency...in one fell swoop!John A. A. Loganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03613779477853664598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-6257710925354473772015-07-02T20:45:03.324+01:002015-07-02T20:45:03.324+01:00Catherine said it. Lee, I 'm not in the slight...Catherine said it. Lee, I 'm not in the slightest convinced by your arguments.<br /><br />Theft is defined as taking an object and depriving the original owner of its use.<br />As Catherine has said, fan-fiction does not deprive the original owner of the 'use' of the work - that is, credit for its creation, the reputation of being a good artist or craftperson - and whatever little payment the work might earn. You may have other means of earning a living, and may choose to take a pride in giving your creative work away for nothing - but as I believe I've explained to you elsewhere, that has not been an option for me.<br /><br />If someone steals - yes, steals - my work and passes it off as their own, they have deprived me of its use. As Valerie's story shows, there are always people with a vested interest in defending and believing the thief. My reputation is damaged forever. I have to spend time and energy trying to convince people that I created my own work.<br /><br />Your comparison with scathing reviews makes no sense to me at all. If someone gives my books the heaviest kicking imaginable, it would hurt, yes - but they aren't denying that I wrote them.<br /><br />But if someone steals my work, and, in clumsily adapting it by way of disguise, ruins it - and then it's badly reviewed... I'm then being blamed for bad work that I didn't mar.<br /><br />I imagine the thief would quickly withdraw any claim on it, and then I'm being judged a poor writer on something I didn't write!<br /><br />Where do you draw the line on this? Imagine a competition where pieces of beautiful embroidery are being judged. Someone wins first prize with another person's uncredited work - and the person who actually produced the best piece comes second. Is that okay? If - as has happened - someone wins a marathon by sneaking off the course and catching a bus, and is awarded first prize instead of the person who actually won, is that okay?<br /><br />I imagine you would say that it's not the same thing. Why isn't it? Credit, reputation, is being stolen.<br /><br />Susan Pricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07738737493756183909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-24004218836824824812015-07-02T15:48:09.812+01:002015-07-02T15:48:09.812+01:00Exactly Catherine. Exactly Catherine. Lydia Bennethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09328239009863878547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-90187106786857061942015-07-02T14:13:55.122+01:002015-07-02T14:13:55.122+01:00The thing is, fanfic is just that. The clue is in ...The thing is, fanfic is just that. The clue is in the word 'fan'. Somebody loves a piece of work enough to want to write lots more of it, or falls in love with the characters enough to want live with them for longer. The original author may not much like what's done, but in genuine fanfiction, the original work is always credited. Obsessively sometimes. There's a world of difference between that and rewriting somebody's poem, and then passing it off as your own, your own feelings, insights, ideas - with no reference at all to the original, pretending for all practical purposes that the original doesn't exist. Catherine Czerkawskahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554969254207924049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-86077395169323194412015-07-02T12:10:31.260+01:002015-07-02T12:10:31.260+01:00I don't see any connection between stealing so...I don't see any connection between stealing someone's work and reviewing it harshly, they are apples and jockstraps. Lydia Bennethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09328239009863878547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-11733149487404978652015-07-02T11:21:34.655+01:002015-07-02T11:21:34.655+01:00Lydia, a poem may be a deeply personal response to...Lydia, a poem may be a deeply personal response to a profound life event, but the poet has chosen to make it a public response as well. If a writer is going to feel violated by copying, then how would she feel if a reviewer or critic tore apart her poem? if someone wrote and published an ironic version of it? Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13770069472552779217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-44848693488422076302015-07-02T10:54:37.016+01:002015-07-02T10:54:37.016+01:00Thanks for the Hari suggestion, Andrew. I hadn'...Thanks for the Hari suggestion, Andrew. I hadn't heard of the book but will certainly follow it up.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13770069472552779217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-89975607470947369652015-07-02T10:52:47.859+01:002015-07-02T10:52:47.859+01:00I regard theft as stealing a possession which the ...I regard theft as stealing a possession which the rightful i.e. legal owner can no longer use -- stealing my car, for example (which has happened to us, BTW). This is not the case with plagiarism. That's why I feel Catherine's point about the damage done to the original work an interesting one.<br /><br />How do most of you feel about fanfic, for example? Would you consider it plagiarism?<br /><br />As to stealing credit or reputation, Susan, the very ease of doing so in the electronic age also makes it just as easy to cast doubt on an alleged thief or cheat -- I'm using your terminology, not necessarily my own. Reputations are rather cheap these days.<br /><br />Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13770069472552779217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-11718690505811394452015-07-02T10:37:45.363+01:002015-07-02T10:37:45.363+01:00Dear God indeed. I must read Daughter of God. I no...Dear God indeed. I must read Daughter of God. I noticed a few odd parallels in Da Vinci Code with Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum as well. <br />Dennis Hamleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15781139870037634374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-7945952609788943252015-07-02T09:14:30.777+01:002015-07-02T09:14:30.777+01:00Dear God. Dare to complain about being robbed, and...Dear God. Dare to complain about being robbed, and you get sued by the thieves!Susan Pricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07738737493756183909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-15865212000133214992015-07-02T08:18:51.597+01:002015-07-02T08:18:51.597+01:00Thank you for such a thought-provoking examination...Thank you for such a thought-provoking examination of this issue, of concern to all writers. I agree that you would expect a publisher of pilfered prose to dump the offending author and made amends when caught red-handed. That's highly unlikely, however, in the world of global corporate publishing today. Your blog brings the case of my long-time friend and colleague,prolific author Lewis Perdue to mind. Lew is a prodigious writer of thrillers and other books - more than 20 published, some 4 million copies sold over several decades. When Perdue read best-selling author Dan Brown's 2003-4 super-hit novel, "The Da Vinci Code," he was aghast (as was I) to discover not only "almost identical" plot and concepts from his 1999-2000 novel "Daughter of God" (arguably unprotected as "ideas") but a slew of specific matching details - characters, locales, twists, etc, (Lew wrote letters of complaint, consulted an attorney and cited the similarities in his own blog. (By the way, Lew, among other things, is a top-notch investigative reporter and was very careful to quote the facts solidly in that blog without making any wild allegations.) Nevertheless, Brown's publisher, Random House (to which the Da Vinci code was a gold mine) made a preemptive stirke. It sued Lew before he could file any motions against the publishing house or the author. Thus Lew, a writer of lesser resources, found himself on the defensive, with his pro-bono lawyer outgunned by an army high-caliber attorneys smothering his case in paperwork. Neither Random House's complaint, or Lew's subsequent counter-complaint ever went to trial. Nevertheless, Random House's corporate lawyers petitioned the court to madeLew to cover all legal fees. Fortunately, that motion was denied. Lew had to back away. Vanity Fair Magazine ran a long, in-depth feature about the case -- as how a big publisher can make an example of any complaining writer - quite sympathetic to Lew (back in 2005). More details at http://davincicrock.blogspot.com/ Umberto Tosihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04939504157464234443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-79253847714301808062015-07-01T23:28:50.198+01:002015-07-01T23:28:50.198+01:00Thanks Magi, and I'll look at the link. Thank ...Thanks Magi, and I'll look at the link. Thank you Kathleen and Susan for your understanding and support. Lydia Bennethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09328239009863878547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-24479319227760134162015-07-01T22:52:12.836+01:002015-07-01T22:52:12.836+01:00"Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is..."Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,<br />Is the immediate jewel of their souls.<br />Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;<br />'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;<br />But he that filches from me my good name<br />Robs me of that which not enriches him,<br />And makes me poor indeed."<br /><br />I'm not claiming to have written this! But for me, it says it all. Why does a poet or writer want to be credited with their work? Not because it's 'capitalism' - that's a crap excuse for stealing my good name. They want the credit because it is the immediate jewel of their souls. In this field, reputation is all. You can't look at someone and identify them as a good poet. The work must be attached to its creator.<br /><br /> If you steal that creditfrom them, you steal everything - but it doesn't enrich you, because the jewel isn't from your soul, and you're a liar and a cheat.<br /><br />Stealing other's works, and pretending that you have such jewels in you soul, without actually having to do any of the feeling, thinking, refining - the work, in other words - used to be quite difficult. You had to copy the stuff out - what a bore! Now all you have to do is highlight, copy and paste - so of course it's more prevelent. The number of shameless liars and cheats haven't increased - they just have to do less work, so more of them give it a go.<br /><br />Sadly, I'm not surprised at the way people reacted, Valerie. Shooting the messenger has always been easier than admitting you were fooled, and then doing something about it. Much easier to bluster and bluff and claim that, actually, nothing was stolen, even though it staringly was. I have great admiration for your refusal to back down. Defend the jewels of your soul! - I'm cheering you on.Susan Pricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07738737493756183909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-56307391393239803822015-07-01T21:47:41.869+01:002015-07-01T21:47:41.869+01:00I'm with you all the way Val and absolutely gu...I'm with you all the way Val and absolutely gutted at the reluctance of the publishers and the various arts bodies, not to mention the universities involved, to actually condemn outright and take proper action. The US author whose story was plagiarised has talked about suing. I hope she does.<br />Sorry you had to go through all this. <br />Kathleen Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07645566938871914385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-61380762262618997102015-07-01T20:59:47.113+01:002015-07-01T20:59:47.113+01:00Thanks for this post. I've been following the ...Thanks for this post. I've been following the Sheree Mack case with horror. I had considered her publisher as a future publisher for myself, having met him at a launch, but am now aghast at his unwillingness to totally condemn the plagiarism that undoubtedly was perpetrated. I've met Sheree too, and she seemed a very personable young woman, so I'm doubly shocked. As a poet, writing and publishing for nigh on 30 years, I'm more taken aback than I can express. My husband's a stand-up comedian, and he's suffered this in the world of comedy, so for another take on how casual people are about using others' intellectual and creative output here's a link to what happened to him. http://www.comedy.co.uk/features/articles/ian_macpherson_genealogy_of_the_joke/<br />We all need to condemn this outright. Not be mealy-mouthed about there being nothing new under the sun. Some people are truly original and creative and they should be credited. Those who steal, because that's what it is, stealing, should be outed. They should be censured if they hold university posts and funding based on their track record of work should be reconsidered. My, I feel better for writing all that. And all my own words too, in the order that I chose.Magi Gibsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021067120365599011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-57309524454033024212015-07-01T20:22:18.837+01:002015-07-01T20:22:18.837+01:00Fascinating - depressing - very well done.
Thank y...Fascinating - depressing - very well done.<br />Thank you<br />julia joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09773900100240758504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-18372970600672740592015-07-01T17:19:12.907+01:002015-07-01T17:19:12.907+01:00Thank you for the supportive comments folks, (make...Thank you for the supportive comments folks, (makes a nice change! :) ) and it is an area for discussion as technology changes our lives - it's easier to plagiarise but it's also easier to get caught and publicised. It can be very violating, being plagiarised, some of the poems taken were deeply personal responses to profound life events, from poets whose lives have been pretty epically difficult, and to see someone blithely take your mother's death and turn it into their own bastardised version is pretty grim. It's the kind of thing people can be casual about until it happens to them.Lydia Bennethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09328239009863878547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-88605709474268162982015-07-01T15:45:37.459+01:002015-07-01T15:45:37.459+01:00It seems we have very similar reading lists, Lee. ...It seems we have very similar reading lists, Lee. I loved "Sapiens". Along parallel lines, have you read Johann Hari's "Chasing the Scream"? A fabulous book from an author who has got himself into a fair bit of trouble regarding plagiarism in the past.Andrew Croftshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16101696875255886422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-29861563248390985512015-07-01T14:43:24.632+01:002015-07-01T14:43:24.632+01:00I think there's a big difference between '...I think there's a big difference between 'ideas' - which of course you can't copyright - and the plagiarism that has been going on with poetry. And I must admit piracy worries me a lot less than this kind of thing which seems to strike at the very heart of individual creativity. Pirated sales don't necessarily mean lost sales. But for somebody to be celebrated for work that is not their own - that's a step too far for me. I've seen novelists (wrongly) accused of plagiarism when tackling historical subjects where if you're writing about a certain pattern of actual events, you aren't going to change it! But the poetry plagiarism I saw seemed to involve people not just cashing in on the work of others but also damaging it in the process. One example might serve to illustrate the point. I can't remember the exact words, but the original, very fine poem involved a woman exposing her (pregnant) belly to the full moon to ensure a girl. The stolen poem left moon in place but changed girl to boy. How crass and stupid is that? Catherine Czerkawskahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554969254207924049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-61219568672079862662015-07-01T14:37:11.504+01:002015-07-01T14:37:11.504+01:00BTW, anyone interested in the wider implications o...BTW, anyone interested in the wider implications of human conventions and institutions might be interested in reading Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari's <i>Sapiens</i>. Bestsellerish but fascinating.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13770069472552779217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-32480055201382743092015-07-01T14:36:16.140+01:002015-07-01T14:36:16.140+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13770069472552779217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2429560125838989988.post-81508859050638666202015-07-01T14:31:37.362+01:002015-07-01T14:31:37.362+01:00Well, Andrew, my ice is even thinner. Ownership is...Well, Andrew, my ice is even thinner. Ownership is a social and economic convention, and like all conventions, subject to change. And I've been planning to read the Witt book for a while now, so thanks for recommending it -- I'm going off to get myself a copy.<br /><br />Though I might be incensed if someone made a Hollywood blockbuster from my work (heheh) without contributing to my rather sad pension fund, I'm perfectly happy with minor copying/remixing/whatever -- attribution however preferred -- but frankly, I can't understand why someone would take pride in anything but minor (whatever that means) borrowing. I suppose I can understand the incentive in terms of financial gain, but for me it's not just a moral issue. It's not about any sort of theft (which legally doesn't apply to copyright anyway, as far as I understand). I want to do my own work. I need to. Otherwise, the person I'm cheating most is myself.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13770069472552779217noreply@blogger.com