![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Borrowing words, will return them after finished
I’ve been quiet online about the Cassie Edwards possible plagiarism affair thus far. (Check out Smart Bitches and Dear Author for multiple posts detailing the discovery and research into the use of non-fiction sources on Native Americans by Ms. Edwards.) Which is not to say that I’ve been entirely silent. Have had a conversation with The Biochemist, whose perspective is academic. Her initial response:
Candy and Jane contacted CE's publishers about this, to get their perspective. Here’s what Signet said, copied from SBTB:
Let me repeat this: But in this case Ms. Edwards has done nothing wrong. My first thought is that this sentence reminds me of Nixon's I am not a crook. Next thought: this isn't a smart thing to write. Especially as an initial response to an allegation of plagiarism. What she's done may not be illegal, assuming the sources are all out of copyright (although there may be an argument to be made about fraud -- check out the discussion on Fandom Wank). Sometimes law and ethics overlap and sometimes they don't; I think of them as a Venn diagram or concentric circles. Right, wrong, fair, unfair, words like these have a place in arguing legal merits but do not belong in opening responses to the report of a potential problem IMO. This as a first response lacks PR savvy, I think, and comes across as defensive, heavy-handed and closeminded.
And from the AP report: Ms. Edwards was not aware that romance writers using historical information were required to cite her sources. Were the basics of research and writing not taught in her secondary school? (I have no idea what education Ms. Edwards has, but expect through high school.) Except this also is consistent with Signet's response. At what point does using another's words and work without attribution become acceptable? Is it because this is fiction? That doesn't make sense -- I've read a lot of fiction with footnotes and endnotes.
Since I've never read Ms. Edwards (Native American romance is not my thing), I have no personal stake in this. But as a reader of fiction, I do have a stake inasmuch as it is emblematic of the legitimacy that any reader has a right to expect from any author. As I wrote to The Biochemist yesterday, I have an unspoken relationship with the authors I read, albeit an impersonal one. We are not friends nor do I have the right to expect anything from them other than a good book. They do not have the right to expect anything from me other than an honest opinion about their work. Honest does not necessarily mean favorable, either. When I buy an author’s book, I am relying on her/him to have submitted the best book s/he can write, each and every time s/he is published. Maybe there are things I won’t like, maybe it isn’t the “best” for me, but I’m expecting her/his best efforts, and in return, I don’t mind paying for the book (instead of borrowing it from the library or buying it used). If an author plagiarizes or uses the work of others without attribution or however you’d like to say it, s/he is violating that unspoken agreement between us; if I can’t trust that the book I’m paying for is *his/her* then why should I pay for it (or anything else s/he writes) ever again?
Ms. Edwards hasn’t lost any sales on my part since I wasn’t inclined to buy from her in the first place. But the publisher’s response is telling, although not a huge suprise to my cynical self. It says to me that unless there is the possibility of legal consequences (and costs), plagiarizing is okay. Except, I’m sure, when one of that publishing house's authors is the one whose work is paraphrased and/or reasonably borrowed from. All bets would be off then, I'm sure.
Afterthought: WTF re: borrowing. If one borrows, then one must return. At what point will the words be returned? And if they were "borrowed", will they be returned with the income they earned while CE was using them?
[A]s scientists, we tend to be really harsh when people don't attribute, even the smallest bit of data that's being reproduced, or repetition of an idea. That's how it is. Maybe rivals do it sparingly and grudgingly...but it gets done. (Specific names of scientific rivals deleted to protect the innocent.)My perspective is pretty consistent with hers, though it comes from a slightly different training background. As Jane explains in her treatise on plagiarism and copyright, the practice and theory of law are built on using arguments and decisions that others have made and written – and about citing those works. There is even a book (The Blue Book, now on what, the 18th edition?) on how to properly cite every type of material under the sun. And law students are given a crash course in how to properly attribute and cite in the first year, just in case they haven’t been taught that plagiarism and/or lack of attribution to source material is wrong in their earlier academic endeavors.
Candy and Jane contacted CE's publishers about this, to get their perspective. Here’s what Signet said, copied from SBTB:
Signet takes plagiarism seriously, and would act swiftly were there justification for such allegations against one of its authors. But in this case Ms. Edwards has done nothing wrong.What I know about IP would fit on the head of a pin with space to spare, but I don’t think that cutting and pasting sentences from other texts counts as reasonable borrowing and paraphrasing or that it is protected under fair use.
The copyright fair-use doctrine permits reasonable borrowing and paraphrasing of another author’s words, especially for the purpose of creating something new and original. Also, anyone may use facts, ideas and theories developed by another author, as well as any material in the public domain. Ms. Edwards’s researched historical novels are precisely the kinds of original, creative works that this copyright policy promotes.
Although it may be common in academic circles to meticulously footnote every source and provide citations or bibliographies, even though not required by copyright law, such a practice is virtually unheard of for a popular novel aimed at the consumer market.
Let me repeat this: But in this case Ms. Edwards has done nothing wrong. My first thought is that this sentence reminds me of Nixon's I am not a crook. Next thought: this isn't a smart thing to write. Especially as an initial response to an allegation of plagiarism. What she's done may not be illegal, assuming the sources are all out of copyright (although there may be an argument to be made about fraud -- check out the discussion on Fandom Wank). Sometimes law and ethics overlap and sometimes they don't; I think of them as a Venn diagram or concentric circles. Right, wrong, fair, unfair, words like these have a place in arguing legal merits but do not belong in opening responses to the report of a potential problem IMO. This as a first response lacks PR savvy, I think, and comes across as defensive, heavy-handed and closeminded.
And from the AP report: Ms. Edwards was not aware that romance writers using historical information were required to cite her sources. Were the basics of research and writing not taught in her secondary school? (I have no idea what education Ms. Edwards has, but expect through high school.) Except this also is consistent with Signet's response. At what point does using another's words and work without attribution become acceptable? Is it because this is fiction? That doesn't make sense -- I've read a lot of fiction with footnotes and endnotes.
Since I've never read Ms. Edwards (Native American romance is not my thing), I have no personal stake in this. But as a reader of fiction, I do have a stake inasmuch as it is emblematic of the legitimacy that any reader has a right to expect from any author. As I wrote to The Biochemist yesterday, I have an unspoken relationship with the authors I read, albeit an impersonal one. We are not friends nor do I have the right to expect anything from them other than a good book. They do not have the right to expect anything from me other than an honest opinion about their work. Honest does not necessarily mean favorable, either. When I buy an author’s book, I am relying on her/him to have submitted the best book s/he can write, each and every time s/he is published. Maybe there are things I won’t like, maybe it isn’t the “best” for me, but I’m expecting her/his best efforts, and in return, I don’t mind paying for the book (instead of borrowing it from the library or buying it used). If an author plagiarizes or uses the work of others without attribution or however you’d like to say it, s/he is violating that unspoken agreement between us; if I can’t trust that the book I’m paying for is *his/her* then why should I pay for it (or anything else s/he writes) ever again?
Ms. Edwards hasn’t lost any sales on my part since I wasn’t inclined to buy from her in the first place. But the publisher’s response is telling, although not a huge suprise to my cynical self. It says to me that unless there is the possibility of legal consequences (and costs), plagiarizing is okay. Except, I’m sure, when one of that publishing house's authors is the one whose work is paraphrased and/or reasonably borrowed from. All bets would be off then, I'm sure.
Afterthought: WTF re: borrowing. If one borrows, then one must return. At what point will the words be returned? And if they were "borrowed", will they be returned with the income they earned while CE was using them?
no subject
no subject
Is plagiarism an issue in the gn/comics realm? Are words (and their ownership) more important because there are fewer of them, or less important than the artwork they accompany?
no subject
It used to be fairly common for the big two comic companies to be accused of stealing other fans ideas. When I was doing HIGH MOON, I had half a dozen people accusing me of stealing their ideas. It was crazy. It got so bad that DC Comics actually put into place a legal order that stopped them from receiving any unsolicited submissions for fans and wanna-be professionals looking to break in.
These days, comic book creators are forbidden from reading fan-fiction or other spec work from fans to prevent these sort of 'infringements' and 'intellectual property theft'
As far as the art elements go, there is not much of that so much, but it does happen from time to time, and it it usually played off as an 'homage.' Editors are in place to usually prevent those kind of matters.
no subject
This is what I thought, too. And I really, really hope that it was the knee-jerk reaction of the guy who got the e-mail, and not the official stance of the publisher.
no subject
Me, too.
no subject
no subject
Cynical, party of one...
no subject
no subject
And the Signet statement is in this story too, so I'm guessing that's their official inadequate response.
And what's with CE putting her husband on the phone? That was weird.
no subject
My most charitable assumption about the husband on the phone was that felt blindsided and didn't want to just hang up on a reporter.
no subject
There's also Laurence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz in law. Of course, perhaps Mr. Dershowitz would now like to argue for a "plagiarism warrant" to go along with his "torture warrant."
no subject
I'd forgotten about Laurence Tribe. And Dershowitz. I followed (with disgust and frustration) his interference in Norman Finkelstein's tenure process, but had forgotten that an accusation of plagiarism was a part of it.
no subject
I think the key (and I've only read what you have up because the other sites get too busy for me to follow along) is that she copied her sources word for word. Am I correct in this? If it's word for word then there should have been quotes for sure and citations.
If she was talking about the history of Native American people in a fiction book I guess I do wonder if she needs to put in sources. Would it be nice, hell yeah. It's good to know what you are reading isn't something completely made up in a author's mind.
Then I look at some of the historical romances we've all read. There are no citations etc. There may be a note at the back of the book about 'how certain events were changed or this historical figure never did meet so and so but I thought 'what if he had?'
Dressing a heroine alone would take a couple of citations to the point that books would be filled with them. How does an author know what they ate in 1865? Did she research that? Did she then note it? What about the shops she refers to - were they really there or are they a figment of her imagination. I guess that's why I was shocked to discover years ago that White's really was a place in history. It was never cited and I thought it was an inside joke between historical romance authors. (I guess this is where I learned that fictional authors could use information without having to present a bibliography)
Then look at movies. I guess they get around this by saying 'this story is based on real life events' not that they are true.
I wouldn't buy a Janet Daily book if you paid me but it's because she stole words from another author who writes in the same genre. It'd be like copying King's books and being a horror writer.
But I guess I wonder at which point does an author's research and her story split ways.
Another thing that baffles me (and not sure it's on topic) is how there are works out there with characters created by other authors. Gone With The Wind had a sequel written but I don't understand how anyone has a right to those characters - except under that 'age' copyright about public domain - that was a new one to me and may only be in the States as public domain was not taught to me in university.
Okay, I think I've straggled far from my original thought so I'll close up ;) What about those historical romance books though? Does my train of thought add up or is there another way that information is covered - point where I should go if one of the sites covers this ;)
CindyS
no subject
GWTW: the sequel by Alexandra Ripley and the book written from Rhett's perspective last year were expressly authorized by the Estate of Margaret Mitchell. I believe that they may own the copyright on those books in conjunction with the authors. The Wind Done Gone was not authorized but in litigation was found to be a parody, which is a defense/exception to copyright infringement.
Did CE copy? SBTB and DA have each posted sections of CE's books next to sections of source materials. In some cases, the punctuation has been changed and a character's name added, or other minor revisions like splitting one sentence into two, but large phrases are the same. In other examples, the sentences are identical, word for word.
What needs citation in a romance novel? The general rule is that if a fact or reference is thought of as common knowledge, it need not be cited. The definition is a function of audience, though. Here's a good quiz for when something is CK or should be cited: http://xnet.rrc.mb.ca/leshanson/Hot_Potato/Reference_Citations.htm And here's a good summary: http://ww.uta.fi/FAST/PK6/REF/commknow.html
There are things about Native American history that are taught as basic social studies in North America, which don't need attribution. I think most Canadians and US citizens educated in public schools have a common understanding of what longhouses, teepees, pemmican, wampum, etc. are. But CE's copy and paste were not about generic things like that, but very specific NA history, customs and animals.
I don't need (and don't think an author must) cite her sources for the menu or her characters' dinner party...unless she copied the menu word for word from the archive of some old family. Then it would be right (IMO) to note that the menu came from So and So's Family Records. Same for clothing: chemises, stockings, etc. aren't extraordinary and I think most readers understand the evolution of clothing. But if an author dresses her heroine in a blue-grey velvet riding habit with military-style epaulets, bone buttons, and black piping exactly like the print she saw in a book on 18th century clothing (and described in the caption exactly as she described it in her book), then I would hope that she acknowledged that as well.
To me, using an historical place like White's as part of a setting, or having your heroine dress in a white Empire-waisted dress and drink lemonade at Almack's are both simply using historical conventions that are understood and accepted by the audience. Describing your heroine's dress by cutting and pasting the description from an archival copy of Godey's Lady's Book is not taking advantage of the audience's common knowledge, it is stealing someone else's words, even if that person is long dead.
But that's just me. MMV.
There's a lot more succinct information at DA and SBTB, but it's hiding among the fangirl complaints and general outrage.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-01-11 12:46 am (UTC)(link)My thoughts exactly. And I am so not surprised at the RWA's initial response. They seem to be very dodo-like, in they way they deal with important issues.