Tag Archives: plagiarism

mostly information law news round-up

* Judge White withdrew his order requiring the shutdown of wikileaks.org. See also 3/1 bits blog. (NYT 3/1)

* The music industry has yet to pay artists any of the money it has received in settlements and lawsuits; the artists are pissed. NY Post 2/27)

* The owners of the game scrabble are pissed off at Scrabulous. (NYT 3/2)

* Daniel Solove’s new book, The Future of Reputation, is available online with a creative commons license, thanks to Yale University Press. Annoyingly it’s chapter-by-chapter. badgerbag read it and promises a scathing review, so I’m looking forward to seeing what she has to say.

* Clay Shirky’s new book, Here Comes Everybody, has a hold list at least 3-deep at the Boston Public Library. )-8

* Paul Cash, the principal of Burleson High School in Burleson, Texas, is censoring the school yearbook’s article about students who are also parents, in part because it conflicts with the school’s “abstinence-only” education program. A program that was, umm, manifestly not successful. As illustrated by the kind of head-in-the-sand attitude that seems to think that if only the principal can censor the yearbook, he can change reality, or lie to the community about it. “I believe that as principal of the school it is my obligation to make sure that whatever our students put into press accurately reflects the ideals and values of the community.” Apparently the students think that the press should reflect reality. I guess the teachers have been doing their jobs. Student Press Law Center has the scoop (2/13). (link from pharyngula, 3/2)

* Schwarzenegger’s administration is defending California’s gay marriage ban before the California Supreme Court; a ruling is due by June. There’s a certain gross irony in this: A couple of years ago, Schwarzenegger vetoed a gay marriage act passed by California’s legislature, saying that this was something that should be left to the courts. That was itself yet another proof that the so-called federalist style of conservatism is really just window-dressing outcome-based politicking as principled ideological opposition to particular forms of government. (SJ Mercury, 3/2)

* Some people in Namibia are worried that schools and libraries are getting away with too much using information, so they’re starting a new copyright enforcement body just to go after the lucrative school and library market. Watch out for the Namibian Reproduction Rights Organization (NamRRO), which isn’t enforcing any rights to reproduce that I’d like to see enforced: The rights to reproduce for fair use, the rights to reproduce or not to reproduce biologically …. The organization is being started by “Moses Moses”, whose name seems a little reproductive itself. Good idea, Moses; way to start killing creativity at the most upstream possible place. (All Africa, 2/29)

* In Illinois, reproductive rights are being upheld: A very silly law that attempts to mandate good parent-child relationships and communications, specifically requiring that pregnant minors must tell their parents if they are having an abortion, continues to be enjoined. A “pro-life” group described the decision as, “a major defeat for the people of Illinois,” apparently forgetting that teenagers are people too. (AP 3/1)

* Heather Morrison at her awesome blog “Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics” has pointed out that plagiarists should avoid open access like the, ah, plague, since it’s so much harder to catch them without open access. Peter Suber at Open Access News gathered several of her related posts in one excellent introduction to Morrison’s concept, “aiming for obscurity”. Read it or wish you had.

* Rebecca MacKinnon reviews the latest round of lawsuits against Yahoo! by Chinese dissidents who, among other things, got screwed over by Yahoo!’s release of their information. (RConversation, 3/3)

plagiarism is the new blowjob

Accusing someone of plagiarism is the latest version of pointless distraction from the real issues. Much like the brouhaha about the infamous Lewinsky/Clinton blowjob, it relies on an overwrought anxiety approaching paranoia about an issue that is of interest to politicians only insofar as it serves to distract people from substantive issues. Like Ann Coulter before them, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s much-publicized skirmishes with plagiarism are disappointing because they divert from real issues, and because they contribute to the general paranoia around “ownership” of information. Without, as it happens, doing much to educate or inform anybody about plagiarism, authorship, or creativity.

Nevertheless, a few commentators muster up something worth reading:

  • Houston Chronicle, 2/24: “Rule No. 1: If it’s transformative, it’s not plagiarism.” (link from 43(B)log)
  • MSNBC Meet the Press (link from copyfight)
  • Jerome Doolittle, John F. Kennedy, plagiarist?, salon.com 2008/2/20 (“[Lincoln’s version] is equally free of meaning, but goes a considerable way toward explaining why Seward was the incoming secretary of state and Lincoln was the incoming president. It ain’t what you say but how you say it. And that is why the Clinton camp has found itself reduced to rolling out the pop gun of plagiarism at this difficult point in the campaign. They have no other artillery.”)
  • Rohn Robins, Vail Daily, 2/26

Wherein I Defend Ann Coulter from Charges of Plagiarism (Pro Bono)

Ann Coulter recently took some heat in the blogosphere for allegedly ‘plagiarizing’ from conservative magazines in her 6/29 article, “Thou Shalt Not Commit Religion”. [why are we back 7/20; the rude pundit 7/1; Raw Story 7/20] Raw Story “found Coulter’s work to be at worst plagiarism and at best a cut-and-paste repetition of points authored by conservative religious groups in the early 1990s.” Gods forbid I actually defend that person, but let’s be a little less free with tossing around terms like ‘plagiarism’. The concept of plagiarism is to some extent a ‘moral’ counterpart to copyright infringement, and suffers from some of the same absolutist tendencies.

Plagiarism is an attempt to take credit for someone else’s work. It could be reasonably used to describe either passing off the substance of someone else’s work as one’s own, or as passing off the exact written expression as one’s own — this latter form might also be copyright infringement. Wikipedia [7/27] describes it as

Plagiarism refers to the use of another’s ideas, information, language, or writing, when done without proper acknowledgment of the original source. Essential to an act of plagiarism is an element of dishonesty in attempting to pass off the plagiarised work as original.

It’s quite obvious that Coulter cut-and-pasted descriptions & paraphrased descriptions. Her article is better described as a list with a short 3-paragraph diatribe at the end. Coulter did source some of her list items, when they included full quotes; she failed to source the paraphrased list items. A problem in an academic article and, one might argue, a problem if you are hoping to be taken seriously. But not really a serious problem for someone like Ann Coulter who dashes random crap off in the form of a diatribe. In fact, while acknowledging each & every source of an “idea[], information, language, or writing” might be lovely, it is not common practice. And especially not in the world of editorial columnists & pundits. Wikipedia points out that an essential element of plagiarism is dishonesty. Not to be all morally relativistic here (Ann would hate that), but what qualifies as ‘honesty’ is circumstantial: in some circumstances an omission might be dishonest, and in other circumstances it would be expected or welcomed, and the inclusion of the information might be distracting, misleading, or unnecessary.

In this instance, Ann’s paraphrasings are pretty short and generic to that particular perspective. The point of listing the individual items is to describe the works of art, not create a bibliography of conservative scholarship. Could she have cited to the original articles that she saw the description in? Sure, that would have been helpful. Does it really matter? Eh. So she’s scholastically lazy. That’s hardly the worst of her sins. And it’s not like people are going to be quoting her for her deathless prose.

Rather than trying to diss Ann Coulter for her sloppy citation methods (which sounds a lot less serious than ‘plagiarism’), it would be more interesting & helpful & informative to address the substance (such as it is) of her commentary: explain & contextualize the art of Andre Serrano, Annie Sprinkle, etc.

fantasy writer corrects common misconceptions about plagiarism

Another in a series of interesting links & quotes from writers & creators about their ideas about ideas and information. Mercedes Lackey, a popular fantasy writer & protegee of Marion Zimmer Bradley, has this interesting essay on plagiarism. I’ve extracted relevant quotes:

… People tend to use th[e] term [“plagiarism”] incorrectly all the time. … When most people refer to “plagiarizing” however, they are generally saying that someone used someone else’s ideas. Now, you will almost never hear a professional author accusing another of this. The reason is simple; first, you cannot put a patent or a copyright or a statement of ownership on an idea. Second, every professional writer knows that no two authors will take the same idea and do the same thing with it. …

Now, how does it happen that authors have similar topics? There are many ways. First, and the simplest — coming from the same source. Fantasy authors are all getting their inspiration from the same mythopoeic well—the huge backlog of myth, fable, and legends from history. … Second, influence and tribute. Authors are influenced by what they enjoy reading, and often pay tribute to that by showing that influence in their own work.

Nevertheless, a professional author will be careful to avoid the charge of being a copycat by bringing something original to the party.

You can’t plagiarize ideas, only text. And a real, professional writer would throw themselves over a cliff before they did that — because the one thing we take pride in is our words. Our own voice. So to take someone else’s would mean we couldn’t come up with any of our own. Not a chance.