Thread: Plagerism Okay?
View Single Post
Old 02-20-2010, 05:41 PM   #15
David Marseilles
Leap & a net will appear.
David Marseilles ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.David Marseilles ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.David Marseilles ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.David Marseilles ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.David Marseilles ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.David Marseilles ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.David Marseilles ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.David Marseilles ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.David Marseilles ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.David Marseilles ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.David Marseilles ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
David Marseilles's Avatar
 
Posts: 629
Karma: 4935632
Join Date: Dec 2009
Device: Nexus⁴ & Kindle⁴
Quote:
Originally Posted by netseeker View Post
Her publisher made agreements in the aftermath with the various sources she had used. The new edition of "her" book will have six (six!!!!) pages with source bibliography. What she did was wrong, yes. But her publisher (especially the editors) did a horrible job in not checking the used sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS View Post
Ah, I didn't realize it was a conversation about lawfulness. I thought it was a conversation about whether it was a or could be "good" book or not. ...

Now that her publisher has acknowledged her sources - there are rules about how much of a work another author can cite - is she no longer breaking the law? If she is no longer breaking the law what she did is not - on your account - wrong. Am I understanding you correctly?
What she DID was wrong -- which was that she put her name on someone else's work and claimed it as her own. But if in fact, as netseeker suggests, she now has agreements to use what she used, it doesn't even matter what the law states about much you can use without permission, because she now has permission.

A major difference between this and your urinal example is that I very much doubt anyone mistook the craftsmanship of the urinal as a sculpter's work. They understood that what the artist was claiming was the re-purposing of something mundane as art. If he had claimed to have made it himself, or led people to believe he had, that would have been wrong too, wrong in that it would have been a lie. What he claimed was how to use it -- and if this author had cited her sources originally too, we'd probably be having a conversation about 'mixing' and literary value instead of a conversation about theft and lies.

Finally, I can't imagine how any of the comments here, or the topic "Plagiarism, Okay?" makes you think this is a topic about whether the book is good or not rather than whether plagiarism is ... wait for it, "okay". If you'd like to add your 2 cents about its potential literary value, feel free, but it almost sounded as if you were suggesting everyone but you was off-topic.
David Marseilles is offline   Reply With Quote