Plagerism Okay?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

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.

To characterize what this author did as plagiarism is already to make a judgment about whether what she did was okay or not. The question is not whether plagiarism is okay - which it is clearly is not, it is whether this author plagiarized another author's work. I am raising a question about whether what she did is plagiarism, and my "2 cents worth about its potential literary value" is simply to suggest that we suspend judgment about the answer to that question since it is unanswerable without considering literary value.

Plagiarism is not simply passing someone else's work off off as ones own. If it was then we would have to count Michelangelo, Andy Warhol and Damien Hirst - to name a few - as plagiarists since what they claim as their work was actually executed by a number of people other than themselves, yet the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, the Brillo boxes and the cut-in-half cows are considered to be "by" these artists. Furthermore, the artists fail to acknowledge the individuals who actually executed the works.

So far this young woman would seem to be in no different position from the artists mentioned. Her intellectual and aesthetic labour was concerned with conceptualizing the organization of some material in order to bring about some aesthetic affect or effect, (leaving aside for the moment the possibility that she did it primarily to make a stack of money). That she didn't actually create some of the strings of words that appear in the book, in her head, would seem to be as important to determining the value of the work as the fact that not all the brushstrokes on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel are by Michelangelo's own hand. And it is a question of the value of the work, since to say that it is plagiarized is to make a judgment as to the value of the work. Further, it is to make a judgment as to the value of the work on the basis of not having read but only having read an article in the NYT about it.

Now it may be that she did write the book primarily to make a stack of money, with no serious artistic intent. In which case I would agree that this is plagiarism. But are we really able to decide that on the basis of the information we have got?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

... But are we really able to decide that on the basis of the information we have got?

Yes. It's quite simple. She used pages and pages of another person's work and claimed it was hers.

She even admitted it.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by TGS

To characterize what this author did as plagiarism is already to make a judgment about whether what she did was okay or not.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize

: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

To characterize this as plagiarism is to know the definition of plagiarism. She wrote it up, made no indication that there was any mixing going on until after she was caught. Unlike the urinal example, there was no reason to think some of those pages were lifted in their entirety from someone else, and every reason to think they were her own.

[Katti's Cat]

Plagiarismus is not ok - using someone elses work is ok as long as you give credit where credit is due. She plainly just strung pieces from other authors together - had she credited them her work would be accepteable as a 'collection' but she didn't do that.

And using artists as an example is a bad one as they had the original idea and the patrons of the time knew that they used other people to execute the work. Just because you can't remember all the names is hardly the fault of the artists.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarize


To characterize this as plagiarism is to know the definition of plagiarism. She wrote it up, made no indication that there was any mixing going on until after she was caught. Unlike the urinal example, there was no reason to think some of those pages were lifted in their entirety from someone else, and every reason to think they were her own.

So now she characterizes her novel as mixing, and has acknowledged her sources (apparently six pages of them - which doesn't suggest she simply took large chunks of some other persons work and called them her own, but actually "mixed" strings of words from a variety of sources - including her own head), the book can be judged on its literary merits, wouldn't you agree?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

So now she characterizes her novel as mixing, and has acknowledged her sources (apparently six pages of them - which doesn't suggest she simply took large chunks of some other persons work and called them her own, but actually "mixed" strings of words from a variety of sources - including her own head), the book can be judged on its literary merits, wouldn't you agree?

Are you slow or what? The book was published with NO ACKNOWLEDGMENT of sources. That is plagiarism. The large sections copied were verbatim not a word or sentence here or there.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Are you slow or what?

I'm not sure there is any need for insults but if that's what you want to do carry on. We disagree - I think it is legitimate to use material that has first appeared somewhere else so long as what is created by that use is something new. I think this because most of the thoughts that I think, sentences that I utter, paragraphs that I write, are derivative of the experiences that I have had - many of which experiences are other people's thoughts, sentences and paragraphs.

You think something else - about which I could throw insults, and would be happy to. You seem to carry on thinking what you think even thought the situation has changed and the author and her publisher have now acknowledged the original sources. What seems to be at the bottom of your criticism (of the author, the publisher, me, I'm not sure), is some kind of guess at the intentionality behind the act. But it is just a guess.

Disagreeing is fine. Being rude is not.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

I'm not sure there is any need for insults but if that's what you want to do carry on. We disagree - I think it is legitimate to use material that has first appeared somewhere else so long as what is created by that use is something new. I think this because most of the thoughts that I think, sentences that I utter, paragraphs that I write, are derivative of the experiences that I have had - many of which experiences are other people's thoughts, sentences and paragraphs.

You think something else - about which I could throw insults, and would be happy to. You seem to carry on thinking what you think even thought the situation has changed and the author and her publisher have now acknowledged the original sources. What seems to be at the bottom of your criticism (of the author, the publisher, me, I'm not sure), is some kind of guess at the intentionality behind the act. But it is just a guess.

Disagreeing is fine. Being rude is not.

No. We are talking about plagiarism. It is well defined and was clearly evident in this case. There is no other conclusion.

If you can't understand that, you are either not understanding (slow) or simply unwilling to accept the facts.

The fact that the publisher is re-publishing with appropriate credit to the original writers is clearly supportive of the fact that it was plagiarism.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No. We are talking about plagiarism. It is well defined and was clearly evident in this case. There is no other conclusion.

If you can't understand that, you are either not understanding (slow) or simply unwilling to accept the facts.

No. We are talking about what an author did - you call it plagiarism, I (for the moment, until I know more about it), don't. There is no fact of the matter about it - there is your opinion and there is my opinion.

Originally Posted by kennyc

The fact that the publisher is re-publishing with appropriate credit to the original writers is clearly supportive of the fact that it was plagiarism.

Maybe the fact that the publisher is republishing with references to original sources says more about the hysterical knee-jerk reaction from people who cannot see beyond the end of their nose to to the other side of their small-mindedness. Amongst which reactions I include yours.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

No. We are talking about what an author did - you call it plagiarism, I (for the moment, until I know more about it), don't. There is no fact of the matter about it - there is your opinion and there is my opinion.



Maybe the fact that the publisher is republishing with references to original sources says more about the hysterical knee-jerk reaction from people who cannot see beyond the end of their nose to to the other side of their small-mindedness. Amongst which reactions I include yours.

I think not. I think it has more to do with plagiarism and law than anything. You may disagree, but the facts speak for themselves in this case and it has nothing to do with opinion.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by TGS

No. We are talking about what an author did - you call it plagiarism, I (for the moment, until I know more about it), don't. There is no fact of the matter about it - there is your opinion and there is my opinion.

Just an example:

Helene Hegemann tried to justify herself. (Full article in german here)

[..]Airen, von dem ich insgesamt eine Seite, ohne sie groß verändern zu müssen, regelrecht abgeschrieben habe, ist ein großartiger Schriftsteller, dessen Blog im Internet einen Teil der alternativen Lebensweise, über die ich berichten wollte, auf den Punkt gebracht hat [..]

I will try a translation (hint about Airen made by me):

[..]Airen (another german blogger and author of the book "Strobo"), from whom i copied a page without the need to modify it, is a great author and his blog in the internet is putting the part of alternate lifestyle that i wanted to talk about in a nutshell [..]

The statement made by the publisher:

Natürlich haben wir Helene Hegemann vor Drucklegung ihres Buches gefragt, ob sie Quellen oder Zitate verwendet hat. Sie verwies lediglich auf ein Zitat von David Foster Wallace, für das wir eine Abdruckgenehmigung eingeholt haben. Offenkundig hat sie die Tragweite dieser Frage unterschätzt und ist auf Quellen und Zitate aus dem Netz - wie etwa den Blog von Airen - nicht eingegangen.

Translation:

Of course we asked Helene Hegeman whether she has used other sources or quotations before we released the print edition. She mentioned only a quotation of David Foster Wallace and we got his permission to use that quotation. Obviously she (Hegemann) underestimated the question in all its bearings and didn't mention other sources and quotations taken from the internet, for instance Airen's blog.

Another example: Helene Hegemann also used the songtext of a song called "F**k You" by a band called "Archive" as content of a letter in her book. She just modified some wordings. She didn't ask for permission.

I gues calling her work or at least parts of it "plagiarism" is justifiable.

[Katti's Cat]

Before the inclusion of the sources in the book it was plagiarismus. Now it's legit - if the book actually has been layed out in such a way that each text she took is clearly marked.

Plagiarismus or not doesn't deter from the fact that she was able to string text blocks together with her own words and created a book. How much value it has is in the eyes of each individual. She has after all created a work from different sources. I just wish she was honest enough to begin with, then everyone could have made an informed decision as to wether this book has any value or not.

But in my eyes the damage is done as she was not honest to begin with.

[cbarnett]

It was certainly plagiarism when she blatantly copied the intellectual work of others and tried to pass if off as her own. Even referencing the work of others doesn't excuse or change this unless she makes clear what is her work, and what is anothers. If she had done exactly what she did at a university, well, she might not be at that university any more.

[Reyben]

Says one critic:

said Volker Weidermann, the jury member and a book critic for the Sunday edition of the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine, a strong supporter. “I believe it’s part of the concept of the book.”

Hmmm. In that case, I think the concept for my next book will be 'car theft.'

However, I do find the notion of a collision between Berlin's "mixing scene" and the literary establishment, mentioned in the article, fascinating. It almost implies something of a minor cultural clash.

The girl's claims that the contextual alteration necessitate in translating the material are as effecting as any to alterations the text itself- which made have made her actions more palpable- are also philosophically, if probably not legally, interesting.



.

[Billjr13]

Plagiarism is wrong. This was plagiarism. for more info goto plagiarism.org