Plagerism Okay?

[TGS]

Here is a picture by Asger Jorn, perhaps one of the best known Danish artists of the 20th century.



Presumably you would feel that the most important thing to say about this picture would amount to the fact that Jorn has used a print of a picture by another, unacknowledged, artist and it is therefore plain and simple plagiarism - end of story.

Fortunately there are more sophisticated assessments.

[kennyc]

Once more this is about claiming someone else's words and writing as your own. That is what the person did. It was Plagiarism.

In the above image if Jorn claimed the entirety of the work as his own then yes, he is stealing and committing the equivalent of plagiarism.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by TGS

Here is a picture by Asger Jorn, perhaps one of the best known Danish artists of the 20th century.



Presumably you would feel that the most important thing to say about this picture would amount to the fact that Jorn has used a print of a picture by another, unacknowledged, artist and it is therefore plain and simple plagiarism - end of story.

There is contrast between his work and the underlying work, possibly enough to put someone on notice that they aren't quite the same. I made that same point 5 pages ago about your urinal example. Books don't work the same way.

Also, is it only his signature below in the bottom right? I see two names, one looks like it could be Jorn. The other appears to end in "orton". If the other artist's name is still on the canvas, that would be an awfully clear citation without the need to stretch for a contrast between works.

Originally Posted by TGS

Fortunately there are more sophisticated assessments.

Not only were you wrong about what his assessment would be (you presumed too much, which is rude), you just called him an unsophisticated assessor (albeit, more slyly than he called you slow), and you did so after lecturing him about being rude earlier in the thread. So now you're rude and a hypocrite.

I enjoy having conversations with people I disagree with TGS, what's the point in talking with someone who already agrees with you? One might as well have a conversation with oneself. But your style of argument is deeply disingenuous. Offensive even. You have carried yourself arrogantly, lectured anyone who has disagreed with you, played word games to avoid responsibility for past posts, and played word games to let you insult others on the sly while simultaneously casting aspersions on them for being direct with their insults. You've hijacked this thread when the topic you so desperately wish to discuss is very, very tangentially related to it's stated topic, and when someone dares not to discuss your topic on your terms, you behave as though they're the ones in the wrong thread.

Conversations between people who disagree only work out positively when everyone is willing to behave honestly. You haven't been willing to do that, while at the same time you seem to think you're on the high ground. You're not. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to unsub this thread and go argue with someone who doesn't think they're better than anyone who disagrees with them.

[Logseman]

What is the sophisticated assessment to passing someone else's work as your own? Would anything of this have happened if she had been upfront and told "this ain't my page"?

I am fully against the existence of copyright as it provokes situations like this, but this girl wasn't honest. As other German co-posters have pointed out, the copy-paste of a page was not the only dishonest ripoff she made.

Even though, personally I wish this would happen to me. To have someone copy my work and showing that it actually can make a profit would be fantabulous

[DrZoidberg]

I'm very much for "borrowing" and even "stealing" ideas. I'm even ok with characters being stolen. Within reason and due credit has to be given. Take and reshake. The most unique thing a writer has is his voice. As long as you don't take that I'm very forgiving. But switching out odd words is stealing the voice. That's a big no no.

I am very much for copyright. I just wanted to point that out.

[SimonSays]

Just because she FINALLY admits the truth and the books now lists the source, it is still plagiarism. You can not copy peoples work, word for word, even slightly changing a word here and there and think you are ok just because you put them in at the end of the book under sources. You still have to take their work and put it into your OWN words. Her publishers should have pulled her book off the shelf completely. She is a hack, IMHO

[TGS]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

There is contrast between his work and the underlying work, possibly enough to put someone on notice that they aren't quite the same. I made that same point 5 pages ago about your urinal example. Books don't work the same way.

You claim that books don't work that way, but do not explain why they don't. I claim that using "found" material may be a legitimate artistic activity, and if it is, then it is not (necessarily), plagiarism. You seem to claim otherwise - we disagree.

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

Not only were you wrong about what his assessment would be (you presumed too much, which is rude), you just called him an unsophisticated assessor (albeit, more slyly than he called you slow), and you did so after lecturing him about being rude earlier in the thread. So now you're rude and a hypocrite.

On the contrary, I seem to be right about kennyc's assessment - as he confirms in his response to me. I reject the notion that I "lectured" kennyc about being rude - I mentioned that I found being called "slow" to be rude, how does that constitute lecturing? I'm not sure what you mean by me characterizing kennyc's assessment as being unsophisticated as being rude and sly - I was commenting on his assessment, and I did not do it slyly - what I did not do was comment on him - I did not call him an unsophisticated assessor, as you suggest, I called, what I presumed to be, his assessment unsophisticated - unlike the rhetorical question "are you slow?", it is not an comment on a person.

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

I enjoy having conversations with people I disagree with TGS, what's the point in talking with someone who already agrees with you? One might as well have a conversation with oneself.

So do I - so long as they are conducted with some possibility of finding common ground.

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

You've hijacked this thread when the topic you so desperately wish to discuss is very, very tangentially related to it's stated topic, and when someone dares not to discuss your topic on your terms, you behave as though they're the ones in the wrong thread.

The first post on this thread mentioned this German author's book, and characterized it as plagiarism. My point throughout has been that to reach that judgement may well be too hasty and that the situation, and the proper way to characterize it, may be more complicated than that. You see that as hijacking, I see it as having a different perspective on the topic. I still don't know whether the book constitutes plagiarism, but if it does it may be that sometimes plagiarism is OK - as in the case of the Asger Jorn picture.

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

Conversations between people who disagree only work out positively when everyone is willing to behave honestly. You haven't been willing to do that, while at the same time you seem to think you're on the high ground. You're not. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to unsub this thread and go argue with someone who doesn't think they're better than anyone who disagrees with them.

I simply do not know what you mean by your accusation of dishonesty. Discussions, as distinct from conversations, are about putting your point forward and seeking to persuade others of the validity of your position. As part of that process it is, at some level, necessary to believe that the position one is advocating is right. An implication of this is that it is necessary to believe that someone putting an opposing view is wrong. It does not follow from this that I consider myself to be occupying any "high ground", if that is taken to mean, as it often does, a higher moral position. It does not preclude the possibility that one will be persuaded by the arguments of one's "opponents", nor does it imply that one is attacking the other person - one is challenging the position they are advocating, not the person themselves.

[TGS]

An interesting article, particularly for those who commented in this thread without knowing what they were talking about:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012...list-interview

Comment amended by mod to expunge "rudeness".

[JonathanH]

Originally Posted by TGS

An interesting article, particularly for those who commented in this thread without knowing what they were talking about:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012...list-interview

Comment amended by mod to expunge "rudeness".

*Legally*, what she did was plagiarism.

*Artistically*, if she wanted to claim that it was actually an experiment in intertextuality, she should have said that up front. As in, a big disclaimer in the introduction to the book, or at the very least some serious end-notes (as her publisher hurriedly added). However, it is VERY hard to make intertextuality arguments after the fact without looking like a sore loser who got caught out doing something illegal and is now trying desperately to justify it. She might have gotten away with it (at least in the court of public opinion) had she already been a well-established author with a reputation for doing experimental things. As a first-time writer you don't get that liberty.

Anyway, it's all good for the, uhhh, axolotls....

Edit: Edited to note that I'm disappointed in the reviewer. The obvious question to have asked would be something along the lines of "how can we tell whether you intended this to be an intertextuality experiment from the start, or whether you simply seized on it as a plausible-sounding excuse after you were caught out? What is the responsibility here between the author and the reader?" *That* would have been an interesting conversation - if she had engaged with it - and could have made for a fascinating interview. As it is, it seems to be a standard lazy "where are they now" piece.