Oprah Sued For Copyright Infringement After Quoting A Book On TV Without Credit

from the taking-on-Oprah,-huh? dept

A guy named Charles Harris, who wrote a political booklet about the process by which America elects Presidents, is apparently suing Oprah Winfrey for copyright infringement, saying that she "plagiarized" his work, when she quoted it on her TV show, without crediting him. Basically, the guy had sent copies of the booklet to Winfrey, hoping to get some free publicity out of it. However, on one show she apparently (he alleges) directly read aloud some questions from his booklet, but did so without crediting him. Of course, plagiarism, by itself, isn't against the law, so he's trying to twist this into a copyright lawsuit, saying she had no license to read the questions aloud. You can see the filing below: It's hard to see how he can legitimately claim that Oprah reading the questions has caused him "substantial injury, loss and damage to his property" or that it's "damage" for his "business reputation and goodwill." And, not surprisingly, he's asking for the maximum statutory rate of $150,000. Of course, you could (and many probably will) argue that the guy knows the lawsuit is bogus, and that there's no "damage," but is using the lawsuit to get publicity for his booklet...

Filed Under: charles harris, copyright, oprah winfrey, plagiarism

What's Wrong With Students Reusing Papers?

from the double-standards dept

Copycense points us to a story by English professor, James Lang, who notes that many universities and professors say that it's unethical or against school rules for students to reuse papers for multiple courses, but the more he thinks about it, the more he wonders why this is wrong, noting that professors do this all the time, reusing papers, presentations, research and lesson plans. Even if the idea is that students are supposed to "do work," it's not clear that there's anything wrong with a student reusing a paper, as long as it suffices for the assignment:

But--practically speaking--the opportunity to reuse a paper might arise only once or twice in a student's career, thanks to the diversity of our course assignments and disciplines. A paper assignment that a student gets in my English class on 20th-century literature won't be anything like her assignment in Renaissance literature--much less from psychology or sociology. Because the content of courses differs so much, the opportunity to use the same paper will happen only rarely.

But when it does, why not allow a student to take advantage of the opportunity? Suppose a student writes a final research paper for an introductory psychology course in the fall semester of her freshman year, and receives helpful suggestions on it from the professor. That same student then takes an English-composition course with me in the spring, and I assign an open-topic research paper to finish the semester.

Why should I not encourage the student to revise her psychology paper, according to both the guidance she received from her previous professor and the new writing principles she has learned in my course? She couldn't merely turn in her old paper; it would have to fulfill the requirements of my assignment. The student would not only get the opportunity to return to a set of ideas she thought she had finished, but the assignment would also reinforce the interdisciplinary nature of knowledge and the curriculum.

The article is based around the question of whether it's okay to "plagiarize yourself," but I worry that even that's a bit misleading. You can't plagiarize yourself. Plagiarism is about passing off someone else's work as your own. Reusing work is not the same thing at all, but is a separate issue -- and one that doesn't really seem to be much of a problem once you think about it.

Filed Under: education, plagiarism, reuse

Estate Of Author Who Claims JK Rowling Copied Her Work Sues Again

from the keep-on-suing-on dept

A year ago, we wrote about the latest (in a decently long line) of authors who claimed that JK Rowling "plagiarized" some other book for her Harry Potter works. The evidence is always pretty much lacking, and the details suggest a failed author who had a book that had a few loose similarities. In this case, the estate of the author sued Bloomsbury, who published the books in the UK. But, apparently, that's not enough. The estate is filing a similar lawsuit in the US, because maybe one of those lawsuits will actually lead to money. Of course, the real likelihood is that this is a weak attempt at using the court systems to try to get attention for a failed book.

Filed Under: copyright, harry potter, jk rowling, plagiarism

Smart: Graduating As Valedictorian Of An Ivy League School; Not Smart: Plagiarizing Part Of Your Speech From A Famous Comedian

from the did-he-think-no-one-would-notice dept

As a bunch of folks have been sending in, it appears that the valedictorian of Columbia University's General Studies program, Brian Corman, thought that no one would notice if he copied -- verbatim -- a joke from popular comedian Patton Oswalt. First, here's Oswalt's joke in two parts:

Then, there's the clip of the part of Corman's graduation speech, which, you'll note is covered by a giant message from a dean at Columbia apologizing for the mess: The dean's apology reads:

It has come to our attention that a portion of our Valedictorian's remarks at this year's School of General Studies Class Day was taken from a comedy routine by Patton Oswalt. As an institution of higher learning that places a core value on respect for the works of others, we were surprised and disappointed to have learned of this matter today. Columbia University and the School of General Studies do not condone or permit the use of someone else's work without proper citation. The student speaker has appropriately issued an apology to his classmates and to Mr. Oswalt for failing to provide such attribution.

Oswalt, for his part, wrote on his own site that while the kid apologized, he wonders about what sort of valedictorian would copy in such a manner:

Brian Corman apologized to me. Flat-out admitted his thievery, his stupidity. Owned it all. Good man. Still makes me wonder what he might have done to become valedictorian -- I mean, if he's willing to steal material for something as inconsequential as a speech, how rubbery did his boundaries become when his GPA and future career were on the line? Oh well.

Quite a story all around, and it raises a bunch of different points that we'll hit in bullet form:

• Joke copying: This is a popular topic that we've discussed a few times in the past. While it certainly does piss off comedians, they seem to ignore the fact that it's not just quite common among comedians, but, historically, it was considered quite normal. That's because people realized that there is no monopoly on being funny -- and that it's usually the timing and the delivery that matter much more than the joke itself (which can be seen in the clips above -- where Oswalt's version comes off much funnier than Corman's copy).
• Social mores: But, more importantly, it's the social cost to copying that keeps this from getting too far out of line. In the comic world, comedians who have a reputation as big time joke copiers tend to get shunned. That's not to say that many haven't been successful still, but there is an effort within the community to self police, without any sort of legal regime needed.
• Reputation: Related to that, what this really comes down to is a reputational issue. While Oswalt is wrong to call Corman's actions "stealing," he's right to question the kid's decision, and raise questions about his reputation. For a long time, now, Corman will be tagged as the guy who didn't have the good sense to (a) know that it's inappropriate to copy someone else's work in a valedictiorian speech (b) realize that people would notice and (c) to realize that it would get a lot of attention, including a condemnation from the original comedian in the first place.

Notice, of course, that all of this is happening without the need to get the law involved, and the situation gets resolved quite nicely. Oswalt, deservedly, gets more attention for his act and his jokes. The kid gets a public shaming and his reputation (and job prospects?) take a hit. And, Columbia also gets a bit of a reputational hit as well for having a valedictorian who made these sorts of mistakes.

Filed Under: brian corman, columbia university, jokes, patton oswalt, plagiarism, valedictorian

Argentinian Politician's Proposal For New Anti-Plagiarism Law Plagiarizes Wikipedia

from the where's-the-anti-irony-law dept

Britxardo alerts us to an amazingly ironic story coming out of Argentina. It seems that an elected politician there, Gerónimo Vargas Aignasse, has introduced some new legislation against plagiarism (Google translation of the original). It seems odd enough that he would be outlawing plagiarism (here in the US plagiarism is socially shunned, and could cost you your job, but isn't against the law unless it also reaches the point of copyright infringement, which is different), and it's made even worse by the fact that it looks like he's confusing plagiarism with copyright infringement -- noting in the explanation of the bill that "plagiarism" is harming the recording industry.

But that's not the ironic part.

As unbelievable as it may seem, it appears that the text Vargas Aignasse used to explain the bill was plagiarized straight from Wikipedia (Google translation of the original). Seriously. And not just a little bit. The first three paragraphs of the Spanish Wikipedia page on plagiarism are identical to three paragraphs in the explanation of the bill.

Just to make sure someone didn't do the opposite and take the text of the introduction and make it the Wikipedia page, I looked, and as I'm typing this, the Wikipedia page hasn't been updated since April -- and it looks like the bulk of that page has actually been in place for quite some time. The bill was introduced on May 6th.

It's difficult to think of anything more ironic than introducing a bill that calls for "imprisonment from three to eight years" for plagiarism... that plagiarizes the explanation for that bill. It's out and out plagiarism too. The three paragraphs look to be copied completely, and no effort is made to identify the source. It's also a bit weird that the text from Wikipedia -- which is basically just a definition of plagiarism -- is being used as the explanation of the bill. Nowhere does it describe why it's a problem or why it requires stringent jailtime. But, perhaps that's something Vargas Aignasse can ponder while serving three to eight years in prison for violating the law he just introduced... with the law he just introduced.

Filed Under: argentina, geronimo vargas aignasse, plagiarism, wikipedia

Newser May Be Obnoxious, But That Doesn't Mean It's Illegal

from the why-can't-we-all-just-get-along dept

There's been a bit of a kerfuffle going on between the news aggregator Newser and entertainment news site TheWrap. Newser summarizes news that it aggregates, and apparently, TheWrap was not happy with this practice. TheWrap's Sharon Waxman posted a biting criticism of Newser, to which Newser's Michael Wolff replied with his own volley filled with barbed snark. This then kicked off a vicious fight over Twitter, which was joined by folks from all over the media industry. Finally, TheWrap took it up a notch and sent Newser a formal Cease & Desist, requesting that Newser stop using TheWrap as a source (via Mediagazer). The C&D letter claims:

Newser's conduct violates The Wrap's rights because: (1) The Wrap generates and gathers time-sensitive information at a cost, including, without limitation, original stories ferreted out and reported by The Wrap's full-time employees and paid contributors; (2) Newser free-rides on The Wrap's sweat of the brow by publishing summaries of these stories without affording The Wrap appropriate credit and a prominent link; and (3) Newser is in direct competition with The Wrap. Thus, Newser's conduct, in addition to amounting to garden variety plagiarism, constitutes unfair competition and violates certain deceptive trade practices statutes.

There are a few major problems with this -- in that of the three rights that TheWrap claims Newser violates, it's not clear that any are actually rights that TheWrap has! The first one is basically an attempt to bring back the hot news doctrine, which is hotly contested these days -- but would be a huge mistake for news publications. Right now, it's still a pretty big question though as to whether or not hot news actually can be applied in this way. Just because TheWrap generates time-sensitive info, it doesn't mean that others can't do anything with it. And that's because the second "right" has been totally rejected by the courts. The claim that this is free riding on The Wrap's "sweat of the brow" is meaningless, because as the courts decided in the Feist case, there is no protection for "sweat of the brow" works. Bringing it up makes no sense, and suggests someone's making a legal argument that has long since been debunked. Finally, the fact that the two sites are in competition is meaningless. Competition is allowed. It's called capitalism. And TheWrap is exaggerating and wrong to call this plagiarism. Rewriting something may be obnoxious, but it's not plagiarism, nor is it a deceptive trade practice.

So, while Newser might be doing something that many consider slimy or tacky, it's not technically doing anything illegal. That said, the fact that TheWrap thought it was necessary to draft a formal C&D seems a tad excessive, although I'm sure the lawyers involved were more than happy to help -- even if the legal arguments appear weak. However, if Newser were to comply (and it doesn't have to), TheWrap really hurts itself more than anything. Sure, Waxman claims that in the 14 months that TheWrap has been around, Newser has sent it only 1,600 users. But, that's 1,600 more users than it would have sent had it not used TheWrap as a source. And yes, while it's true that Newser does not seem to add its own spin to the articles it summarizes, perhaps that is all that the Newser user wants. After all, the experience on Newser is very different from the one on TheWrap, so each site most likely appeals to a different type of audience. If anything, Newser exposes TheWrap content to a user segment that would not have seen TheWrap otherwise.

That said, I personally find the Newser user experience annoying and obnoxious -- the site design and link practices don't make for a good news consuming experience -- and certainly don't make for a very friendly neighbor online. Despite Newser's claims that it links to its sources, it does so in a very unfriendly way (hard to find, forcing you to visit ads to leave the page). This sort of practice, even if legal, may lead to two results, neither of which are good for Newser: (1) Annoying its readers, leaving them to go elsewhere and (2) Annoying everyone else online, keeping them out of wider social media circles. They might not think this is a big deal, but if no one else is ever linking to Newser, it's not likely that Newser stays in business. Rather than complaining, perhaps TheWrap should have just watched as Newser crumbled.

Either way, we're likely to see more fights like this one, as newspaper publishers who overvalue their own work continue with their misguided clamoring for the "hot news" doctrine, which would treat "hot news" as protected property. Not only is this a bad idea for all of society, this would ultimately spell doom for the publishers themselves, who would undoubtedly be mired in trying to figure out who owned what news rather than focusing on reporting and analyzing and figuring out how to give their customers a true reason to buy.

On that note, it's worth noting (with amusement) that the news story that kicked off this whole brouhaha was the story about how Beyonce's Label was blocking her YouTube channel. Which, of course, we here at Techdirt had written about two days before either Waxman or Newser posted on it.

But you don't see us complaining... even as we wipe the sweat off our brow.

Filed Under: c&d, fights, plagiarism
Companies: newser, thewrap

If Entire Books Can Be Sampled, Why Not Songs?

from the stand-up-for-free-expression dept

Recently, there's been some talk about David Shield's new book, Reality Hunger, which is getting some press attention for the fact that most of the book is "plagiarized." Or, rather, the book is derivative. It's a literary collage, of sorts, with only an appendix at the end that links the works back to the original authors -- and that appendix was put in against Shield's original wishes, but on the command of his publishers' lawyers. Of course, as many have noted, even the idea is derivative. Three years ago we wrote about Jonathan Lethem's wonderful Harper's article, The Ecstasy of Influence, which, again, was a collage of other people's works.

And, of course, this follows on the recent "controversy" over a German teen who had done something similar, but did as Shields originally wished, in that she chose not to directly credit the sources in the book.

While some are confused by all of this into thinking that the entire concept of "authorship" is at risk -- many are realizing that's utter hogwash, and this actually shows how unique forms of new content creation are thriving.

However, there is a separate issue that's worth pointing out. While there is some controversy over these sorts of books, we're not hearing about lawsuits -- and we're definitely not hearing about demands for licensing fees. Yet, in the music world, thanks to a series of highly questionable legal rulings, it's impossible to do the same thing. If you make a collage in music, you have to clear every sample or risk getting sued. In some cases, such as Girl Talk, the lawsuits haven't come, but plenty of sampling lawsuits are still filed, and many in the music business want to clear every sample.

But this vast split between the process of creating a remixed/collage book and a remixed/collage music is reasonably upsetting many. Copycense points us to a manifesto, refering back to the discussion on Reality Hunger, suggesting that musicians should stand up for their rights to make derivative, transformative works without having to pay for every sample -- just as what's happening in the literary world:

Rather than take offense however, I'd like to turn the tables.  Indeed what Shields has done is art, and should be treated as original despite being a derivative work.  Where this is accepted, and every day it remains on the market supports its acceptance, then all other original derivative works must be held to the same standard.  The archaic practice of extorting sample based artists for their profits on the legal basis of treating their art only on intellectual property terms, must be out eliminated.  If an author is legally protected in their use of derivative works by simply citing the reference to their usage, there can be no double standard when it comes to musicians.

And so I put forth to sample based producers, and the labels who support them, it's time to take this issue to task.  End your relationships with the sampling clearing houses.  Create your art without the fear of legal repercussions.  Release it for profit, with your sample sources clearly stated.  At first there will be legal cases brought up, but DO NOT BACK DOWN.  You are on the side of the right, and it is only by pushing forward that the laws will change to reflect that.  I believe there are lawyers and activists who need to, as well as those who already do, stand with us to take this as far as it needs to go, but it begins with us the artists not being afraid to stand up for what is right.

Of course, some might argue that it's not necessarily that this is legal in the literary space, just that it's rare for a lawsuit to be filed over such appropriation. Tragically, that's not the case in the music business. But, on the whole, I do agree that it's high time that the courts fix what they got so very, very, very wrong on the legality of de minimis copying of music -- and one way to make that happen is to get musicians who sample to stand up for their rights to sample without having to pay a toll.

Filed Under: books, copyright, fair use, literature, music, plagiarism, samples

Print Mindset vs. Internet Mindset: Do You Link? Do You Credit Sources?

from the fight-for-the-digital-ages dept

We recently wrote about how the NY Post was caught taking a blogger's story and rewriting it for itself -- noting the hypocrisy of a News Corp. newspaper copying from someone else, after Rupert Murdoch and his top execs have been going around decrying various news aggregators (and Google especially) for "stealing" from News Corp. newspapers. It's even more ridiculous when you think about it -- because the "stealing" that Rupert is upset about is Google linking to the original story -- a step that his NY Post writer couldn't even be bothered to do.

Of course, as a few people pointed out in the comments, this sort of "re-reporting" is quite common in the traditional news business. You see it all the time in newspapers, magazines and broadcast TV. They take a story that was found somewhere else and just "re-report" it, so that they have their own version of it. That this is incredibly inefficient and a total waste of reporters' resources never seems to be considered. But it's a very traditional reporting mindset.

But sometimes that leads to trouble. Felix Salmon has an excellent discussion going about how the recent NY Times plagiarism "scandal" really came about because of this mindset. First, he notes that the "reason" that reporter Zachary Kouwe gave for plagiarizing a variety of stories on his NY Times blog, was that he saw the stories elsewhere and wanted to re-report them and "in the essence of speed" clearly cut some corners in his re-reporting. But, as Salmon notes, this is a traditional reporting mindset. An internet blogging mindset would just see this story, and in the "essence of speed" link to it:

If there's a minor news story on a trustworthy wire service, and you think you need it on the blog, then link to it. You add no value by rushing -- with "essence of speed", no less -- to get the exact same story yourself. You're a well-paid full-time journalist at the New York Times; there are surely higher and better uses of your valuable time than going back to rewrite a story which already exists elsewhere.

The sin that resulted in Kouwe's departure from the NYT was that he rewrote badly, and left large chunks of other people's work unchanged in his own copy. But the true underlying sin was that he spent so much time rewriting in the first place: the beauty of blogs, which exist to link elsewhere, is that he should never have needed to do that at all.

Salmon goes on to point out that the big newspapers, like the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal, keep putting traditional reporters in charge of their blogs (not always, but quite frequently), and they blog like reporters, rather than digital natives. That is, they re-report stuff, rather than linking. And that's often because traditional reporters lived by the "scoop" and the idea that they had to be first. Acknowledging that someone else got the story first is seen as an admission of failure. But in the blogging world, it's seen as a sign of respect and of gratitude. But it's difficult for those who've lived in that first world to get their heads wrapped around this.

We recently wrote about the important role of curation in journalism -- which includes the ability to link to other stories, and add value to those stories (whether by fact checking or commentary or discussion). But too many traditional newspapers still have no interest in that kind of journalism, even as greater and greater numbers of their readers are actively seeking it out.

Filed Under: blogging, internet, journalism, links, plagiarism, print, reporting, zachary kouwe

Teen Remixes The Works Of Others Into Best Selling Novel... And Critics Love It

from the collaborative-writing dept

Here's a story that will get traditionalists up in arms about "stealing" and "laziness," but they'll all be missing the point. We've see for decades how remix culture works in music. The ability to take the works of someone else, mix them up with others, change them around and create something new and powerful, is a wonderful expression of culture, that shows how artistic culture is often about shared experiences and sharing works of art. But what about in the literary world?

There has been some exploration of this concept in the past, such as when author Jonathan Lethem wrote a very eloquent defense of plagiarism that was entirely plagiarized. Separately, we've discussed how many (especially younger people) who have grown up on things like Wikipedia often point out that they don't view it as plagiarism so much as collaborative writing. And they have a point (even if there's one patent lawyer in particular who links back to that article every few weeks to mock Techdirt). There will always be those who don't recognize how this is, in fact, collaboration and does create new and unique pieces of artwork and culture -- but they're the same sorts of people who have decried every new artform from the Waltz ("The indecent foreign dance called the Waltz was introduced... we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion") to romance novels and plays ("The free access which many young people have to romances, novels, and plays has poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth; and prevented others from improving their minds in useful knowledge") to comic books ("All child drug addicts, and all children drawn into the narcotics traffic as messengers, with whom we have had contact, were inveterate comic-book readers This kind of thing is not good mental nourishment for children!").

But the good news is that this form of collaborative creation is gaining a bit of acceptance. Duane alerts us to the story of a 17-year-old German woman whose critically acclaimed book has been found to have large chunks plagiarized from other sources. A few years back, when a similar situation arose in the US, the author Kaavya Viswanathan, was shunned -- even if some of us thought that was ridiculous and unfair. In this case, however, the author, Helene Hegemann, readily admits that she was "remixing" other works into her book -- and the critics still love it. Her book was nominated for the $20,000 prize of the Leipzig Book Fair even though the judges already knew about the plagiarism.

And, really, what's the problem here? Some might claim that it's unfair to the original authors whose work she used -- but the author of the largest segments, named Airen, is getting a ton of attention for Airen's own book, which received little actual attention when originally published. In fact, Amazon now notes that "customers who bought" Hegemann's book also ended up buying Airen's book. In the same way that remixes and mashups often drive people to buy the original music, it seems like remixed/mashedup books can do the same. It may be a big cultural leap for those who think there is "a way things must be done," but it seems that the younger generation has other ideas.

Filed Under: airen, books, collaboration, copyright, helen hegemann, plagiarism, remix, writing

Dutch Judges Plagiarize, Potentially Infringe, Blog Post In Decision About Copyright

from the pot,-kettle dept

A little while ago, we had a rather long and heated discussion over the question of whether or not embedding/hotlinking is infringement when the original content is hosted/served from elsewhere (in an authorized manner). I cannot see a truly defensible legal explanation for how that is infringing (the content exists solely in two places -- the original server and the browser of the user, both of which are authorized). However, some lawyers clearly disagree. Over in the Netherlands, in fact, a court has disagreed and claimed that embedding is, in fact, infringement. While I think this is a poor ruling that makes little sense, there's something more interesting in this particular ruling (sent in by an anonymous reader). It turns out that, in explaining why embedding should be considered infringing, the judges plagiarized the exact wording of a blog post by a Dutch lawyer.

Now, plagiarism and copyright infringement are two different (though sometimes overlapping) things, but it does seem a bit ironic -- and even under Dutch copyright law, this bit of copying could be seen as infringement as well. Apparently, the judges directly cut and pasted the following two sentences:

"in case law and legal literature it is generally held that an embedded link constitutes a publication. After all, the material can be viewed or heard within the context of the website of those who placed the link, and placement causes the material to reach a new audience."

The exact quote above came from a blog post by lawyer Douwe Linders, who had no idea the judges were going to copy it. While it seems like a simple quote like this should be perfectly legal in any context, let alone a legal decision, the discussion of this notes that while Dutch copyright law does let you quote short bits of content from others for a variety of reasons, it requires attribution. In this particular case, no attribution was provided.

What makes it even worse, of course, is that the quoted/plagiarized/infringing bit might not even be accurate. As we discussed in our own post on the subject, there appears to be significant disagreement over whether or not embedding authorized content could be seen as infringing -- and apparently, there is a widespread debate about it in Dutch legal circles as well, saying that it is far from readily agreed upon in the legal literature.

Filed Under: copyright, embedding, hotlinking, netherlands, plagiarism