Back to Writing and
Publishing Archives.
Writing and Publishing, Part 11:
Creating the content:
About professionalism, ethics, and plagiarism:
First a note about last weeks essay. I cautioned against writing
when we are angry, because most of us become more or less incoherent
when we are piqued. I do not mean to imply by that, that we should
not write with emotion. In fact, our very best work is likely
to come forth when we feel very strongly about something. Our
past literature offers us many worthy examples of that effect.
For a short and powerful example, take a new look at Lincoln's
"Gettysburg Address."
So, by all means, write about what you care about. It does not have to be exposition. With reasonable skill and attention to detail, you can work your belief system into your fiction. Most great fiction writers do exactly that. Witness Steinbeck, for example, or Hemingway. This is how we seek and sometimes achieve excellence.
Now, about ethics. Let's start with some definitions. If I go to my dictionary, I find the following:
Slander
1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a
person's reputation.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
Libel
1. a. A false publication in writing, printing, or typewriting
or in signs or picture that maliciously damages a person's reputation.
b. The act or an instance of presenting such a statement to the
public.
2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at
admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.
Plagiarize
1. To use and pass off as one's own (the ideas or writings of
another).
2. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from
(another).
Infringement
1. A violation, as of a law, a regulation, or an agreement; a
breach.
2. An encroachment, as of a right or privilege.
Let's begin with slander and libel. I think we can safely ignore the part about admiralty law. However, the rest is important.
As to my own work, I am sure I have never made public statements about other people which were false. Just the same, looking back on what I have written, some of the most serious mistakes I have made were when I criticized people rather than programs or institutions. Of course, this is another good reason to avoid writing when angry. For me, this is not just about breaking the law. It's about decency and personal ethics.
Sometimes, we may believe it is necessary to find fault, but it is also very risky. Once the words are issued in writing, we cannot take them back. It may be fair to criticize others and point out what we believe are mistakes or faults, but it is not wise to get personal. It's important to keep your comments on an issue level. It's really a matter of being professional, regardless of how we feel.
Also, a large risk in the overzealous censure of others is the risk of losing our audience. Think about what turns you off with people. Is a negative attitude a big one? It is for me. I think most people will quickly turn away from negative rhetoric. It is somewhat more difficult to generate constructive wordings, but it's also much more satisfying when we manage to say it just right.
Enough on criticism. Let's take a look at plagiarism. I don't think many of us will have trouble understanding the definitions. Well, what about the actual law? Is plagiarism really such a simple issue? I do not pretend to be an expert in this area, but my study of the situation tells me it is not. Copyright infringement law is a very complex area and Congress is forever changing the rules.
The problem is, there are two separate and often conflicting concepts involved in this. First, of course, is an author's right to protect his intellectual creations. If a person puts a considerable amount of toil into his masterpiece, he should have a right to profit from that and to prevent others from using it for profit. However, the people who write and interpret the law, would like to strike some balance between that right and some other areas of concern.
These other areas of concern have to do with freedom of expression and an area of law called, "Fair Use." In brief, "Fair Use" means the use of parts of another person's work without permission for the purpose of commentary or criticism. My advice here is, if you cannot get permission, don't use the material. This is a very slippery slope.
In the freedom of expression area, the water is not quite as muddy. The law simply works to support hacks. To understand this, let's look at a theoretical example.
When describing the chip set of a Motherboard, an author might
write, "It's a bit simplified, but we can think of the whole
mess as the electronic traffic police."
Sometime later, when describing the chip set, another writer might
write, "These chip sets act as traffic cops on the Motherboard...."
Is this plagiarism?
If the first author went into court with an example like this,
he would lose. The second writer would prevail. Even if the first
author had a dozen examples like this from the same article, he
would lose. The first author might feel very strongly that he
has been victimized. That may or may not be, but, under law, his
work has not been plagiarized.
Even if the second writer used the same title, it would not be deemed copyright infringement. Titles need only be pertinent to the material under them. If they are, there is no infringement. For an interesting example of title problems I can recall our problems with our book "The Siege of Acheron."
When we first started working on this book, we wanted the title to be "The Adversary." After a quick online search for books with the word "Adversary" in their title, we changed our mind. We found over 100 books like that. Adversary is not very unique as a title. That's when we invented a city called Acheron and created our title accordingly.
So what would be plagiarism under the law? The answer is, not much. It depends, of course, on the judge or jury and many other factors, including the skills of the attorneys involved. In most cases I hear about, we find that the court will strive to allow for the benefit of a reasonable doubt, in favor of the defendant. In short, the plagiarized party must have an airtight case to prevail.
Let's look at how difficult that is. First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had knowledge of and access to the plagiarized material. Think about how you would prove that. Second, the plaintiff must show that there was intent to gain from the use of the material. That's a bit easier to do, if we can show that the defendant received any kind of compensation. Finally, the plaintiff must prove that the use was not unintentional. This comes under the freedom of expression concept. If you look at our example, you must see that it could well have been unintentional, regardless of how the author feels.
What does this come down to for us as writers? With the copyright laws the way they are, we can get away with almost anything short of the blatant page by page copying of another person's work. What it comes down to then, is the matter of your personal ethics. What kind of person are you? Do you want to be ethical? You don't have to be. Certainly, a great number of writers are not. So, it's your choice. How do you want to stack up when you stand at that final bar where there are no attorneys, just you and that last judge?
Young people may believe that they don't need to think about this. I think about it every day. What has my life meant? What have I done, good and bad? What is my real net worth in the human community? Is it a positive or a negative value, and by how much? This is the choice all of us make. When I cash out, I want to know that I tried to make a positive difference.
Now, I want to address the idea of research in regards to these issues. There is an essential difference between research and plagiarism. None of us is all knowing and we all do research of one form or another to gain knowledge. The critical difference is, in research we learn, but, when we come to write, we use our own words. We don't copy someone else's words. Even so, it is imperative for an ethical person to credit the sources from which the knowledge was gained. I am meticulous about this.
We can use someone else's literary ideas. We can paraphrase someone else's work. That is not usually copyright infringement, but when we do that, we should acknowledge what we have done. We should not put our name on it and pretend that we are clever enough to have created it. We should acknowledge the creator's work.
Now, here is a reality. Intellectual property is being stolen every day by hacks. Since I wrote "The Gaffer's Shorts," many of my ideas have been borrowed, from that and other works including our weekly columns. We know it. So what? Even if the law favored us and even if we wanted to, we do not have the resources to go to court and try to prove our case.
In another area, the internet is a cesspool of plagiarism. Most of the lists of one liners running around the internet are plagiarized quotes. Copyrighted music is being shared all the time by what I call crooks. Some writers for computer magazines have actually approved this state of affairs. They say it's about freedom and fault the music companies for overcharging. Like, we have the freedom to steal other people's work because it costs too much to buy it. With that logic I should be able to steal a Lincoln Town Car. It's unethical.
Also, be aware that when you send review copies of your work to some organizations, they may not be reviewed, but your ideas may be borrowed. I have a very broad definition of plagiarism. In fact, we know the legal definition is very narrow, which allows hacks to get away with stealing other people's material. In theory, it has to do with editorial freedom. Sure! Stealing is stealing. You know it and I know it. The people who are doing it, know they are doing it. The people whose work is being plagiarized know it too. I repeat, it comes down to your personal ethic. If you want to be a hack, go ahead. No one can stop you.
From the above, you may conclude that I would like to see the copyright laws tightened in favor of writers. That is not the case. When it comes to freedom of expression, I would prefer to err in favor of freedom. In that free environment, I will manage to take care of myself.
At this point, I will quote myself from a letter I once wrote to a scumbag. "No matter how big you get; no matter how clever and slick you think you are; no matter how well you think you've pulled it off; there will always be someone somewhere who knows the law; there will always be someone somewhere who knows the truth."
In addition, you may rob me. You may steal from me. You may plagiarize my work. So long as you don't kill me, I still have my pen. Sooner or later, that pen will be the decisive weapon. In its own good time, the pen will be conclusive.
For people who want to look further into copyrights and the associated issues, I can suggest three sources. First is Nolo press (http://www.nolo.com/). These folks publish books about law for laymen. In addition, the Publisher's Marketing Association (PMA) often publishes articles on copyright issues in their newsletter. (http://www.pma-online.org/). Third is the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/). Here you can find many links to government agencies including the Copyright office. These are the places where my limited knowledge of copyright law comes from. Understand that they are not responsible for any errors in this essay. I am responsible for the content of this piece!
Next week, I will pick up some loose ends and finish up with
the writer and writing parts of these essays.
Back to Writing and Publishing
Archives.
|
|
|
|