March 21st, 2007
Imitation or Plagiarism?
Is imitation really the sincerest form of flattery? Or is it just the laziest common denominator? If I find something on a blog I like, I quote and/or link to it. If someone spots an idea or post here that inspires them to put their own spin on things, that’s fine as long as credit or a link is provided.
So thanks to the anonymous commenter who pointed out that this post not only borrows the idea (which I had found elsewhere) from this October post on Six Word Short Stories - it borrows my exact words.
You could call it unconscious osmosis but perhaps out and out plagiarism is more accurate?
It has happened to me a few times, most notably the time when an Irish Post journalist pilfered an entire album review, swapped the first and last sentence around and happily passed it off as her own. When I called up to ask her about it, she told me that she had used my review as a “reference point”. A reference point that she hadn’t written and got paid for.
Ideas can’t necessarily can’t be copyrighted, but stealing someone’s words verbatim is a low and lazy blow, and we’re all poorer for it.
March 21st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
That’s crap Sinead… but the small comfort is, in cyberspace you can never hide! Did you send a mail to the blogger in question? might just link to this post in her comment stream and see what happens
March 21st, 2007 at 4:14 pm
‘Don’t plagerise or take on loan. There’s always someone, somewhere, with a big nose, who knows.’
That’s me. I wrote that.
Ah, yeah, it is a bit crap indeed. I always steal photos though, and don’t think twice about it. Is text any different?
March 21st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
My thoughts are that ideas can’t necessarily can’t be copyrighted, but stealing someone’s words verbatim is a low and lazy blow, and we’re all poorer for it.
You should call him/her out on it.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I hadnt realised brian boyd had started blogging…….
March 21st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Stealing, pure and simple.
My friends in academia have encountered some astounding examples of really stupid plagiarism, including one art history essay on Victorian painting which had been clearly pilfered from a, shall we say, dated text and included the immortal line “while the young queen and her German consort enjoyed the pleasures of bed and board, her artistic subjects…” Yeah, 1st year student, those are definitely your own words.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Can’t be a coincidence. Your original sentence (if you’ll forgive the criticism) seems to contain a mistake - I presume you had meant to write “Taking Hemingway’s famous six-word short story as an inspiration/starting point” rather than just “Taking Hemingway’s famous six-word short story”. The odds of another blogger independently doing the same seem to be prohibitively high, especially when s/he chose to reprint the same authors and in the same order as you did. Seems like a peculiar thing for a blogger to do. I mean, at least that journalist from the Irish Post was getting published and possibly paid. One wonders what the point of blog plagiarism could be.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Apologies, my friend. An ex lover has the nasties taking over my URL every few days so I post copyright stuff, you’re copyright, right? to maje it that much more illegal for them. You know, if ever anyone were to check and all.
see: http://www.pudendaenongrata.blogspot.com it used to be my home until the 19th of march.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
I will delete it if you like?
I am persona non grata in my neck of the woods. Only idiots will place their name in connection with mine.
Omar being quite the man’s man.
This is what happens when you don’t let men think they are in charge.
March 21st, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Porrick, thank you for replying, I appreciate that.
I still don’t quite understand the motivation and how it justifies posting other people’s posts verbatim and without permission, credit or a link.
By all means post about Six Word Short stories on your blog, but perhaps you could write your own introduction, rather than copying and pasting my exact one.
Best,
Sinéad
March 21st, 2007 at 5:22 pm
It’s very annoying right enough. By coincidence I’ve run into something similar this week with Sarah Carey’s Sunday Times column on “her life as a blog” and I posted about it here.
http://dansullivan.blogspot.com/2007/03/sarah-carey-ive-got-bone-to-pick-with.html
Up to now, I’ve quite liked Sarah’s blog. But in her column she starts off talking about the lack of attention given to inquests into car accidents, but I’d specifically posted about that last October which she was well aware of. she didn’t actually write it that I recall. She name checks Guido Fawkes later in the piece. I suppose that’s how it’s done in the big bad world you name check those above you and steal from those below stairs.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Sinead,
Your post seems to have been caught in a festering old can of worms over yonder.
I regularly had my stuff pilfered by a guy writing for the state broadcaster no less. He’s still there (in the Aertel section) but has thankfully shelved the idea of copying and pasting my words.
For me, the single worst thing about internet plagiarism is the fact that it could, possibly, make the plagiarised look like the plagiarer. Unforgivable.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Dan, that’s very interesting. I know sometimes that some weird osmosis goes on and people often subconsciously pick up stuff without realising or meaning to.
With this post, I wouldn’t bat an eyelid if someone wanted to post about six word short stories, or list the same examples in the order I did (as Fergal pointed out) but when someone copies and pastes your exact words and thoughts (see the introduction) it’s very clear that it has been lifted.
Again, I’m with Fergal - what’s the motivation for that in blogging?
I think it’s fair enough to ask for an explanation but as you can see, the only thing that has been offered, is abuse.
Sad, really.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I know the Porrick character. The way he operates, is that he starts a blog, then plagiarizes material from others, then eventually gets caught, then moves his blog. He’s done it about 100 times already. He likes to pass off the intelligent writings of others as his own. Ask him why he has the whole country of Ireland pissed off at him. No really, ask him.
March 21st, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I refer you all to this scientific explanation:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
March 21st, 2007 at 5:51 pm
“I hadnt realised brian boyd had started blogging…”
lol
March 21st, 2007 at 6:54 pm
I hold no brief for Sarah Carey, but I think Dan might be overstating his case just a teensy tiny bit.
Sarah, did you not assert your copyright and demand the Irish Post journo hand over the fee for the article? I hope you also contacted the editor of IP.
Copyright is automatic on publication, by the way. You don’t have to register it.
March 21st, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Er, Sinead not Sarah. Sorry.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Shane; I’m interested in a nosy sort of way - what subject were you blogging on that got lifted? No worries if you’re not comfortable disclosing etc.
Dan; I read the Sarah Carey story and have a look at her blog now and then. I think you’re wrong. A blog post on a site with fairly low traffic hardly constitutes the sort of ‘attention’ she was talking about does it?
Sinead; FYI the site you’re linking to has either turned nasty or was nasty to begin with?
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:23 am
Brendan: If I may respond to your third inquiry, that site has turned nasty because its “author” (Porrick/Bilious/Sterculian Rhetoric/George) has committed varying offences of varying severity, and made a number of enemies who seem to be catching up with him at the same time. It looks like plagiarism is the least of his crimes.
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:12 am
Can’t believe that about the review… unbelievable. Did you ever get any satisfaction?
As for the plagiarist now, what the hell is that blog all about?
Mad.
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:07 am
Weirdly enough on the subjects of Brian Boyd, blogging and plagiarism:
http://blogorrah.com/boyd-you-are-the-quarrel.html
Bloggers make easy targets for hacks.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:13 am
I’ve had my words and phrases lifted and re-produced elsewhere. On one occasion, I called the person concerned and got a ‘Oh, didn’t realise it would be a problem’ response. She’d lifted whole sections of an interview - even my linking phrases! It was quite obvious it was mine. There seems to be a concept out there that once it’s on the net, it’s up for free dabs. They wouldn’t dream of typing out text from a newspaper or magazine but copy and paste from a website, yipeee! My day’s work is done…
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Hi Sinead, I came across your blog through a link from Sapphic Ireland forum. I really liked the design of the site so I hope you won’t mind me plagiarising that a bit, or perhaps taking inspiration! I am trying to set up my own blog, mainly for images and photos. Regards, Petra
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Brendan, I wasn’t talking about the bulk of Sarah’s piece in the ST which as about the attention she had received for her posting. I was referring to how she implies at the start of the column that her posting on her blog (not talking about her column) was about the lack of media attention that inquests into car crash get and that this really gets her goat. Suggesting that this is what she had posted on and that it was that which had drawn the plague of the plain folk from Monaghan upon her head. When her actual posting at the time (which I have to work off memory since she took it down) was more about the muppertry of those driving and how they had been playing chicken or so she said.
And I’m not at all sure what “A blog post on a site with fairly low traffic hardly constitutes the sort of ‘attention’ she was talking about does it?”. So I have less traffic than Sarah or truth be told lots of people, what does that mean exactly that the folks with lower traffic are ripe for the picking? The focus of Sarah’s posting last October was not the lack of attention inquests get. That was my posting. And I’ve not suggested that it is plagiarism, it is almost something else - like a substituted memory.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Dan, I didn’t see the original blog post but my clear impression from the ST piece was that a woman rang Sarah Carey to complain about the post because it speculated about the ‘chicken’ issue in relation to the Monaghan accident.
It was clear in the ST piece that the blog post was about the ‘chicken’ issue, and that this prompted the call from the woman in Monaghan.
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:52 pm
What the jiggery is all this about then? I went over to have a look and got somewhat confused (but that could well be my natural state) X.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Fatmammycat re: what’s going on: I think the vibe is ‘disagreeable but respectful’. The topic, meanwhile, is worth neither your time or your attention…..X