• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Update on the issue : plagiarism

manuscriptx

manuscriptx

New Member
I just got off the phone with a copyright attorney in my area and they explained a little on the familar differences between what's called " fair use " and " substantial use ".

That alone confirmed for me what I already knew. There had to be more of my poem that either worded exactly to Lord Byron's poem or had similar some similar context.

He agreed the opening line just isn't enough to be considered plagiarism.

Case Closed.

Thanks for everyone's input in the previous message.
 
The case isn't closed because plagiarism isn't strictly a legal matter. Copyright and plagiarism are overlapping issues, but plagiarism can be perpetrated on an artistic, creative, and I might even say ethical level, even when it isn't perpetrated on a legal one.

Consider this: Byron's work is in the public domain. It would be hard to use it to violate copyright laws. Your consultation with a copyright lawyer didn't really do you a service; their approach may have been too narrow, not addressing the full range of what it means to plagiarize.
 
Everyone has the right to be creative.

What argument can be made for plagiarism based on either an opening line of a poem or a single sentence from either a non-fiction/fiction book?

I took out a few books from the library yesterday on the subject and from what I understand of it all - fair use to me means everyone has a right to use words, phrases, and create writing ( large or small ) in such a way that even though it may sound similar; a similarity may have already been copyrighted, it withstands that four factor balancing test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

___________________________________________________________

1. The purpose and character of the use?
It's a three stage poem consisting of both rhyming stanzas and prose poetry posted on a public internet website free for all to view.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work?
She Walks in Beauty - A poem by George Gordon Byron
http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16159

3. Amount and Substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole? My poem's opening line that consists of approximately 12 words.

http://www.bookandreader.com/forums/f21/ipoetry-13206.html

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work?

My claim is that there is no effect.
 
Two things:

My comment was about copyright and plagiarism in general; it did not address the issue of the one line in your poem, or the editors' judgement, and so forth.

On the other hand, the fact that you are still approaching this as an issue of copyright--when you were accused of plagiarizing a work that is no longer protected by copyright, when the editors' judgement had nothing to do with copyright--means I didn't get what I was trying to say across anyway.
 
Plagiarism

I'm not arguing it exlusively from a legal standpoint so much as I'm also arguing it from a practical stand point.

The one line in my poem should say to anyone, not just a civil court judge - there is no plagiarism intended here.

The staff member of that website accused me of trying to sound like Lord Byron. Although I only have a sketchy familiarity of him at best, that's far from any notion that I deliberately tried to copy or imitate his poem.

Look at both poems.

There is no plagiarism, just a coincidental similarity.
 
Did the staff member accuse you of trying to sound like Byron, or did she accuse you of plagiarism? Did she even accuse you? Maybe it was a tossed-off comment or an attempt at helpful critique.

In any event, you gave a strong impression that you were arguing exclusively from a legal standpoint, especially with your references to fair use, a legal concept.

Which brings me to another point: Fair use has to do with the deliberate use of another person's work. If the similarity to Byron in your writing was truly coincidental, then fair use wouldn't apply. There would be no point in mentioning fair use. By invoking fair use, you are indirectly admitting that your imitation of Byron was indeed deliberate. I think you don't mean to say that.

By the way, it's almost impossible for a beginning poet not to write the occasional echo of the greats; their influence is just too deep. It might be subconscious, but it wasn't really coincidental.
 
Well, manuscriptx, just since you ask.

I can imagine a circumstance where the conditions of entry might be that an entire piece of work be original, every line in it. In which case it would be highly relevant whether any single line of that entire work came from somewhere else, either exactly or substantially similarly. I can hear you saying my comment doesn't apply. Perhaps you can hear me sayng I hear that you are so engrossed in your own situation that you are not the most impartial of commentators.

Surely you recognize that a phrase like 'substantial similarity' is highly qualitative and that its meaning probably rests on precedent more than on the specific two words.

To me your line sounds 'quite a bit like' Lord Byron's line, whatever relevance that has. It is more like it to me than not, and definitely not completely different, as some here find easy to say. So it is not entirely the same, and it is not entirely different. And that's what judges, juries and lawyers are paid for.

If you still claim you are right, as I expect you will, that's no problem for me. I lose nothing.
 
Plagiarism can be quite unconscious and published writers who are accused of it have made that defense. We all have a lot of the poetry we have read lodged somewhere in our subconscious. While reaching for the words to express a feeling or idea, the words which come to mind may be your own words or an echo of words you have heard before. There is nothing evil in using other people's words, but a writer needs to scan his or her work critically for this possibility.

I could write a poem made up entirely of snippits from Shakespeare. It would be plagiarism, but it would not be copyright violation.
 
Coincidential Similarity

Let's Review,

In speaking with the copyright lawyer last week, I told him these two things.

1. Submitting the poem to a particular website.
2. The response from the website's staff member that accused me of intentional plagiarism.


Eva asks the question, was I intentionally plagairizing or merely writing a poem which only reads similar in one respect, the opening line.

That is what I've been trying to convey.

My poem ( iPoetry ) only reads similar to Lord Byron in that one small way. There is no plagiarism intended.
I say that becasue it is simply not practical to expect anyone ( inlcuding me ) to be able to creatively write anything without a few words reading in some way similar to what is already copyrighted.

The mistake you make Eva is asking that question of intent.

Wether someone intends to or not really makes
no difference, especially when a person like that website's staff member wanted to accuse me.

Therefore, the question I ask is :
What can shield a person against an unfair accusation of plagiarism?
Again, no one can possibly be expected to know if they write something
even by accident that reads similar to something else copyrighted.


__________________________________________________________

The lawyer I talked with mentioned two aspects.
Fair Use and Substantial Use of copyrighted work.

Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement regardless of their mutual exclusivity,
( I believe is and ) has to be regarded as something that has to be a significant large body of text than just 12 words.

I say is and has to be based on what I read and am understanding of these issues.
 
manuscriptx said:
My poem ( iPoetry ) only reads similar to Lord Byron in that one small way. There is no plagiarism intended.
Click to expand...

If you know it is similar to Lord Byron's line, and you are using it, how are you not plagiarizing. Because it is only one line? Leave out your judgement that it is a"small" matter.

manuscriptx said:
I say that becasue it is simply not practical to expect anyone ( inlcuding me ) to be able to creatively write anything without a few words reading in some way similar to what is already copyrighted.
Click to expand...

I think that is a very weak argument. I would argue that the greatness of a poet lies in his originality, i.e. in finding ways to say things differently than they have been said before.

manuscriptx said:
Therefore, the question I ask is :
What can shield a person against an unfair accusation of plagiarism?
Click to expand...

Using completely different words and ideas?
manuscriptx said:
Again, no one can possibly be expected to know if they write something
even by accident that reads similar to something else copyrighted.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Except you do know (now).


__________________________________________________________

manuscriptx said:
The lawyer I talked with mentioned two aspects.
Fair Use and Substantial Use of copyrighted work.

Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement regardless of their mutual exclusivity,
( I believe is and ) has to be regarded as something that has to be a significant large body of text than just 12 words.

I say is and has to be based on what I read and am understanding of these issues.
Click to expand...

Then why ask us? Expecting to find a better legal opinion? I'm not a lawyer.
 
"As I considered my terrible situation, I wondered: to be or not to be?"

In my view, this is not plagiarism because, in context, the narrator is quoting Shakeseare's line to express his thought.

"Can God or Satan counsel me
Whether to be
Or not to be?"

This is plagiarism, taking Shakespeare's words to express my thought as if I those words were my own.

Either one may be intentional or unintentional, especially if the usage is a single line. So the rejector should not have called it intention. That is really hard to prove, unless you incorporate great chunks of someone else' text, word for word.

Part of the job of being a writer is to be self critical or echoes of other writers, especially in poetry.

Plagiarism and copyright violation overlap but they are not the same thing, although you continue to conflate them in your posts.
 
Comparing the differences.

The one key thing I kept asking Eva to do which she refused, was analyze both poems.

For those still reading this discussion I ask you too, to read both poems.
_____________________________________________________________

This is iPoetry by me - Manuscriptx.
http://www.bookandreader.com/forums/f21/ipoetry-13206.html

This is She Walks In Beauty - by George Gordon Byron
600. She walks in Beauty. George Gordon Byron, Lord Byron. The Oxford Book of English Verse

______________________________________________________________

As Peder wrote in a personal message to me; copyright vs. fair use argues that while a particular way an author expresses themself can be protected,
"fair use" does not extend that protection to an idea, a system, or a factual piece of information like historical, current or future events.

The particular way Lord Byron expresses himself is the first issue.
The first 12 words of my poem are the second issue.
_______________________________________________________________

A. SHE walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;


B. She walks in silence by the night,
a weeping eared willow in flight.
______________________________________________________________

What am I describing with my 12 words? A beautiful woman walking in the slience of late evening; oblivious to everything around her. A weeping eared willow in flight - is simply my way of triggering a reader's image of floating willows in the sky one passing by the ear of the character mentioned.

_______________________________________________________________

My argument again, is that this is not plagiarism.
As I said prior to doing a lot of research reading both poems, analyzing both sets of stanzas and the issues surrounding plagairism, copyright infringement, fair and substantial use

I was only scarcely familar with Lord Byron and his poem. Writing similarly was exactly what one of you suggested a mental stumble into the subconcious memory.

Mental stumbles are not intentional.

Lord Byron's idea relates in "she" walking in beauty.
My idea relates in "she" walking in silence.


Case Closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top