Bitchin' Blog Posts
...and, well, read it yourself.
Signet takes plagiarism seriously, and would act swiftly were there justification for such allegations against one of its authors. But in this case Ms. Edwards has done nothing wrong.
The copyright fair-use doctrine permits reasonable borrowing and paraphrasing of another authorâ€™s words, especially for the purpose of creating something new and original. Also, anyone may use facts, ideas and theories developed by another author, as well as any material in the public domain. Ms. Edwardsâ€™s researched historical novels are precisely the kinds of original, creative works that this copyright policy promotes.
Although it may be common in academic circles to meticulously footnote every source and provide citations or bibliographies, even though not required by copyright law, such a practice is virtually unheard of for a popular novel aimed at the consumer market.
All credit due to Jane of Dear Author for ferreting out (black-footed or otherwise) the appropriate Signet representative to write to and forwarding the statement to us when she got a response.
Candy says: Here’s a refresher on what constitutes plagiarism and what constitutes copyright infringement. Here it is again in brief:
Plagiarism and copyright infringement sometimes intersect, but not always. The most famous cases we’ve seen—Janet Dailey’s plagiarism of Nora Roberts’ work, for example—do. But it’s entirely possible to plagiarize without infringing on a copyright; all that’s required is copying huge chunks of a work without attribution and passing it off as your own original efforts. If the work has passed into the public domain, or if it isn’t copyrighted, there’s no copyright infringement. It’s also possible to infringe on somebody’s copyright without plagiarizing—if somebody making a movie decides to use a piece of copyrighted music without clearing the rights with the publisher first but acknowledge the musician in the credits, they’ve infringed on a copyright but they haven’t plagiarized.
In short: plagiarism is an ethical issue. It’s concerned with what’s right and what’s not. Copyright infringement is a legal action, and is a way for somebody whose works have been infringed to say “Bitch where my money?” It’s concerned with what’s legal and what’s not.
And that’s all I’m going to say for now.
Sarah says: I’m not qualified or even interested in the legality of the situation, or whether something is within fair-use doctrines. Not a lawyer. Not even in law school.
But I do want to make it explicitly clear that on terms of ethical use, I disagree with Signet and the idea that she’s done nothing wrong.
I’m certainly not a copyright lawyer, and questions of law are not my point. My issue is the ethics of it. Further, I think the ethics of the question are much more important than the legalities. There are a lot of things that can get you failed in English class or fired from a newspaper that are not against the law.
And the idea that she’s done nothing wrong from an ethical stance? Horsepucky. She’s done plenty wrong in my book.
I don’t buy Janet Dailey’s books past or present for that reason. I don’t check them out of the library or read them used. It’s an ethical distinction on my part: as a consumer, I can vote with my wallet. As a reader I can vote with my choices. As a blogger, I can write my opinion. In my opinion, Cassie Edwards’ use of at least 6 documented sources verbatim without attribution or acknowledgment is ethically wrong. It would have been so simple and appropriate to place an acknowledgment at the back of her book. “For more information about the Lakota Indians, I heartily recommend….”
So, let me ask you your opinion, if you haven’t already stated it. From an ethical standpoint, where do you draw the line? Are the usage of passages in Edwards’ books acceptable from an ethical standpoint or not? If you’re a reader or a writer, what do you think?