Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

I think that Signet is batshit insane if they think that Edwards “has done nothing wrong”.  She has stolen massive amounts of information and prose to use them in a work that she passes off as entirely her own.  How is that NOT plagiarism? 

On the plus side, I have a substantial amount of books on my shelf; apparently all I have to do to become an author for Signet is to copy massive amounts of prose from them and string them together like an Add-a-Bead necklace. 

I guess I’ll have to change all the names to kinda match up but otherwise… Instant riches!  Instant fan base!

Cut and paste is not ethical or legal at all last time I checked.

This is blatant cut and paste and the fact she selectively chose to use only works that were out of copyright proves she did it all on purpose.

Hope none of those works or the works we have not discovered yet have an estate and attorneys involved with their legal status because she might be up that old creek without a paddle and with Signet making blanket statements like that they are going with her on that trip.

....

....

....

I do not believe this nonsense.

To re iterate:

Not actionable/not illegal DOES NOT EQUATE “ethical”

Copying, pretty much verbatim, other people’s work to pass off as your own IS outright thievery, immoral and unethical.

As a reader and consumer, I do the same as SBSarah. Since I’m not a blogger or writer or whatever, I express my opinion and try to educate others by spreading information in real life and in those online forums that I belong to.

Education on these issues is essential—and I can only hope that educated readers will bring on the deserved consequences to unethical behaviour.

What I think is that that is absolute rubbish.
In the Harry Potter world right now J.K Rowling is suing Harry Potter website, The HP Lexicon on the grounds of copyright infringing in a print version of the website. Okay, so she’s allowed to sue this site for writing an encyclopaedia of her books even though there have been countless other Potter related books ... Okay so the case is slightly different but I think it’s ironic that this site is being sued when Cassie Edwards is allowed to get away with this.
Cassie Edwards clear plagiarism of SIX (and she’s written a shit load of books so there is bound to be more) sources is considered okay? That’s absolute donkey shit.

Well, that Signet lawyer is going to hell for sure.  But despite what Signet is saying publicly, I bet they are scared out of their diapers and taking frantic measures to save this sinking ship.

I’ve had my work plagiarized, but it was done by bloggers who just took my newspaper columns and stuck their names on them.  (And, yeah, they would take the entire column and the copyright was mine.) That irked me, but I accepted it as part of the internet age.  It is appalling for a highly successful writer to lift sentences and paragraphs without giving credit to the remarkable man who wrote and lived this stuff.

In summary:  Cassie Edwards, Lawyers, Hell, Diapers, Sinking Ship.

This makes me think Signet doesn’t have complete grasp of what Edwards has done. If they do and still contend she’s done nothing wrong, then they’re trying to establish a new precident for what plagiarism means, and in that case, we should all stand up and take serious note—then rant until our throats are raw from screaming.

precedent not precident

Why do I never see errors until they’re published?

*SMACK* (sound of jaw hitting my desk)

“Borrowing and paraphrasing”???! My god, the gall of… well, whatever lacky-suit-demonic corporate type who wrote that reply is simply unbeleivable! The woman lifted, word for word in many cases, entire paragraphs from others’ works!

As far as the ethics of plagiarism, logically speaking, we live in a society based on the sanctity of personal, private capital/property. Whether that property is physical or more abstract, that property is supposed to be personal and private. If you believe people can take someone’s intellectual labor and use it (to make money, no less!) then you must also advocate breaking into people’s homes and stealing their electronic goods, or jacking cars, or, you know, *whatever*!

The thing that really gets me is that this probably isn’t going to go anywhere - Edwards is going to keep making money for herself and her publisher by stealing. This in the same country where people who lost everything trying to get diapers and food in Hurricane Katrina were treated like criminals.

Hmm. I can’t help but wonder if their response would be similar if one of their authors had gotten ripped off instead of done the ripping….

I keep looking at this and wondering if it might not be fun to have when doing book reviews…

http://turnitin.com/static/plagiarism.html

As a reader I’m disappointed and disgusted by Signet’s reply. As has been shown here CE has done something wrong, a whole lot of wrong. And as a reader I’ll be showing my feelings by no longer buying Signet published books. Damn, now I’m wondering if authors I like publish with Signet and if I can hold myself to this.

>Are the usage of passages in Edwards’ books acceptable from an ethical standpoint or not?<

No. Not in any way, shape or form.

Legal? Perhaps in the most technical of terms. But ethical, absolutely not.

Really, why couldn’t she have just listed the sources in the back of the book like you mentioned?  I’m fairly certain her loyal readers would have forgiven her for not writing every line of prose in the book.

It’s as easy even saying “some passages were taken from XXX in and effort to bring deeper historical reality…” or some shit like that.

Sigh.

The thing is, bloggers brought the issue to Signet, not an author who felt his/her work was used illegally and who had legal representation, so their response of course is to deny that their company or their client has done anything wrong.

So I am not surprised by the response at all.

Jesus wept. Let me whip on my fashionable English teacher hat for just a sec: Every semester, I catch kids plagiarizing in exactly the same way that others have caught CE- Google. That’s usually all it takes. When that happens, I print out the portions I found online, highlight the identical passages in the student’s work, and then I GIVE THEIR CHEATING ASSES A ZERO. End of story. And when I do this, do I go over the finer points of copyright law? Um… nope. Plagiarizing is wrong, plain and simple. It’s unethical, and, as La Nora said, it’s mind rape.
For a really interesting case on the matter, I suggest Googling Brad Vice, a professor at Mississippi State who had his doctorate revoked after it turned out he plagiarized a short story (allegedly. He claims his story was meant as an “homage” and everyone was too dumb to see it.)

I’m not surprised, but on the other hand I’m boycotting Signet from this moment on.

~Legal? Perhaps in the most technical of terms. But ethical, absolutely not.~

This is precisely what I was going to say.

I think the word ‘wrong’ in the Signet statement is a poor choice. I would have accepted the word ‘illegal’.

I think it’s a very bad message to send to readers, to writers. 

And it confuses me as my publisher demands (and I agree with that demand) that I attribute the quotes (always fair use) that I habitually use in the front of my books.

Well?

Did you really expect any different kind of response?

100 novels equals “cash cow”.

I liked CE books long ago, but grew out of them. And I did not take a huge dislike to her because of this plagiarism issue. But in no way would I defend her for such blatant stealing of other’s words. I felt it a serious issue that needed to be addressed once found, and perhaps things could be somehow rectified. (Okay, I write romance fiction, I pray for HEA’s. LOL)

However…with the response from her publisher, I am now truly appalled.

Yes, I voiced the question, “well what did you expect?”. But deep inside, I hoped it wouldn’t be an almost blatant “FU all. We do what we want. Get over it.”

I need to go regroup a bit, because for a long time, the whole publishing industry has left me with a foul taste in my mouth. From some fangirls to some owners of houses, and all the people in between, well…damn.

Sometimes I wish I’d just stuck to buying books without ever having to see the underbelly of this biz.

fair-use doctrine permits reasonable borrowing and paraphrasing

But she didn’t.  Paraphrase, that is.

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.

Does anyone else feel that statement reads as incredibly patronizing or is it just me?

If, as Signet asserts, “copyright fair-use doctrine permits reasonable borrowing and paraphrasing of another author’s words,” and then why did Kaavya Viswanathan’s publisher yank her novel “Opal Mehta” off the shelves in ‘06? After all, Viswanathan only “borrowed and paraphrased” about a dozen samplings from Megan McCafferty’s books, and most of them weren’t even word-for-word.

Signet, be ashamed. Be very ashamed.

SB’s, you rock.

Well I won’t buy another Signet book til they reverse that bullshit position.  And you know… I spend 50 bucks a week at Barnes and Noble.  It’s one of my only real indulgences—that and Starbucks.

*shrug*

Won’t hurt me but it will hurt their sales.

(wow, real65—that’s the year I was born!)

HA!  Y’all expected a lawyer representing a large corporation to be

ETHICAL

?!?  You poor, naive, delusional people.  They are paid over half a million dollars a year to NOT be ethical.

Silly silly people. 

(Yes, I am bitter and jaded after having worked for and been laid off from one of the 50 largest law firms in the nation.  They would rather lay off 10 people than stop feeding 100 attorneys lunch on Fridays.)

Damn. It seems that from Signet’s position all plagiarizing is ok. Good to know. 

Whatever Signet wants to call it, she plagiarized. She used someone else’s work, verbatim, and passed it off as her own original work. I’m really not sure how Signet can dither around and say that it’s all in the name of research.

So what if it’s not illegal? It’s dishonest and unethical and so easily rectified. I don’t expect her to footnote, but an acknowledgment would help. Of course, NOT QUOTING SOMEONE ELSE’S WORK VERBATIM ALSO HELPS.

Call me a cynic, but I’m not particularly surprised that the letter of the law is Signet’s concern, rather than ethics.

Okay.

I sent Candy an email earlier today. It had a link to a site where an opinion expressed about CE was hugely ironic.

I still won’t post it myself, but I do hope she will. Though at the moment I feel snark all through my body.

(Note to self: do try to beat back the snark beasty.)

Sigh

Perhaps Signet is unclear on the definition of paraphrase?

I can’t say I won’t buy any books published by them though. That would so be the pot calling the kettle black, considering I write for the same publisher that currently peddles Janet Daily. *sigh* I certainly don’t want people to not buy my books out of protest against JD.

“facts, ideas, and theories” does not equal paragraphs of actual words.

And they yanked Viswanathan’s books because that was both unethical (like Edwards) AND illegal, because McCafferty’s books were still under copyright.

What needs to happen (note passive tense—*I* can’t do it) is someone needs to find an instance of plagiarism in Edwards’ books that is both unethical AND illegal.  What about that black-footed ferret article?  Is that more recent than the other stuff.  Can we contact the author(s) of that article and alert them to the issue?  Standing Bear’s book is also still under copyright (1933).

So, yes, definitely unethical.  As I said somewhere else, research is supposed to provide authors with a critical mass of information that they then put into their own words as it fits the story/characters, not cut and pasting wholesale like Edwards has.

I’ve done time as an assistant in a big publishing house, where I did all manner of things relating to contracts and copyrights. A boilerplate clause about plagiarism in author contracts is pretty standard, (usually worded something like “The Author agrees that The Work is wholly original…” and so forth) so if CE is copying passages wholesale from other sources and calling it her own work, it may be illegal, in that it would violate that clause of the contract. (In my experience, publishers are usually careful about these things, as they are hyper paranoid about getting sued. It’s interesting that Signet blew you off.) The stealing of someone else’s text is not really the issue here—you can quote Shakespeare to your heart’s content, and there can be no legal recourse if you start spouting, “Alas poor Yorick!” without crediting Shakespeare. Such is the nature of copyright law.

I do, however, agree that it is unethical to copy from other sources and call it your own work. I guess we could argue over the consequences. I don’t think anything will come of it; it looked like a lot of CE’s sources were older, probably public domain, by authors who are dead or otherwise unlikely to sue.

But as a writer and an editor, I’m appalled that Signet let her get away with this and I will not be buying her books.

I wish I could say I was surprised.  I wish I could say that I had faith Signet would do the right thing, and were just covering their legal asses with this email.  But that would require living in a world of rainbows and unicorns.

I have to agree that I’ll be very leery about purchasing a Signet book again. But, saying so in the comments thread of a blog - even one as cool as Smart Bitches - accomplishes little besides making me feel a trifle less squidgy.

Publishing houses are in it to make money - period.  If they can keep a cash cow going through legal loopholes and dodgy tactics, they will.

“needed18” - yeah, I needed a better response from Signet, too

PS

I guess the whole issue argued over the net about the use of “champagne flutes” all seems sort of silly now.

Perhaps said author should have just copied text instead so the issue was a non-issue?

Gads. Back you beasty snark, back.

(Teehee. Confirmation: nuclear64)

Wow.  I’ve worked for a publishing company for the last 4.5 years.  I used to date a copyright attorney (a LONG time ago).  I’m the daughter of one lawyer, and the niece of another one.  I went to college.  I’m pretty clear on the definition of plagiarism.

For Signet to deny that SB’s findings are not plagiarism is just not right.  Unfortunately, based on my observations of the different plagiarism/it’s “non-fiction” fiction
scandals in the industry in the last few years, not unsurprising, either.

Signet’s response shows a basic lack of integrity and respect, and I think they will hear from enough readers and bloggers that they may come to regret their quick defense of Cassie Edwards as someone who produces “historically researched novels.”

FWIW, a quick google of “Novels with Footnotes” revealed the following website:

http://www.miskatonic.org/footnotes.html

Virtually unheard of?  WTF?

Just as I was trying to claw out of my vortex of cold cynicism. Thanks a lot, Signet!

Do you think I’d get sued if I stole, oh, I mean “paraphrased” their response and came up with “Signet… permits… plagiarism” and posted it everywhere? Well, the three words *are* there.

Hey, if it works one way…

And I agree with the lady who mentioned that they must be doing the duck thing, calm and cool up top but pedaling like mad under the surface.

Looking back, not all the discovered sources are out of copyright by any means, and I’ll bet if you go back through the rest of her books, the sources for THOSE (potential) plagiarized passages wouldn’t be all in public domain either.  It’s getting one of the injured parties with enough legal and financial clout behind them to care about the theft that’s the issue.  Otherwise, Signet can say what the hell they want and continue to rake in the bucks with CE’s next book.  And the one after that…

Inspired by Cassie Edwards, but certainly not plagiarised, oh no!

Okay, if it’s not illegal it is certainly an ethical issue.

How hard would it be to at the very least put an acknowledgment at the beginning or end of the books stating where she got her factual information from. I’ve seen that in enough fiction (romance!!) books to know that it is done and done frequently.

So, Signet’s response doesn’t jive with me. I agree with Nora that if they had used the world “illegal” instead of “wrong” it would have been better.

As my first year Tortes professor once told me Legal does not always equal ethical and if you are going to walk the grey line, you should prepare yourself for the possible consequences. I just keep sadly shaking my head.

Did I think they would answer differently. Hell no! If I were their counsel I would have probably answered similarly. But I agree with Marta Acosta, there is probably some serious damage control going on behind closed doors right now.

What’s really sad about this whole hot mess is that even though everyone’s statements here have been intelligent, thoughtful responses to what’s going on, they will all be painted with the “Those mean bitches are picking on CE again” brush and disregarded.

I agree with Signet.  Mrs. Edwards used research material to explain and show the Native American way of life.

She did NOT steal anyone’s story.  The story is hers.  She “paraphrased” the information.

Authors who write historical romances need to get as much of the cultural information correct as possible.

Research books are published to be used as reference material. George Bird Grinell lived with the Native Americans, learned their language and culture and wrote about it. 

Cassie is honoring the Native American Indians of our country by writing these books about them.

She feels strongly about what she does because she is honoring her own people with her books…she is in part Cheyenne!

This site has dumped on Mrs. Edwards for years.  They have gone out of their way to try to disgrace her. 

If you put as much energy into important life altering matters as you do in talking down about people and causing drama, you could actually make a difference.

Unfortunately there are people who are so miserable with their own lives that the highlight of the day is causing drama for other people.

As for you being sued…I hope it happens.  Maybe then you’ll stop your senseless slandering and defaming of authors because you don’t like them.

Get a life!

Sarah Frantz just said it, but I’ll echo her here—isn’t that ferret article, at the very least, still copyrighted? It’s recent, isn’t it? The link says it’s from the 2005 issue, so that one is grounds for infringment, I would think.

Honestly, I’d e-mail the author of the ferret piece. He/She might have something to say about this.

Sara Mitchell, I do not think you have been paying very close attention to any of the posts on this topic.

Count me in as another buyer who won’t be purchasing any Signet books any time soon (quickly dashes off to see which other authors that affects).

Disappointed in a huge way.  I’d personally love to see a response from Edwards herself to this issue, though.  Sigh… bet it’ll never happen.

As an editor and writer of both fiction and non-fiction (and a former English 101 teacher), I believe what Edwards has done is unambiguously plagiarism and unambiguously unethical.

My suspicion, though, is that the author of the e-mail from Signet did not review the evidence and is engaged in knee-jerk CYA. The e-mail specifies “paraphrasing,” and Edwards did not paraphrase, QED.

In conclusion, *headdesk*

I’m having a rough day. Can I have whatever it is fangirlie is smoking? kthanx.

I’m among the not surprised. I think the best thing to do is to keep plugging away at finding a verifiable instance of copyright infringment. Someone here mentioned working for the ferret article people, right? (Sorry that was terribly unspecific)

If I could get my hands on a CE without purchasing it, I’d be on board with helping out. I’ll see if we have a local library.

Sara Mitchell, do you understand the meaning of the word ‘paraphrase’?  It does not mean ‘copy word for word’.  There is a huge difference between doing research and using the information to tell your story and copying text from another book because you’re too lazy to put it into your own words.

Oh, Sara Mitchell. Using the exact words, ““The storehouses for these beans, made by the animals, are under a peculiar mound which the untrained eye is unable to distinguish from an anthill. There are many pockets underneath, into which the animals gather their harvest…. a woman comes upon a suspected mound, usually by accident. The heel of her moccasin might cause a place to give way on the mound. She then settles down to rob the poor mice of the fruits of their labor.” ... is not paraphrasing. That is stealing and copying someone else’s work and pretending as if you’ve written it for your male protagonist to (strangely) say. Adding “Running Fox said” IS NOT PARAPHRASING!

I want to hear what you say about that, so please come back and comment.

Another sigh.  Not going to feed the troll this time.

I do think it’s possible for an author to inadvertently use a line or two they’ve read previously, and not realize it until later.  Shit happens.  But in my opinion, there are far too many similarities for that to be the case here.  Seems to me like the only way to get so many word-for-word similarities is to open the book and copy from it, and if you’re doing that, you probably know what you’re doing and also probably know it’s sorta, kinda very much the wrong thing to do…  I’m just saying.

I find Signet’s response is more disconcerting than any of the similarities.  What are they saying, exactly?  Yeah, she did it, but we don’t care ‘cause we probably won’t get sued? I’m very curious to know if Signet would be as willing to label plagiarism as “reasonable borrowing” had someone (allegedly) plagiarized Cassie Edwards and not the other way around.

She did NOT steal anyone’s story.  The story is hers.  She “paraphrased” the information.

Sweetheart, if you have to put “paraphrased” in quotation marks, then that means you know she didn’t paraphrase.

Let me spell it out here. She copied information from her reference materials word. for. word. That’s plagiarism. No, really, it is. If you did it in my class, you’d fail your assignment.

Edwards didn’t steal the story. That is hers. But she stole the information by *not* paraphrasing it. Had she paraphrased, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Period.

Nope, I’m so sorry Sara M, but I must disagree.

Paraphrasing means restating of a text by giving the meaning in DIFFERENT words.

Slapping, He said/she said on the front or end of a verbatim paragraph is not paraphrasing

I have read plenty of romance novels where the author puts a chapter or so at the end, discussing the anthropology/history and their research into the same. Considering the type of anthropological information being used in these books, that would not only be appropriate but necessary.

Legal? Maybe. Ethical? NOT.

Sounds like a boycott of the author’s works, and perhaps Signet Publishing, might be in order. If nothing else, can we have an address to send our individual concerns on to Signet?

Grrr. Must add… This would be paraphrasing and COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE: “Sometimes one of our women will accidentally walk on something that looks like an ant hill, but turns out to be a buried mound of beans and seeds hidden by mice for the winter.”

Not beautiful, maybe, but real paraphrasing by a real live historical romance writer.

What Cassie Edwards has done is NOT paraphrasing.  It is plagiarism, and it is clearly unethical in my book. 

And as much I try to drum this into college students’ heads every semester… some people still get confused!

I recently read “Love and War” by Sandra Worth, a novel about Richard III, and Worth used the Sullivan Ballou letter from Ken Burns’ Civil War doc. Whole chunks of it, and just replaced the name “Sarah” with “Isabel” and put in some ye olde language to make it fit the genre.

No attribution at all. Her website says a later edition will credit Sullivan Ballou, but it just seemed like blatant, unoriginal hackery. Apparently she couldn’t come up with a poignant eve-of-battle love letter on her own without ripping off dead Civil War soldiers.

As for Edwards, I just came upon this wank (it’s made F_W!) and I’m going back to read through the posts. CE’s books have always been gadawful and now they’re doubly hilarious because of this. LOL

Wow. Guess I can just copy verbatim 1900s encyclopedias and pass it off as my own work, even though it’s not, and Signel will have no problem with it.

What a bunch of immoral morons.

Well, see what happens when you take a few days off from the computer? (You spend a whole day catching up it seems!)

I’m not a fan of CE. Yes, I believe I read a few of her books waaaaaaay back somewhere in time, but after about #3, they became boring. Sameoldsameold if you will.

I agree with the majority here in saying that plagiarism = WRONG in any book, be it Fiction/non-Fiction. And it seems to me ( and my non-writer, massive-reader mind) that what she’s done is definately that!

But to have Signet blow it off as nothing of importance? WTF????

Now, I won’t go so far as to say I will never again buy a Signet book. That would be punishing a lot of authors for the crimes of just one. But I will do what I did when the Roberts/Dailey thing came out. I will not buy/read/get near another of her books( CE’s books- Not Nora’s, I would have to stop reading to do that ;-) ) . And I will tell all my book-loving friends about all this. And I’m sure they too will “vote with their wallets”)

rant off.

( bad65- Yes, very bad Signet! Very bad!)

Well.

As someone who has spent quite a few years doing public damage control, I truly understand the need to balance public outrage with one’s own perspective, to create a new perspective so that people can see a bigger picture, perhaps.  But neither legally or otherwise could I ever imagine either choking down or spitting out that statement. 

First, with over 100 novels written, how is Signet convinced Edwards hasn’t violated copyright?  I’m stunned that statement was made, if indeed it was crafted by or informed by an atty.

Further, as others have said, I think Signet’s position is incorrect, completely leaving alone what is or isn’t ethical.

Despite my disappointment in the statement, I do think it’s consistent with the “money over everything” philosophy I associate with commercial publishing these days, and absolutely think that the fact that it wasn’t a Signet author who was copied (or “paraphrased” *snort*) made the critical difference, along with the sheer amounts of green that Edwards’s novels must make Signet. 

Am I the only one struck by the irony of having this statement come from an imprint that is part of the same imprint that publishes Nora Roberts?  Laugh or cry, laugh or cry, what a choice.

This morning I was weighing this issue against the racial segregation issue to get some sense of where I think this lands, and I gotta say, I think it’s much worse.  Because at least in the race case, AA authors ARE being published by mainstream publishers, even if they are being unfairly segregated.  Here, though, I see no contravening value to Signet’s position, no good to balance the bad.  It’s like all bad to me. 

Even if you want to debate the issue of how much was copied, etc., I’m a bit appalled at the “nothing wrong” language, because what the SBs posted here isn’t merely the “use” of historical sources, not to mention the fact that not all of it is in the public domain. 

And that’s still not really touching the *general ethics* of this issue, the overall picture of whether or not we value the individual scholarship of people who are also creating original work, albeit non-fiction.  I admit that I’m very saddened that so much of this source work is being dismissed as it it was the Encyclopedia Britannica, and not original academic scholarship.  You know, like original fiction.

This statement merely presses me, once again, to suggest that this is an issue of community ethics that deserves more discussion.  Not, necessarily, about Cassie Edwards, because IMO we’ve gone way beyond that now.  But I guess I’m in this place now where I’m thinking that if I were an author I’d be really worried about how this issue is being valued within the writing community, and as a reader I’m feeling a bit disoriented, wondering how many of the books I’ve read have themselves been put together.  That, let me tell you, is not a good thing.

I’ve always been someone who has valued the free exchange of ideas and very liberal copyright interpretations.  I still do, because I think the community/individual balance must be respected.  I love intertextuality and all manner of intertextual conversations.  But it seems to me that what we’re talking about here is a very basic thing:  how we do or don’t value different forms of creative expression across different communities. 

I hope Signet will forgive me for not crying for them if they ever find themselves trying to enforce copyright against another author, because in this case, I don’t really think it’s fair to have it both ways.  If, as publishers do, they want copyright to be enforced narrowly, it seems to me that they should feel the same way about plagiarism and basic intellectual honesty.

Edwards plagiarized. No ifs ands or buts about it. She is a plagiarist. I don’t care what bull Signet is trying to feed us.

Something that bothers me about Edwards is that she has capitalized on her “pure Cheyenne” grandmother and written book after book in which an Indian stud falls for a white woman.  (I keep thinking of Cleavon Little in “Blazing Saddles” shouting, “Where’s de white womins?”)

As a person of color (the color being a sad yellowish now in the winter), I cringe at the noble savage stereotype.

It’s particularly galling that Edwards appropriated the work Charles Eastman, a man who was Sioux, and attended an Ivy League school and then medical school in highly racist times.

Edwards is a kind of ethnic cannibal. 

It would have cost her nothing financially or professionally to have written a few sentences in her books to acknowledge him and the accomplished academics from whom she took text.

Thing is, people tend to sniff at “boycotts,” but I have to tell you—

I belong to a romance readers group that has grown to 47 members.  ONLY THREE OF US WILL BUY AVON BOOKS.  They ignored mailings requesting they stop featuring anorexic looking models on covers of books featuring “plus size” leading ladies.  So help me god/dess they still give me crap for buying some of my favorite Avon authors over this.  And that’s just the group—not those they bullied and guilted.

They are already rumbling over this after my email.  And none of them blog, so they are the semi-visible pissed off vajority!

It isn’t just a little rumble.

Cassie is honoring the Native American Indians of our country by writing these books about them.
She feels strongly about what she does because she is honoring her own people with her books…she is in part Cheyenne!

You know, there just isn’t any rational response to that.

Basically, the folks that read Edwards’ books like that sort of thing and probably don’t care where she gets her pedantic infodump material from. Signet is basically saying they have the deep pockets and the legal staff and they don’t care as long as they are making money and not actually getting sued.

I am alternately infuriated and depressed by all this.

*headdesk*

As an aspiring (ie: desperate to be published) author, it’s good to know that Signet will publish my novels after I’ve “reasonably borrowed and paraphrased” several of Nora Roberts novels. In fact, my novels will be even better once I’ve used “facts, ideas, and theories” from some from J.D. Robb’s as well. (Just kidding! Don’t hurt me, Nora!)

Signet is simply wrong. Whether or not it is illegal, it is certainly unethical to steal another author’s words—no matter how long ago they were published—and claim them as your own.

Heh. court97 - yes, I hope she ends up in court, and yes, she probably plagiarized in 97 novels.

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.

*watch the top of Barb’s head explode*

Wow.  What an incredibly condescending, supercilious, ass-hatted comment.  Dude, that’s what acknowledgments are for.  Diana Gabaldon may not footnote everything in her Outlander novels, but dammit, she acknowledges every academic source and bit of assistance she’s received.  And in the Outlandish Companion she DID meticulously notate and acknowledge and provide a bibliography.

But then again, she’s one of those academic types.  And speaking as a former academic type, damn skippy you note and provide citations.  For God’s sake, what does it take to even put a small list in the acknowledgments reading, “List of materials used in research include…”

And James freakin’ Frey only “embellished” his entire background but the"essential truth” of the experiences remained.

Jesus H. on a piece of burnt toast.

*headdesk*

I agree with RebyJ—they’re not taking us, as bloggers, seriously.  I also think that, while it was the appropriate thing to address the publishing house of the books first, the next step is to address the publishing houses of the books abused.

As I recall, several of the books were found to still be in print, so someone holds the copyright to the material.  Glancing over at Amazon should pull up most of them, with the details of those publishing houses, right?  I am loathe to create more work out of what began as an exploration, but doesn’t this need to be followed through?

(Even if it is to a bitter conclusion.  I don’t mind helping, if I can.)

That sort of plagiarism might not be illegal. It is certainly unethical.

It is also a sign that the author is a lazy bitch who does shoddy work. And is also not worth spending my money on.

Hmm. I wish the Publisher’s Weekly article had used one of the more clearly damning sections you guys posted, SB Sarah. The one they used, while clearly copied, is disarranged ever so slightly. This might lead some to call it a paraphrase. While I don’t agree, it leaves the impression that there may be some room for doubt. I don’t think, looking at some of the instances you guys have found, that there really is any room for doubt. Edwards clearly copied verbatim large passages from someone else’s work, without attribution. That is the very definition of plagiarism.

And shame on Sara Mitchell for either not taking the effort to understand that or for willfully ignoring it. I try not to feed trolls, but this is an important issue for me as an artist. I encourage her to try harder to understand the issues at hand before launching a knee-jerk defense of an author she clearly enjoys. This case is very unfortunate for all involved, but ignoring it is almost worse, in my opinion.

Holy Mother of….!!!  I went over to check out the Pub Weekly article and whose ad was waiting to be clicked right next to it? DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, I shit you not! I need a drink. (Quite a current source, btw.)

Funny how only prize-winning popular novels like The Adventures of Kavalier and Clay are allowed to use footnotes.  Must be too academic for those foolish romance readers.

In any case: I sincerely doubt this is the last that Signet will have to say on this issue, particularly as people continue to ferret out (sorry) more instances of plagiarism in Edwards’ books.  This statement may be asinine and a bald-faced attempt to cover their legal weaknesses, but the next one is going to have to acknowledge the troubling deficit of “paraphrasing” in Edwards’ work.

(I wouldn’t be surprised if this story starts showing up in small newspapers shortly, given the rate at which it’s grown on the internet so far.)

Have nothing to add that hasn’t been said 100 times already but my view on non copyright plagiarism has been noted before. It may not be actionable theft, but it’s still theft, lazy and dishonest.  I mean why should any of us now write anything original, lets just start working our way through everything that’s been written before.

Signet are foolish - and that’s the most polite thing I can say.

I think we should all celebrate the new freedom that Signet has provided us with their loose view on ethical issues and the value of the printed word. 

I plan to sit down at my local Barnes and Noble with a big stack of CE books I have no intention of buying and copying them, word for word.  Maybe I will post them with a new title and my name on various websites.  Hell, might as well submit these “new” works to publishers—I hear Signet has pretty low standards.

If we’re going to put such a low value on words and ideas printed between man titty covers, why not just use the pages of Savage Stereotype as a napkin when I snarf my cocoa laughing at the horrible, plagiarised prose?

Oh, and I’m just as Native American as Ms. Edwards, so I dedicate my acts of civil disobediance to the many tribes represented as “savages” in her books.

Maybe it’s time to hop onto Amazon, Borders and Barnes & Noble online and get some -real- reviews on CE’s books going…!

I’ve been posting over at Dear Author, but I wanted to say here that I find this very disheartening.  I do think this situation is unethical, even if is not actionable.  It’s about time we stopped letting the court system or legal technicalities decide what is right and wrong in this world.

Arhylda, I’m with you. I’m about to engage in a ‘review’ posting campaign at amazon. com with linkage galore.

(and I do mean “review” because I have no intention of reading a CE books anymore than I have to read a Dailey book. A thief is a thief is a thief)

I think the top of my head just blew off.

As an ex-academic I would be blowing steam out my ears if someone did this to my work - whether it was technically illegal or not.  In fact, I am steaming on behalf of the authors who have been so dispicably treated as to have their work be considered of no worth (how can you consider something of worth if you’re willing to steal it).

And Signet’s response, while as others have said not necessarily surprising, is very, very depressing and makes me want to go out and find something to hit.

I started off shocked and saddened by all this.  Now I’m just angry about how something as major as this is being brushed off by the publishers and CE’s fans (the ones I’ve seen comment - I hope there are many others who are very saddened about this).

If a single instance of plagarism had been found I might understand (not for an instant agree, but understand) people not being as horrified as I am, but this is multiple cases in multiple books and there are a whole lot more CE books that may be the same.

And frankly, I’ve never read one of her books and it wouldn’t matter to me what author it had been, I’d be just as angry.

This is WRONG and it is just as wrong that there are people who don’t seem able to see or acknowledge that.

Okay, I’ll stop ranting now.  Part of the reason I hadn’t joined in the comments before is that I knew once I started I’d just keep on typing as I have done.

I just read the Publishers Weekly article and noticed this..

“Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books co-authors Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan found the texts using Google Book Search, and have posted 32 side-by-side comparisons of excerpts from Edwards’s books and nonfiction works..”

I’ve emailed Sarah and Candy in the past about books.google.com and as a reader I LOVE it..but if I were an author I’m not sure how I’d feel about it. Seriously, there is a shitload of books you can pretty much read in its entireity (sp).

It’s obviously a powerful research tool!

There’s a lot of pros vs cons to it but
I guess that’d be an entirely different subject to debate entirely!

Well, call me naive, but I’m appalled.

Signet’s response is complete and utter bollocks.

“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.”

This just pisses me off. There’s an inference here I don’t like. I think romance readers can handle a footnote or two. I think we can handle acknowledgments where due. 

What Cassie Edwards has done is cynical and ethically corrupt. I’m tempted to boycott Signet, at least until my indignation wanes. In the meantime, they can expect a tetchy letter.

I see Edwards’ behavior as unethical. Even when her sentences are not identical to those found in her sources, there are “statistically improbable” phrases that occur both places, rendering her paraphrasing too close.  If she were one of my students, I’d tell her to set the reference book aside while she wrote so that her words would be her own (and then, because I teach history, “to meticulously footnote every source.”).

This leaves me with a very bad feeling toward Penguin/Signet.  Think it’s time to write a letter so they know they have more than one disgruntled book buyer.  I would not be surprised if despite this letter there is not a certain amount of scurrying around going on behind the scenes.

Signet—or their representative, at least—is full of shit.

Perhaps you the outraged masses could write to Signet, and inform the PTBs that:

a) some of their readers still have a moral compass

and

b) some of their employees don’t.

The address for Penguin Group (Signet’s parent company) is

375 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10014

And here’s the list of their top executives,

http://us.penguingroup.com/static/html/aboutus/executives.html 

some of whom might like to know if people are planning to boycott their company because some yutz employee appears to condone plagiarism. I would say address any letters to the USA officers (Shanks, Kennedy, Laurino) if you’re talking about a USA edition of a book.

It would be very helpful if Jane told us who had sent her that response so that person could be identified in letters of complaint. (Or maybe that’s me getting a little too self-righteous…)

wordver: name52 Well, yes, that’s what I want, thanks.

The “it’s okay because I’m part Cheyenne” it just about the worst to me. What a really bad thing to throw out there as an excuse, honestly. It sounds like something from a Seinfeld episode.

Just a wee acknowledgement, agreed. Maybe it’s a good reminder to us all to cite sources we’ve used for research, if we’ve borrowed heavily from them. I was certainly in the habit from the academic days. The statement that academic plagarisim isn’t actionable—well, you might not get sued, but you’d have a damned hard time getting your degree or tenure.

I’ve posted a few ‘reviews’ on Amazon.com on some of CE’s most recent books, but I’m afraid I got bored after a while.

Oh hell yes she’s done something wrong.  You’d think Signet might have caught on when one of her heroines suddenly starts spouting “Researchers theorize.” Nobody outside of an encyclopedia ever says “researchers theorize.”  That break in voice does not constitute a reasonable paraphrase.

That said, burn, woman, burn.  You done stole.

Wow.  What an incredibly condescending, supercilious, ass-hatted comment.  Dude, that’s what acknowledgments are for.  Diana Gabaldon may not footnote everything in her Outlander novels, but dammit, she acknowledges every academic source and bit of assistance she’s received.  And in the Outlandish Companion she DID meticulously notate and acknowledge and provide a bibliography.

And yet, even Gabaldon made this incorrect statement yesterday:

  Dear Jenny–

  Oh–with regard to your last sentence…in fact, you _can_ legally use absolutely anything that’s in the public domain (i.e., out of copyright). And in fact, at least two of the “sources” they were mentioning almost certainly are. Given the peculiarities of style in some of the bits quoted, I still don’t know why one _would_–but it’s totally legit to do so.

  Bottom line being that no, in fact, you _can’t_ plagiarize a source that’s out of copyright. You can do anything you want to with it.
  –Diana
  http://www.dianagabaldon.com

That came from this discussion, which contains other erroneous advice and information: http://tinyurl.com/2hcwpb

There is a difference between researching a topic, and copying it.

SE is perhaps not in violation of copywrite laws, but she has definitely plagarised these works.

That said, I don’t blame Signet for their responce. At this point all they have is evidence provided from a sourse that hardly has teeth. For the moment it is in their best interest to back their author. If they jumped on the accusations as pure fact, they would lose business—not only from Edwards but from future authors who may feel too threatend the publish with them after the insident.

Perhaps the best hope for Edwards to get her just desserts would be to email the evidence to the author’s she stole from. They at least have the legal grounds to take action.

Not surprised - but yes, disappointed - by Signet’s response. They are covering their bases. If none of the authors / works that she plagiarized are around to complain and bring legal action to their door, I’m sure they’ll brush it under the rug if they can. $$$ talks.

Wonder if they’ll continue to publish her in the same way though?

Signet—SHAME ON YOU!

You’re going with the money, but the least you can do is respect your customers better than that. 

Edwards is a plagiarist.  We all know that now.  She’s brought shame to herself and your house, but you don’t care so long as someone buys the damn books. 

Screw you, Signet. Your books—ALL OF THEM—are on my shiny new boycott list. 

Why?  You’ve let this plagiarist slide, so what’s the chance there are OTHERS in your stable doing the same thing?  I am taking my money elsewhere; I can’t trust you.

Bitches—I take my hat off to you, and keep clanging them-there cow bells.  You are goddesses and better, you are Super-Bitches!  Yay!

My ethic stance on who I choose to read?

If I EVER found out my absolute FAVORITE writers—writers that I buy the hardbacks as soon as they’re out—did the disgusting thing that Edwards has done, then I would totally stop reading them.

I would feel betrayed.  I’d never trust them again.

I shell out money to pay for ORIGINAL words, not pasted-in lines stolen from some hard-working researcher who’s dead and gone and can’t defend himself.

Yo—Edwards—screw you too! 

Lifetime Achievement Award, my rosy red a$$.  You should give that award to the survivors of the writers you copied from for all these years, you thief.

Will start selling my Penguin ARCs now because clearly right and wrong is defined by what is legal.

It’s not really acceptable from an ethical standpoint, but it’s not a huge deal either. I’d be more likely to boycott an author who had political views that I consider unsavory than an author who plagiarized. Frankly, I could care less about this, and I suspect that most mainstream readers don’t really care either. I doubt that it will impact her book sales.

No matter what Signet says the “Damage” has been done, you can now Google, Yahoo, and any other search engine about 10 search pages of Cassie Edwards + Plagiarism.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GZHZ_enUS224US224&q=Cassie+Edwards+and+Plagiarism

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Cassie+Edwards+and+Plagiarism&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&xargs=0&pstart=1&b=1

It will probably grow larger as the debate heats up.

Karma’s A Smart Bitch All The Time!

I think my issue with Cassie Edwards is less the plagiarism thing (Although that is bad.  Very, very bad), but simply I find her a completely uninspired author.  I love romance novels, love the genre, but I really struggle with the huge amount of crap for sale at the bookstore.  And, in my opinion, I simply do not believe that Edwards should have been published.  Hell, I’ll go ahead and commend her for making the effort to at least do research, but I felt her research was clumsily included into her text- and yes, it looks like it was a cut and paste and potentially she should have given credit.  But as I look though my romance novels, not one includes a list of sources used to research the novel.  Why should Edwards have been expected to do so?

What makes me mad is simply that I feel like Romance Publishers, based on what is being printed, assume that readers of the genre are silly and stupid; that we will accept anything as long as there is a good looking hero and some steamy sex.  Interesting Plot? Well-developed characters?  Smart dialogue?  Those seem to be completely ignored.  I feel like the onus here should be on the publishers to realize that the women (and men) reading romance are smart and publish more authors who are actually skilled at writing the genre.  Perhaps the onus is also on us as readers to not buy the crap.  But Burn, Edwards Burn?  A little harsh.

Robin, perhaps I’m missing something—it is my understanding you can freely use material that’s out of copyright.  Ethically, to lift it wholesale is of course, beyond wrong, but that there wouldn’t be legal ramifications for it.  Correct me if I’m wrong?

Will start selling my Penguin ARCs now because clearly right and wrong is defined by what is legal.

But again, how can Signet even make a claim that what Edwards has done IS legal? 

This statement, IMO, is not what I expected Signet to say, even though I expected a pretty aggressive CYA.  IMO this goes much farther.  I believe it to be unwise, both from a position of accuracy and public relations.  Had I been advising them, I would never have let this kind of statement be issued, because IMO it’s going to accomplish the exact opposite of its intent, which violates the rules as outlines in Spin Control 101.

I CALL SHENANIGANS. 

Probably the publishers et al are trying to cover their respective behinds.  They may simply be trying to find a quiet way of shuffling Edwards to the back burner and keep her out of the news.  What she did was dishonest and motivated by greed.  We are not amused.

Robin, perhaps I’m missing something—it is my understanding you can freely use material that’s out of copyright.  Ethically, to lift it wholesale is of course, beyond wrong, but that there wouldn’t be legal ramifications for it.  Correct me if I’m wrong?

It’s the last sentence in the post that I’m referring to, because it conflates plagiarism and copyright.  What’s legal through copyright protection splits from what’s plagiarism in the public domain.  So, for example, if a student submitted a paper copied from a source in the public domain, it would still be plagiarism, even if it’s not copyright infringement.  And if an author submitted to a publisher a book comprised largely of verbatim text from Jane Eyre, for example, it would be plagiarism, even if not copyright infringement. Make sense?

Not sure if anyone else posted this or not, but this issue has already been noted on Wikipedia. 

Ding Dang, that was fast!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassie_Edwards

I’m shocked that Signet didn’t at least say, “We believe she did nothing wrong, but we’ll look into it.” Given the immensity of her backlist, their immediate dismissal of all claims of wrongdoing smacks of a blow-off. Defend her if you have to, but at least say you’re looking into it, jerks.

Said a different way, if I copy Adios to My Old Life and sold it on the street with your name on it, I would be committing plagiarism because it has the correct attribution but I would be committing copyright infringement.

Would NO be committing plagiarism.  Sorry.