Part of a series: Cassie Edwards 1: The First Post | Cassie Edwards 2: Savage Longings | Cassie Edwards Part 3: Running Fox | Cassie Edwards Part 4: Savage Moon | Cassie Edwards Part 5: Savage Beloved | Follow-up: Penguin (Part 1?) | Official Statement from Signet | AP Article Contains Response from Edwards | RWA Responds to Allegations | A centralized document for the Cassie Edwards situation
…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 author'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. Edwards' 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?
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:
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.
I’ve been following this thread since it started and have traveled to other sites to get differing opinions. Here’s my stance:
1) Some sites are stating that Sarah and Candy have been deriding CE personally, during this issue and in prior postings; and that this personal diatribe against CE invalidates any truth to the plagerism.
a) Sarah and Candy have, on multiple occassions, stipulated that they in NO WAY consider CE a bad person because she writes pulp romances with funny looking covers (and we all know authors have nothing to do with the covers anyway). Sarah and Candy, in fact, have mentioned, repeatedly, they do not subscribe to personal attacks on authors-just the writing and covers (if appropriate). Ergo, for those other bloggers/sites who are refusing to come here any more, I say, try reading Sarah and Candy’s comments again. S & C cannot be held responsible for those of us who do get a mite personal.
2) S & C, among others, have clearly documented aforementioned plagerization (is that a word?) so well that I think it’s a moot point now. But what I find interesting is the level of academic and intellectual conversation occurring here, and on other sites, about this issue. It’s incredibly high and I say that not just on this topic, but on most other topics covered here. For all the snark (which is pointed at WRITING and COVERS, not AUTHORS personally), this is a highly academic site.
3) While I do not condone the massive bad review idea mentioned above, especially if reviewers aren’t going to read the books, CE does need to know that her readers are not hacks and that there exists significant disapproval of her plagerizing.
I don’t have any personal bias on CE one way or the other. I haven’t read a book of hers since the late 1980’s because I had a problem with her noble savage line. I don’t know anything about her persoally. But this issue isn’t about her as a mother, a grandmother, a friend, a wife, a daugther, etc. It’s about her writing ethics, or lack of them. Which, of course, is distasteful.
Wouldn’t boycotting Signet include Nora’s books? Nu-uh, sorry, not gonna do it.
Oh yeah, and I’m afraid that bad-review-bombing Amazon and other sites smacks of bullying and pettiness, unless it’s being done to actually review a book that you’ve actually read. Just my opinion, which people are welcome to ignore, of course.
I’d just hate for SB critics to be proved right in any way.
Ms. Edwards may not have done anything illegal (yet to be seen), but she certainly did something “wrong.”
If I had copied words as closely as she did off of a friend’s essay in elementary school, I would have failed the paper and possibly been sent to the principal’s office. As far as I know none of my friends ever held a copyright on their essays, but it was still considered cheating and therefore wrong to copy off of someone else.
Evidently the concepts of right and wrong that even 1st graders know are beyond the abilities and undertanding of Penguin and their authors.
I will remember that as I shop for books in future.
Looks like a typical initial response to me. As I said in a comment on a previous entry, something doesn’t have to be illegal to be morally bankrupt.
Most of these examples weren’t even decently paraphrased. That usually implies to me that the “author” at least went to a thesaurus to change some of the words. She just trimmed a little around the edges.
As for Ms. Edwards’ being part Cheyenne, I’m part Choctaw and you don’t see me rushing to read stories about noble savages falling for white women. The idea of Native Americans being all noble and misunderstood is as offensive as them always being the bad guys. The fact that we were here first or our skin is a different color doesn’t make us less flawed as individuals or as a society. How about writing stories where everyone is a human being instead?
~Evidently the concepts of right and wrong that even 1st graders know are beyond the abilities and undertanding of Penguin and their authors.~
Please don’t scoop all authors up in the same bucket. This is ONE author under discussion, not everyone who writes for Signet, or indeed who writes for any imprint of Penguin.
I never heard of Cassie Edwards before all this flap.
I never heard of Harry Potter till the fundamentalists condemned it.
Once I read the first HP, I loved it.
Off to buy an armload of Cassie Edwards’ books.
Thanks for the heads up.
I saw the wiki addition, it wasn’t there yesterday!
I see there isnt a wiki page for the bitches yet, anyone a wiki contributor?
I think if the SBs start inappropriately reviewing CE’s books *without reading them* then many of the things others are accusing the community of doing—maliciously going after CE—start to become true.
Right now CE is accused of unfairly stealing words from other authors. She hasn’t hurt any of us personally; well, unless someone is a fan of her work and feels let down. Let’s not cross an ethical line, too.
veri word: truth38. Seems appropriate . . .
grr can’t edit..
anyway the wiki article says
“a blog”
instead of naming “THE” blog lol
Louisa, before you spend your money, why not check out some of Ms. Edwards writing for free? I believe you can find a lot of it on Google books.
It’s the last sentence in the post that I’m referring to, because it conflates plagiarism and copyright.
D’uh, yes, of course. I went back and re-read the final line of that post and I see what you were referring to.
This is why reading+posting+helping with fifth grade math homework adds up to a bad combination.
Wikipedia won’t link to ‘original sources’. That’s why the link is to the Publishers’ Weekly article since PW falls under Wikipedia’s definition of ‘reliable sources’.
I’m not going to weigh in on the ethical debate but I’d like to add to a comment I made earlier. Saying the postings had a witch hunt tone was inaccurate. That would imply Edwards has done nothing wrong, the SB bloggers are an angry mob, and that Candy had an insidious agenda. None of this is true. I know Candy is a law student and perhaps I misinterpreted her excitement over a discovery with such intense legal and ethical ramifications as malicious glee.
Still not a fan of Edwards (I’ve never read one of her books because the titles offend me), still not a fan of hating on her, or anyone.
Wow. That’s all I can manage to say. Although it’d be great if someone sent the AP a press release about Signet condoning plagiarism.
I know I shouldn’t be appalled but I am truly appalled by Signet’s response.
Damn.
All that class and logic is rubbing off on me.
Which translates into: not going to amazon to “review” CE’s books with links to the plagiarism discussions here and at DA. :sigh:
I’ll still write to Signet about it, and I’ll still talk about this*** in every online and real life forum/situation I can.
***This as in: both the CE plagiarism, and plagiarism in general, and why it IS a BFD, dammit.
At least Louisa’s comment gave me a good laugh. Hope she enjoys her stack of Cassie Edwards books.
(And great response, Ros. Also made me laugh.)
I still say that we should contact the authors/pubs of the works from which Edwards stole. Even if they don’t have a criminal case, couldn’t they still sue in civil court?
Please don’t scoop all authors up in the same bucket. This is ONE author under discussion, not everyone who writes for Signet, or indeed who writes for any imprint of Penguin.
Yes, please, *says the new Penguin author…*
Define “use” . . . not to be flip, but you’re sort of making a fruit salad here of the apples and oranges of the issue. One can violate copyright without committing plagiarism, just as one can commit plagiarism without violating copyright. Certainly the legal ramifications of violating copyright are usually of more concern to most than the ramifications of committing plagiarism (which are usually limited to loss of reputation, and possibly work/job/contract/grant/etc.).
More specifically, it’s entirely ok to quote, spin off of, rif on, play with, retell, revisit, works that are out of copyright. Hence all the Jane Austen “sequels†clogging up the shelves right now. Hence Tom Stoppard’s brilliant Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. Hence The Wide Sargasso Sea.
What’s NOT ok is to pass off any of the original works as your own, or to quote them in such a way that it is not obvious that quoting is taking place (as CE has done). This, we call plagiarism. And even if there is no copyright holder to sue for damages (and we’re not yet sure there isn’t), and thus no legal ramifications for the author, it is still an ethical violation.
Perhaps the only loss CE will suffer is the loss of face/reputation. If a copyright holder is found who takes offence she and Signet could be sued. If Signet gets too much egg on their face over this, they might pull her books or cancel her contract. That is pretty much all that can happen. It’s up to her publisher to do the “right†thing at this point, and clearly we can’t count on that.
I’m sorry for lumping Penguin authors in with the company as a whole; I misspoke and would have, I hope, caught myself once I actually thought about it. I’m sure that most authors out there (Penguin or not) would never consider doing such a thing.
I also hope that this is a case of one employee’s opinion being allowed to speak for the entire publishing house, but I’m not holding my breath.