Can One Plagerize Oneself?

[baphemetis]

Do/think/make up what you like--right up until you run against what actually is.

I'm sorry, for some reason this has been bothering me so I did further research.

Pamela Samuelson is a Professor of Law and Information Science at the U.C. Berkley School of information Science and the U.C. Berkley School of Law. Her principal area of study is intellectual property. I think she is qualified to speak on the topic and more qualified to speak of the legal aspects that sr71plt is so fond of.

In the article Self-Plagiarism or Fair Use? (See sr71plt! "Self-Plagiarism" is a word used in a legal context!) She writes:

Legal and ethichal attitudes toward self-plagiarism are likewise somewhat distinct

(Which is what I wrote several posts ago.)

In regulating self-plagiarism, the law will chiefly be concerned with whether the economic interests of the copyright owner are being unduly interfered with by a second work that incorporates some of the author's previous work

So it appears that self-plagiarism is not necessarily distinct from copyright infringement.

From an ethical standpoint, the misrepresentation of self-plagiarism may be more subtle than that of plagiarism, but it is still present. The self-plagiarist ... implies that the work the reader currently sees is new and original and not copied from previous work.

Again, this seems to be relevant chiefly in academic settings. It seems to have little to do with the kind of work we see on Literotica.

I really don't want to discuss this topic any more. Please, if you are interested, read Professor Samuelson's article. Sr71plt, since you are a professional in this field, I hope you have the chance to read Samuelson's article and I hope you will find it interesting. Although I am admittedly tired of this topic, I have learned a lot.

 

[sr71plt]

If you really don't want to discuss it anymore, than don't. I would discuss it more, but you keep saying you really don't want to discuss it anymore--and one of us has to do what you really say you want done.

But, by all means when you have an actual court case citation where plagiarism of self has been acknowledged and upheld, come back and we'll really discuss it again.

Until then it is just a bunch of jabber that has no effect on my life--and, I assume, none on yours either really.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

As so often, sr huffs and puffs about things he knows little about.

Yes, you can plagialize yourself if you publish material you previously published under a different name. That, like plagiarism, is not illegal.

Unlike the vituperative twaddle from sr, plagiarism is not a criminal offense - just a civil issue that is rarely connected with copyright issues.

 

[baphemetis]

But, by all means when you have an actual court case citation where plagiarism of self has been acknowledged and upheld, come back and we'll really discuss it again

Gross vs. Seligman 212 F. 930 United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, March 10, 1914

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not looking the substance of it up, so I'll aknowledge you can type a case citation in an Internet post. 1914, giving legal meaning to "self-plagiarism"? Well, OK.

This whole thread is a great example of why you don't want to bastardize a term outside of its functional meaning.

 

[sr71plt]

OK, I did look up the Gross vs. Seligman case. It's an interesting one, but it's about photographs/images, not writing. And it's about significantly duplicating a unique, supposedly one-time only work of visual art sold as a one-time-only work of art, in which copyright was assigned to a single, specific buyer. That has no ipso facto application to word publishing. The case does have foundation that could be extrapolated over into word publishing if a court case did so (so, it is interesting to look at). If a court has done so, that's the case to bring in here, not one of photographs vs. claimed one-time-only paintings. This also is a copyright case, not a "stealing" words from oneself for a new cut at a previously written story case.

But, that said, whenever sweet Elfin shows up, it's time to give the conversation over to those who only talk about publishing rather than doing anything in publishing. Ergo, leaving the real world for fantasy and nasty attack.

So, baabye.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

OK, I did look up the Gross vs. Seligman case. It's an interesting one, but it's about photographs/images, not writing. And it's about significantly duplicating a unique, supposedly one-time only work of visual art sold as a one-time-only work of art, in which copyright was assigned to a single, specific buyer. That has no ipso facto application to word publishing. The case does have foundation that could be extrapolated over into word publishing if a court case did so (so, it is interesting to look at). If a court has done so, that's the case to bring in here, not one of photographs vs. claimed one-time-only paintings. This also is a copyright case, not a "stealing" words from oneself for a new cut at a previously written story case.

But, that said, whenever sweet Elfin shows up, it's time to give the conversation over to those who only talk about publishing rather than doing anything in publishing. Ergo, leaving the real world for fantasy and nasty attack.

So, baabye.

sr, I was trying to wade in on your side so thanks for the vituperation.

In summary, Jenin florida, the Fogerty case wasn't about plagiarism but copyright - two record companies arguing - and Fogerty won. Also, baphemetis, the prof's article clearly defines the difference between copyright and plagiarism. You can only plagiarise that which you don't have copyright in - simple.

sr, the gray area is when an artist/writer grants copyright to one organization then publishes/records a very similar quasi-copy somewhere else. This is where the legal tangle between plagiarism and copyright arises.

 

[sr71plt]

sr, the gray area is when an artist/writer grants copyright to one organization then publishes/records a very similar quasi-copy somewhere else. This is where the legal tangle between plagiarism and copyright arises.

That's not what is under discussion on this thread. This is a copyright, not a plagiarism issue, and there's no need for legal tangle in this instance. What specific rights were assigned? If the copyright owner only granted one-time use rights to the organization, they are in violation if they publish a substantive portion in any other way. It all depends on what specific rights the copyright owner assigned. If the copyright owner granted nonexclusive rights to the other organization and didn't restrict the use of those rights, both the organization and the copyright holder can republish at will.

The Gross vs. Seligman case, in addition to being about images rather than words, is one where exclusive reproduction rights were transferred from the artist to the individually painted painting. This doesn't apply to book publishing unless only one copy of the book was produced and all reproduction rights were assigned to the person who bought it.

 

[baphemetis]

Also, baphemetis, the prof's article clearly defines the difference between copyright and plagiarism. You can only plagiarise that which you don't have copyright in - simple.

I am grateful that you read the article and got something out of it. I think it's the best summary of the issue from a qualified source. I have to admit, it's unlikely I would have found it if not for sr71plt's persistence.

 

[jeninflorida]

yeah, you guys are correct as what I posted wasn't really about Plagiarizer....I think. CCR members took John to court as a new song John had written sounded similiar to a CCR song and the CCR members wanted money.

As others have said, this isn't plagiarism. Including snippets of your own work from a previous paper (or submitting the same paper to two classes) might be a violation of an honor code of some sort and might lead to expulsion, academic probation, etc., but it isn't plagiarism. And in grad school at least, it's might even be encouraged.





Jen is talking about this copyright infringement case, though that seems to be more about fees and less about copyright.

Nonetheless, Jen, I think that copyright infringement is different from plagiarism, and it's absolutely possible for an author to be in violation of copyright by re-publishing work that another entity holds a copyright over.

 

[baphemetis]

yeah, you guys are correct as what I posted wasn't really about Plagiarizer....I think.

Don't be so hard on yourself. In her article, Paula Samuelson describes this case as "a very recent alleged self-plagiarism dispute". So you are in very good company if a U.C. Berkley law professor specializing in intellectual property law used the term "self-plagiarism" to describe the same case.

 

[JackandJilldo]

The term "plagerism" is defined as copying the writings of others, and claiming them as your own original work. Martin Luther King's, "I Have a Dream" speech is an excellent example of this.

Therefore, if you have muliple psudonyms and borrow from yourself, it is not plagerism.

As for copyrighting, US law says that as soon as you author a work, it is automatically protected under US copyright laws. You own any and all subsequent releases of that work, unless otherwise signed away.

 

[sr71plt]

As for copyrighting, US law says that as soon as you author a work, it is automatically protected under US copyright laws. You own any and all subsequent releases of that work, unless otherwise signed away.

*sigh* You haven't been around for the years of discussion on this, have you? There's a significant difference in what U.S. copyright law says and what that law has enacted. The law also says you can't get a court date in the United States on a copyright claim without holding a formal copyright you applied for and were granted--thus taking all of the air out of the "automatically protected" clause. If you can't go to court about it, you ain't protected beyond bluff and moral suasion. Check it out, but this is something we have pointed out here at least once a month. The U.S. didn't want to sign the Berne convention, and when it did, it didn't put any teeth into the "automatically protected" clause.

 

[JackandJilldo]

*sigh* You haven't been around for the years of discussion on this, have you? There's a significant difference in what U.S. copyright law says and what that law has enacted. The law also says you can't get a court date in the United States on a copyright claim without holding a formal copyright you applied for and were granted--thus taking all of the air out of the "automatically protected" clause. If you can't go to court about it, you ain't protected beyond bluff and moral suasion. Check it out, but this is something we have pointed out here at least once a month. The U.S. didn't want to sign the Berne convention, and when it did, it didn't put any teeth into the "automatically protected" clause.

No, I have not been around for all of this.

The automatic copyright claim holds true for civil cases. I guess I should have mentioned that, but I thought that everyone on here would know that. My apologies.

All you have to do, is mail a copy to the Library of Congress.

Bowker.com holds a monopoly on IBSNs, and many people feel that they have no other recourse when self publishing. You don't need an IBSN number to publish; only to post in the general sales market.

Now, if I failed to do all of this, and someone wrote a movie script that mirrored my book, I would love to see what SCOTUS would do in light of a printed copy.

 

[sr71plt]

The automatic copyright claim holds true for civil cases. I guess I should have mentioned that, but I thought that everyone on here would know that. My apologies.

No, there is not automatic copyright in civil cases. There is only automatic copyright in how far you can bluff someone who's stealing your writing. You can point to the wording of the coyright law and as long as you keep them from reading the enabling requirement clause of the law you maybe can scare them. That's the point. You can't get a court date without obtaining a formal copyright. That makes "automatic" copyright meaningless--in the United States. It's applicable in the UK and most other countries; not in the United States. Anyone who can't understand this is fooling themselves and maybe setting themselves up for grief.

All you have to do, is mail a copy to the Library of Congress.

Now most apply on line to the Copyright Office.

Bowker.com holds a monopoly on IBSNs, and many people feel that they have no other recourse when self publishing. You don't need an IBSN number to publish; only to post in the general sales market.

ISBNs are not related to copyight in any way.

Now, if I failed to do all of this, and someone wrote a movie script that mirrored my book, I would love to see what SCOTUS would do in light of a printed copy.

SCOTUS would do nothing unless one of you produces a formal copyright document and opens up a court suit. All I can do is keep repeating reality. The U.S. courts don't want to be placed in the middle of "this guy says/the other guy says" arguments. There is no proof on what writing came first. Just because you put out a book with the material doesn't mean it wasn't originally produced by someone else earlier. This is, *sigh*, the whole point. There FUNCTIONALLY IS NO AUTOMATIC COPYRIGHT IN THE UNITED STATES. And that's the way SCOTUS wants it.

Do we really have to dance around this bush again?

 

[JackandJilldo]

Well, you can submit to the Copyright office if you'd like, but if it's a book, you MUST submit to the LOC.

I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with you, and as I stated on another thread, you are obviously schooled in your venue. I have no knowledge of your background, being a noob here and all, but mine covers fiction, non-fiction, scripts and political columns.

It's more than apparent, that we are operating on multiple frequencies of the same octave.

I'm offering a group hug, if you want to accept.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, you can submit to the Copyright office if you'd like, but if it's a book, you MUST submit to the LOC.

I have no desire to get into a pissing contest with you, and as I stated on another thread, you are obviously schooled in your venue. I have no knowledge of your background, being a noob here and all, but mine covers fiction, non-fiction, scripts and political columns.

It's more than apparent, that we are operating on multiple frequencies of the same octave.

I'm offering a group hug, if you want to accept.

*sigh* The Copyright Office is part of Library of Congress. To get the formal copyright registration, you are applying to the Copyright Office. The work itself that substantiates the registration request is going into the Library of Congress collection. They aren't two different animals.

 

[JackandJilldo]

*sigh* The Copyright Office is part of Library of Congress. To get the formal copyright registration, you are applying to the Copyright Office. The work itself that substantiates the registration request is going into the Library of Congress collection. They aren't two different animals.

My apologies.

I was using my personal experience with the LOC and their requirements, after I couldn't get anywhere with the Copyright Orifice.

Reading and posting is entirely different from actually jumping through the hoops. I've jumped. If you've jumped too, and had a different outcome, then I welcome a PM from you.

 

[sr71plt]

My apologies.

I was using my personal experience with the LOC and their requirements, after I couldn't get anywhere with the Copyright Orifice.

Reading and posting is entirely different from actually jumping through the hoops. I've jumped. If you've jumped too, and had a different outcome, then I welcome a PM from you.

From time to time I've jumped constantly--I've had the duty of filing for the copyright in publishing houses.

I think I may have located your problem--it's maybe reflected in your use of the "Copyright Orifice" term. Perhaps your chin was the first thing they encountered when you approached them.

I'd be curious--except I'm not, really--on how you got service from the LOC rather than the Copyright Office on a copyright matter, though, since the Copyright Office is the copyright matters office of the LOC--but then maybe they were just playing you from one employee to another to get the transaction over with with the least amount of attitude and hassle.

 

[sxyoldguy]

Thought I'd Introduce an Interesting Topic for Discussion.

I originally signed up with a user ID of flyer333. I wrote six stories under this handle, name, whatever.

Then when in the forums someone suggested I share my writing addiction with my wife -- bad idea! She was so pissed and I panicked, left Lit. But then found myself incapable of NOT suppressing my urge to write, so I re-signed on to Lit but under a different name as you know me by now.

I'm a better writer now and am considering revisiting my earlier writings.

Just saying in advance I'm no plagerist, I have written them before, just under a different name.

I'm going to hijack this thread if only for the reason that the freeking horse is long dead.

AS: You indicated that your wife was pissed so you left Lit. Was she pissed that you spent time on lit or at the content of what you were writing?

Mine will not be pleased when she learns that I have just sold my first story in this genre. Fortunately I am using a pen name. So how did you handle it?