Plagiarism

QUESTION:  What is plagiarism?  If I borrow an author’s style, is that plagiarism?  

Plagiarism is a very complex issue.  The most obvious example is a writer who has cobbled together many paragraphs of someone else's work with their own words as cement.  

A less obvious example is someone who uses someone else's work as a template to their own.  Each scene is a rewrite of a scene in someone else's novel.  

Another very common form of plagiarism is cutting and pasting text from a nonfiction source into a novel.

Famous writers certainly aren't exempt from being guilty of plagiarism.  Janet Dailey's flagrant plagiarism of Nora Roberts' novels is a perfect example.  (JD was proven guilty and had to pay restitution.)

  

Not so famous writers are also found guilty of the same thing.  Some years back, a teenaged novelist had her first novel pulled off shelves when readers found that she'd patched together several other books to create her own.

Copying someone’s style isn’t plagiarism as long as you aren’t copying content.  Many new writers try to emulate a favorite author’s style because they haven’t found their own yet.  After a few years, gained confidence, and the sheer difficulty of maintaining someone else’s voice, most develop their own style.  

As a reader, if you feel that the two books are so similar that it might be plagiarism, you should contact the publisher or the author, express your concerns, and let them decide whether this is plagiarism or not.  

Quoting a Book on Your Blog

QUESTION:  I am interesting in posting a few paragraphs from a book I just read on my blog...as a synopsis of the book. I want to post about a paragraph from each chapter.  Is that legal? Of course, I would cite the book and author, etc. and make it clear that these are not my words, but the author's.

First, let me clearly state that I am not a lawyer of any sort so my advice won't protect your rear in a court of law.

Using quotes like you want to do is done all the time.  It’s considered fair use of copyrighted material.

Whether the publisher or author contact their lawyers depends on how easily p*ssed off the author and publisher are and how high profile you or the content/author are.  

In other words, if the NEW YORK TIMES quotes to summarize an important new book about a major political figure before or soon after the book is published so that the reader need not buy it, all legal hell will break lose.  

If you want to quote a few paragraphs in a book about writing that's been around a bit, I doubt anyone will call their lawyer although you may receive an email from the author requesting you remove the material.  As a courtesy, you should.

Methods of citation vary from the footnote style you learned in high school to the more casual method where the information about the book is included within the body of the work --

As John Exum Smith said in A BUNCH OF NONSENSE ABOUT WRITING, "Writers are the silliest creatures in the universe because they believe others will want to pay them for their imaginings."

If you are using the summary in a positive manner such as you are recommending the book, you are far less likely to run afoul of legal problems.  If you are pulling all the "meat" out of the book stew so others won't have to buy the book, you are much more likely to have a seriously angry author after your head.

All this advice really comes down to the Golden Rule.  If this were your book, would you want someone else to summarize it as you intend to?

For more information on fair use, I suggest this article:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

Using Music in Fiction

Music is extremely powerful, evoking intense emotion, history, memory, and physical movement in a way that fiction and most other types of communication cannot.  Many writers use that emotional and historical element by mentioning music titles and song lyrics as a short hand for those emotions.  

But here’s the problem.  Music has copyright protectors who are beyond zealots.  Copyright fair use and proper attribution which are both perfectly legal don’t matter to them, and they, usually ASCAP, will go after a writer for even the slightest mention.  They have the lawyers and the money so they win almost every time.  

If an author does go through ASCAP, the band’s legal people, or a brand like Disney to license a few lines, the costs are ridiculous.  An acquaintance tried, and using two lines of a lyric from an obscure band would have cost her more than she’d make for the life of the book.  

So, what’s a writer to do?  Some write their own song lyrics.  Others work very carefully around the ridiculous copyright landmines.

Here, in two scenes from my unpublished novel, THE LAUGHING GOD’S KISS.  Cautiously treading around those copyright landmines, I use a song title, a few words of the lyrics, or some careful editing to evoke those emotions.  They also reflect emotional moments for two people who are already falling in love but refuse to admit it, even to themselves.  

Storm bent over his guitar and started  "Yesterday."  

Gazing around at all the rapt faces in the living room, Victoria realized this was a virgin audience for the song.  These isolated people had never even heard of the Beatles.  

Storm sang, his voice catching with melancholy at the loss of a great and true love.  His face, for the first time, was vulnerable and open with emotion.

Victoria's heart twisted with his pain as she wondered whom he'd loved so much and why he'd lost her. 

***

Across the pasture, a familiar baritone voice sang softly.  Victoria caught the words "corn" and "elephant's eye."  Intrigued, she moved closer.

His back to her, Storm brushed briskly on the black gelding as he sang.  The black's ears were cocked back to hear him.  His other three horses watched him, their ears forward.  None of them had a rope or line on, each held by his voice and presence.

Equally entranced, Victoria sat down in the shade of a nearby tree. 

Storm sang "Oh, What a Beautiful Morning" with the feeling and skill worthy of Broadway, his black velvet voice soaring.   

As his voice faded at the end of the song, the horses began to fidget.

Storm began "If I Loved You.“

Victoria closed her eyes to savor the music.  The song was about love unadmitted yet so tenderly expressed.  It had moved her when she'd seen Carousel. 

If a voice could make love to a woman, then Storm Morgan had that voice.  Victoria let the song take her where it would.

NOTE:  

No, I’m not saying copyright is wrong, or you should ignore it.  Those who have followed me for years know that I’m a strong proponent of copyright, I write informative articles about it, and I’ve fought piracy for many years.  However, ASCAP and friends are using their money and clout to stop even fair use which is not okay.  As usual, this disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer and can’t offer legal advice.  My examples are how I would avoid being sued by ASCAP.  You must decide for yourself whether to risk a lawsuit or nastygram from some lawyers.

When to Copyright Your Novel

QUESTION:  When should I copyright my novel?

According to US copyright law, your book was copyrighted the moment you put something on the page.  

If, however, you want to file an official copyright with the US Copyright Office, the answer is different for your publishing choices.  

If you want to be published by a traditional publisher, aka the conglomerates mainly in NYC, you shouldn’t do an official copyright because it makes you look like an amateur.  And, if they buy it, it will most likely will be copyrighted again because it will have been changed drastically in rewrites.  In most cases, the publisher will do the copyright for you.  Check your contract on this question and make dang sure the copyright is in YOUR name. 

Some small publishers expect their authors to file their own copyright.  Do this as soon as you have the published version of your novel. It can be done before the book reaches the shelves.

If you are self-publishing, copyright it as soon as you have the final version of your book.  An official copyright is a good thing because you won’t be able to sue someone for plagiarism or downright theft in an American court without that official copyright notice.

Here’s a link to the Copyright Registration form. 

https://www.copyright.gov/registration/

 

The Creation of Copyright

 "As for the myth that people wouldn’t create if they didn’t have control over their copyright,  I’ll just point out thousands of years of culture before copyright was invented. Not that anyone can be bothered to remember about… oh I don’t know… Shakespeare when it comes to the ‘necessity’ of copyright. Too inconvenient an example I guess."  A comment from someone on the copyright debate.

You were obviously listening to pirated music when you should have  been paying attention in class.

Shakespeare made his living as an actor, an administrator for a number of acting companies, and as the playwright for his company.  The writing fueled the income for the company, and Shakespeare got a larger chunk of the income because of his writing.  His acting companies also had very rich and influential sponsors.   

Despite the fact that ideas were stolen right and left by Shakespeare and every other playwright from each other and famous works from the past, the language of the plays was strictly those of the individual writers.  Ideas can't be copyrighted, but the expression/language of the idea can so, surprisingly, our concept of copyright was followed.  Without copyright and print production, a vast majority of other playwrights' works have disappeared.  Shakespeare's still exists because of the folios.

Before the invention of the Gutenberg press, creators of plays depended on rich sponsors and performance to make their living.  The rich sponsors controlled the content and the political and social aspects of the works.

Novels came into being in the perfect storm of cheap printing, a growing, educated middle class with the income and time to read, and writers who were willing to produce those novels for the income.  The writers depended upon the income, but some had sponsors or a publishing house willing to fork over enough money (advances) to keep the writer eating while he created.

Copyright came into being, not because writers were greedy parasites, but because that period's version of large-scale content pirates who were greedy parasites began to devastate the publishing industry and its writers so the publishers, writers, and various governments had no choice but to create copyright.

If someone could wave a magic wand and make copyright disappear, many writers who need income so they can write would again be forced to go back to rich sponsors.  Would you really want Donald Trump, the Kardashians, and various political and social groups to control what you could read?

If the Kickstart model were followed, only the most popular ideas and types of books would be created so you'd be forced to read what the vast majority of people want to read.  Again, would you like to spend your life reading what now passes as bestsellers?

Copyright protects readers as much as it protects authors, and it is the greed of the pirates and their readers that makes such things as DRM and copyright necessary, NOT the greed of authors.

Should eBooks Be Resold Like Used Paper Books?

The Department of Commerce is asking for comments about Digital First Sale and the possible changes to copyright law that would allow an ebook to be resold.  

http://www.thedigitalshift.com/2013/11/copyright/department-commerce-seeks-input-digital-first-sale/

If you’d like to comment, hurry because the deadline is November 13th.

Here’s my letter.

The biggest problem with the resale of “used” e-books is e-book piracy.  Some think that cheaper books mean less reason to pirate books and that’s true to a certain extent, but used e-books also mean that authors and publishers will no longer be able to prove that an online copy has been stolen.

Right now, publishers and authors license their books to specific resellers/distributors like Amazon Kindle, B&N’s Nook, and Smashwords.  If a book is available at any other site, the publisher and author know instantly that that book is pirated, and they help the authorities take these sites down.  

These sites are fairly common, and some look like legitimate book-selling sites so the consumer is no wiser that they are buying stolen books.  Some of these sites actually sell the books, others are scams which steal credit card information and install viruses on the victim’s computer.  

If e-books are sold used, the scam sites will be able to fly under the legal radar.

Pirate sites will claim that their books are being given away for free by legal owners so they can continue their dispersal of illegal copies.  

If e-books are sold used and a site or individual can sell thousands of copies of the same ebook by saying that they are selling one used, there will be no way for the author/publisher to prove this.  This will essentially make book theft a crime that can’t be punished.

Even readers who want to do the right things by buying legally won’t be able to tell who is a legitimate reseller and who isn’t.  

Readers looking for bargains will buy illegal books instead of legal ones, the profit margin for authors and publishers which is small now will plummet to the point that publishing will no longer be profitable for anyone, and those who make the money will have done nothing to create books.  

Allowing the sale of used e-books will destroy all value to copyright.

Marilynn Byerly, Author

Used Kindle eBooks?

Amazon has patented a means to sell used ebooks within the Kindle system.  A book will be branded within the system when it is bought, then when the buyer puts it up for resale at the Kindle store, it will be removed from his account and transferred to the buyer’s account.  Amazon will receive a small fee for each sale.  A limited number of sales of each book may or may not be included in the system.

According to copyright law, specifically “The Doctrine of First Sale,” this is illegal because digital goods aren’t physical things so they can’t be resold.  (See my article on “The First Sale Doctrine and eBooks” for more details.  http://mbyerly.blogspot.com/2009/04/first-sale-doctrine-and-ebooks.html  )

But a legal battle is currently being fought between ReDigi, a used digital music store, and the various groups in the music industry over a similar system.  If ReDigi is able to win this, Amazon will probably move forward with their own system of resale.  

At first glance, it appears Amazon would be cutting into its own Kindle profits with this system, but Amazon isn’t known for its poor business practices.    Here’s what it will gain from the system.  

Buyers go for the cheapest prices.  If a used Kindle ebook is cheaper than any other version of the book, buyers will start using the Kindle system and its hardware.  iTunes, Nook, and other sites won’t be able to match these lower prices unless they start selling new ebooks for next to nothing or they put into place their own reselling system.  Such a complex system would take some time, perhaps years, so Amazon would gain the advantage in the market for many years to come.  

Some in the industry believe that Amazon is intent on killing off publishers so authors will have to go the self-publishing route, and authors as individuals have no real bargaining power when it comes to the terms Amazon will set.  (See “Used eBooks: The Ridiculous Idea that Could Also Destroy Publishing”  http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/used-ebooks-is-a-ridiculous-idea-that-could-ruin-authors-publishers  )

What will all this mean if Amazon’s used ebook system becomes available?  Readers may be happy with this system, but authors and publishers will not.  Publishing has a very low profit margin, as is, and anything that will cut into that profit will hurt, sometimes to the point of putting authors and publishers out of business.  

Authors like me have been busy educating readers on “The First Sale Doctrine” so they will know that ebooks can’t be resold, loaned, or put online for free, but a system like this will make readers believe that, if Amazon can do this, so can they. Piracy will spread.

If Amazon gains total supremacy in the distribution market, then they will be able to dictate the terms in contracts with authors and publishers, and those terms will shift even more of the profit into Amazon’s pockets.

If the other distribution markets fail and Amazon is the only source of ebooks, it can close down the used market place, and readers will have to pay much more for the surviving content.  After all, Amazon is in it for Amazon as they have proven over and over again.  

This system may not be the eBook Zombie Apocalypse as a universal removal of “First Sale Doctrine” on digital goods would be, but it may very well be the beginning of the end of publishing as a profitable venture.  

UPDATE: On March 30, 2013, a federal court ruled in the Capitol Records versus ReDigi case that it is illegal to sell "used" digital files.  No word yet if ReDigi will continue to fight this battle.  

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/can-i-resell-my-mp3s-redux-federal-judge-says-no/

Used eBooks: The eBook Zombie Apocalypse

Digital products like ebooks are licensed, not sold, to a buyer so they can’t be legally resold, shared, or loaned.  (See my article on “The First Sale Doctrine and eBooks” for more details.  http://mbyerly.blogspot.com/2009/04/first-sale-doctrine-and-ebooks.html  )

A group called the Owners‘ Rights Initiative ( http://ownersrightsinitiative.org/  ) wants to change that.  They believe that the owner of a digital book should be allowed to sell it used.  Members of this group include some library trade groups, used resellers of paper books, and eBay.  

Some readers consider this a good thing because they can get back cash on books they read in the same way as they do with paper books.

But is it a good idea?  

The answer is a resounding no.

The biggest problem with used ebooks is ebook piracy.  Some think that cheaper books mean less reason to pirate books and that’s true to a certain extent, but used ebooks mean that authors and publishers will no longer be able to prove that an online copy has been stolen.

Right now, publishers and authors license their books to specific resellers/distributors like Amazon Kindle, B&N’s Nook, and Smashwords.  If a book is available at any other site, the publisher and author know instantly that that book is pirated, and they help the police take these sites down.  These sites are fairly common, and some look like legitimate bookselling sites so the consumer is no wiser that they are buying stolen books.  Some of these sites actually sell the books, others are scams which steal credit card information and install viruses on the victim’s computer.  

If ebooks are sold used, the scam site will be able to fly under the legal radar.

Pirate sites will claim that their books are being given away for free by legal owners so they can continue their dispersal of illegal copies.  

If ebooks are sold used and a site or individual can sell thousands of copies of the same ebook by saying that they are selling one used, there will be no way for the author/publisher to prove this.  This will essentially make book theft a crime that can’t be punished.

Even readers who want to do the right things by buying legally won’t be able to tell who is a legitimate reseller and who isn’t.  

Readers looking for bargains will buy illegal books instead of legal ones, the profit margin for authors and publishers which is small now will plummet to the point that publishing will no longer be profitable for anyone, and those who make the money will have done nothing to create books.  

Publishing will be dead, and the ebook zombie apocalypse will be here.

Ironically, the ORI library trade association members who are angry that some publishers are making it harder for them to buy and loan ebooks will be just as devastated by these events.  With ebooks available for next to nothing or for free online, libraries will have even less value for users and tax payers so they disappear or lose major funding.  These library groups may find their members  lurching around with the rest of us in publishing in the ebook zombie apocalypse.  

MORE INFORMATION ON THIS SUBJECT:

“THE RIGHT TO RESELL, A TICKING TIME BOMB OVER DIGITAL GOODS:”

http://paidcontent.org/2012/12/15/the-right-to-resell-a-ticking-time-bomb-over-digital-goods/

TOMORROW:  Amazon’s scheme to sell used ebooks within the Kindle system.

Creativity and Copyright

One of the common reasons copyright foes give for the evils of long copyright or any form of copyright is that it stifles creativity.  

Is this true?

My own feeling is that it doesn’t, particularly in fiction.

WHAT COPYRIGHT DOES AND DOESN’T COVER

Many don’t understand what copyright covers.  They think the ideas within a story are copyrighted.  They aren’t.  Anyone can write a story about angst-filled vampires and the girls who love them, and many have, but if you write and sell a vampire story where the vampires glitter, the main characters are Edward and Belle, and the plot and setting are very similar to the TWILIGHT series, you can expect a call from Stephenie Meyer’s lawyers.  

Any story or idea from other authors or sources can be used by an author as long as she makes the idea her own with her own characters, setting, and plot.  I have read a CAPTAIN BLOOD retelling as an historical romance, a Klingons-in-love STAR TREK inspired futuristic romance, and a paranormal romance that billed itself as HARRY POTTER for grownups.  None of these authors were sued for copyright infringement because they added enough of their own ideas to create something different.  

A GOOD IDEA ISN’T HARD TO FIND

Those who aren’t creative believe that it’s hard coming up with new ideas for stories.  If you ask any author, she’ll tell you that new ideas aren’t the problem; the problem is having enough time to use all those wonderful ideas to write books.  Ideas are a dime a dozen, but writing time is priceless.  

DO BOOKS OUT OF COPYRIGHT ENRICH OUR CULTURE BY INSPIRING AUTHORS?

But what of those novels and stories which have gone out of copyright?  Have they enriched the culture by spawning sequels that will be remembered forever?

I’ve read, among many others, sequels to THE SCARLET LETTER, DOCTOR JEKYL AND MR. HYDE, several of Jane Austin’s novels, MOBY DICK, and none were worthy literary successors, won awards, or remained in print more than a few years.

The only novel I could think of that has been a sequel/prequel and a literary success, as well as having more than a few months of fame, is WICKED by Gregory Maguire which is about the Wicked Witch in THE WIZARD OF OZ.  

The only true value most of these sequel books have, from a publisher and author’s perspective, is as a marketing hook so more books are sold.

If any of the sequel novels I’ve read didn’t have that instant recognition of THE SCARLET LETTER from the villain’s perspective or DR. JEKYL from the maid’s perspective, they probably wouldn’t have been published, and they certainly wouldn’t have had as many people buying them.

I know I will read any book that has Sherlock Holmes as a character even though most are poorly written and are certainly no compliment to Arthur Conan Doyle.  If that same book was about a Victorian detective, I doubt I would read it, and unless it was by an established author, few publishers would publish it.  

WHAT IS THE VALUE OF SHORTENING COPYRIGHT?

So, what is the value of shortening copyright?  None that I see except for free books, and you can read most books for free from the library.

Society almost never profits from a book out of copyright, and most of those who write the sequels create inferior books which have famous marketing hooks rather than literary value.

OTHER ARTICLES ON COPYRIGHT:

“Disney and Copyright,”   Is it really the public’s best interest for Disney’s old cartoons to go into public domain?

“A Reader’s Guide to Copyright,” A simple explanation of what copyright is and what the reader needs to know.

“The First Sale Doctrine and Ebooks,”  Is it legal to resell or share an ebook?

“The Death of Copyright,”  What would happen if copyright was abolished as some copyright opponents desire?