Hope... That This Doesn't Become a Lawsuit

The first shots have been fired in the Hope War.

Shepard Fairey's ubiquitous image of President Barack Obama has become the subject of a copyright dispute. The Associated Press claims that it holds the copyright of the photograph upon which the image was created, and thus are entitled to a share of all monies earned. However, Fairey and his attorneys have filed a best-defense-is-a-good-offense lawsuit claiming that Fairey's work is protected under fair-use exceptions to copyright law.

The fair-use doctrine of U.S. copyright law developed from a series of court decisions over the years, and was eventually codified here. The exception lists guidelines that may be taken into consideration for certain exceptions to copyright law when a copyrighted work is used without permission. The one I think is potentially pertinent here is: (3) amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.

Meanwhile, Mannie Ramirez, the photographer credited with taking the original photo, which is believed to be from a National Press Club event in April 2006, claims that he still holds the copyright to the photo. Moreover, his position seems to place the value of Fairey's contribution to art and culture first, saying as quoted in the New York Times article:

“I don’t condone people taking things, just because they can, off the Internet,” Mr. Garcia said. “But in this case I think it’s a very unique situation.”

He added, “If you put all the legal stuff away, I’m so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it’s had.”

So what do you think? Is Fairey protected by fair-use doctrine? Or does he have to cough up some change to the AP (or to Ramirez)?

Urgent Message to Publishers: Stop Being So Naïve

Though I had no intention of writing two entries today, in my check-in over at the UCLA Writers' Programs Blog written by Corey Campbell, she referenced this story about yet another highly acclaimed memoir revealed to be fabricated, and I felt compelled to comment. Apparently, Margaret B. Jones, author of Love and Consequences was not even remotely the foster child/gang member/drug runner that she claimed to be in her memoir. In fact, she grew up rather close to my own hometown in the San Fernando Valley, in an upper middle class white family (with her birth parents) and attended private school. It wasn't until her sister spotted her in a NY Times House & Home article and outed her to her publisher that she admitted her fabrication.

I don't feel the need to explain why I find this never-ending stream of mendacious authors appalling. I think it goes without saying. I will say however that it's about time that editors wise-up and start doing some background checking. It's one thing to embellish actual events. It's another to make up an identity.

At the end of the International Herald Tribune article (linked above), the Love and Consequences' editor, Sarah McGrath, says of a recent conversation with Margaret B. Jones about the fabrication that "She seems to be very, very naïve..." Really? Since when are 33 year old women naïve?

Let me tell you Sarah McGrath, Margaret B. Jones couldn't possibly be as naïve as you. Wise up and start doing some basic background checks. Then you won't have to do this.

And While We're on the Topic of Plagiarism

In case you missed this story, I felt compelled to share it with you here. A few weeks ago, a columnist with the Daily Toreador, the student newspaper at Texas Tech University, was fired for allegedly plagiarizing a blog on which he based two of his articles. What was the topic of the plagiarized articles? Plagiarism.

The announcement as it appeared in the Daily Toreador can be found here.

When you've finished chuckling, as I did, you'll be interested to know that the Daily Toreador articles and the blog from which they were allegedly plagiarized, both lifted the text from the CrimethInc. Ex-Workers' Collective publication, Days of War, Nights of Love. Thus the plot thickens.

To make matters more complicated both the blog writer and the columnist claim that CrimethInc. encourages plagiarism of their materials, and in particular, in Days of War, Nights of Love. I have not yet been able to confirm that - not having read the book - but I think what we've stumbled upon here, yet again, is the complex nature of plagiarism.

The question then becomes: is it a matter of obtaining the author's permission, or is it a matter of citation? I think it's the latter. I don't think being given permission to plagiarize absolves you of having the responsibility of citing the work. I am, however, willing to see a separation between plagiarizing an idea (a particular position on a topic), and plagiarizing the specific words used to express that idea. Now that is a lot more than I am willing to tackle in my little blog.

Politics and Plagiarism: Ghost Writing for Change

It is no mystery that most politicians use speech writers. Since the radio era, I don't think that any President has ever sat down to write out his inaugural address or his state of the union all on his lonesome. Which makes this election season's focus on rhetoric - and recent accusations of plagiarism - particularly interesting.

There have been several recent accusations that Barack Obama has regularly plagiarized language in his speeches. Most recently, he has been accused of lifting a passage in a speech at a Democratic Party dinner in Wisconsin that was originally spoken by Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick. Obama acknowledged using the passage saying he should have cited Patrick as the source, but claims that he and Patrick are friends and discussed using the language before he made the speech.

For more detailed information about the accusations, please see the following New York Times Articles (they're all extremely concise, and yet each tells a slightly different story):

Clinton Fingerprints on Plagiarism Flap
Clinton Camp Says Obama Plagiarized in Speech
In Politics, Inspiration or Plagiarism Is a Fine Line

No matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, Clinton/Obama/McCain/No Confidence, plagiarism is not a matter that should be taken lightly, especially as a writer. The written word is not free. There is sometimes an attitude about words, that since they are free to any speaking person, that we should all have access to them in any form.

However, try to think of it like this: Words are like tap water. Writers take words, run them through a filter, send them to a bottling plant, design a label for them, market them, and distribute them. So when it arrives at your local convenience store, you're willing to pay a few dollars for the fancy new water in this nice cold bottle.

Payment for writing can come in two forms - financial payment or writing credit (or in the best of all worlds, both). Political speech writers get paid for their work - they don't get credit. When you suggest language to a politician for a speech, even if you are not on his or her writing staff, you can't imagine that you will get credit for it. What would a speech sound like if the politician had to incessantly give credit to each phrase?

Plagiarism is a serious accusation - but it only demeans the true problem when it is wrongly applied. Sharing language and ideas with political friends is not the same thing as taking a written word without consent and repeating it or publishing it as your own.

The irony of course is that the co-opted text was about the power of language itself:

“Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream.’ Just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’ Just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words? Just speeches?”

- Barack Obama or Deval Patrick?