What if your own original thoughts happen to lead to the same conclusion that some other person's thoughts had previously led them to? What if that happens, and then you publish your thoughts without realizing they echo the thoughts of that other person?
It often happens that an inventor has exactly the same idea for an invention as another person. Yet nobody can claim the idea as their own just because they believe they were the first to think of it.
OM: Do you have links to this phantom Colin post? It would be instructive to others and myself to make side-by-side comparisons with Don's blog and the Trains article.
OM, right you are. I thought, is it one "l" or two, then guessed, wrong. All spelling is local.
I'm confused. You have (I think several times) mentioned Colin's "post."
I know of no post.
I am writing solely in regards to Colin's article in the current print edition of Trains.
Lithonia OperatorLet's say I wrote a political column, and I started off like this: "Tip O'Neil said 'all politics is local.'" I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have to have a footnote saying "Thomas P. O'Neil ... " But let's say instead I wrote, "A well-known American politician once said, 'All politics is local.'" Would I be required to somewhere denote that it was Tip?
Had you led off by saying "I've always said that 'all politics is local'..." then you would have plagiarized: you're taking someone else's words as your own.
If it is obvious that you are following a famous 'original' in a different way, I think the test is whether there is novel content. For me to rewrite 'With The Night Mail' with all the references recast for railroading in the 2040s (and the little page of ads at the end 'cleverly' rewritten with Acme and Spacely Space Sprockets products) would be no more "plagiarism" than Kipling's story was "plagiarized" from previous boys' stories about the postal service. But it would be understood as a parody of the original, not a ripoff of Kipling's writing; like the bad-Hemingway contests, the idea is to capture the tone of the original without slavishly ... well, it is hard not to make this a circular argument ... copying much of its structure intact.
The problem here is that Colin very clearly said in the first line of his post that his Railroading in 2048 piece was inspired by Don's blog. I don't think he has ever claimed differently, and I certainly read it as mirroring a parallel literary structure for, frankly, valid rhetorical reasons. The problem, as charlie hebdo indicated, is that the attribution and even the existence of the 'inspiring reference' got stripped away at some point -- and I think it would be interesting to find out how much more of that was editorial than we're being told at this point.
Of course, I doubt we will, unless Colin contributes more of the experience; he has little to lose by telling exactly how this situation came about. (And I trust he has learned the lesson to cite his sources when they form an essential part of the work!)
Got it.
Trust me.
Lithonia OperatorI definitely plan to use that. What am I supposed to do?
I hearby give you permission to use it. But every third time you use it, you must also include a random Simpsons quote.
Signed, zug.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Electroliner 1935 Now if you had copywrited software like JAVA and believed that GOOGLE had used it, (after asking to license it and not accepting the cost) you might do what ORACLE is doing and sue for $8 BILLION! Jury awarded for GOOGLE. Reversed by two appeals courts. It has now been heard by SCOTUS and we await their ruling. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.
Now if you had copywrited software like JAVA and believed that GOOGLE had used it, (after asking to license it and not accepting the cost) you might do what ORACLE is doing and sue for $8 BILLION! Jury awarded for GOOGLE. Reversed by two appeals courts. It has now been heard by SCOTUS and we await their ruling. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.
"Not accepting the cost?" You mean they were not willing to pay Oracle's licensing fee, but used the software anyway?
zug, I love that! One's goat in the yard.
I definitely plan to use that. What am I supposed to do?
Lithonia OperatorAnd (without mentioning it publicly) a check to Don.
Well yeah, they would need to consult with him first on everything. It's his goat in the yard.
zugmann Lithonia Operator I'd say the chances of someone from Kalmbach joining this discussion is virtually nil. If Kalmbach does determine this crosses the line from inspiration to plagarism (I haven't read the article yet, so I can't say one way or another) - then I think at least an editor's note in the next issue would be appropriate. And maybe a future small article on academic integrity, as a simple refresher. I'm not calling for a firing squad - but for education.
Lithonia Operator I'd say the chances of someone from Kalmbach joining this discussion is virtually nil.
If Kalmbach does determine this crosses the line from inspiration to plagarism (I haven't read the article yet, so I can't say one way or another) - then I think at least an editor's note in the next issue would be appropriate. And maybe a future small article on academic integrity, as a simple refresher.
I'm not calling for a firing squad - but for education.
Amen.
And (without mentioning it publicly) a check to Don.
Thanks, Charlie.
I know there are many "fair uses." My understanding is that there is a limit to how many words can be used in a single excerpt.
I never thought about it before (I haven't done the kind of writing that would include quotes or writings of real people), but I guess I never knew attribution was required in a fair use situation. Is that made clear in the copyright laws?
Let's say I wrote a political column, and I started off like this: "Tip O'Neil said 'all politics is local.'" I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have to have a footnote saying "Thomas P. O'Neil, Boston MA, 1966. "
But let's say instead I wrote, "A well-known American politician once said, 'All politics is local.'" Would I be required to somewhere denote that it was Tip?
I realize the rules may be different for famous quotes from well-known people than for other quotes or passages.
Lithonia OperatorI'd say the chances of someone from Kalmbach joining this discussion is virtually nil.
Lithonia: I realize we are not talking about academic articles. But the principle is parallel. If you quote, paraphrase or summarize another author's work, whether from a thesis or unpublished dissertation or published in an academic journal, you must properly cite it. There is no fee or royalty paid as compensation.
I would tend to agree with zug.
I'd say the chance of someone from Kalmbach joining this discussion is virtually nil.
I think some here are vastly over-valueing the idea of the original author getting "credited" when someone uses (or steals, appropriates, copies, whatever) the work of someone else. That's not compensation; nor is it a remedy unless both parties agree. Hopefully in advance.
Depending on what you are doing, you either have to or ought to get permission from the original creator. I actally find it kind of humorous that there are those who apparently think one could use someone else's work without permission, but it would be okay if one credits the original author; to me, that's really kind of admitting out loud that you knowingly did something you shouldn't have!
On a few occasions my photos showed up in places where I never authorized a usage. When I'd contact the offenders, I would sometimes be asked, "How about if we give you a credit?" My answer was always the same: "How about you give me some money?" Once one of my most unique and valuable shots (it made me a few thousand bucks in licensing fees) wound up in a publication without my permission, and it was even credited to another photographer; and the photographer was a friend of mine! People can be very careless. I settled for money.
Now, I know there are many shades of grey around all this. In the educational/academic environment, and in journalism and elsewhere, there is the idea of "fair use;" you cannot be expected to write your doctoral thesis on JK Rowling without some quotes from Harry Potter, for example. And, as we are seeing, there can be nuances of what is being inspired vs. taking something. I realize that there is a lot of honest confusion about this subject. Often people think they are doing the right thing, but don't actually know what the right thing is.
I understand that amateurs love seeing a photo credit; and in many cases that, and just seeing the photo in print, is all the gratification they want. I get that; that's exactly how I was before I did photography for a living. There is nothing wrong with this approach. But it would serve folks well to keep in mind that what's acceptable to you may not be acceptable to someone else. Do not assume anything. Ask for permission. I have let lots of my photos be used pro bono for good causes; they asked, I gave permission.
Once the internet came along, and then photography went digital, all kinds of misdeeds (some intentional, some not) erupted everywhere. Literally, by the millions.
The educational institutions are not teaching students enough about copyright. And then there are folks who are intentionally ignorant, or simply play dumb. A friend of mine, age 70 like me, and an artist, called me up. He was putting together an audio-visual thing, to disseminate on the web. He wanted to know if it was okay for him to drag off the web and use ... are you ready for this? ... 400 photos, without asking for any permissions! His professed rationale was that he was not going to make any money, so it would be okay. Not! What's worse, the thing he was doing was/is harshly political. Can you imagine if, say, he pilfered a photo from an arch-conservative successful professional photographer (one with lots of money for lawyers) and then used it in a video trashing that orange guy in the White House. Despite my strong warnings, he went ahead with it all. I jokingly told him, "If they only give you one phone call, make it to me, so I can say 'I told you so.'"
My impression is that Colin is likely a young person, and young people make mistakes. I could tell you about a full-on scandal I got involved in, early in my photo career. It was the most stressful thing I had to go through in my entire career; and the fact is, I kind of had an inkling beforehand that the whole thing was going to blow up in my face. And it sure did! I was pressured to do something I knew was at least somewhat wrong, by an editor in NYC; but because I got assurances from this editor that it was okay, and with a large helping of self-generated denial, and the delusions of youth, I went ahead. And, of course, there was money at stake, and the question of whether they'd ever hire me again if I turned them down. So I made national news (TV, radio, print) in a very bad way. Trust me: that's no fun.
Everyone messes up.
As for the subject of this thread: ASK. Don't assume; ask. Don't just leave a message. Ask, and get an answer one way or the other.
As for Trains: I'm guessing every thread here isn't read by someone at Kalmbach. Much less every post in every thread. Much less someone reading every article linked from every post in every thread. C'mon. So maybe Trains had no knowledge before it was too late. But now that they know, they should admit a mistake in writing in the magazine, and make things right with Don.
Colin and Don, I hope you guys can work this out amicably. You're both good writers, and I look forward to reading more from each of you. Good luck.
And stay safe.
zugmannEncouraging Colin ito plagarism? You can't be serious.
The legal niceties probably are not relevant. But Colin did commit a type of plagiarism which he could easily have avoided by some acknowledgement of Don's earlier blog. He need only have referenced it a the beginning with something like, "Inspired by Don Oltmann's blog (date), I...."
Even if they read this thread - which I'm sure they have or will (accusations of plagarism being very serious) - do you honestly think they are going to comment on here?
Encouraging Colin ito plagarism? You can't be serious. C'mon...
zugmannDo you really think Kalmbach reads every post (and link contained within) on this forum?
Overmod FAR more interesting is what Kalmbach is going to do about having publishing this without even so much as noting either Don's piece or our discussion of it on their forum...
Do you really think Kalmbach reads every post (and link contained within) on this forum?
samfp1943 Paul Milenkovic Overmod Lithonia Operator I have no idea what "twee cinema" is, even after googling it. "twee" is the adjective for movie critics who write in an affected, precious, self-important style. It's British but it lacks certain connotations that other words describing the behavior here exhibit. Is it something akin to pop musicians in recent years ripping off entire lengthy parts of other songs, and saying that it's not being copied, rather it's being "incorporated" into a "new" work? (This excuse being a load of #orses#!t.) In my opinion there could and should have been fair policies determined for sampling once it was noted as an effective thing in composition -- writer's credit, perhaps. and some realistic royalty, increasing with the importance of the original to the new song. I won't discuss what I observed happening because it is not a topic for this forum, but there were fairer ways to go. "...Does this mean that the Editors of Trains Magazine, under Forum rules, will have to ban themselves?.." YIKES! I think that You, Paul Milenkovic, may have struck a nerve ? Look out Forum Jail !
Paul Milenkovic Overmod Lithonia Operator I have no idea what "twee cinema" is, even after googling it. "twee" is the adjective for movie critics who write in an affected, precious, self-important style. It's British but it lacks certain connotations that other words describing the behavior here exhibit. Is it something akin to pop musicians in recent years ripping off entire lengthy parts of other songs, and saying that it's not being copied, rather it's being "incorporated" into a "new" work? (This excuse being a load of #orses#!t.) In my opinion there could and should have been fair policies determined for sampling once it was noted as an effective thing in composition -- writer's credit, perhaps. and some realistic royalty, increasing with the importance of the original to the new song. I won't discuss what I observed happening because it is not a topic for this forum, but there were fairer ways to go.
Overmod Lithonia Operator I have no idea what "twee cinema" is, even after googling it. "twee" is the adjective for movie critics who write in an affected, precious, self-important style. It's British but it lacks certain connotations that other words describing the behavior here exhibit. Is it something akin to pop musicians in recent years ripping off entire lengthy parts of other songs, and saying that it's not being copied, rather it's being "incorporated" into a "new" work? (This excuse being a load of #orses#!t.)
Lithonia Operator
I have no idea what "twee cinema" is, even after googling it.
"twee" is the adjective for movie critics who write in an affected, precious, self-important style. It's British but it lacks certain connotations that other words describing the behavior here exhibit.
Is it something akin to pop musicians in recent years ripping off entire lengthy parts of other songs, and saying that it's not being copied, rather it's being "incorporated" into a "new" work? (This excuse being a load of #orses#!t.)
In my opinion there could and should have been fair policies determined for sampling once it was noted as an effective thing in composition -- writer's credit, perhaps. and some realistic royalty, increasing with the importance of the original to the new song. I won't discuss what I observed happening because it is not a topic for this forum, but there were fairer ways to go.
"...Does this mean that the Editors of Trains Magazine, under Forum rules, will have to ban themselves?.."
YIKES! I think that You, Paul Milenkovic, may have struck a nerve ? Look out Forum Jail !
Paul M's statement was part of a serious duscussion, certainly not something against forum TOS. Yours? No comment.
There is a difference in use of another's copyrighted material without paying royalties and using (to a large extent) someone else's material without acknowledgement, such as a proper citation as in academic journals. In that case we are talking about plagiarism.
Duplicate
[/quote]
Lithonia Operator I have no idea what "twee cinema" is, even after googling it.
Does this mean that the Editors of Trains Magazine, under Forum rules, will have to ban themselves?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Lithonia OperatorI have no idea what "twee cinema" is, even after googling it.
Is it something akin to pop musicians in recent years ripping off entire lengthy parts of other songs, and saying that it's not being copied, rather it's being "incorporated" into a "new" work? (This excuse being a load of #orses#!t.) [/quote]In my opinion there could and should have been fair policies determined for sampling once it was noted as an effective thing in composition -- writer's credit, perhaps. and some realistic royalty, increasing with the importance of the original to the new song. I won't discuss what I observed happening because it is not a topic for this forum, but there were fairer ways to go.
Lithonia OperatorAre you saying that Colin Hakeman's article in Trains had first appeared as a post in this forum? And that Colin is "Northwest?"
Just so I'm clear on this. Are you saying that Colin Hakeman's article in Trains had first appeared as a post in this forum? And that Colin is "Northwest?" (I did notice in the little blurb at the end of the Trains article that Mr. Hakeman is a graduate of Willamette University, which I assume is in Oregon, in the US Northwest.)
Lithonia OperatorHowever, the similarities make it clear (to me) that the theme, the form, the "vehicle," and the style were indeed appropriated from Don's article.
I understood this perfectly, and in fact noted this in a post shortly after NorthWest put the original up. It did not seem to me that he was trying to 'steal' anything, just using the same format for the West Coast 'equivalent' -- the continuity being it was eight years later. I suppose now we should go after ttrraaffiicc for ripping the thing off and destroying American railroading by proxy in so doing -- get the torches! Get the pitchforks! Stolen valor!
And whaddaya know? The original was not April 10th, but May 18th:
https://blerfblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/2040.html
The April post didn't, and doesn't, detract from enjoyment of Don's original. Colin: get permission from Don and put yours back. FAR more interesting is what Kalmbach is going to do about having publishing this without even so much as noting either Don's piece or our discussion of it on their forum...
(BTW: wasn't this the thread that did the periodic revival of one of the very best things written for this Forum, dharmon's Detective Cinderdick novella -- in fact, with the missing chapter now found! It needed a bit more of an ending, as it was truly shaping up to have one of the better noir plot developments... but I wouldn't dare rewrite any of it, hommage or no.)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.