I've now read both pieces. My opinion is that legally it would be hard to make a case that this is plagiarism. There are enough differences to make it not be plagiarism, if I understand copyright law correctly.
However, the similarities make it clear (to me) that the theme, the form, the "vehicle," and the style were indeed appropriated from Don's article. Which to me isn't ethical.
If Trains was aware of Don's piece, and nonetheless published Mr. Hakeman's article, that's shameful. They should know better.
Now, I'm confused about references to an earlier thread in this forum, a thread I'm not familiar with. Is it being implied, or almost outright stated, that the person known here as "Northwest" is in fact the author of the Trains piece, Colin Hakeman? I'm guessing I'm not the only reader who's unclear on this.
Both pieces are interesting and well written, but I prefer Don's.
I leave the following as an example of just how truly broken the current text-editing software is. See if you can figure how it got this way. I am too tired to go into source code and undo the gremlinry.
Lithonia Operator I have not yet read Don's article or the one in tober 7, 2020 2:12 PM Lithonia Operator I have not yet read Don's article or the one in Trains. But from what I read here, it sure seems like plagiarism to me. All you really needed to do would have been to type "April 10th 2048" into Community Search to see the original "hommage" posted April 27th (and then "April 9th 2048" for ttrraaffiicc's inadvertent parody). Then follow the link to read Don's blog entry, which was, and is, really entertaining. But I see he has now deleted the Forum original -- which as a matter of historical interest alone shouldn't have been 'purged'. That in my opinion is a mistake, not least because it now requires finding the Trains version just to read what he was saying. The disturbing thing to me is not NorthWest submitting his version to Trains, but Trains accepting it, changing the title to match Don's,and then printing it without acknowledging, as Northwest clearly did and I clearly did as a reader of the thread, that it was a response to the earlier blog post. I think he should put it back, preface it by more clearly stating that it was inspired by and responds to Don's blog post, and provide the link to that post (as some things in his West Coast account are better understood as referenced from the East Coast original). In my opinion there were enough technical differences to qualify NorthWest's post as a 'new work' given that it was a response, and was set 'eight years later'. I don't think you could copyright a 'day in a railroader's life in 2040' as if one set of future details automatically included all others -- this is prediction, after all, not just fiction. Practical 'futurism' inn a real-world railroad context constrains probability of details in ways that will be highly parallel 20 years out... Trains. But from what I read here, it sure seems like plagiarism to me.
Lithonia Operator I have not yet read Don's article or the one in Trains. But from what I read here, it sure seems like plagiarism to me.
Then follow the link to read Don's blog entry, which was, and is, really entertaining. But I see he has now deleted the Forum original -- which as a matter of historical interest alone shouldn't have been 'purged'. That in my opinion is a mistake, not least because it now requires finding the Trains version just to read what he was saying.
The disturbing thing to me is not NorthWest submitting his version to Trains, but Trains accepting it, changing the title to match Don's,and then printing it without acknowledging, as Northwest clearly did and I clearly did as a reader of the thread, that it was a response to the earlier blog post. I think he should put it back, preface it by more clearly stating that it was inspired by and responds to Don's blog post, and provide the link to that post (as some things in his West Coast account are better understood as referenced from the East Coast original).
In my opinion there were enough technical differences to qualify NorthWest's post as a 'new work' given that it was a response, and was set 'eight years later'. I don't think you could copyright a 'day in a railroader's life in 2040' as if one set of future details automatically included all others -- this is prediction, after all, not just fiction. Practical 'futurism' in a real-world railroad context constrains probability of details in ways that will be highly parallel 20 years out...
I have not yet read Don's article or the one in Trains. But from what I read here, it sure seems like plagiarism to me.
I hope that Trains states something in writing. And pays Don for his contribution.
Sounds like more than "inspiration" to me, but I'll need to read the articles to have an informed opinion.
Good. At a minimum, you are owed a written acknowledgement and apology.
So, here's where we are. The author did contact me in July via LinkedIn - but I don't check often and missed it until a couple days ago. He basically wanted to thank me for inspiring him - he had read my blog post. I wish I had seen his message then. We probably could have colaborated.
I have contacted Jim Wrinn. He is going to look into it.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Euclid charlie hebdo oltmannd Looks like I have a west coast "admirer". November issue article "Railroading in 2040" is a west coast clone of my blog post from 2014 https://blerfblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/2040.html I'd probably be flattered if I was at least acknowledged. The story line, including lots of detail is identical. Only the places and names have been changed. A few new wrinkles...a bit of PSR, and and hybrid electrics with discontinuous catenary added, but that's about the difference. See if you don't agree. Don: If I were still receiving student papers, the article in the November issue would be rightly deemed plagiarized by the submitting author with drastic consequences. Hi changing a few details does not alter the fact that he is taking credit for the intellectual property of another person, YOU. Your piece was not copyrighted, I assume? My understanding is that it would be automatically copyrighted as occurs according to a recent change in the law. It used to be that an author had to send copies to the copyright office and display a proper copyright notice on the work product in order to have copyright protection. Here is the explanation: https://infusion.media/writing/copyrighting-your-writing/?utm_source=facebook#:~:text=When%20Is%20Your%20Work%20Copyrighted,102%20of%20the%201976%20act.&text=So%2C%20your%20work%20is%20automatically,computer%2C%20or%20a%20published%20book.
charlie hebdo oltmannd Looks like I have a west coast "admirer". November issue article "Railroading in 2040" is a west coast clone of my blog post from 2014 https://blerfblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/2040.html I'd probably be flattered if I was at least acknowledged. The story line, including lots of detail is identical. Only the places and names have been changed. A few new wrinkles...a bit of PSR, and and hybrid electrics with discontinuous catenary added, but that's about the difference. See if you don't agree. Don: If I were still receiving student papers, the article in the November issue would be rightly deemed plagiarized by the submitting author with drastic consequences. Hi changing a few details does not alter the fact that he is taking credit for the intellectual property of another person, YOU. Your piece was not copyrighted, I assume?
oltmannd Looks like I have a west coast "admirer". November issue article "Railroading in 2040" is a west coast clone of my blog post from 2014 https://blerfblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/2040.html I'd probably be flattered if I was at least acknowledged. The story line, including lots of detail is identical. Only the places and names have been changed. A few new wrinkles...a bit of PSR, and and hybrid electrics with discontinuous catenary added, but that's about the difference. See if you don't agree.
Looks like I have a west coast "admirer". November issue article "Railroading in 2040" is a west coast clone of my blog post from 2014
https://blerfblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/2040.html
I'd probably be flattered if I was at least acknowledged.
The story line, including lots of detail is identical. Only the places and names have been changed. A few new wrinkles...a bit of PSR, and and hybrid electrics with discontinuous catenary added, but that's about the difference.
See if you don't agree.
Don: If I were still receiving student papers, the article in the November issue would be rightly deemed plagiarized by the submitting author with drastic consequences. Hi changing a few details does not alter the fact that he is taking credit for the intellectual property of another person, YOU. Your piece was not copyrighted, I assume?
My understanding is that it would be automatically copyrighted as occurs according to a recent change in the law. It used to be that an author had to send copies to the copyright office and display a proper copyright notice on the work product in order to have copyright protection. Here is the explanation:
https://infusion.media/writing/copyrighting-your-writing/?utm_source=facebook#:~:text=When%20Is%20Your%20Work%20Copyrighted,102%20of%20the%201976%20act.&text=So%2C%20your%20work%20is%20automatically,computer%2C%20or%20a%20published%20book.
Yes. This is my understanding, as well.
SD60MAC9500 oltmannd Looks like I have a west coast "admirer". November issue article "Railroading in 2040" is a west coast clone of my blog post from 2014 https://blerfblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/2040.html I'd probably be flattered if I was at least acknowledged. The story line, including lots of detail is identical. Only the places and names have been changed. A few new wrinkles...a bit of PSR, and and hybrid electrics with discontinuous catenary added, but that's about the difference. See if you don't agree. Don did you ever submit your 2040 vision to Trains?
Don did you ever submit your 2040 vision to Trains?
No. I didn't. Although I did post a link severale times in response to some of the Trains blogs. Fred Frailey, et. al.
Overmod oltmannd I'd probably be flattered if I was at least acknowledged. I, for one, called for your opinion when the article came out, and asked how you'd update the earlier piece in light of what may have changed since then. I still think a detailed set of comments would be valuable ...
oltmannd I'd probably be flattered if I was at least acknowledged.
I, for one, called for your opinion when the article came out, and asked how you'd update the earlier piece in light of what may have changed since then.
I still think a detailed set of comments would be valuable ...
Sorry I haven't been keeping up well here lately. Mother-in-law in hospital, rehab, then hospital again....
I'll do a comparison soon.
EuclidDoes the person suing for infringement need to hire legal counsel, and if so, what would that cost a person suing for say $25,000?
The problem with this question is that in order to be 'suing' not only would it need to be 'stipulated' that valid registered copyright was in force, but also that all friendly negotiation had been exhausted. I do not know the fee schedule and requirements for filing a case in United States district court; I certainly wouldn't advise pro se unless you were knowledgeable enough about copyright law ... I know for certain I would not consider bringing and handling a suit of that kind myself.
Expect a retainer up front, (probably at least $5000) and then periodic expenses (some of which might be substantial). It is possible that some of the 'plan legal' companies might offer a flat fee for handling a case of undisputed copyright, but again I don't know what they would charge for this.
I would think that some people would sue over a very small amount of infringement that most people would not go after. Woud such tiny cases end up in Federal Court?
Again, there will be minimum fees far in excess of any 'small amount of infringement', so unless you feel you can prevail and are due large money damages, there is little point in bringing the suit. I don't think there is added value in having a known registered copyright affirmed in court. In the absence of cheap contingent-fee representation (which itself would only be offered with a firm prospect of large damages) there is little to no point in engaging in a formal suit unless you have much more money to burn than you could possibly recover.
There are provisions against frivolous suits (e.g. in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 11 and 12) that further apply against filing a petty claim or one with exaggerated 'damages'.
Overmod Euclid We hear about people taking legal action over the infringement of their copyright. How does that work? It's a suit in Federal court, under some applicable provision like 17 USC 101. The great problem here is the recent Supreme Court decision in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC (docket 17-571; I don't know the published cite), which more narrowly defines standing to sue to active copyright registration -- something I doubt Don has done for a blog post, or that his blog provider does as a matter of course for content on the site.
Euclid We hear about people taking legal action over the infringement of their copyright. How does that work?
It's a suit in Federal court, under some applicable provision like 17 USC 101. The great problem here is the recent Supreme Court decision in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC (docket 17-571; I don't know the published cite), which more narrowly defines standing to sue to active copyright registration -- something I doubt Don has done for a blog post, or that his blog provider does as a matter of course for content on the site.
EuclidWe hear about people taking legal action over the infringement of their copyright. How does that work?
In any case, the initial step is negotiation, and it appears that is under way via PM, precisely as it should be, and I'm sure the two will come to an amicable resolution, again as it should be.
If it were to proceed to a suit, assigning a monetary value to a specialized post in a hobby community might be difficult, especially as the text was, and is, freely disseminated without charge on the Internet. This is a much different objective matter: one of assigning intellectual precedence, and to my knowledge there is not and has not been a legal method to enforce this, particularly not in the one place it would be most important: patent priority.
samfp1943Would it not be very appropriate to release lour friend, 'Magic Mike' ( wanswheel) from FORUM JAIL????
...IF he WANTS TO COME BACK?
We hear about people taking legal action over the infringement of their copyright. How does that work? How does the aggrieved party go about establishing the amount of the monetary claim and how do they collect it?
Theft of intellectual property is just that, theft. How on earth some on here can continue to make light of the theft of a fellow member's writing is beyond me. I would not expect anyone to minimize the theft of money, phones or vehicles.
And in the same post. a member calls for allowing Wanswheel to return, in spite of the fact that he repeatedly posted entire written works on here. He refused to adhere to forum rules for reinstatement and instead kept passing materials on to other members, such as Miningman, to post for him. Habitual illegal/unethical behaviors which clearly violated the rules which Kalmbach must adhere to.
Just a Thought! I have not seen the issue of the magazine, but it sounds like Editorially, somebody, really 'Smooched the Pooch"
Sounds to me, like someone is owed a Major Mea-Culpa
And just another random thought..... In light of this , [This one sounds like an 'atomic level' FUBAR?] Would it not be very appropriate to release lour friend, 'Magic Mike' ( wanswheel) from FORUM JAIL ????
IF he WANTS TO COME BACK?
Thanks, Euclid, for the explanation.
Overmod It has occurred to me in the past that a more appropriate article for Trains, if to be untimely ripp'd from the pages of these forums, would have been "Visions of railroading in 2040" (with Don's original serving as the first, acknowledging its priority, and then including views from several posters of various degrees of utopian and dystopian reality -- including ttrraaffiicc's scenario of railroads going bankrupt and their ROWs abandoned or converted into autonomous-truck freightways. Perhaps that is still a possibility in lieu of a formal retraction from Kalmbach?
It has occurred to me in the past that a more appropriate article for Trains, if to be untimely ripp'd from the pages of these forums, would have been "Visions of railroading in 2040" (with Don's original serving as the first, acknowledging its priority, and then including views from several posters of various degrees of utopian and dystopian reality -- including ttrraaffiicc's scenario of railroads going bankrupt and their ROWs abandoned or converted into autonomous-truck freightways. Perhaps that is still a possibility in lieu of a formal retraction from Kalmbach?
I concur Visions of railroading in 2040 should've been the fore article including all rights and mentions. I'm sure Northwest meant no harm. Well until Trains fixes this situation. I guess my Railroading in 2050 will be put on hold.. It will give Union Pacific time to get ready hauling cat litter, dog food, and recycled tires as that's what it will be relegated too after poor customer service in my vision of railroading in 2050.. Let's just hope they get that right..
Overmod charlie hebdo Don: If I were still receiving student papers, the article in the November issue would be rightly deemed plagiarized by the submitting author with drastic consequences. I'm not entirely sure this is intentional plagiarism; there are only so many ways to express the details and 'tropes' characterizing future railroading or ways to express them. Certainly the author's explanation (and appalled apology) speak in some defense, and I think that any fair redress can be handled between Don and him. I'd expect a 'retraction'-style comment in a future Trains issue (including a link to the blog post) might handle both the issue of 'priority' and of motive. The real issue I have is with Kalmbach for accepting and publishing this. In a moderation atmosphere of rapid and severe consequences for even innocent transgression of often undocumented personal perceptions, of forums in which Don's piece has been repeatedly and enthusiastically discussed (and linked), it would seem almost ridiculous for the magazine staff to claim they were not aware of the earlier material, even to the extent of referencing or acknowledging it (which I think would have been appropriate). And by acting to change the title, they brought the work into greater perception of its being plagiarized than had its date remained '2048'. I have written a couple of versions of future 'railroading' (including one dystopic parody intended for one of the ttrraaffiicc threads) that followed the general Railroad Magazine/Kipling/Boy's Life telling of the story from the viewpoint of the people running the trains. These would naturally include much of the technical information I think important, including dual-mode lite, block-switching of consists, concentration on certain types of traffic by certain operating companies, some prospective switch to more open access or 'iron ocean' access (particularly enabled by a transition from PTC to better CBTC using a single national standard), etc. but all of them so far mirror the form of Don's post -- perhaps because it was so impressive and I enjoyed it so much. But this raises a further issue: if you utilize a literary 'trope' in a work of fiction, can you copyright the trope itself? Many successful literary endeavors have spawned almost ridiculous imitators: serials in newspapers being an early adaptation, talking tugboats and aircraft and more modern trains being a more recent and familiar one. Where do we draw the line between 'inspired by' and 'conscious ripoff'? There are interesting questions to be answered regarding personal authors' rights. The blog post itself was literally 'published' long ago, and although 'not for compensation' in the sense it was free to access, clearly establishes priority. There has been a trend, amplifying somewhat over the years, that posts and blog entries are considered the intellectual property of their authors no matter what the TOS of a site indicates its protection or 'resale after bankruptcy' are (this was a hot topic when the steam_tech Yahoo group took up necessary site migration), this manifesting in the interesting ability of sites to take down posts without notice, but not edit their text or make insertions.) If Kalmbach paid for a plagiarized version, are they 'honor bound' to compensate the original author as well as the submitting author? (This is an interesting difference from a DMCA takedown, as neither the retraction of the Kalmbach piece or any effective notice regarding it are not cost-effectively possible for the current magazine print run.) It would be highly interesting to see the Trains staff responsible for running the piece comment here on this, as they perhaps have the most important opinions of all.
charlie hebdo Don: If I were still receiving student papers, the article in the November issue would be rightly deemed plagiarized by the submitting author with drastic consequences.
I'm not entirely sure this is intentional plagiarism; there are only so many ways to express the details and 'tropes' characterizing future railroading or ways to express them. Certainly the author's explanation (and appalled apology) speak in some defense, and I think that any fair redress can be handled between Don and him. I'd expect a 'retraction'-style comment in a future Trains issue (including a link to the blog post) might handle both the issue of 'priority' and of motive.
The real issue I have is with Kalmbach for accepting and publishing this. In a moderation atmosphere of rapid and severe consequences for even innocent transgression of often undocumented personal perceptions, of forums in which Don's piece has been repeatedly and enthusiastically discussed (and linked), it would seem almost ridiculous for the magazine staff to claim they were not aware of the earlier material, even to the extent of referencing or acknowledging it (which I think would have been appropriate). And by acting to change the title, they brought the work into greater perception of its being plagiarized than had its date remained '2048'.
I have written a couple of versions of future 'railroading' (including one dystopic parody intended for one of the ttrraaffiicc threads) that followed the general Railroad Magazine/Kipling/Boy's Life telling of the story from the viewpoint of the people running the trains. These would naturally include much of the technical information I think important, including dual-mode lite, block-switching of consists, concentration on certain types of traffic by certain operating companies, some prospective switch to more open access or 'iron ocean' access (particularly enabled by a transition from PTC to better CBTC using a single national standard), etc. but all of them so far mirror the form of Don's post -- perhaps because it was so impressive and I enjoyed it so much.
But this raises a further issue: if you utilize a literary 'trope' in a work of fiction, can you copyright the trope itself? Many successful literary endeavors have spawned almost ridiculous imitators: serials in newspapers being an early adaptation, talking tugboats and aircraft and more modern trains being a more recent and familiar one. Where do we draw the line between 'inspired by' and 'conscious ripoff'?
There are interesting questions to be answered regarding personal authors' rights. The blog post itself was literally 'published' long ago, and although 'not for compensation' in the sense it was free to access, clearly establishes priority. There has been a trend, amplifying somewhat over the years, that posts and blog entries are considered the intellectual property of their authors no matter what the TOS of a site indicates its protection or 'resale after bankruptcy' are (this was a hot topic when the steam_tech Yahoo group took up necessary site migration), this manifesting in the interesting ability of sites to take down posts without notice, but not edit their text or make insertions.) If Kalmbach paid for a plagiarized version, are they 'honor bound' to compensate the original author as well as the submitting author? (This is an interesting difference from a DMCA takedown, as neither the retraction of the Kalmbach piece or any effective notice regarding it are not cost-effectively possible for the current magazine print run.) It would be highly interesting to see the Trains staff responsible for running the piece comment here on this, as they perhaps have the most important opinions of all.
Briefly, it is plagiarism whether intentional or not. However, I doubt if anyone will seek legal redress, but Kalmbach and the author owe Don Oltmann both to apologize and to give him credit in writing in Trains.
Northwest in his original thread some months back Railroading in 2048 tipped his hat to Don. He said Don's Railroading in 2040 was the inspiration.
charlie hebdoDon: If I were still receiving student papers, the article in the November issue would be rightly deemed plagiarized by the submitting author with drastic consequences.
Don,
Please contact me off list to discuss this further. Thanks.
oltmanndI'd probably be flattered if I was at least acknowledged.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.