Jonathan Lethem On Plagiarism

tmalone writes "This month's Harper's Magazine includes an excellent essay by the novelist Jonathan Lethem titled 'The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism,' in which he discusses the public commons of ideas and the absurdity of restricting other peoples' right of second use. 'Artists and their surrogates who fall into the trap of seeking recompense for every possible second use end up attacking their own best audience members for the crime of exalting and enshrining their work.' Taking issue with the idea that any work is 'untainted' by others' ideas, he declares, 'Any text is woven entirely with citations, references, echoes, cultural languages, which cut across it through and through in a vast stereophony.' Later on he argues that 'Contemporary copyright, trademark, and patent law is presently corrupted. The case for perpetual copyright is a denial of the essential gift-aspect of the creative act.' Lethem finishes up with simple request: 'Don't pirate my editions; do plunder my visions.' The best part of the essay is at the end when he provides a key to all of the sources he stole his ideas from."

Comments

The /. headline is typically bad.

[Kadin2048]

The guy isn't talking about plagiarism; he calls the essay "a plagiarism" with (IMO) tongue planted in cheek. It's not correct to say that it's about plagiarism specifically, because to say that sounds like he's defending plagiarism specifically, when the issues covered in the essay itself are far more broad.

The essay is "on" creative influence, not plagiarism.

Gladwell on "Plagiarism"

[rubberpaw]

As has been pointed out, this essay isn't particularly unique. It's just stating the rather obvious point that lots of people are inspired by other people, and that when we make things, we often reshuffle bits of stuff we like. This practice is so common that it's not too interesting to point out. The article is clever, interesting, perhaps, but I wouldn't mod it insightful. The idea of creative reuse is the very basis of formal study of literature, music, and art-- why else spend hours, weeks, months reading, viewing, sampling, and arguing about the greats if not to enjoy them and learn how they work?

The Harper's article really isn't that much about plagiarism, and it also doesn't really address the questions of copyright very thoroughly-- he dismisses it as "rapacious" and makes some aside references to Jefferson.

A few years ago, in "Something Borrowed", Malcolm Gladwell looks at the personal story of a psychiatrist whose personal memoir is "plagiarized" by a playwright who writes a semi-successful play about the psychiatrist and her clients-- without consulting the psychiatrist or clients. Gladwell looks into issues about copyright, intellectual property, and the creative commons, but he also looks at the public and emotional effects in the lives of the psychiatrist (who feels "violated" by this appropriation of her life), and the playwright (who feels heartbroken, confused--devastated by the stigma and bad press). It's an awesome article.

It's actually worse than you think

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/01/29/disney_hijack ing_ali.html

The linked story points out that Disney is trying to trademark characters from the Grimm Bros. in New Zealand.

Re:An Idea Is Not A Possession

[zotz]

"The transfer to a publisher is a matter of contract."

Yes.

"The publisher cannot transfer to you any rights it did not acquire from the work's creator."

In the absence of copyright law, it is not the publisher who would grant me any rights exactly. It is the act of publishing. And since you gave him the right to publish...

If you didn;t like that outcome, you would be free to insist that a printer get a signed contract with each book transfer that would bind the purchaser or some such.

"The purpose of copyright law is to encourage the production of creative works by guaranteeing that a work's creator has a chance to derive financial benefit from his work"

Yes.

"It is not a grant of monoploy."

Oh, but it is. I am not saying it is a particularly bad example if done right, but it is one none the less.

"It's a recognition of, and protection of, the existence of rights that occur naturally when we create something."

This is not so and most of human history bears this out.

"Very few people could devote a career to, say, writing novels, if anyone could grab the first copy off the printing press, start copying it and compete with them for sales."

Any yet many people are now making careers writing Free Software under just such conditions. I think we are going to start seeing the same thing in other fields as time goes on. People are already writing the licenses in anticipation of this and some are writing the works and using the licenses.

"E.g., if it wasn;t for copyright law, you could copy Picasso print, slap your name on them, and sell them as yours."

No, we could easily have a law against plagiarism to stop that. You don't need to mix the two concepts to make your point.

Copyright law only needs to stop you from copying a Picasso print with his name on it and selling the copies.

"Or, I could grab all off Slashdot's code, open a site called Slashdot, start selling ads, and the current proprietors could do nothing to stop me."

Sort of like what you can get from here:

http://www.slashcode.com/about.shtml

you mean?

"In those circumstance, I doubt Picasso would have painted or that Slashdot would exist."

Who knows what any particular individual would have done? Certainly copyright law is premised (in some places at least) on the thought that more will create in the presence of copyright pretections afforded them by law, and I do not need to argue for or against that.

Still you ignore history as there still exist in this world many works of art from the days before there was nay copyright law.

Also, look into the fashion industry today. I hear that in many countries if not all, they operate without the benefit of copyright protections.

"Repeating or reciting something you've read is not copying the physical object on which language encoding that joke was originally placed."

So what, all we have to do to be cool in your view with respect to copyright is to pull a Fahrenheit 451?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451

Just get everyone to memorise a chapter of any book we want to copy. Have them recite it while another person copies it down. Publish the new "version" and all is ok? Certainly not with any copyright law I am aware of today. What is your take on this?

"Your reference to "public domain" presupposes the notion that, in the absence of law, anything that anyone makes would be owned by everyone else, not by the person who made the thing."

You are incorrect here. It maintains that anything anyone publishes becomes "public domain" in the absence of copyright law. Not anything anyone makes... anything they publish...

"Being in the "public domain" is a status granted and regulated by the law of man, not of nature."

We obviously disagree on this point big time.

all the best,

drew

So _that's_ the sound of points being missed.

[wavedeform]

What everyone seems to be missing is that this essay is pretty much all "plagiarized" . The section titled "KEY: I IS ANOTHER" lists his sources and discusses his methodology.

He's making his point by putting together other people's words (and ideas) to craft his message. Very clever, in a meta sort of way, IMO.

Re:There is no bright line.

[k_187]

"The question, therefore, is whether defendant took from plaintiff's works so much of what is pleasing to the ears of lay listeners, who comprise the audience for whom such popular music is composed, that defendant wrongfully appropriated something which belongs to the plaintiff." 905 F.2d 731 at 734

Thus, if the intended audience's "untutored judgment" (328 F.3d 848 at 856) would confuse the two, the works are substantially similar.