a strange attitude to plagiarism from a publisher...

[cimorene]

You can read at fandom_wank all about how a review blog posted a big exposé of systematic plagiarism by a popular romance writer named Cassie Edwards (responsible for 100+ horrible historical Native American romance novels). They have reams of proof including side-by-side comparisons.

Here's Publisher's Weekly's slightly shorter version including the response from the publisher, Signet (a huge publisher, by the way, not some podunk outfit that wouldn't be expected to know better - not to say shouldn't, because everyone who graduates from high school should know how not to steal chunks of text verbatim from someone else). They don't think she did anything wrong. And they think it's fair use. Ooookay.

Updates from the Smart Bitch Candy blog: Heard back from Signet; Response from Edwards (she didn't know she was supposed to credit her sources!); RWA responds; Letters to the Editors (on plagiarism vs. fair use, a response to Signet).

So... wow.

I mean. Didn't know she was supposed to credit her sources? Furthermore, she apparently isn't the only one who somehow didn't know lifting passages verbatim from other works is wrong (or thought she wouldn't be caught). I'm boggled, and I can't decide if someone at the publisher honestly thinks there's nothing wrong with ripping passages out of texts like that or if it's just a really, really bizarre CYA attempt.

ETA: Signet issued a new statement.

Comments

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

I liked that another romance writer posted on the blog to chastise the meanies for saying mean things about Cassie Edwards. I believe her exact words were something like "Did Cassie run over your dog or something?"

FANDOM_WANK OR PRO PUBLISHING WORLD? YOU BE THE JUDGE!

Wow, it's apparently all over the news now, too.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

Yes and apparently she's a very well-liked writer! There was a thread on fw about it and at least two or three people saying they thought she was really good (I find that a little hard to believe, but I admit I'm curious to see for myself now).

Is it really all over the news? That's awesome.

[jennaria.livejournal.com]

I've read Cruisie's early books, and as I recall, a good part of her reputation was built on the fact that her books pushed the (sexual) envelope. Vanilla with chocolate swirls, so to speak. One of her heroines may even have had to decide whether to spit or swallow, as opposed to being pulled off to finish in a more traditional way.

...am not sure what it says about me that I still remember this stuff, a good ten years later.

[brownbetty]

For me, it's that she's honestly funny, in that laugh-out-loud way where if anyone asks you what you're laughing about, you end up having to read the last two chapters. But yeah, I'm pretty not thrilled about her wankiness here.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

Okay, that's helpful! I've not read Crusie to my knowledge, but I've picked up that sort of book before. Meant to appeal to the Harlequin reader who likes to think she's more modern and Cosmo-reading than ordinary Harlequins provide for, and hasn't discovered fanfiction.

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

The latest Smart Bitches post had links to USA Today and NY Times.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

*Goes to look!*

[octette]

i work for a publisher (not signet, thank god), and they are just CYA -- we all know that it's wrong to lift passages from other books.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

Okay, right, it was a silly question. I suppose I'm just getting stuck on how that position Cs their A in any way. Surely they were unaware of the plagiarism - why isn't that what they said? Surely if books they have published did infringe copyright and not just get egg on their faces, and they were sued, saying they didn't realise that it was infringement wouldn't be a particularly effective defense? Or maybe it's just that it's not a very good moral defense and makes them look like a bunch of wankers. If anyone believed them perhaps it could win them some leniency, I guess. At the cost of some dignity, but who needs dignity?

[octette]

well, i would bet at least a hundred bucks (or the ten cents in my pocket) that nobody's read a cassie edwards book for a very long time. i'd be that she doesn't like to be edited anymore, and that she is touchy about her art/writing. i would bet that means that no one even NOTICED, and that they are super embarrassed about that.

plus, they won't be sued. she will be sued, and they partially indemnify her, but there's a clause in the contracts for most houses that specifically say that when an author plagiarizes, the publisher will have already duly investigated, and is not to be held responsible. etc.

[octette]

(oh, i am not defending them at all, btw. this is ridiculous!)

[cimness.livejournal.com]

I didn't think that you were! But yeah, okay, what you say makes a lot of sense. Even if their behaviour is still a little lacking in logic, I suppose a lot of people are a little lacking in logic, so.

[octette]

yeah, plus remember that this isn't people logic! it is publishing lawyer logic, which is totally different.

[brownbetty]

I would say this calls for a fandom challenge where people need to lift, verbatim, a passage from Edwards and in incorporate it into their work (it's not plagerism!) but honestly, that would probably result in a sales surge for her, which I am not even a little okay with.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

Hahhahahahah. Well, maybe we should lift passages from Cassie Claire instead. We could use her fanfiction.

[darkrosetiger.livejournal.com]

Is it wrong of me to hope that the OTW board (I just typed OTP :p) is paying attention to this, and specifically, why having a known plagiarist involved with an organization = BAD IDEA?

[cimness.livejournal.com]

I really wish I knew what they were thinking.