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

[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.