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, 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.