What’s on the iPod: Helpless by Neon Trees
I had a slower paced day yesterday and was glad for it. Since returning from Canada, I’ve been on fast forward. It was nice to have things to do, but not so much that I had to chart it all to remember it. I picked up a client press release project and a resume consultation, plus I put the polish on the second of four articles due. On to the third today, I hope.
I opened an email from a writer friend who posed a disturbing question. She’d seen a blog post by another writer and was struck by what she said were very similar thoughts to a post I’d written a month ago. I read it. Sure did sound familiar. Do I think someone stole? Let’s just say I hope not.
But it is a sad commentary on what Demand and other content mills have introduced to the profession. It’s not a change in journalism, but a skewed shift in ethics — some people, even those who are higher up on the career food chain, think nothing of reworking someone else’s original content and calling it their own.
It’s true that ideas cannot be copyrighted. However, I will say this particular instance mirrors another one a year ago in which the same blogger used not just the idea, but comments from my readers, and incorporated those notions into a post and then called it original. While there may or may not have been an outright theft of my words verbatim, the rewriting is decidedly not cool.
So just so we’re clear on when you’re crossing an ethical line:
Rewriting does not make it original. Let’s think about this for a minute. Suppose New Yorker presents an article on the changes in the housing industry. You come along and think “Oh! I could get so much mileage out of this!” so you rewrite it to show the changes in the housing industry in Poughkeepsie or Grand Rapids, using the same points in the original article, but changing up the wording. Then someone else sees your article and does the same thing, and so on. Who’s the victim here? Clearly New Yorker and not you, for it’s not yours originally. Worse if that next person in the food chain repeated your article verbatim. You’d have to prove it was yours to begin with, and if that person has a copy of the original, well, you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do, Lucy.
Misinformation is being passed on. You don’t even consider this, do you? What if what you’re parroting is false information? For example, if I write an article on the wonders of recycled paper, and I make points like “ink sticks better” or “ten thousand trees live for every page recycled” you don’t know if I’ve tested recycled paper against traditionally manufactured paper, nor do you know if I’ve quoted a reliable source on how many trees make up one page or if I’ve even quoted someone at all. Hence, if I’ve written an opinion piece and you’re presenting that as a rewritten fact, you’re going to lose all sorts of credibility, as you should anyway for lifting someone else’s work, but also for being too lazy to do the homework.
Intentionally omitting credit to the original article is theft. Oh, you know you went cruising other blogs to get ideas for yours. You know you liked her post because it generated a lot of commentary. You know you used hers as a template for yours. You know you pulled her post up beside yours as you wrote and made sure to avoid the same wording. And you know you didn’t provide a link because you wanted the traffic. So guess what? You’ve now intentionally lifted the original content and left out any mention of where you first saw the idea. Way to be a bad neighbor. Remind me to hide my purse when you come visiting. Better yet, just stay home.
Combining several articles into one is a smashup, not a mashup. A while ago there was mention of this practice on some forum somewhere. Mashup is a term used to describe the combination of various media forms into one representation. Plenty of software applications are the result of mashups. However, doing the same thing with written documents is not “creating” anything original. It’s a dangerous practice, and it’s not journalism — it’s cheating. Don’t think so? Try writing a “mashup” term paper and see what your grade is once the professor realizes how many different papers are combined.
Lying to your readers is unethical. I remember hearing people lose their minds when they found out that James Chartrand of Men with Pens wasn’t a man at all and was posing as such in order to gain some perceived competitive advantage. There were readers James lost forever even though her stated intentions were to better provide for her kid by demanding a higher salary. While her intentions seemed to be noble, the trust was gone for many of her followers. Ironically, it would be even worse for you on a smaller scale. If you’re found to be simply rewording someone else’s content, your readers are going to feel cheated and they’re going to drop you because hey, why not just read “your” content where it originated?
Where are you seeing ethical boundaries being crossed?
People who take my classes and then repackage them as their own. Not acceptable. Fortunately, my handouts are copywritten, but still, it's frustrating.
I write for a VIP travel company that has been operating since 1999. In the last 3 years, at least 3 "new" companies have opened in the exact same city.
They've completely ripped off his business model, packages, etc. And the posts I write for the blog are being changed just enough that it probably wouldn't be considered plagiarism. BUT it's still painfully obvious what's going on.
I'm a fan of Shark Tank, and this situation shows why they are always iffy about getting involved in something that isn't proprietary.
You've actually had that happen, Devon? That's terrible! People attending the "other" class would be missing out on your expertise, and that's just plain wrong.
Krista, that sucks. I can't understand what people think to gain by mirroring another's business. There's something unique in all of us that differentiates even the most identical of situations. I hope your VIP travel client can rise above this.
My temptation would be to name the blog You Heard it Here First.
Yup. It's happened. And one place, that demands "exclusivity" for x months when I teach a class for them is now having variations of stuff I originated there (and have copyright to) with other, cheaper teachers — and wondering why some of these classes aren't selling.
Where have I seen ethical boundaries crossed lately? Why, I believe that would be the very blog post you mentioned.
When I read it I had an immediate sense of deja vu. There was a certain phrase repeated in it that was pure Lori (and it didn't have anything to do with marketing, if you can believe that). So much so that I came straight to this blog to see if I was right. And there was your eerily similar post that pre-dated the other one by several weeks.
I don't if the other blogger intentionally copied you – like you said, wordings had been changed – but at the very least there was a powerful subliminal influence at work. The first time it happened, it would have been easy to chalk it up as an unintentional compliment, but apparently this blogger has parroted you before – which makes it harder to view as an unintentional compliment.
I meant… "I don't know if the other blogger…"
Heck, I have a difficult time repurposing my own words. I always feel weird. I can't imagine taking someone else's.
That being said, I do believe that some people copy unintentionally. Before you start throwing rocks, when you're inspired by someone it is easy to get wrapped in their message. I'm not saying this is true for your reference, but I can empathize when someone is trying very hard to emulate.
It's tough to find an original idea. We are all influenced by what we read, what we hear.
I've laughed at myself a time or two in the beginning of my blogging efforts when I was sure I came up with something really clever, only to do a Google search and find scads of blogs with the same idea. Heck, in the early days, I didn't even think about Googling to see if possibly someone else had the same idea. I can thank Jenn Mattern for opening my eyes to that one.
And I am a firm believer that we each have our own unique spin to things. BUT–there's a HUGE difference between putting your own spin on something and re-working the original.
Blogs inspire me all the time. The difference is I give them some link love credit when they do. I've even given credit when I couldn't remember where I read it –something along the lines of if I could remember who said this, I'd give them credit.
At a minimum, re-tooling someone else's post is lazy. And, like you said, Lori, it is definitely NOT cool.
Cathy, I would +1 your comment if I could. 😉
Paula, I'm not certain of copying occurring, but it's an eerie coincidence, as was the one a year ago where there was a comment in my original thread that was copied verbatim into that blogger's post. That doesn't make a case for accident, does it?
Wade, I do hope this is unintentional. It's unlikely as this is not the first time (and others I know have had similar, er, recreations of their work), but I have to assume the blogger in question is devoid of original ideas. That would be sad for the blog followers. Let's hope for the best.
Cathy, that's it — if you like something and want to continue the thought, give credit! BTW, you're an original to me. 🙂
Sigh, Lori, I'm sorry this happened to you… and to any of us.