On Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 8:45:53 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> Karla says:
> >Will Dockery wrote:
> > >On Jan 22, 6:33 pm, Cythera <cyth...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jan 22, 2:58 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > >>> On Jan 22, 3:23 pm, George Dance <georgedanc...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >> > > "libelling some of them as plagiarists
> >
> > >> > We already went over that when W.B Yeats,
> >
> > >> Rob went over this
> >
> > >That's nice, but Rob is hardly more of an authority on copyright than
> > >you or me, Cythera.
> >
> > >Stuart Leichter is the only "expert" I know of currently posting here,
> > >although Karla Rogers is obviously well-read on the subject, having
> > >sued a man for plagiarism and won.
> >
> > Why are you lying about this?
> Play nice, Karla.
> I'm not lying, but I can prove that /you/ are a liar, or have lied in
> the past. Do you really want to play this game again?
> > I didn't sue him for plagiarism.
> I used the wrong term writing from memory, but the fact that he took
> your entire poem and tried to pass it off as his own (& you being an
> obscure poet, unlike Yeats, Cohen or Dickenson), to me, that looks
> like plagiarism (but perhaps transformative, slightly).

We can now add Emily Dickinson to the ongoing list of poets whose names Will Dockery cannot spell.

> Which is why I stated from the start that I was leaving the responses
> mainly to Stuart Leichter (the only expert here) and you, who, though
> not any more of an expert than I, have at least lived through a very
> similar situation... so, I retract & edit, now, with apologies (though
> I expect one from you for lyingly calling me a liar):
> > And, I'm tending to let those who are experts on the subject, such as
> > Stuart Leitcher, or those who are very well-read on the subject, such
> > as Karla Rogers (who sued a man for Copyright Infringement & won the prize!), offer their learned opinions and attempt to take it
> > from that point of departure.
> >
> > > >> "libelling some of them as plagiarists
> >
> > > > We already went over that when W.B Yeats, Emily Dickinson & others were
> > > > quoted here without attribution and it was judged by the majority as
> > > > "okay" because they're "famous".
> >
> > > > The problems I've had with those not giving credit where due has mostly
> > > > been with the more obscure poets which the casual reader woulod have
> > > > little-to-no chance of recognising when their work is borrowed for
> > > > another poem, Alacrity Stone, Robert Morpheal, and so on.
> >
> > > So Will can you honestly (I know honesty is a quantum leap for you) say
> > > that you have never plagiarized the works of others?
> >
> > Depends on what the judge considers "plagiarism", and that seems to
> > very from case to case, entire poems can be borrowed and used legally
> > if the use is judged as "Transformative":
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/fa16bff48....
> >
> > Or
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/5swvfr6
> >
> > > > > If my poems began with his, I have made efforts to indicate that, but
> > > > > mine are different from his. Please see the quote above and the
> > > > > Wikipedia article on transformativeness, which begins,
> > > > > Transformativeness is a concept used in United States
> > > > > copyright law to describe a characteristic of some derivative
> > > > > works that makes them transcend or place in a new light the
> > > > > underlying works on which they are based.
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformativeness
> > > > Yes, that's a very interesting law... I might even try my hand at some
> > > > of "transformation" myself, someday.
> > > It's an article, not a law.
> >
> > I know.
> >
> > By coincidence, I've been reading a book I was given for X-Mas and
> > came across some law that used transformativeness. In sort of a hurry
> > right now so I'll go into more detail later, but the law part is:
> >
> > "In the landmark case of Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)
> > the court ruled that the key factor in determining fair use is
> > 'whether and to what extent [the new work] is 'transformative,'
> > altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message."
> >
> > The article's illustrative example seems
> >
> > > pointless with regard to the fair use doctrine since the original Da
> > > Vinci has no copyright protection. The court ruled that the parody of
> > > the Orbison song wasn't an infringement b/c the parody pointed up the
> > > banality of the original in much the same way (you would say 'in the
> > > exact same way') that Mikey C[r]ook used your dreadful Karma Bombs
> > > dreck. In several other so-called transformative defenses as fair use,
> > > the courts denied the protection and ruled in favor of the copyright
> > > holder. Your pal Tom Bishop may have transformed Karla's 'April', but he
> > > lost his fair-use argument to that effect. George's transformative use
> > > of the Jew Leonard Cohen's poem as an entry in a Usenet competition may
> > > have succeeded as a parody of the shit people's elitist ignorance of
> > > most things had Colin not derailed the process before all the shit
> > > people could boo and hiss at the entry mistakenly as George's original
> > > 'poem', which he clearly, obviously, and with jealous malice intended
> > > when he posted the Jew Cohen's lines as though they were his (George's)
> > > own.
> >
> > That "fair use" can also be in the form of parody:
> >
> > http://www.photography-forums.com/re-usenet-photo-galleries-t166123.html
> >
> > > > The Supreme Court of the United States said that in Leibovitz v. Paramount
> >
> > > the plaintiff argued...
> > > ------
> > > ... principally on the ground that the defendant's use was commercial and
> > > therefore should receive little protection under the fair use defense..
> > While
> > > we agree that the commercial nature of Paramount's advertisement weighs
> > > against it in the fair use balance, we nonetheless conclude that this
> > advertisement
> > > qualifies as a parody entitled to the fair use defense under the analysis
> > set forth
> > > by the Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. , 510 U.S. 569
> > (1994).
> > > ----------
> >
> > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...977063&exact=1
> >
> > Fascinating and incredibly complicated subject, which I've learned to
> > keep as open a mind as possible when it comes to make the judgemnet as
> > to what is "plagiarism" and what is simply "unattributed borrowing" or
> > what has become Transformative.
> >> re matt's claim that Dennis plagiarized Donne:http://groups.google.com/group/alt.arts.poetry.comments/msg/b7be7a742...
> > >> Message-ID: <RjeZ+YBxdQSJF...@sky.com>
> >
> > >> "Plagiarism is the deliberate intention to claim credit for someone
> > >> else's work.
> >
> > >> "No intent here since most aspiring to a poetry group would recognise Donne."
> >
> > >And the same can be said about Leonard Cohen, by far one of the most
> > >well known poets of modern times.
> --
> "A little known story of when my father & mother met, it was at a BBQ
> shack outside La Grange, Georgia called Hansen's BBQ. True story." -
> Will Dockery on Sean Rox Trio & BBQ
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Will_Dockery