Smart Bitches Trashy Books | All of the romance, none of the bullshit.

---

The RWA has released a statement regarding the plagiarism accusations against Cassie Edwards:

There are heated discussions on various loops and blogs regarding the accusations of plagiarism against a published romance author. Some questions have also been raised regarding RWA’s stand on the matter. To be clear, RWA does not condone plagiarism or any type of copyright infringement. (Please see RWA’s Code of Ethics ).

RWA takes all accusations of plagiarism very seriously. RWA also stands behind the idea that guilt or innocence should be determined after a thorough review of all documents and sources, not based on discussions or articles found on the internet or in other news media.

Within RWA, there is a process in place to examine claims of plagiarism made against RWA members. That process includes a set of procedures that affords the individual due process. Any member found to be in violation of RWA’s Code of Ethics is subject to disciplinary action including loss of membership.

According to information RWA has, Cassie Edwards was once a member of RWA and is listed on RWA’s Honor Roll; however, it appears she allowed her membership to lapse four or more years ago. If guilt is admitted or established, RWA will take appropriate steps with regard to the Honor Roll listing.

Members have raised questions about a news article that includes a quote by RWA’s president. The president was asked to give an expert opinion on the issue based solely upon information available in internet blogs. The president does not have enough first-hand information to adequately assess the allegations.

Romance Writers of America

Jane at Dear Author has published her open letter to the CEO and President of Penguin, and it's sharp and eloquent (manishtana?). Well played, Jane!

My letter to the PR rep who published the Signet statement, read as follows:

While I appreciate your statement on the subject of Cassie Edwards' novels, your statement of Signet's position is certainly not well received and is quite disappointing.

For one thing, the use of the word "done nothing wrong," allows for ethical debate that doesn't do Ms. Edwards any favors. Ethically, if our comments on Smart Bitches and on Dear Author are any indication, Ms. Edwards is in hot water with romance readers. She may not have broken any laws, but she would have failed my English class.

But more importantly, your statement that "reasonable borrowing and paraphrasing of another author's words" is permitted under fair-use is not applicable to the facts of this situation, because our evidence seems to show that Ms. Edwards allegedly reproduced word-for-word paragraphs of written data as dialogue for her characters. It wasn't paraphrasing or borrowing, in my opinion. It was reproduction without citation or acknowledgment. Further, many, many authors of historical novels cite sources in their acknowledgments or "Author's Note" sections.

I agree with Jane and Nora Roberts that the best option for rage and ire is to write reasoned, precise letters to Penguin, Signet, et al, and explain your reaction to their statement, and why you're so upset. It's one thing to vent on a blog. It is a much bigger thing to contact the people who run the company and let them know how upset you are, and your reaction to their statement regarding Cassie Edwards' novels. I do not think it likely such letters would be dismissed easily. There are a few sources available online as to contact info though I make no guarantees as to whether the list is up to date. Plus, there are contact email addresses in the comments to Jane's letter. I'm working on my letter now. Need more caffeine.

---

An Associated Press article has a response from author Cassie Edwards to the allegations that “she lifted work from texts:”

[Edwards] acknowledged that she sometimes “takes” her material “from reference books,” but added that she didn’t know she was supposed to credit her sources.

“When you write historical romances, you’re not asked to do that,” Cassie Edwards told The Associated Press, speaking earlier this week from her home in Mattoon, Ill.

Edwards then asked her husband to get on the phone. He told the AP that his wife simply gets “ideas” from reference books.

“She doesn’t lift passages,” Charles Edwards said, adding that “you would have to draw your own conclusions” on how closely his wife’s work resembles other sources.

The article also quotes plagiarism software detection developer John M. Barrie as saying that she “had indeed lifted material,” and Sherry Lewis, president of the RWA, is also quoted: “It’s not clear-cut to me,” she said. “You can see similarities in the passages, but I’m not qualified to make that assertion.”

---

...and, well, read it yourself.

Signet takes plagiarism seriously, and would act swiftly were there justification for such allegations against one of its authors.  But in this case Ms. Edwards has done nothing wrong.

The copyright fair-use doctrine permits reasonable borrowing and paraphrasing of another author’s words, especially for the purpose of creating something new and original. Also, anyone may use facts, ideas and theories developed by another author, as well as any material in the public domain. Ms. Edwards’s researched historical novels are precisely the kinds of original, creative works that this copyright policy promotes.

Although it may be common in academic circles to meticulously footnote every source and provide citations or bibliographies, even though not required by copyright law, such a practice is virtually unheard of for a popular novel aimed at the consumer market.

All credit due to Jane of Dear Author for ferreting out (black-footed or otherwise) the appropriate Signet representative to write to and forwarding the statement to us when she got a response.

Candy says: Here’s a refresher on what constitutes plagiarism and what constitutes copyright infringement. Here it is again in brief:

Plagiarism and copyright infringement sometimes intersect, but not always. The most famous cases we’ve seen--Janet Dailey’s plagiarism of Nora Roberts’ work, for example--do. But it’s entirely possible to plagiarize without infringing on a copyright; all that’s required is copying huge chunks of a work without attribution and passing it off as your own original efforts. If the work has passed into the public domain, or if it isn’t copyrighted, there’s no copyright infringement. It’s also possible to infringe on somebody’s copyright without plagiarizing--if somebody making a movie decides to use a piece of copyrighted music without clearing the rights with the publisher first but acknowledge the musician in the credits, they’ve infringed on a copyright but they haven’t plagiarized.

In short: plagiarism is an ethical issue. It’s concerned with what’s right and what’s not. Copyright infringement is a legal action, and is a way for somebody whose works have been infringed to say “Bitch where my money?” It’s concerned with what’s legal and what’s not.

And that’s all I’m going to say for now.

Sarah says: I’m not qualified or even interested in the legality of the situation, or whether something is within fair-use doctrines. Not a lawyer. Not even in law school.

But I do want to make it explicitly clear that on terms of ethical use, I disagree with Signet and the idea that she’s done nothing wrong.

I’m certainly not a copyright lawyer, and questions of law are not my point. My issue is the ethics of it. Further, I think the ethics of the question are much more important than the legalities. There are a lot of things that can get you failed in English class or fired from a newspaper that are not against the law.

And the idea that she’s done nothing wrong from an ethical stance? Horsepucky. She’s done plenty wrong in my book.

I don’t buy Janet Dailey’s books past or present for that reason. I don’t check them out of the library or read them used. It’s an ethical distinction on my part: as a consumer, I can vote with my wallet. As a reader I can vote with my choices. As a blogger, I can write my opinion. In my opinion, Cassie Edwards’ use of at least 6 documented sources verbatim without attribution or acknowledgment is ethically wrong. It would have been so simple and appropriate to place an acknowledgment at the back of her book. “For more information about the Lakota Indians, I heartily recommend....”

So, let me ask you your opinion, if you haven’t already stated it. From an ethical standpoint, where do you draw the line? Are the usage of passages in Edwards’ books acceptable from an ethical standpoint or not?  If you’re a reader or a writer, what do you think?

---

I heard this morning from Penguin. It was a canned response. Now, keep in mind that a) I didn’t know people at Penguin I could contact directly, so I used their all-purpose “Hi, I’ve found problems with something in one of your books” e-mail, and b) these things take time to work through. If somebody wants to a better contact at Penguin/Signet to forward on all our findings, do it, do iiiiiiiit.

So here, in its entirety, is the response I got from Penguin:

Dear Candy,

We appreciate the many questions, comments, suggestions, and ideas that are submitted by our readers and are happy to share them with our Editorial, Publicity, Sales and Marketing departments. Because of the volume of mail received, we cannot guarantee that you will receive a personal response, however, we will certainly forward your comments to them for review.

Thank you for taking the time to contact us.

I may or may not hear more from them.

Dorchester, on the other hand, hasn’t written back yet. If they haven’t replied by tomorrow, I might try sniffing around for another e-mail address to send this material to.