For example, in politics, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, John McCain and Joe Biden have all faced allegations of plagiarism but, with the possible exception of Biden, all the scandals had more to do with politics than plagiarism.

While some plagiarism scandals do hold up, such as the Ben Domench scandal, the Kaavya Viswanathan scandal in literature and the Nick Simmons plagiarism scandal in Manga, most are like the Chris Anderson scandal or the Maureen Dowd scandal and are either blown out of proportion or are backed by weak evidence.

But whenever I debunk or even tame a plagiarism scandal, I am always asked ‘What does it take to get you on board?” or “What would convince you (person) is a plagiarist?”

There’s no easy answer to that and every scandal has to be taken on its merits. But there are some things I must have for me to consider a person a plagiarist, at least in the sense of the word that those pushing the scandal would like me to believe.

With that in mind, here are my five rules to consider and what I would say have to be met for me to believe that a person is actually a true plagiarist.

1. Proof of Copying

This one seems simple enough, but it’s the grounds on which the recent George W. Bush scandal fell apart. You have to be able to prove that the alleged plagiarist copied something.

While it’s true you can copy ideas, the idea has to be original enough and specific enough that it could not have been thought up independently to prove plagiarism. This is why most plagiarism scandals that stick focus on physical copying, whether its verbatim text reuse or tracing images or just outright copying files.

If the similar material could have easily been created independently, there can be no way, with certainty, to call one a plagiarist with any certainty.

2. Proof They Were Involved

While I agree that when one is a political candidate or other public figure they have ultimate responsibility for their speeches, books, etc. distributed under their name. But when you say someone is a plagiarist, you are accusing them of the act of plagiarism. To say that, you have to show they were at least involved in the act of creating the work.

When and if a politician gives a plagiarized speech, he or she probably had little to no hand in writing it. Though they have responsibility for it, it’s hard to call them a plagiarist though you may be able to argue they were sloppy in their handling of their speech or lazy in having others ghostwrite it without first checking it.

To really rake someone’s reputation over the coals over a plagiarism allegation, one needs to show that they were directly involved in the act, and not merely handed the work.

3. Violation of Ethical Standards

Next, it has to be shown that the copying and plagiarism was a violation of relevant ethical standards and, surprisingly, these standards can be very relative.

For example, those who work in the legal profession are held to a very different standard than those in the academic or literary profession. The copying and use of content has to go above and beyond what would be considered acceptable in the field it was in.

This was a part of why the Nick Simmons scandal was so egregious and the Obama scandal much less so. Not only was the amount and severity of the copying different, but the differing ethical standards between creating an original Manga and political speechwriting set the bar higher in the Obama case.

4. No Attempt at Attribution

This one seems straightforward, but there are constantly scandals that seem to tread into the gray area of what is or is not acceptable attribution.

What if you attribute a quote in a speech but leave off the attribution by accident once after giving it half a dozen times? What if the goal isn’t plagiarism, but homage and you feel your readers are smart enough to understand what you’re trying to do? What if you don’t provide proper footnotes but, instead, only offer a bibliography or a nod in the introduction?

There are very few areas where a citation standard is set in stone, the academic arena being one. If the citations standards fail to meet the ethical requirements of an industry, that is one thing (as per item 3), but if its a gray area issue with no set or even common practice, I’ll be more hesitant to use the “p word”.

I may call them sloppy and question their methodology, but if there was an honest attempt to attribute the work, I’m hard pressed to call someone a plagiarist because it fell short of a non-codified standard.

5. More Than Just a Goof

Though I don’t believe plagiarism requires malice, I also recognize we’re all human and will make mistakes. One omitted citation, especially when the rest of the work is cited properly, does not make a person a plagiarist. Go through anyone’s lifetime of works, including my own, and you’ll find mistakes and errors made in citation.

To convince me to join the mob and shout someone down as a plagiarist, one has to be able to show that they at least are guilty of negligence or recklessness. Someone who makes a good-faith attempt and gets most of the citations right should be forgiven for the rare mistake.

After all, we’re all human and if we shout each other down for making mistakes soon there won’t be anyone left standing.

Bottom Line

To be clear, these are just the rules I have for calling someone a plagiarist in the sense those caught up in a plagiarism scandal are doing so. There’s a whole wide gray area between this kind of “grab the torches” anger and someone who is completely innocent.

Most plagiarism scandals are, quite frankly, blown well out of proportion. Some are outright fabrications but most are built on some grain of truth that gets expanded beyond all reason. Whether it’s a coincidence, a mistake, a minor infraction or just a one-time incident, most scandals start somewhere just a shade gray of innocent and wind up being blown up until the subject’s reputation is destroyed, often needlessly.

While some plagiarism scandals do pan out, as mentioned at the beginning, most do not. It’s important to not get too carried away with calling people a plagiarist not just because it ruins lives and diminishes the meaning of the word and the act itself.

After all, if everyone can be accused of plagiarism, then being a plagiarist is not such a bad thing at all.

1: Biden’s “IP roundtable” Brings Together Big Content, FBI

First off today, there’s been a lot going on in Washington DC regarding copyright. Most recently, Vice President Joe Biden hosted a roundtable with content industry executives as well as FBI, Homeland Security and Victoria Espinal, the new copyright czar, to address piracy concerns

The goal of the discussion, according to officials, was to “Discuss ways to combat piracy in this rapidly changing technological age.” However, the event has drawn criticism from many as no media companies nor consumer interest group representatives were there, despite the even being billed as as one that brought together “all stakeholders” on enforcing copyright.

The event comes as Congress approved some $30 million in additional funding to fight piracy, which will be used for grants, additional FBI agents and more prosecution. No doubt, it has been a big week for content industries in Washington DC.

2: Copyright Abusers to Get Three Warnings

Next up today, storm clouds are gathering in New Zealand as the country braces for another copyright faceoff. The new administration there has laid out its proposal for Section 92a and, though the stance is much more relaxed than the previous, it will almost certainly draw controversy.

The previous government proposed a bill that could have disconnected alleged file sharers after just one accusation. However, that bill was defeated after an uproar caused the proposal to be abandoned.

However, the new proposal seems destined for a very similar fight. It incorporates a more traditional “three strikes” approach where alleged file sharers will receive warnings before disconnection is possible. There will also be a copyright tribunal system and a counternotice system so that those accused can have recourse. In severe cases of infringement, copyright holders would be able to seek up to $15,000 in damages from the copyright tribunal.

It seems almost certain that, despite its more tame approach, the new proposal will draw a large amount of controversy, just as similar legislation has in France.

3: Very Positive Statement By the US at WIPO

Finally today, two days ago we looked at a new WIPO treaty what will allow the import and export of books readable by the visually impaired, often created, as in the U.S., through exemptions in copyright law but barred from being taken out of the country.

At the time we reported the wide array of corporations who were against the proposed treaty, including the Chamber of Commerce, but it appears the U.S. itself has softened its stance on the issue and is at least open to the idea. Previously the U.S. had been against any such action, largely based upon the fear that it might increase piracy, but the U.S. delegation recently said that “We recognize that some in the international copyright community believe that any international consensus on substantive limitations and exceptions to copyright law would weaken international copyright law. The United States does not share this point to view.”

The statement was part of a larger statement on the issue where they expressed a desire to work with other nations on this issue and seemed to be open to a variety of option.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today. We will be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

1: Study finds pirates 10 times more likely to buy music

First off today, a new study from Norway found that those who pirate music are ten times more likely to purchase music than their non-downloading counterparts. The study, which only looked at Internet users over the age of 15, examined whether a user had downloaded free music, legally or illegally, and then asked for proof of any purchases.

If this study is accurate, then it is possible that pirates are actually a major buying force for the record labels. It also comes hard on the heels of the verdict in The Pirate Bay trial as well as new decision in Norway that will make it easier for copyright holders to get information about file sharers.

2: Biden promises ‘right person’ as new U.S. copyright czar

At a recent event Vice President Joe Biden said that the administration, “Will find the right person for intellectual property czar.” While what he said isn’t very controversial, the fact that he said it at a Hollywood gala seems to indicate what he means by the “right” person.

The Obama administration, already signaling a much more industry-friendly approach to intellectual property than many had hoped, has the duty of appointing someone to coordinate the administrations IP policy and it seems likely, much like with the RIAA-friendly DOJ attorneys, that this person will be very sensitive to the needs of large copyright holders and very controversial among copyright reformers.

3: Sorting out the Pirate Bay verdict

Finally today, we get a bit of extra commentary today on The Pirate Bay verdict and several things become a bit more clear.

First, the the four men were convicted due largely to the very relaxed standards for conviction of “assisting” in a crime in Sweden. In a previous Swedish case, a person was convicted of assisting in mayhem solely for holding the perpetrator’s coat.

The prosecutor was able to easily meet the standard set forth by the law, backed up by The Pirate Bay’s own emails and public statements. They were able to show that The Pirate Bay had knowledge of infringing torrents, were in a position to act and did nothing. This, combined with the providing of the search engine and the bitorrent tracker, was enough for the courts.

We also get the opinions of Swedish legal experts who say that, though there will likely be two appeals, it is highly unlikely that the verdict will be altered over overturned in any meaningful way. Apparently, legal experts feel that the verdict is solid enough to stand up to the appeals, or that simply few cases get overturned on appeal.

If this is true, the case could drag on for many years without much in the way of major developments.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

This election cycle has been an especially tough one for copyright issues and the word plagiarist has been used as an insult by both sides. This has put people who write about plagiarism, such as myself, in a no-win situation.

I tried, to the best of my abilities, to look objectively at the three scandals. I didn’t find that much of concern with either Obama or McCain though I did express greater concern over Biden’s history.

I have no political axe to grind and no real interest in mud slinging, but as some of the comments to the pieces, both on the site and in my inbox, have shown, others do.

However, I didn’t tackle the issue of plagiarism to become a political pundit. I took it on for my benefit as a writer, the benefit of other content creators and for the benefit of the public so often deprived of the truth.

But I’ve watched in horror as those issues have been pushed aside and the word “plagiarism” has become just another blade in a political knife fight.

Politically Motivated

My greatest problem with these attacks is that they are, generally, not motivated out of outrage at the offense or because anyone is genuinely upset at the infringement. Rather, they are motivated out of political means.

In my experience, how you feel about the Obama/McCain plagiarism cases says less about one’s views of plagiarism and more about one’s views on the politicians themselves. People that were outraged by Obama’s alleged plagiarism, generally, didn’t like him before the scandal. The same is true for McCain.

To me, the use of plagiarism accusations in these cases is just as worrisome as cases where organizations, including the Church of Scientology, use questionable copyright claims to silence critics. Both are examples of one side of a debate using plagiarism and copyright issues to address other grievances and hurt those that are against them. These situations hurt legitimate copyright holders, make it harder for legitimate claims to be heard and, in many cases, stifle free speech.

If there is a copyright infringement, it should be dealt with. Similarly, if there is a plagiarism from a politician and it appears to be wholly intentional, it should be looked at and discussed. However, the word “plagiarist” should only be thrown about with severe caution and only when the evidence wholly supports the accusation and the alleged copying goes beyond what is typically acceptable in the field.

These politically motivated attacks do nothing to help the cause of fighting plagiarism and, in truth, greatly hurt the efforts of legitimate artists to protect their works.

After all, no matter who wins, it is almost certain an accused plagiarist will be President after the election.

Reshaping the Debate

Even though my presence and this blog mean nothing in the larger political debate, I would like to ask both sides to please give the chant of “plagiarist” a rest. These political fights play a major role in shaping both America’s and the world’s opinions of terms and ideas. Throwing around insults so carelessly can have horrible unintended consequences.

For the sake of artists, musicians and writers who deal with plagiarists every day, I urge the pundits to be more careful with their words and their accusations.

Like most Americans, I would rather see this debate be about issues that are important, not largely unfounded accusations designed to slander one’s character.

As I’ve repeated many times, I have no political axe to grind here. I created this site for Webmasters to help them protect their content. I have helped all comers including sex bloggers, churches, gay and lesbian groups, right-wing blogs, left-wing blogs, mommy blogs, sports blogs, crochet sites and much more. I have extended my hand to all who have needed it, regardless of their politics, so long as their content was legal.

This site is not about a certain political or philosophical affiliation, but about protecting hard work. That is why I write this piece, to help the creative people I care about.

Conclusions

I realize that my post here will not stop the accusations of plagiarism or even put a dent in them. But if it helps one person think twice before speaking, then it will be worthwhile.

However, I know well how the rush of politics can make people forget what is important and how the words that they say can damage those that they claim to be trying to represent and help. I know how easy it is, when your heart is dedicated something, to fool your head into believing an idea the evidence does not wholly support.

This is not a debate that can be resolved with insults. It must be one about ideas and information. I hope that, maybe, some of that can be salvaged in this debate.

This week, we have a ruling in the Bratz trial, delays in The Pirate Bay one, the AAs descending upon the political conventions and much, much more.

Remember, as usual, this week’s linkroll is a “raw” link list. Some stories are duplicated, some do not point to their original sources and some may not be accurate. A great deal of refining goes into producing the show notes for the Copyright 2.0 Show.

Of course, this isn’t really the beginning of Biden’s plagiarism controversy, but rather, a continuation of a scandal that began over twenty years ago.

The Biden case is different from both the Obama and the McCain one in several ways, the first of which is that the evidence both for and against is over two decades old, before the era of YouTube, and, in Biden’s case, the accusations already helped to sink one of his earlier presidential campaign.

So what actually happened and what can we learn from it? Here’s what I’ve been able to learn about Mr. Biden and his plagiarism controversies.

Background

Biden’s trouble with the plagiarism began a stump speech in Iowa. At the end of the speech, Biden used a series of phrases that closely mirrored a previous speech by that of British politician Neal Kinnock. Though there are several reports that he had previously used and cited the source of those words, there seems to be a clear understanding that, in this one case, he did not.

The result of this was that his Democratic challenger Michael Dukakis created an attack video splicing together Biden’s speech with that of Kinnocks.

The attack was remarkably effective and can be described as a classic example of “YouTube politics” before the Web even existed. Not only was Biden’s reputation hurt by the initial scandal, reporters from Newsweek also turned up allegations of plagiarism dating back to when he was a student at Syracuse Law School, where he failed and was forced to retake a course due to an allegation of plagiarism.

The end result was that Biden, who was already lagging in the polls, was forced to drop out of the race. Though Biden continued to serve in the Senate, these allegations have stuck with him for pretty much his entire career since then.

In fact, when I first started Plagiarism Today, the most popular blog about plagiarism on the Web wasn’t about content theft or academic dishonesty, but about Joe Biden.

This is why, when I heard that Biden was Obama’s VP pick, I knew immediately that this issue would come up in a very big way.

Biden’s Side of the Story

Back in 1987, Biden called these scandals a “Tempest in a Teapot” saying that he had routinely credited Kinnock for the speech and simply had forgotten to do so during the stump speech from which the tape was made.

Regarding the law school controversy, Biden and his supporters have pointed out that the incident was stricken from his record.

Furthermore, as Biden’s supporters are quick to note, all of the allegations are either 20 or 40 years old. To some, this makes those allegations irrelevant in the current election and, accordingly, should be dropped.

However, I am not so quick to dismiss these allegations. Simply because they are old does not mean that they are not worth a closer look. Unfortunately, a closer look is very tough to get.

My Analysis

Biden’s case is different from both the Obama and McCain scandals for two reasons:

1. He has admitted to using Kinnock’s words without permission, it is a question of whether he had previously attributed them and intended to do so in the speech in question.
2. We have at least one allegation of plagiarism that withstood some scrutiny in an academic environment.

Unfortunately, the age of the allegations have made it very difficult to find actual copy from the speeches. After multiple searches, I was only able to find one pair of comparison quotes.

First is Kinnock:

Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because our predecessors were thick? Was it because they were weak, those people who worked eight hours underground and then come up and play football, weak? It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand.

Now Biden:

Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family to ever go to a university? Was it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because they didn’t work hard, my ancestors who worked in the coal mines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It’s because they didn’t have a platform upon which to stand.

As you can see in the highlighted passages, there are some very strong similarities between the two speeches. Though the theme of coming up from humble hard-working roots is a common one among politicians the world over, the details about working for hours in a coal mine and then playing football are, indeed, suspicious.

However, Biden has never denied that he paraphrased Kinnock’s speech. Rather, according to him, it was a simple mistake, one where he had repeatedly attributed the speech time and time again but failed to do so one time.

Unfortunately, I have not been able to confirm that, though a recent article in the Chicago Tribune seems to vouch for that perspective.

Indeed, it is true that candidates routinely give the same or similar speeches over and over again and it is possible to omit or add things to them over time. Still, there is little doubt that forgetting attribution is a potentially very serious blunder but, as the Obama case showed, it is not always a campaign-ender, especially when the “victimized” party gave permission.

The law school allegations are, unfortunately, older, tricker to analyze and potentially much more severe, without the actual samples in front of me I can only trust the verdict that the school came down with (though I know from recent experience such rulings are often misguided).

However, according to a New York Times article from the era, the controversy involved over five pages of copy in a 15-page paper. Biden, however, plead ignorance saying he did not know how he was supposed to properly cite his sources.

Pleading his case to stay in the school, Biden said that “My intent was not to deceive anyone. For if it were, I would not have been so blatant,” and that, “If I had intended to cheat, would I have been so stupid?”

The end result of both cases is that Biden has effectively admitted to the copying but has claimed that both cases were accidental.

The Accidental Argument

In my experience with plagiarism the vast majority of claims to have accidentally plagiarized are either outright lies or a sign of someone with very little understanding or respect for other people’s work.

However, in the case of his speech, Biden actually seems to have a strong case here. If it is true that he had historically attributed his quotes, the fact he failed to do so in one speech should not be alarming. If it had become a pattern over multiple speeches, I would be much more concerned.

In the end, the plagiarized speech seems to be a likely accident and, by itself, probably is not worth discrediting Biden.

The law school case, on the other hand, is a bit more dubious. Copying approximately five pages of material with only one foot note and pleading ignorance seems to be a bit of a stretch. Most academic plagiarism cases involve significantly less copied material and, generally, carries far more severe consequences.

Please note that this is not a personal opinion on what should have happened to Senator Biden, just an observation about what I have seen in recent years.

Personally though, as offended as I am about plagiarism, it would be fairly easy for me to dismiss either case of alleged plagiarism by itself. However, it is a bit harder to swallow both at the same time.

This difficulty is made worse by the fact that he has also been accused of lifting speeches from other sources, including Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. Though I have not been able to find examples of those alleged infringements, the article linked above claims that the Kennedy case involves over “four sentences” of materials.

The bottom line with Biden is that he has admitted to using other people’s words without attribution many different times and, in each case, has attempted to explain it away. Whether you believe those explainations or not, I’m willing to wager, most likely stem as much from your political viewpoint as it does your intellectual one.

A Second Opinion

A close friend of and colleague of mine Dr. John Lesko of Saginaw Valley State University not only runs Plagiary, the only scholarly journal on the topic of plagiarism, but also Famous Plagiarists, a site dedicated to chronicling the plagiarisms of the well-known.

Dr. Lesko has a very thorough write-up on Senator Biden. At the head of it, he give Biden a “Threat Level” of “Red: Severe Risk”, which is the highest level of risk that the site can award.

This is higher in standing than other well-known plagiarists including Kaavya Viswanathan and on par with Jayson Blair.

Though these “threat levels” were never intended to be taken as true fact and are intended to be a bit humorous, it is interesting to see that one of the world’s foremost experts of plagiarism feels that Biden is such a serious threat.

Unfortunately for Biden, I find it very hard to disagree with Dr. Lesko. Though I may not take it to the extreme he did, I have to agree with Dr. Lesko that this is very different from the Obama and McCain cases.

In fact, at this time, Famous Plagiarists doesn’t even have a section on either of the two presidental front-runners, just one of their VP candidates.

Conclusions

As I’ve said before, I am very wary of politics-based plagiarism scandals. They are, almost always, brought to light not in the best interest of the author or artist, but of the opposing political side.

With Biden, this is no different. Republicans are moving to take this issue front and center while Biden’s supporters are moving to write it off as a fabrication. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.

However, it is much more difficult for me to dismiss Biden’s case than it is Obama’s or McCain’s. The repetition, the severity and the excuses do not sit well with me.

The one thing Biden does have going for him is that the allegations are old. The law school incident took place in the sixties and the latest one in the late eighties. Nothing has come up in the time since then that I have been able to find.

I don’t think the allegations of plagiarism should prevent Biden from being taken seriously as a VP candidate nor should it distract from the other issues and debates that are much more important in this election. As with Dr. Martin Luther King, plagiarism allegations, on their own, should not distract from other parts of his legacy.

Still, it is clear that these allegations are different than the ones that were thrown at either Obama or McCain. These are definitely more serious and have already stuck enough once to help end a campaign of his.

Once again, I find myself pleading that plagiarism will not be a distraction issue in this campaign, however, once I heard that Biden was Obama’s choice for VP, I knew instantly that it would not the case.

Plagiarism is now front and center in presidential politics. Unfortunately, I don’t see that helping victims of plagiarism nor do I see it helping advance any of the other issues that are on the table this election.

Related Links

• The Slate (Feels that the matter should not be forgotten)
• Newsbusters (A thorough overview of Biden’s history with a comparison to his Wikipedia entry)
• The Huffington Post (A Supporting View of the Matter)
• Media Matters (A look back at the media coverage of Biden’s downfall)
• The Hoosier Pundit (An accusation of plagiarism over Obama’s logo, not convincing to me)
• Lame Cherry (Accusations of plagiarism on the Senate floor)

Further Discussion

• What are your thoughts on the accusations against Biden?
• Do accusations of plagiarism cause you to think less of a political candidate?
• Would you change your vote based upon a plagiarism allegation?