Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> The Patry Copyright Blog

Intellectual Property Law

: The Patry Copyright Blog

The Press and Stupid Accusations of Plagiarism

By William Patry

I previously did a blog on plagiarism, a topic whose interest is in proportion to the lack on any agreement on what it means, a lack that has been the case for centuries. Most recently, Hillary Clinton has raised accusations of plagiarism against her opponent Barack Obama. Her defeat in the Wisconsin primary yesterday hopefully will put an end to this tactic, but it may not end publicity about the issue if the press has its way. Here is a link to a column in today?s Washington Post by writer Dana Milbank. I quote only the relevant parts:

In recent days, [Obama] has been exposed as a high-risk borrower, accused of taking everything from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick's "just words" riff on the power of oratory to Bob the Builder's refrain for preschoolers, "Yes, we can!"

And he borrowed anew on Tuesday at an outdoor rally in San Antonio -- this time from former rival John Edwards. Criticizing pharmaceutical companies' ads, Obama joked: "You know those ads where people are running around the fields, you know, they're smiling, you don't know what the drug is for?"

Compare that with this staple of the 2004 Edwards stump speech: "I love the ads. Buy their medicine, take it, and the next day you and your spouse will be skipping through the fields."

?.

?.

Obama's latest trouble came Saturday when, responding to Clinton's criticism that he is all talk, the candidate borrowed, nearly word for word and without attribution, a favorite passage from Patrick. "Don't tell me words don't matter. 'I have a dream' -- just words. 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' -- just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself' -- just words."

Obama said he should have credited Patrick, but he protested that "the notion that using a line from one of my national campaign co-chairs . . . is somehow objectionable, somehow doesn't make sense,"

Potentially more objectionable are the many lines Obama has lifted from Edwards, whose campaign compiled a list of the offenses before the candidate dropped out of the race.

Here's Obama's announcement speech in February 2007: "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."

Compare that with Edwards's 2003 announcement speech: "I haven't spent most of my life in politics, but I've spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change Washington."

Some of the common phrases are too cliched to qualify for lending privileges, but others seem to be more than coincidence. "We need a president not afraid to use the word 'union,' " Edwards told an audience of steelworkers in July 2007. "We need a president . . . who is not afraid to mention unions," Obama said a month later. Edwards, accepting the party's vice presidential nomination in 2004, said, "Hard work should be valued in this country, so we're going to reward work, not just wealth." Obama, in turn, has been heard to say, "We shouldn't just be respecting wealth in this country, we should be respecting work."
?
[Another] example [was] unearthed Tuesday by ABC's Jake Tapper. Patrick, at the 2006 Massachusetts Democratic convention, said, "I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me; I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations." A year later, Obama said: "I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."

Mr. Milbank nowhere defines when one qualifies for ?lending privileges? and when one doesn?t, a fatal flaw for someone with such finely tuned moral antennae. Nor does he explain why one should add verbal footnotes in speeches, or why if, as is the case with Deval Patrick, that the source of the alleged original is an old friend with whom they have traded ideas and language and who serves in a prominent role as co-chair of Mr. Obama?s campaign, that the issue should matter.

Judge Posner went to the trouble Mr. Milbank didn?t, trying to figure out what plagiarism is. His book is so short and small (in size) that Mr. Milbank might take the time to read it before he accuses someone of something he hasn?t taken the trouble to understand. Here
is a link to the book, called appropriately, The Little Book of Plagiarism. Judge Posner notes an important point nowhere to be found in Mr. Milbank?s article, namely that plagiarism ?is not a mere failure to acknowledge copying. Often copying is not acknowledged because it is known to the intended readership,? (pp. 17-18). This was also Thomas DeQuincey?s view when he raised accusations against Coleridge in 1834 in Tait?s Magazine , and DeQuincey was very quick to accuse others of plagiarism. In the context of this particular political campaign, where campaign events are widely broadcast, filmed and up on YouTube, where speeches are reported on daily, where words are seized on by rivals, where there has so far been 18 televised debates among the Democrats, Mr. Obama?s audience knew well where the language was from, just as listeners understood very well yesterday whose remarks John McCain?s wife was referring to. Mr. Obama?s remarks fail to constitute plagiarism on even this first requirement.

Judge Posner goes on to say that ?A judgment of plagiarism requires that the copying besides being deceitful in the sense of misleading the intended readers, induce reliance by them.? (page 19). ?The reader has to care about being deceived about authorial identity in order for the deceit to cross the line to fraud and thus constitute plagiarism.? (page 20). Certainly Mr. Patrick had no such concerns, and was there any one else that might have, that might, as Judge Posner also argues, have induced them to rely any unattributed statements to vote for Mr. Obama? Hardly. Judge Posner interesting gives the example of the ghostwriter of Hillary Clinton?s ?It Takes a Village,? who Judge Posner states, was contractually forbidden to disclose her role. Judge Posner rightly adds, ?Yet one cannot imagine the public caring.? (page 25). The same applies to Mr. Obama's remarks.

It is well to remember that the Clinton administration?s triangulation strategy was based on taking (notice I didn?t say stealing or plagiarizing) Republican issues and making them the Administration?s. Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama?s health care plans are based largely on a plan by a Yale professor. Borrowing successful strategies, plans, lines, and language is part and parcel of politics. What should be uncommon is an effort to demonize any candidate over such things. It is regrettably not surprising that mainstream media willingly play the role of echo chamber for such efforts. As Judge Posner notes, ?there is no legal wrong named plagiarism,? (page 34.) There is, though, plenty wrong in the reckless accusations of it.

Full post as published by The Patry Copyright Blog on February 19, 2008 (boomark / email).