Yeah, the guy's an idiot because Oprah does not take in all of the money from every book sold. She doesn't get paid $20 a pop...
Actually he might be right. This wasn't a publisher-produced print book, it was an e-book. If it was sold only on a website owned by Oprah, she (at least in theory) received 100% of the profit. Even if it is an e-publisher, unlike print books, a much higher percentage of the profit from e-books do go directly to the writer (up to 80%, sometimes even more). The "average" I believe is around 30%, however I suspect that Oprah, given her power and fame would be paid at the highest end of this spectrum. So the plaintiff may not be too far off in his estimation of her profits.
That the website selling the book is no longer available seems a bit suspicious to me. Especially if Oprah was the owner of the website. I'd be curious to know whether the website was removed in response to the controversy?
Also, I disagree that suing her personally means he's doing it for publicity. When plagiarism is charged, it's generally only the person who plagiarized who is legally responsible (unless you can prove that the publisher or company participated in the plagiarism in some way independent of the writer plagiarizing), so suing a publisher or company would be the idiotic move. Assuming the publisher isn't Oprah herself, which we can't assume either way, the publisher couldn't be held liable for the plagiarism unless the publisher is Oprah or the publishing house owned by Oprah, or it could be proven that the publisher had reason to suspect plagiarism before the book went to print, or that they continued to allow the book to be sold (either in print or by download) after evidence of plagiarism was discovered.
Yeah, but since it's such an exorbitant amount of money, I find it extremely suspicious.
Honestly, 9 times out of 10, it's not plagiarism. It's very difficult to prove that she did in fact steal from his book, considering that I couldn't find it anywhere. I looked on ABEbooks.com, Amazon, etc, and I can't find him anywhere. He has to prove that Oprah first knew of the poetry volume that she supposedly stole from, and that she actually lifted passages from it.
Mark my words, it'll be thrown out.
In other literary news, Stephenie Meyer is also being sued for plagiarism. I've read a few articles about it, and to be honest, what she is being sued for is pretty frivolous as well. This author is claiming that Meyer stole from her obscure novel, and put passages in about a wedding between a vampire and a human, sex on a beach, talking about being turned, and calling the wives "love."
I find this to be ridiculous, because there have been plenty of books involving vampire-human weddings and sex on a beach. If she has passages that are word-for-word or are very similar, she has a case. Otherwise, she doesn't. How many vampire-human stories are out there? Tons. And how many books are out there where husbands call their wives "love"?
Plus, she'd also have to prove that Meyer had access her novel. You can't plagiarize something you have no knowledge of. If she can prove Meyer bought it and read it, then she has a case. And if she can provide similar passages, she has a case. But similar themes, not really. They sound like they're books of the same theme.
So needless to say, I'm always skeptical when someone sues someone who is high-profile of plagiarism.
I do remember a case where someone plagiarized a few books and published the book. In that case, it was clear that the author actually lifted passages from the alleged books. In the wikipedia page it shows very similar passages, and that's what needs to be shown in the Oprah case for the prosecution to be successful.
In a case where there is legitimate plagiarism, it's both the fault of the writer and of the publisher. Part of their job is to ensure that there
I just happen to know about this a little because I studied publishing in college. They take it very seriously in the publishing industry, and publishers are very, very careful to make sure that their writers aren't plagiarizing. I also guess a part of me has faith that 99% of writers aren't thieves.
If you look at the wikipedia page, *that's* plagiarism. What i see here is similarities in themes, which is also probably what the guy is suing Oprah for.
Actually he might be right. This wasn't a publisher-produced print book, it was an e-book. If it was sold only on a website owned by Oprah, she (at least in theory) received 100% of the profit.
Uh, servers and bandwidth aren't free. Ask the lovely ladies running this site.
Uh, servers and bandwidth aren't free. Ask the lovely ladies running this site.
True, but how is the guy suing and his lawyer supposed to know and calculate all of this? Rather he will sue for the maximum, and let the courts figure it out.
Also, this IS Oprah, and advertisers will pay huge money to advertise on anything she owns.
The guy may be a nutjob, but if he isn't and there was plagiarism involved, I can see where anger would cloud his judgement. Or, if he requested a reasonable sum, it could be something that Oprah could easily pay out of court. He may not want an out-of-court settlement, or even for the case to be decided quickly, because any way that could be done quietly or quickly would also be easily forgotten by the public.
Yes, I do think the desire for publicity is mostly behind this. No matter how it is settled, this guy will get his 5 minutes of fame, but I can't say that I blame him. If it were me (not that I have anything Oprah would want) I'd just be so hoppin' mad that more than money, I'd want people to KNOW.
I also agree that cases of plagiarism FAR outnumber true cases of plagiarism (unless you want to count plagiarism in college papers). So it will be difficult to prove unless the theft is extremely blatant.
If you look at the wikipedia page, *that's* plagiarism. What i see here is similarities in themes, which is also probably what the guy is suing Oprah for.
Nope, that's ONE KIND of plagiarism. Lifting ideas is also plagiarism, but it has to be a LOT of lifting, not just a little inspiration. When I read the passages in the link, I didn't see it in the writing at first, either. UNTIL I read the plot headings. They started to add up in my mind, and it does start to seem implausible that one author wasn't influenced by the other (and of course the later author couldn't be influenced by the previous).
If I write a book with an extremely similar plot as another book, movie or comic book, even if my writing style is different and I change some female characters to males, and change some of the events, and rewrite every scene....(you get the idea), it would still be plagiarism.
The example you give doesn't sound like plagiarism in any one scene. The similarity could be coincidental - BUT "coincidences" add up, and there's a point at which coincidence no longer seems likely.
It's actually very common for new writers (whether of fiction, nonfiction, or college papers) to ask "how much do I have to change, for it not to be plagiarism?"
It's a misguided question, because if you're changing the words, but stealing the idea then it very well could still be plagiarism. Using an author's work as inspiration is a lot different than "changing the words." It's a very gray area when you're not dealing with literal lifting of passages with the original author's words intact.
My guess is that (unless it's settled out of court), this will either be very quickly settled (if either party is obviously in the wrong), or will drag on for a long time.
Oprah has enough money to out-lawyer any claimant.
As for plagarism in its many forms, here is a great article from the New Yorker concerning the matter:
[T]he number of great writers who were plagiarists has often been noted. Shakespeare loved to poach words from his surprisingly limited sources, among them Sir Thomas North's translation of Plutarch: Volumnia's plea to her son, in "Coriolanus" (V, 3), is, Harry Levin says, "eloquently massive" but still "scarcely more than a metrical adaptation of North's prose." A little like Sumner, then, Shakespears copied it out and rearranged it a bit, as one might do to refit a suit stolen from J. C. Penney. To Shakespeare could be added Montaigne, John Webster, Ben Jonson, Sterne, Dryden, Lessing, Diderot, Coleridge, De Quincey, Charles Reade, Plato, and thousands more. So many that we might start to wonder, as we compile our list, whether "plagiarism" has always meant what it now means to us
and
"The problem is originality and the difficulty of saying anything new," Bowers concedes. "To a great extent, all of us who write are simply repeating those who have written before us and, occasionally, duplicating one another."
Her lawyers will outlast his lawyers; money talks in the legal system, unfortunately despite the outrage of the complaintant. And trying to prove originality in this age of cyberinformation will be almost impossible.
Nope, that's ONE KIND of plagiarism. Lifting ideas is also plagiarism, but it has to be a LOT of lifting, not just a little inspiration. When I read the passages in the link, I didn't see it in the writing at first, either. UNTIL I read the plot headings. They started to add up in my mind, and it does start to seem implausible that one author wasn't influenced by the other (and of course the later author couldn't be influenced by the previous).
If I write a book with an extremely similar plot as another book, movie or comic book, even if my writing style is different and I change some female characters to males, and change some of the events, and rewrite every scene....(you get the idea), it would still be plagiarism.
The example you give doesn't sound like plagiarism in any one scene. The similarity could be coincidental - BUT "coincidences" add up, and there's a point at which coincidence no longer seems likely.
It's actually very common for new writers (whether of fiction, nonfiction, or college papers) to ask "how much do I have to change, for it not to be plagiarism?"
It's a misguided question, because if you're changing the words, but stealing the idea then it very well could still be plagiarism. Using an author's work as inspiration is a lot different than "changing the words." It's a very gray area when you're not dealing with literal lifting of passages with the original author's words intact.
My guess is that (unless it's settled out of court), this will either be very quickly settled (if either party is obviously in the wrong), or will drag on for a long time.
Even if the plot points are similar, she still has to prove that Meyer read her book. And considering that it's an obscure and now out-of-print, that's going to be difficult.
And, I added up the sales of the book for the Oprah case (someone also pointed this out)... it's 13 billion. Sure, he might have clouded judgement, but that's where lawyers come in.
He's not going to win a trillion dollars even if it is plagiarism.
If she does have to pay him that much money (or even a billion dollars), she and her show will go bankrupt and all of those people who work for her will be unemployed. This doesn't just affect Oprah, but her company and her employees. And it'll also weaken the economy. Her endorsements are helping the economy, believe it or not.
Even if the plot points are similar, she still has to prove that Meyer read her book. And considering that it's an obscure and now out-of-print, that's going to be difficult.
Actually, it's not going to be all that difficult, because the burden of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence," not (as with murder and criminal cases) "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
Preponderance of the evidence basically means that "it's more likely than not," that the first author was influenced by the prior. Again it's the number of coincidences that will determine the outcome. I don't know if the material listed in the link was "the whole case," or just a sampling of the instances of similarity in the novels. It will make a difference, because if there are a dozen similarities, a case is going to be a lot shakier than if there are 200 similarities.
The prosecution will not have to prove that the defendent read the book or had access to the plot information, only that it's more likely that she did, than she did not. The defense will have to prove that she could not have possibly have read of or heard of the book or it's plot, which will be much more difficult to prove (because it was in print at one time, and therefore accessible to the defendent).
If someone gives me the entire plot sequence of the movie "The Runaway Bride," and I write a novel and include basically unaltered scenes that were described to me, that's still plagiarism, even though I haven't read the screenplay or seen the movie myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunflowergirl68
And, I added up the sales of the book for the Oprah case (someone also pointed this out)... it's 13 billion. Sure, he might have clouded judgement, but that's where lawyers come in.
He's not going to win a trillion dollars even if it is plagiarism.
I agree completely, the lawyers, the judge, and even possibly a jury will have a role in the ultimate decision, but it's far, far more likely for a defendent to end up with less than he asked for than more, so most will start with a crazy amount, just so that a reasonable request doesn't get cut. If he sues for 13 billion, it's likely that he would have to settle for far less, suing for the maximum does two things for him. One publicity for himself and his case, and gives him bargaining leverage when it's time to cut it down.
I have to say that I'd do the same thing (again noting, there isn't anything that I have that Oprah would want). I think it's the logical "David" move. When you're fighting Goliath, your attack has to be big and bold or you'll be squished like the bug you are to Goliath.
Plagiarism lawsuits are rarely successful in the literary world in any event --- just look at the Dan Brown fiasco concerning his first book. I read the first book and the one it was cribbed from (Holy Blood, Holy Grail) and IMHO there was no doubt--the central theory and themes were indeed ripped off without credit nor reference as in a bibilography. http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe...urt/index.html
BUT even though the issue was the ripping off of the central IDEA and not the WORDS: The trial centered around allegations that Brown ripped off a key theory from their book -- that Jesus survived his crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene, and had children -- a controversial storyline that has intrigued readers.
and Dan Brown admitted to reading the original book to boot: Brown has said that he and his wife, Blythe, read "The Holy Blood, the Holy Grail" while researching the book,
the authors of the original book (which was quite well read prior to Dan Brown's) couldn't make it stick.
There isn't much hope for an obscure author claiming against an obscure eBook.
