In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

On Stealing Social Justice Work

I want to talk about a blogular phenomenon that has been irritating me no end for… I can’t even remember how long. This phenomenon is plagiarism. Now, plagiarism comes in a lot of forms. A pretty common one is just plain old incorporating other people’s ideas into one’s work without credit. Today, though, I particularly want to talk about out and out stealing of full posts.

Sometimes, I find posts from feminist blogosphere writers have been copied and pasted onto other blogs or onto Facebook pages or some such. If a post is mine, I tend to contact the person responsible and request that they remove my post and replace it with a fair use excerpt and link (see below). If a post is another writer’s, I tend to contact that writer and let hir handle it hirself. That’s because copying and pasting blog posts or web pages without permission is stealing, just as surely as copying out bits from textbooks and putting them in a school essay without proper acknowledgement is cheating. The Internet is not copyright-free. Just because there is a copying and pasting function available to you, it does not give you the right to take other people’s hard work and appropriate it without permission. This is true whether you include a link back to your source; this is true whether you cite the name of the author. It is never okay.

Stealing doesn’t always take the form of copying and pasting, though. There are a number of aggregator sites, some particularly focussing on social justice work, that use feedreader systems like Google Reader in order to scrape blog posts and place them on their own sites without permission. I’ll just note that this is not true of all aggregator sites. For example, feministblogs.org has Feministe’s permission to use our blog feed on their site. But aggregators using feeds without permission is a big problem, and one that I don’t see going away.

Stealing posts in these ways is not a victimless crime. When you take a post from someone, you are stealing pageviews, a significant form of Internet capital. If you’d linked instead, you would be fairly passing on pageviews, and perhaps encouraging pageviews to your website in return. Where a site has advertising, this stealing of pageviews also means stealing advertising money. Advertising money is what keeps a lot of the blogs you love functioning at all. Moreover, stealing the work of writers means stealing professional reputations, stealing livelihoods. That is not on at all.

I’m particularly disgusted to see stealing of social justice pieces by people who are supposedly doing social justice. There is nothing about stealing people’s work that resembles social justice. Sometimes writing a blog is the primary bit of social justice a person can do. Sometimes someone has poured their heart and soul into a post. In any case, people deserve justice, and that includes respectful treatment of their writing.

So, how do you make sure you’re not plagiarising? Sometimes a simple reflection on what you’ve been reading recently or on the topic can help. In the course of writing this post, I thought about whether I had might have taken any ideas in it from anywhere else. I realised that the paragraph two above this one, on the effects of content stealing in terms of advertising and page views, reminded me of a post I’d read several months ago by past Feministe guest blogger s.e. smith called Don’t Infringe On Me. Now, if I’d left that unacknowledged, I would have been plagiarising. Perhaps, instead of writing this post of my own, I might have copied and pasted s.e.’s post without permission. That would have also been plagiarism, even if I had also included s.e.’s byline and a link back to ou blog.

What’s fair use, then? How can you acknowledge a great bit of writing without stealing from the author(s)? Well, here’s how! You can write out the name of the author, copy and paste a few sentences at the most (which you put in quotation marks, indent or put in a blockquote), and link back to your source with a clearly marked hyperlink. That way, you get to reference a piece of writing, your source gets pages views and such, and you’ve done the ethical thing. Or you could even ask the author’s permission to reprint. How excellent for us all!

I’m going to be amused to see if this post ends up on any content scraper sites.


67 thoughts on On Stealing Social Justice Work

  1. I quote and link to posts that I am referencing in my blogs, but I find it much harder to figure out where my ideas come from. Sometimes I know that a particular post has triggered a train of thought that ends up in a blog post, and I hope in that instance I link to them, but other times I have no ideas where my ideas come from – even when I’m researching the post I’m writing nothing seems clear.

    Plagiarism is wrong M’kay?

  2. “That would have also been plagiarism, even if I had also included s.e.’s byline and a link back to ou blog.”

    Technically speaking, no. It would be copyright infringement. It would not be plagiarism, as plagiarism refers specifically to taking someone else’s work and passing it off as your own. Copyright infringement is a much broader definition.

    Also, I got two hours of sleep and may be misunderstanding, but are you really saying that people reading the site through a feed reader like Google Reader are equivalent to plagiarists? o.O

  3. Oh Chally, this is so widespread I feel like it’s an epidemic. I’m TAing for a college class this semester and I can’t even describe the shock I get from some students when I tell them they need to cite all sources. Yes, even museum wall labels.

    Also, I read a lot of cooking blogs, and there was recently an incident when an online cooking magazine stole a story from a blog and put it on their website (they gave her credit, but didn’t ask for permission). Basically when confronted, the editor said that the original author should be paying HER for the exposure and editing! And then went on to say that anything on the internet was common property. The editor! I fear that’s no hope.

  4. Nonny: “That would have also been plagiarism, even if I had also included s.e.’s byline and a link back to ou blog.”Technically speaking, no. It would be copyright infringement. It would not be plagiarism, as plagiarism refers specifically to taking someone else’s work and passing it off as your own. Copyright infringement is a much broader definition.Also, I got two hours of sleep and may be misunderstanding, but are you really saying that people reading the site through a feed reader like Google Reader are equivalent to plagiarists? o.O  

    My mistake, whoops!

    No, I’m not saying that feedreader users are plagiarists. I’m saying that people who ship content in to their own sites using feedreaders are stealing content.

  5. no, i think zie is saying they’re equivalent to those fans who:
    1 – chant “corporate rock sux!!!!”
    2 – illegally download their favorite indie artists
    3 – next year wonder why their favorite band hasn’t recorded anything lately…

  6. Having recently graded a whack of papers written by undergrads who are clearly largely unfamiliar with citation and referencing standards (ouch, I say), this hits a familiar vibe.

    I confess that I have not thought dutifully about plagiarism within a social justice blogging context before. Blockquoting excerpts and link-backs ended up as my default anyway (probably because of a mix of a. seeing how other bloggers do it, and b. y helo thar academic training in formal referencing and citations), but I can also see how certain trends online and in RL would lead other people away from this, with negative consequences. Entitlement, first off, which goes hand-in-hand with many people coming to social justice out of a desire for self-improvement, but without an intuitive grasp of, ya know, privilege.

    Also, more internet-related*, the ideas of remix culture, memes, sharing and gift economies, feeds and centralizing/customizing information consumption, and anonymizing/crowd-sourcing content, which are a) kinda cool and b) also kinda shitty, depending on the privileges (and lack there of) that get thrown into the mix. I don’t think that any of those trends are pro-plagiarism inherently, but they don’t especially emphasize protecting and acknowledging sources in practice, and occasionally are outright combative toward related concepts like copyright (although the copyright antagonism thing is partially because of how the concept of copyright has been expanded in exploitative and capitalistic ways – I am pro-copyright, I am not pro-monopolizing information and resources for capital gain). The driving force of the internet is very much more, faster, better information sharing, which, as you point out, has shitty outcomes when we don’t also incorporate an understanding of how to share information in a respectful, non-exploitative way. Especially as citing is pro-sharing (I am looking forward to reading s.e.’s post as well!).

    Of course, for those who do it deliberately, and not out of thoughtlessness, I say FEH. Get off my tubes! But I think many people also do it for cluelessness, so thank you for bringing the clue to it, as always.

    *Okay, these aren’t Internet-exclusive, but they do tend to flourish here.

  7. Yeah, that’s actually something I hope we can talk about. Because a lot of the time the Internet encourages collaborative work in a way that can be really great. For example, tumblr encourages reblogging of different people’s content as an inherent part of the platform, which can lead to some fantastic social justice collaboration. And in that context, reusing content is not exploitative.

  8. I use Google Reader as sort of a link log. I started this when I had a personal, diary-type blog years ago, and other bloggers would ask me to link to them. I got tired of the cliquishness of having a traditional blogroll, so I decided just to link to the individual posts I liked, with the proper credit. This is okay, right? (I took it down just in case.) I didn’t know bloggers were scraping entire posts from Google Reader. I guess that makes a good case for truncating your feed.

    Another culprit is Tumblr. I love Tumblr, but it’s almost too easy to copy and paste with proper credit.

  9. True, although I will say that tumblr has presented some serious issues of copyright and plagiarism too. Even though the set-up is supposed to link back to the original poster, the original poster is not always the original content creator, and lots of people will put up “look at this cool picture I found!” content without link backs or sourcing of any kind (this drives a photographer friend of mine absolutely wild with rage). I like the reblogging function, but there’s still a resistance to (or a total failure to consider) sourcing beyond that.

  10. Yeah, definitely, Jadey.

    That sounds okay to me, Kathy! Regarding truncating, I would like to do that, were it not for accessibility issues… I know there are some blogs with white text on black writing I can only read in my feedreader simply because it takes the headache-inducing formatting out.

    Excuse me, everyone. I have to go out now and the mods on the other side of the planet are doubtless winding down for the night, so moderation is going to be slow for a bit.

  11. Sometimes a simple reflection
    on what you ’ve been reading recently or on
    the topic can help. In the course of writing
    this post, I thought about whether I had
    might have taken any ideas in it from
    anywhere else. I realised that the paragraph
    two above this one, on the effects of
    content stealing in terms of advertising and
    page views, reminded me of a post I’d read
    several months ago by past Feministe guest
    blogger s.e. smith called Don’t Infringe On Me.
    Now, if I’d left that unacknowledged, I would
    have been plagiarising.

    This problematic even in formal academic writing which may explain the casualness with which it is treated in blogsville. I mean I’ve often had citations to sources removed as extraneous when they were provided not to support a point, but rather to indicate the genesis of an idea or a related source that was consulted in the research process and that’s in law where we tend to cite everything.

    My SOs discipline is worse with people publishing books with attributions only to direct quotes and paraphrases.

    Of course in the social justice/blogosphere the real consequences of unconscious/conscious appropriation was demonstrated during the Amanda Marcotte/Seal Press/BFP debacle that occurred many moons ago (which I’d link to if I wasn’t on a blackberry)…my response is the same as it was then…I have privilege and part of being anti-oppression is not just acknowledging that privilege but also acting to reduce the harmed caused by it. So it is my *obligation* to listen to the voices of others and to amplify their voices before I speak with my own.

  12. Internet capital? I find myself skeptical of such a concept, certainly as something that can be stolen by re-posting an article or as something worth defending. The title sort of clarifies for me – can anyone “own” social justice work? Isn’t this an anti-capitalist blog? Doesn’t the girl on the logo have a gun for a reason?

  13. Mal, not all capital is monetary or material. Social capital for instance. And being anti-capitalist (which I don’t think this blog actually identifies as?) is not the same as being anti-capital, either. Nor does being anti-capitalist mean that one will necessarily be in a position to reject material capital and still survive (and I literally mean survive in some cases) in a capitalist culture.

    As for “owning” social justice work, it somewhat depends on what you mean by “work” and “own”, but, yes, copyright still applies to produced content even when it is produced in the context of social justice, to the extent to which copyright involves one type of “ownership” and explicit content one type of “work”.

  14. Citing has costs as well as benefits. The more work people have to do in order to share information, the less likely it is that the information will be easily shared.

    This isn’t a problem in academia, where sharing is required and where it happens no matter what. Academia is an odd situation.

    But it’s an interesting issue in real life: yes, it would be nice if people could hear your message and also credit you. But if you had the choice, would you rather have more people hear it, or more people know that you were the originator?

    And from a different standpoint: can ideas be owned? Should they? Yes, there’s some obligation to credit people when you use their exact language. But that’s largely because language is precise. Ideas are imprecise. When i hear people getting annoyed because ideas aren’t credited, I find that chilling. i want ideas to be shared with the maximum freedom.

  15. I think Mal has a point though. Framing this through property rights makes it difficult for those who have problems with the way property rights are understood in our society to engage.

    The issue of ideas, being atributed and not being attributed, is even more complex. I’m just not sure that either the concept of copyright or plagerism, really gets to the heart of what’s going on. Plagerism is based on an extremely individualistic model of work, where you are claiming as an academic writer that all your work is your individual work, it’s also not a concept that takes into account the power dynamics, and readership between the two (which is where I think not attributing ideas is a problem in social justice movements).

    For me, more useful ways of talk about this are about voices, whose voice is being heard and ideas of appropriation (although that is a difficult and complex idea).

    I agree with Chally that the things that she has identified as problems are problems, but a model of social justice work where it is something you can steal, goes against how I understand my work and my writing.

    On a related note, I find ideas such as ‘internet capital’ and ‘social capital’ deeply problematic. It’s using ‘capital’ as a metaphor for things which do not act in any way like actual capital acts. Which in turn leads to less clear thinking about capital and capitalism.

  16. First, I’m horrible with html, so pardon any mistakes here…

    Secondly…a big sigh and yeah to this…I have been dealing with this issue recently that digs well beyond plagarism…
    Truthout About Kyriarchy: An Open Letter to “Feminist” Writers, Bloggers, and Journalists

  17. Maia, I see your point. I think it’s also partly the frustration that the burden of resisting the system falls so disproportionately on those who have the least to give already, in terms of personal, financial, and social resources (which is probably the alternative to “capital” that you would find more appropriate, and which I am more used to – your point about the blurring effect of the metaphor is well-taken). I’m at a loss for my specific sources at the moment (and on this thread too, durnit! but my google skillz are failing me), but I know I have read before in many places about the way that social justice work is expected to be done out of the purity of our hearts and without the recompense that makes living in our society as it is possible or bearable, and that to do otherwise tarnishes our efforts, makes us and our motives less pure. There’s also the issue, which I think you allude to, of the way lack of recognition seems to most drastically impact voices that are already chronically marginalized and suppressed. Insisting on recognition is one way to combat that.

    But maybe it’s an an issue of “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (AUDRE LORDE, people – the money quote of her essay of the same name, which I see quoted, uncredited, all the freaking time). Either way, I’m glad for the discussion here.

  18. A notion as commonplace as “copying full posts may deprive the original author of ad revenue” requires a citation to avoid a charge of plagiarism? This seems a little too scrupulous. I’d think an acknowledgement carries more force when the reader to can understand it to mean that the person cited has made some significant, original contribution.

  19. But maybe it’s an an issue of “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (AUDRE LORDE, people – the money quote of her essay of the same name, which I see quoted, uncredited, all the freaking time).

    Lol, mainly I chalk that up what my SO derisively calls the coffeehouse intellectual phenomenon. Its part of the background info that everyone discussing feminism is expected to have. Like the bible or shakespeare or American Idol in most USian cultural references. Lorde’s essay and its key idea is like the bible’s story of Sodom and Gomorrah (and retolded and referenced with about the same level of accuracy and insight).

  20. wait, if you’re writing in the name of social justice, what is the problem with having your pieces spread far and wide? or is it more about making money?

  21. Julian: No, not the notion itself, but the particular configuration of ideas around it in that paragraph.

    No, Chuck. Perhaps what Maia is saying about whose voices are heard and ideas of appropriation would be a framework that you can relate to? There is no problem with social justice writing being spread, the problem is when doing so entails dynamics that harm people, which is exactly contrary to the idea of social justice. And seriously, how much money do you think social justice bloggers make off even the larger blogs? Of course it’s not about money; that’s very insulting.

  22. I really wasn’t trying to troll, I’m in very much the same situation as the author in a lot of ways – writing freelance and for a non-profit is tough for real, but I think we should also be careful about the reactionary tendency that comes from that hardship. I don’t think any social justice work is improved by imposing ownership, so the focus should be on supporting people as a community (materially, emotionally, etc.) such that they can do this kind of work sustainably, not on writers getting paid what we “deserve” for our work. I meant anti-capitalist as a compliment and (though I know there’s been much discussion) I’m a big fan of the girl with the gun).

    And Maia’s point about calling things that aren’t capital “capital” is a crucial one. Capital is a relationship, a shitty one at that, and not one I want to impose on anything.

  23. Er, my focus was hardly on “deserved” pay, either, but on the kinds of things you’re talking about: sustainable work and treating each other properly.

  24. Usually & Chuck,

    The issue isn’t money or credit in the pat on the back for awesomeness sense. It as Maia said about which voices get heard and, secondarily, what gets lost in translation. And that is more about the power dynamics at the heart of any anti-oppression movement.

    The reality is as a white, cis, TAB, USian, educated woman people are going to be more likely to listen to me and take my words more seriously even when I talk about things outside my experience. So if I were say to write a book about the treatment of disability in say movies and I failed to point people to who were disabled whose writings I used in my process that would be appropriating their work, their experience and using my relative position of power to erase their contributions in a way that would not be acceptable if the ideas had come from some famous, published white dude from Yale.

    IMO even acknowledgement under these circumstances in insufficient. When you’re in a position of relative power and speaking of someone else’s experience, its not enough to just cite the people who influenced you peripherally, you need to seek out voices of those who are marginalized by that experience, including those that contradict your opinion, so that they can be included.

  25. I’ve always viewed citations and fair-use quotations as a matter of honesty and solidarity, not so much one of ownership. If someone else cooked up an idea, properly acknowledge it. If you have nothing to add, don’t copy the whole post; provide some representative text and link back to/cite the source so that people can expose themselves, if desired, to other work by the writer/creator. We have a strong tendency to fixate upon and spread ideas, and who/where those ideas came from can be just as important to know as the idea itself – context and all that jazz.

    Re: plagiarism and cheating in academia, there was a story linked from Slashdot last week about a professor who determined, using statistical analysis, that a third of his class had likely cheated on a midterm. The suspicion was strengthened by a piece of evidence – a student anonymously dropped a copy of a circulating answer key into his mailbox. The ensuing comment thread made me wonder just what the heck is going on in education these days. Has there always been so much difficulty teaching student proper citation methods and the reasons for doing them? I had that stuff pounded into my skull in high school.

  26. Thank you for articulating exactly why it’s harmful to cross-post an entire blog post onto your own space, or republish it elsewhere, even with links back, without permission. That was one of those weird things… I haven’t done it, but I always felt like it would be wrong to do so, and hadn’t considered the page view thing, among others. Which is odd considering my own obsession with my page views.

    This was a really informative post, thank you!

  27. I’m not sure I agree/understand this post. Are you saying that people shouldn’t quote passages of another’s blog even if they link and provide a reference? People use quotations all the time when doing essay writing as well, so it’s not like it’s total unprecidented. At least I always did. Now I feel like I did something wrong… I thought it was okay as long as you cite your references and the quotation in quotes – ? But then at the end it seems like you’re contradicting yourself by saying it’s okay if it’s a short passage. Are you saying just don’t post the whole blog post b/c it’s like quoting an entire article or book?

    Also how are you supposed to police your thoughts? If you read a lot of blogs and then three months later you talk about something similar to a post you read back then, you’re saying that’s plagarism? It kinda makes me think that any thoughts could fall into that category… I mean I wasn’t born knowing what male privilege is… well not the term anyways. And every time I refer to the concept though I don’t reference who originated it.

    I get the idea of consent as well, but it’s not always possible to reach the original author. For instance, what if you quote a commenter without their own blog? What if you quote a blog in your comment? Also, if I quote Suetonius I can’t really get his permission before hand since dead and all… Why isn’t citing (and links in the case of internet to internet citations) enough? Is it just because of the page traffic?

    Anyways, I’m very curious because I just started my own blog and am curious about what’s appropriate/netiquette…

  28. Tec, I think I make it quite explicit in the post that fair use excerpts/quotes are acceptable if a link back in present. I don’t think you’re supposed to police your thoughts, I think that if you can trace an influence on your ideas, the responsible thing to do is to cite it. Generally you don’t cite concepts that are considered to have been absorbed into common knowledge, and I’d judge that “privilege” falls under that. If you can’t link back to a blog, then you obviously can’t. 🙂

  29. Is fair use okay because it’s legal? The law is arbitrary and not a very good standard for, well, anything. I guess I don’t really understand the reasoning here beyond a pragmatism that isn’t working anyway.

  30. Well naturally the legality would vary in different countries and such, so no. As I said, ‘a few sentences at the most’ simply seems fair to me, and a way of working towards a way of sharing content and ideas that doesn’t take advantage of writers/workers.

  31. Jadey – I overuse the phrase ‘resources’ precisely because I think it does a really good job of conveying the range of things

    I could respond in screeds about the problems with social justice and liberation work being something that we do out of the goodness of our hearts – and what alternative concepts are and how to create them – but I suspect that would be a massive derail. So I just want to acknowledge the importance of understanding that there are hugely different motives and aims involved in writing in general and blogging in particular. I think it’s important not to devalue or belittle or cut across or make difficult those for whom supporting themselves/gaining resources is part of their aim.

    I’m not sure about your Audre Lorde example though – surely that depends on the audience and tone? There’s an audience where you quote or reference that quote and you assume that people will know what you’re talking about it and recognise it as a quotation (I’ve seen a cartoon that used that knowledge as part of the point of the cartoon).

    Chally – One of the reasons that I sympathised with Mal’s point is because I found your post very universalising – something I feel even more in your later reply. It seemed to be based on a particular model of writing in general and blog writing in particular. You don’t mention that some people licence their work under creative commons licences, that there exist other models for understanding writing and ownership.

    In any case, people deserve justice, and that includes respectful treatment of their writing.

    I would absolutely agree with this. But I think it’s a huge jump to assume that respectfully treating someone’s writing always means not quoting for more than a few sentences.

    The most widely read piece I’ve ever written was a short piece that exposed cop-rapists that had name-suppression. We’d distributed 1,200 leaflets at the railway station, and then destroyed all evidence (because of the name suppression). Multiple people who got that leaflet typed it up and e-mailed it to people they knew, those people then forwarded it on. Some people printed out the leaflets in other areas from the e-mail forwards and distributed them. There was nothing about the leaflet that indicated that the author was OK to have it copied. That leaflet was under copyright, my copyright was broken, but reproducing that leaflet was the most respectful way anyone could treat my writing and the most effective way to show solidarity to me (we were in a spot of legal trouble at this point).

    When I did a post about Pike River I just said that I had nothing to say and I quoted considerably more than three sentences of someone who was living in Greymouth when I gave a link to a post she had written. She thanked me.

    To me a model of not sharing more than a few sentences doesn’t feel like “a way of working towards a way of sharing content and ideas that doesn’t take advantage of writers/workers.” It feels like universalising what writers want – which is surely what respect is based upon?

  32. The prevalence of plagiarism and copyright infringement in the blogging world shocks me in the same way that it shocked me when I moved from the journalism world, a highly ethical industry (at least in my experience), to business, where plagiarism is called “inspiration” and people see nothing wrong with copying entire designs or tranches of text for lack of their own ideas.

    Personally, I love the process of gaining permission to put quotes from other people’s blogs on mine – it gives me an excuse to write to people who I admire, and perhaps begin a friendship with them. If I find something that is wonderful enough to repost, you bet I want to talk to the person who wrote it!

  33. Blogs are not static – researched, written, done – academic papers and I think that is one of the more important aspects of this issue (in addition to what Chally and others have said.)

    It’s great to get social justice information and ideas out there – that is often the entire point of people writing about them. But social justice bloggers, especially, do not usually think of something or express thoughts and ideas, and then stop there – some take these ideas and shake them out, test them out, report back on how this works in “the real world”; in practice, does this do more harm or good? Has it been found to be offensive in some way that was not thought of before? Was it a patronizing thought in the first place? Or have they found a new “best way” to effect this change? So on.

    Thus one reason for the importance of excerpting and linking to the original source and having the social justice conversation within context. Also, of course, the tendency of those who have little or no background in an issue, or a way of life, to *think* they understand what the original poster is saying, to think that they have the capability of carrying this forward, even though their lives have been lived well outside of whatever the context is and they just have no clue … well, this is well-known and documented.

    Lisa has an instance of that last (not exactly like what is being talked about here, but similar in its progression), so I’m going to do her html for her for anyone who wants to read it:

    Truthout About Kyriarchy: An Open Letter To “Feminist” Writers, Bloggers, and Journalists

    Social/internet capital is also extremely important for social justice, and other, purposes particularly for those who are traditionally on the margins of any system. When it comes time to put together panels, or to exert influence over policy or conversations, these people on the margins – no matter how much work they have been doing in defining and expanding on theory, fitting it within contexts and such, it seems to be forgotten that they even exist.

    And, yes, it’s great to tear down or discount existing systems, but that is usually most advocated by those who, at any time they wish, can or do benefit from these same systems. Me, I am a socialist – in theory, but in practice, in a capitalist country, I see too many people who are missing out on not only basic needs, but opportunities to participate in the existing system at all. These are usually the ones first crushed underfoot, no matter whose foot it is.

    Too often, even now, the ideas and work of those “on the ground”, so to speak (some do work primarily on the internet due to various, previously limiting factors), are spread far and wide, disconnected from their actual sites or continued work (“isn’t it a good thing to get the word out? Isn’t that worth something?”), or statically (is that a word?) incorporated into the work of those who do have a measure of internet capital (but, perhaps, less than perfect understanding), while the ideas themselves, on the original site, grow and change and adapt to lived lives and circumstances.

  34. I was doing some research into the origins of the word “kyriarchy” lately. That might actually be a good example. The term itself was coined by a white woman, Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. The idea itself had been floating around in the black feminist movement for quite some time, but it didn’t catch on until a white woman proposed it. See http://myecdysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/accepting-kyriarchy-not-apologies.html and comments for a bit of discussion.

    This is the kind of thing that happens with all the isms. It’s all too frequently a matter of an idea not taken seriously until a person in power says it. Then all of a sudden they’re the most brilliant person ever, even though *it’s not their idea.* It’s another way of reinforcing existing power systems by giving credit to the people in power rather than the actual people responsible.

  35. I’m surprised at the push-back on this post. Chally isn’t presenting an impossible, pie-in-the-sky ideal here. She’s saying: quote a piece and link, don’t take a whole post. If a post or a book inspires you or gets you thinking along certain lines, mention it and link it. If you get a news story or a post idea from some other blig, link it. Not hard!

  36. I think it would be useful in these kinds of discussions to make sure we’re very specific about the terms used – there’s a big different between the ethics of plagiarism (copying someone else’s work and claiming it’s yours) and copying with citation (copying someone large chunks of someone else’s work without their permission, may or may not be legal/illegal depending on the copyright and intellectual property laws of your country). The latter usually stems from enthusiasm for the content, which is one of the reasons why people have such a hard time understanding that it’s not okay – especially if they themselves wouldn’t mind if someone did that with their own writing/photos. “It’s a compliment!” “Don’t you want people to read it?”

    You don’t get to make that choice for someone else. Their reasons for not wanting their blog posts or whatever copied onto other websites may make sense to you or not, but your opinion isn’t the deciding vote. Their words or images or video, their moral and often legal right to determine who can use them and how. They don’t have to justify it to anyone.

    For people who don’t mind being copied with attribution, or being copied even without attribution, there are plenty of ways to make that known – from opting for a formal license like Creative Commons to just writing at the top of every post “Hey, as long as you link back to me feel free to copy this everywhere you want to.” Tons of people do that with the photos on Flickr, which is very generous, but some people don’t choose to and we should respect that.

    That’s why Tumblrs are pretty hellacious for respecting people’s rights to determine what happens to their own creative work. I can’t tell you how many blogs I’ve seen putting up an image and the only “credit” is “via weheartit” or something. No idea who really made whatever it is and no way to dig backwards and find out. Facebook is even more frightening, with their Terms of Service changeabouts that at times have basically given them ownership of any content you upload. You put someone else’s funny picture there, now Facebook owns it legally. Oops. (Nic Steenhout at Accessbility NZ had a post about this from last year but it seems like his site is down right now: Why I issued a DMCA takedown notice to Facebook.)

    When it comes to copying posts or other content from people who are writing from a place of less privilege in this screwed up society, it gets even more disrespectful. Who would I be, as a woman with a truckload of privilege, to think that a womanist writer with a disability would necessarily find it a compliment to have her post reprinted in full on my blog, especially if it turns out that I am Failing all over the place on social justice issues (hopefully without knowing it) – and getting more attention than she is for writing it because I have more traffic? I’d far rather link to it and do a couple of sentence excerpt to send people over there.

  37. Jill:
    I’m surprised at the push-back on this post. Chally isn’t presenting an impossible, pie-in-the-sky ideal here. She’s saying: quote a piece and link, don’t take a whole post. If a post or a book inspires you or gets you thinking along certain lines, mention it and link it. If you get a news story or a post idea from some other blig, link it. Not hard!  

    Agreed, putting in a citation and a hyperlink isn’t hard.

    Incidentally, I know the original article was written in a rather general way, but was there a rash of recent incidents of plagiarism that spurred this blog post?

  38. Maia, you’re right, I was universalising. I just wanted to thank you for making such thoughtful responses. 🙂

    David: No, there wasn’t – so far as I have noticed! – thankfully.

  39. I really urge people to read the piece Nanette linked to, and also the one Sunset linked to (by the same author, Lisa Factora-Borchers). I especially appreciated this part:

    I studied in one of Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza’s classes, one of the most searing feminist theologians of our time, and, afterward, took a personal vow and role of academic vigilante. Such thoughts and transformative insights, I thought, should be made available to those outside the ivory tower….I thought that by offering a new term for folks to chew on, a deeper understanding of who we are and why we are the way we are would bubble. At the very least, an on-going and informal conversation of patriarchy vs. kyriarchy would be achieved.

    BOOM. That right there. Right. there. I never would have heard the term “kyriarchy”, had Lisa not brought it to light in the feminist blogosphere. I am grateful that she thought enough about those of us who aren’t in academia to bring it forward (‘cuz let’s face it, “The System” wasn’t really working as a description, for any number of reasons.)

    The fact that she—Lisa—did that, illustrates perfectly why it’s important to give credit where credit is due. Look at the words she used to describe it…”academic vigilante.” How many other people over the years learned the word “kyriarchy”, yet never thought about how useful it could be? How many other people never would have thought to be “academic vigilantes”—who were content to be among the “chosen”….those who have the “proper credentials” to instigate and participate in these conversations?

  40. @Jill, The pushback, at least on my end, is because it isn’t an impossible pie-in-the-sky idea. Writing is getting harder and harder to do professionally, and copyright protections aren’t gonna save anyone. That status quo is unacceptable, even if (especially if) everyone followed the rules.

    Being a socialist or a radical “in theory” is only useful there, and I’ve personally never met anyone who’s been to “theory”…

  41. Thanks for this discussion, yo. I agree that it’s important to respect people’s preferences (explicit or implicit, in Maia’s leaflet case) — at least the best that we can figure ’em.

    In terms of blogging/internet publishing in particular, I also wonder, though, about the indirectness of the relationship between links, traffic, etc. (“internet capital” – maybe fictive capital?) and material resources (i.e. funding, donations).

    What would it be like to try to shift the norms around small donations for online writings and publications, particularly around social justice? Someone else said this I think (sorry, can’t find it in the thread!), but as a writer, part of the reason that traffic and links seem important is that the exposure may someday, somehow translate into paid writing opportunities.

    But this feels like a kind of backward way to approach it (although also commonplace?).

    As a contrast: when I go to a dharma talk once a week, at the end of the 2 hour session there’s an introduction of “dana,” or generous giving: basically an opportunity to support the volunteer-run, social-justice-focused, all-donation-based community meditation center from which I benefit. The human-to-human acknowledgment and generosity itself is a big part of what helps the center to thrive; what colors people’s attitudes of gratitude toward each other. I barely have an income, but I usually try to give like $5 US to the center’s operations, and $5 US to the teacher of the evening, every time I attend. No pressure, and it feels great.

    Do I give $5 every time I read a blog post that really inspires me, in an online community I appreciate? No. Do others? Maybe! (?) I’d love to know what folks’ practices are.

    My point (which is kind of a sub-point of the main point, and what Mal and Maia and others are getting at, as I hear it) is that I’d love to see us consciously taking up direct, circulating support of each other with small donations, which might put the linking practice in proper perspective, and give due credit to the blogging practice as a social justice/artistic/community offering.

    Part of the problem, I think, is that I’ve yet to see an internet/blogger tool that creates a firm yet gentle “ask.” We have small-change-generating ads floating around the sidebars of bigger blogs (personally I feel really ambivalent about using ads on social justice sites), and we have occasional “drives” like the cool effort to buy bfp a new computer (hella fun to contribute to), but besides the passive “donate” button kind of swept to the side, we don’t have a way of connecting to people and saying, “hey, i really enjoy providing this content, and i rely in part on readers to support my livelihood. if you feel this was of benefit to you, any donation you could give would be greatly appreciated, and would help enable me to continue these offerings.”

    Have others here come across easily accessible software like this? In my ideal world, I’d love to see close-captioned/transcripted videos of bloggers pop up after a certain reader (tracked by IP?) has visted X number of times or for Y amount of total minutes. The author or stand-in makes a firm but gentle and friendly ask, and there’s a donate button right there, maybe with more reliability than PayPal, which I hear some people find shitty, and I personally don’t use.

    Ok, I hope that wasn’t a massive derail, but rather an expansion on the strand of the conversation that talks about the “resources” available to us in internet publishing, and the economies that circulate those resources. If folks have reading recc’s on this subject, I’d be grateful!

  42. Mal: @Jill, The pushback, at least on my end, is because it isn’t an impossible pie-in-the-sky idea. Writing is getting harder and harder to do professionally, and copyright protections aren’t gonna save anyone. That status quo is unacceptable, even if (especially if) everyone followed the rules.
    Being a socialist or a radical “in theory” is only useful there, and I’ve personally never met anyone who’s been to “theory”…  

    Oy. What is so complicated about this? It’s this simple: Using brief fair-use quotes and linking back to the source article is just simply *decent and considerate* of the original author. Especially so if the original author lacks one or more privileges that you have.

    Remember in kindergarten you were taught to share rather than grab and take?

  43. It is very simple, but the problem of property isn’t. I don’t think invoking any so-called “right” to property – intellectual or otherwise – is any good for the left.

  44. Mal: It is very simple, but the problem of property isn’t. I don’t think invoking any so-called “right” to property – intellectual or otherwise – is any good for the left.  

    This is where I’ve discovered a bit of cognitive dissonance in myself. I’m quite vehemently opposed to the notion of property rights, such as they function as a very fundamental part of colonialist oppression (although, as a person living as a descendant of colonists in a violently and continuously colonized country, I can tell you that as an individual I have no notion of how to disengage from this particular form of complicity), but clearly I have not yet extended the same line of thinking to intellectual property.

    I maintain that a certain degree of complicity is pragmatic and realistic – I can’t opt out of every aspect of the system I find oppressive and I don’t expect others to. The burden is immense. My greatest concern is the way in which the voices most sidelined by this kind the lack of respect for source and storyteller are those most marginalized. I expect that many times Audre Lorde is cited by and among those who are already familiar with her, but the voices of queer black women are hard to come by precisely because they are excluded and pushed aside, as her essay describes – why not celebrate them at every opportunity?

    And perhaps invoking the idea of storytellers and oral traditions can both further elucidate and complicate my position on this. In storytelling, each time the story is repeated (and stories are meant to be repeated), it is different, but it still comes from a whole history of storytellers, the recognition of and respect for whom is central to the integrity of story-telling. It’s not that new storytellers and new iterations of the story are inappropriate or discouraged for infringing on someone else’s intellectual rights, because the stories come out of communities of people and belong to everyone. But the histories of stories and where they have come from is a vital component of their meaning and value.

    I think the problem here is that we are working within such an individualistic framework, pitting “creator” against “user”, when in a very real sense we are a collectivity of collaborators, creating and using together. But the collective approach, while perhaps not using language like “copyright” and “intellectual property”, does still have its own system of respect for origins and tracing and acknowledging the history of an idea. It is important to me that something like “the master’s tools” came from Audre Lorde, and from the essay that she wrote, rather than being an unattributed quotation floating about the Internet. It is important for me to know where “kyriarchy” came from, who it came from, and how it has developed as a word and concept as we have embraced it and brought it to life in our work. I think it does behoove us to remember and respect and support in any way we can (including by helping each other get by in an admittedly capitalist mode of living) those whose voices and thoughts further all of our goals.

    I don’t think there should be any kind of formalized system of penalties or a doctrine of activist blogger laws or anything of that sort, but I think it is important for us to engender and embody a respect for those who inspire us.

    And thank you to everyone participating in this conversation, the Feministe mods for facilitating it, and especially to Chally for making it happen.

  45. A second point I have, which I think Lisa’s example illustrates very well, is that there is a difference between the practices we have within the social activist blogging communities, and the practices we have where those communities intersect with people who might be looking to exploit our work for personal gain, be it the journalist who doesn’t do adequate research and writes an appropriative and misrepresentative article, students who come looking for someone else to do their assignments for them, academics who exploit the experiences of marginalized people for their research, and myriad other occurrences of this kind of disrespect. I realize that some of these examples are broader than plagiarism, but I believe that there is a common theme of exploitation and expectation of the already heavily burdened to take on the additional burden of education for the benefit only of the already highly privileged. Sometimes getting the information out there may be more important than sourcing it or giving credit, I agree, but it is also the case that many times that credit is not fluff, not a bonus, or something that is just nice but not essential – it the very thing that oppression denies, and that privilege works to its advantage.

  46. Klonke, I think that would be a wonderful system. I’ve thought of something like that and have even participated in the like (unofficially) from time to time. I have no clue how it could be implemented across a great many sites, though.

    As for the main topic, I think a lot of it is just common sense and common courtesy, as opposed to any legalities. Or in addition to, I guess.

    The way I see it, and often work it, if a post is about an event or “join in with this or that to effect this other thing” then I will sometimes repost the entire thing, with a link, because to me that is the equivalent of a bloggy press release. Same for if someone is putting together an anthology or something and they need to get the word out.

    If someone puts up a post about “This horrific thing is happening RIGHT NOW and the world needs to know!” there again I will tend to repost the entire thing, or at least the vast majority of it. The important thing there is that people realize that this is a matter that needs attention – of course if the original blogger has done a lot of personal journalism/legwork on the issue then I treat it differently, depending on how they’ve fashioned their copyright.

    Stuff that is the personal work and writing of someone, which is the bulk of feminist/womanist/social justice blogging (at least of the sites I visit) – that, a brief excerpt and a link, along with my own thoughts should I have any. Not only because of what I was saying before, about context, but also because I think that work that is impressive enough that I wish to share it with others, should be impressive enough that I wish to also share the author and their other writing with others. So even if the writer has a Creative Commons copyright thingy (like share what you like, but with attribution or whatever, which is what I have had on my sites for years) I only use an excerpt and link.

  47. Give and take. I think an author has at least earned the right to call a work their “own” if they were the ones who originated the central ideas in the work. Their gift to everyone else (in the form of the ideas that they communicated to the world) should at least be met by an aknowledgement of their hard work.

    Obviously property is a complicated issue, especially intellectual property rights. BUT we’re not saying that people have to pay the author every time that they quote something. We’re just saying that people should put a citation and a link next to their quote as a means of thanking the original author. So, essentially, its not really an issue of property. Its an issue of etiquette. The left has just as much to gain by being nice to people as anyone else.

  48. It is very simple, but the problem of property isn’t. I don’t think invoking any so-called “right” to property – intellectual or otherwise – is any good for the left.

    … now if I had simply left it at that, cutting and pasting what you wrote and claiming I’d written it, wouldn’t that be kind of annoying? And wrong? You don’t have to get into property rights at all in order to see what’s wrong with that.

    I’m really not quite sure what you’re arguing here.

  49. Hey, if you want to use those words, more power to you. And us.

    I like what Jadey said.

    And I cite Jadey, and I’m cool with that.

    I’m also really glad that Feministe can play host to these kind of discussions.

  50. I am a bit late to the game but I think these issues are exceedingly complicated. When I write freelance, the sites I write for usually don’t even allow that I use my own prior work. That counts as plagiarism. Clearly copying and pasting another person’s post is stealing. But there are other much more complicated issues, for example, how much can you put in quotation marks without asking for permission? When do you steal an idea as opposed to getting inspired by it? Often a simple “HT: …” will do to avoid being accused of plagiarism. But there is also an interesting question of the relative status of the sites. If a big-name site uses one of my ideas, then I would like more than just a “HT” acknowledgment. Otherwise people are going to forget who came up with the idea to begin with.

  51. Thanks Chally. And as Jadey says thanks

    Lots of people have made super interesting points, and I think that reveals how while we can agree on some basic tennants, there are many different ideas about writing – and what it is we’re doing while blogging.

    I made a decision, I can’t remember when, that the only reason I’d post on my blog is because I had something I wanted to say. And I think this model of writing – it’s not even ‘I want people to hear this’ – it’s I want to have the process of saying it and unpacking it – really does change how I view this discussion.

    A couple of people have asked why anyone is disagreeing with what Chally has said. I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me the main question isn’t whether or not the ideas Chally set out are reasonable (I think they are, except the idea that a few sentences is the most you should quote from another blog). It’s the frameworks she used for understanding and exploring those ideas.

    So absolutely, most of the time, reposting a whole post of someone else’s blog without their express permission is not OK.

    Although already I’m thinking of counter-examples, as well as some Nanette has given (which are distinctions I agree with). For example, people regularly post whole poems (this week a few people have posted a Laura Hershey poem to mark her death). It might be appropriate to reproduce a bloggers work that you particularly admire in the same circumstances. I have posted the lyrics of a song in their entirety (a situation I feel entirely OK about, because Pete Seeger is OK with me using the words for Talking Union to celebrate a union victory). If we’re using the framework of property rights a poem is no different from a blogpost. Although there are lots of other ways of looking at it, which would explain why most people are much more comfortable with people reposting poems and song lyrics than whole blog posts.

    And that’s my point – there are so many different ways we could look at this and they’re not all compatible. A legal approach is different from a approach based on respect, which is different again than one which is based on understanding structural relationships and power, and whose voices are heard. There are lots of things that are legal but can be disrespectful (such as not attributing where your ideas come from) or can reinforce existing power structures.

    Which is why I find an appeal to copyright naieve. Copyright is extremely problematic – it can alienate a creator from what they have created. It can also be a tool that restricts people from experiencing creative works, whatever the wishes of their creators (my co-blogger Amp has an interest in this and has posted some really good examples over the years). Copyright won’t always match what is respectful, nor is that a tool that understands power differences.

    I’d also like to acknowledge other sorts of social justice writing. There is a long tradition of ‘pass it on’ leaflet writing. Where someone writes something and someone else looks over and changes it, and together they publish it. Then someone else sees it, and likes it, and maybe changes it a bit to fit hte situation, or just adds on something new, and reproduces it, and so on. Jack London’s ‘the scab’ wasn’t actually written by Jack London, and has been reproduced in many many forms, with the original author uncredited. Maybe the original author would have objected, we can’t ever know. But the individual author model of writing isn’t the only one with a history within social justice movements.

    In terms of what I think in a positive sense. I think that blog writers should treat other blog writers with respect, if they respect each other. I think that it’s OK that sometimes people don’t respect each other and some traditions of blogging that involve a lot of quoting – such as fisking – are based on a lack of respect. If you don’t know what other people want done with their words, then going beyond a proportionately short quote is probably disrepsectful (depending on the circumstances – like I said I think Nannette makes some important distinctions above). But I think in all of this we have to understand that there are power differences involved that mean that some people are more likely to have access, and to be listened to than others. We can’t get rid of those individually, not with all the respectful quoting, acknowledging and referencing in the world.

    Incidentally, the only time I’ve felt my words as a blogger have been treated disrespectfully by what I would broadly call comrades is on feministe. I felt that my views were misrepresented – and to me that was exacerbated by the fact that I had gone nameless – the blogger admitted that she hadn’t wanted to single me out by name, but had been talking about me.

    I find responding and disagreeing with people without naming them, using their own words, but instead dealing with a version of them that you’ve constructed, really disrespectful.

    I may be alone in this. But I’d much rather see my words taken and used in a way I agreed with without attribution, than have people attribute ideas I don’t actually hold to me (whether they name me or not).

  52. Ok now I can’t get to sleep, because I just realised that I’d done to Zuzu what I’d complained about her doing to me – so here’s a link to the original post so that my charactersiation of her words doesn’t stand alone (I was trying to describe my expereience rather than argue with what she was saying – but intention often doesn’t matter).

    But I do think that illustrates that there can be compounding factors that complicate how to treat other bloggers words – and that

    For example, I think when you’re disagreeing with someone, then it’s usually far more respectful to quote them than not. It’s more respectful to let their own words stand there next to yours, than for you to try and control their view of the issue, as well as yours. I would think that woudl be respectful even if you end up quoting a reasonably large chunk (as comment threads often involve copying rather large chunks). But there are lots of times I don’t do that, sometimes because I have other competing goals.

  53. I so agree with this post. My work has been stolen time and time again and I don’t have the energy to track it all down. I don’t mind if they use a few paragraphs but it is simply outright theft to take something I have worked so hard on. It is hard enough to make any money doing this and it consumes a lot of time. I think this is particularly when theft occurs from traditionally marginalized people. When I contacted on thief (Yes I meant to use that word) they told me that I should be flattered that they wanted to use my work.

  54. Thank you for this post, the linked s.e. smith post and the comments. This discussion has been and I am certain will continue to be illuminating

    I don’t want to derail and would like to contribute but I’m stuck on something a commenter said, and much as I don’t want to be a jerk and ask anyone to derail and explain to me, I have been searching this term out for twenty minutes and don’t know what it means: TAB? As a white, cis, youngish feminist I am sure it applies as well, but I’d like please to know what it means, if anyone can spare a second for me.

    Thank you very much! Again, sorry about the derail.

  55. Thank you, Chally!

    I feel as if a lot of problems in this vein might be eliminated were we to simply ASK authors and originators what they would like done with their work?

    1. I feel as if a lot of problems in this vein might be eliminated were we to simply ASK authors and originators what they would like done with their work?

      See, and that part I actually disagree with. Part of creating public work is putting it out there for public consumption — whether that be discussion or criticism. I think it’s ridiculous to expect that you could put your work (whether it’s a blog post or a book or an article or a song or a painting) out there and expect that any time it’s used (discussed, criticized, linked to) that your permission is asked. That really ratchets down the ability to have conversations about ideas and art.

      I do think it’s reasonable to retain rights to the work as a whole — to not have your whole blog post reproduced on another site just as a blog post. But if another site quotes part of your post, with a link back, and then proceeds to criticize it? Or discuss it? Or add to it? That’s fair game, and I don’t think that the person doing the discussing and linking needs to ask permission. A permission-asking standard would also be a huge clusterfuck. I know I don’t have time to respond to half of the emails I get, and having to go through and grant permission every time someone wants to use a sentence of my work? Not going to happen, logistically. Also, when you’re writing a post, you’re inspired at that moment; often, you’re writing about an issue that has some sort of news hook, and waiting three days for permission to be granted can make the post irrelevant.

      Anyway, I’m not trying to shoot down your idea too hard — I’ve just heard it suggested before, and I can’t really see any upsides, other than some people who want total control over their work will get it. In which case I say, write in your journal, because that’s not how publishing works and it’s not how the internet works (or realistically could work).

  56. In which case I say, write in your journal, because that’s not how publishing works and it’s not how the internet works (or realistically could work).

    Although I should point out that there have been instances in which reprints that would seem to fall under fair use have been denied because the original publication was afraid they’d be made to look bad. I don’t have the examples on me at the moment, but I can dig them up if anyone wants. Copyright is getting pretty out of control.

    Also:

    great article about how copyright is full of shit. Just sayin. In particular, that bloglandia is not and never will be (thank goodness) the white tower of academia nor abide by its rules of behavior. Whit

    Whit, I’m not sure that’s what Doctorow is arguing in that article. Also, to those who want copyright abolished completely (correct me if I’ve misunderstood you), Lawrence Lessig’s book Free Culture is a great study of what copyright was originally meant to do and what, thanks to corporate clout (not so much academia) it’s doing now. (Disclaimer: I’ve only read chapter ten.)

  57. But if another site quotes part of your post, with a link back, and then proceeds to criticize it?

    Good point. I’m thinking of Pandagon, or Sadly No! — neither is an absolute bastion of political/liberal correctness, sure, but I very much like how they will often grab bits of a right-wing/misogynist asshat’s writing and beat the tar out of it (and Feministe does this too, natch.) I certainly can’t see them getting permission from the author for any of this, but they link back to the original and that seems appropriate. It’s a good idea to let the original piece speak for itself, even if only to let the original author dig hirself in deeper.

    You also, when dealing with the writings of assholes, have the issue of dishonesty to deal with. I’ve seen entire pieces of writing copied and then end up being the only record when the original is deleted in shame (I’m thinking the OpenSource Boob thing? Did that get taken down?) So I think in that situation you can have more “justice” being done when the entire piece is replicated/reposted, and when not in perfect alignment with the original writer’s wishes.

    But this is sort of a different aspect of social justice than Chally’s talking about, so /derail now. :p

Comments are currently closed.