Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 28th, 2012, 02:34 PM   #41

Comet's Avatar
Jedi Master
 
Joined: Aug 2006
From: IA
Posts: 8,676
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
Trademark? In Italy it would be odd about a thesis, if you haven't published it under the form of a book [commercial book I mean]: if "The Marquette Map Hoax" is also the title of a book ...
This is my point as well.
Comet is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 28th, 2012, 08:29 PM   #42

JoeGlidden's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: New York
Posts: 362

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comet View Post
I don't know about that. I've got stuff on the net too, but I wouldn't consider it published. It isn't backed by a university, college, organization, or the academic community. To be honest, I don't know how one would define publishing on the internet. It's sounds like we need more background on this...unless you have further insight on this of course
Librarians argue about this often, I'm sure others do as well. The common understanding of "published material" is text, graphic and/or audio-visual content on any medium, including print or electronic and websites are considered published material. I spent time during my masters work studying copyright (as well as academic dishonesty), I have my own personal website and I could choose to copyright the site but I don't. You can place a disclaimer on the pages with the symbol without filing a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. I do this on my own site, even though the copyright is only $35 for a basic electonic file.

A work doesn't need to be backed by an academic institution to be published or copyrighted, however it is easier to have that work defended when people choose to take ideas from it and pass it off as their own; especially when a university's hard earned money was put into the production of that work. The obverse is true too, works not backed by academic institutions are easier to lift from and it may be harder to prove a case when the works are lesser known or unknown to the greater academic community. One has to expect that publication on the internet before publication through a physical/tangible medium is risky as it increases the potential for someone to lift your ideas (especially well connected people who can get the information published quickly).

This is why the academic community is so downright disappointing, I have heard stories of students having their ideas lifted by professors, too. It's a shame that accomplished PhD professors have to take ideas from undergraduate students, but it happens all to often.
JoeGlidden is offline  
Old July 29th, 2012, 12:56 AM   #43

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 20,094
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeGlidden View Post
Librarians argue about this often, I'm sure others do as well. The common understanding of "published material" is text, graphic and/or audio-visual content on any medium, including print or electronic and websites are considered published material. I spent time during my masters work studying copyright (as well as academic dishonesty), I have my own personal website and I could choose to copyright the site but I don't. You can place a disclaimer on the pages with the symbol without filing a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. I do this on my own site, even though the copyright is only $35 for a basic electonic file.

A work doesn't need to be backed by an academic institution to be published or copyrighted, however it is easier to have that work defended when people choose to take ideas from it and pass it off as their own; especially when a university's hard earned money was put into the production of that work. The obverse is true too, works not backed by academic institutions are easier to lift from and it may be harder to prove a case when the works are lesser known or unknown to the greater academic community. One has to expect that publication on the internet before publication through a physical/tangible medium is risky as it increases the potential for someone to lift your ideas (especially well connected people who can get the information published quickly).

This is why the academic community is so downright disappointing, I have heard stories of students having their ideas lifted by professors, too. It's a shame that accomplished PhD professors have to take ideas from undergraduate students, but it happens all to often.
I understand this point and I share your perspective, anyway, as for I can understand, the matter is about the headline:

"The Great Marquette Map Hoax; a hoax unhoaxed"

now the usage of those wards, a sentence, are a matter of trademark, more than of copyrights [a different matter would be if the professors used the exact content of the thesis, but again as for I grasp, he was confuting it, so this would be odd].

Now, a couple of points:

regarding material on the net, I tend to agree that it's a form of publishing, but being a blog a public place with totally free access, it's not that strong [if the author doesn't obtain real copyrights from the authorities]. In a certain sense it's like to ask for copyright for what we tell in a crowded bar. In fact, only in case of commercial use by third subject in Italy it's the case for a trial or a legal action [otherwise it's a waste of time].

About the usage of a single sentence, in this case a title. Eh, here we've got negative precedents.

The Da Vinci Code is a great example of plagiarism active and passive. Dan Brown got ideas and contents from some "alternative historians" [overall, despite what has become more public, from Picknett and Prince], but the sentence "The Da Vinci Code" has been used in the titles of many works about that novel.

I've got a book carrying the title "The Da Vinci Code Uncovered" ... just to mention one, and I have never heard the author had troubles with copyrights.
AlpinLuke is online now  
Old July 29th, 2012, 04:02 AM   #44
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 462

The various examples of Da Vinci Code books, some pro- and some con- Dan Brown, are more examples like those I gave earlier. They use a word or phrase that identifies the specific theory that they wish to address. This is not plagiarism. But don't muddy the waters here - the accusations of plagiarism levelled at Brown have absolutely nothing to do with something so mundane as a title and everything to do with him using the works of others in his book without giving due credit. It should be highlighted, however, that Brown won the ensuing lawsuits on the grounds that fiction always draws on non-fiction.

I hate to be the one to say it, but what I am seeing here is someone whose work is being challenged trying to find any grounds, however flimsy, to shut his opponent up. But, sorry, that's how things work in academia (which you should know if you worked in a college). You put forward a theory and it is challenged. If it stands up to scrutiny, then great. If it doesn't survive the challenges of other academics in the field it is either scrapped or re-worked.
Sokar Rostau is offline  
Old July 29th, 2012, 06:25 AM   #45

JoeGlidden's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: New York
Posts: 362

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlpinLuke View Post
I've got a book carrying the title "The Da Vinci Code Uncovered" ... just to mention one, and I have never heard the author had troubles with copyrights.
That's because copyright doesn't cover titles; ideas and content are another story. Trademarks would be more likely to cover a phrase (e.g. "Lets Get Ready To Rumble!") but it's not very common.

This is simply a case of a person who has come up with a catchy way of referring to an event/scenario in history and isn't thrilled with its parodical use. This has happened to me before and I am sure countless other historians. The best course of action is to engage the gentleman in the realm of academia by providing a more solid argument to dispute his own findings.

It was mentioned that when you give lectures, you're not required to cite sources. Although that may be the case, it shows that your argument has more solidity because it is backed up by facts and evidence. I have sat through many lectures where people fail or refuse to mention even the largest source which leads me to question the validity of their arguments. I see the lack of mention of sources during verbal presentations as a deceitful actionl; what's wrong with mentioning the sources, especially when someone asks for them, or are they hiding something?
JoeGlidden is offline  
Old July 29th, 2012, 07:22 AM   #46

Moros's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,971

The prof wasn't using your work as if it was his own. He was arguing against you're position. The problem is that he didn't mention you by name at all in his lecture, which would miff me a great deal if I were you, but he was under no obligation to do so, and anyone interested in the subject will seek out the points he was arguing against, and find your name all over them. It actually sounds like good publicity (although regretably not direct publicity) for your own research. If its sound research, any arguments against it will be no problem for you. Can you give your own lecture - advertised as "An Answer to Prof. X's Lecture On the Great Marquetta Map Hoax" and then source yourself throughout the lecture and make it clear that all the points being argued against by the Prof were yours and yours alone?

Using the title of your work as a heading for his own lecture is not plagiarism, especially as he altered the words as well, and the words on their own do not convey anything more than a short hand reference to your theory or research. You say you are the only researcher with this information, so those interested but who know nothing about it will just look it up later and find you, and those who do know something must already know who you are.

His lecture is also not published anywhere nor available to the public. It sounds like it was a one off talk he gave, relying on notes in his possession. I don't see it will damage your own research, but getting het-up about this minor detail will damage your reputation as a level headed thinker. Keep it in perspective - one prof on one (or have I got that wrong?) occasion failed to attribute you in an unpublished work - and it looks worse for him for having failed to quote his sources.

Last edited by Moros; July 29th, 2012 at 07:29 AM.
Moros is offline  
Old July 29th, 2012, 07:56 AM   #47

Carl J. Weber's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Chicago
Posts: 136

I don't know about that. I've got stuff on the net too, but I wouldn't consider it published. It isn't backed by a university, college, organization, or the academic community. To be honest, I don't know how one would define publishing on the internet. It's sounds like we need more background on this...unless you have further insight on this of course [use search engine, “publish on the internet”. The goal of google is to have everything in hard print also on the internet.]

I'm not sure what you mean here. Everything we do is a science. [Too general. Consider this: by same generalizing, everything we do is an art]Hard or soft, we still abide by the same guidelines handed down by the discipline. [There are no guidelines. At best, there are common practices, ropes, ins-and-outs. The word “guidelines” in this area is a reserved word for formatting submissions.]


Having material on the internet IS publishing. Like on the library shelves, some of it claims to be scholarly, others not. It is cited all the time.

I identified years ago the earliest known...

But was it published? That's the difference between who gets credit and who doesn't. You can speak it, promote it, etc...in the end, the academic community want it in hard copy with the appropriate documented evidence. [One article I published, on why a certain explorer DID discover (first known European) the Ohio River in 1669, sits in a hard copy on dusty shelves. This is part of my subject area history -- Maps/Exploration 1650-1700.

There is no such things as appropriate documentary evidence except in replicable experiments in the true sciences. Some of the documents in my area are forged. Some academics say they are authentic, some say not. Who do you trust? The recognized experts is all we have to go on -- mostly.

There is no ‘academic community’. The word ‘community’, before the 1960s, a term having, for one, a specific meaning in sociology, has been linguistically ‘generalized’ to meaningless -- as the community of Historum readers might agree]


Sorry for my inability to keep track of quotes that are nested and nested and nested.

To sum it up, I think, probably after I'm dead my revisions will win out as terra firma over the footnoted swamps dealing with my subject period. Here's my favorite related quote. "truth spreads by contagion, not veracity..." Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

Last edited by Carl J. Weber; July 29th, 2012 at 09:07 AM.
Carl J. Weber is offline  
Old July 29th, 2012, 08:13 AM   #48

Carl J. Weber's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Chicago
Posts: 136

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeGlidden View Post
Librarians argue about this often, I'm sure others do as well. The common understanding of "published material" is text, graphic and/or audio-visual content on any medium, including print or electronic and websites are considered published material. I spent time during my masters work studying copyright (as well as academic dishonesty), I have my own personal website and I could choose to copyright the site but I don't. You can place a disclaimer on the pages with the symbol without filing a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. I do this on my own site, even though the copyright is only $35 for a basic electonic file.

A work doesn't need to be backed by an academic institution to be published or copyrighted, however it is easier to have that work defended when people choose to take ideas from it and pass it off as their own; especially when a university's hard earned money was put into the production of that work. The obverse is true too, works not backed by academic institutions are easier to lift from and it may be harder to prove a case when the works are lesser known or unknown to the greater academic community. One has to expect that publication on the internet before publication through a physical/tangible medium is risky as it increases the potential for someone to lift your ideas (especially well connected people who can get the information published quickly).

This is why the academic community is so downright disappointing, I have heard stories of students having their ideas lifted by professors, too. It's a shame that accomplished PhD professors have to take ideas from undergraduate students, but it happens all to often.
Nice informative summary Joe. Since you've studied this area, a related area is patents. A few short years ago the patent laws changed. Now the rule is the owner is not who thought of it first, but who FILED first. I have patent protection for a magic trick and a harmonica learning accessory under "Provisional Application for Patent".

In this connection, my map-history discoveries relating to Marquette/Jolliet/LaSalle can be documented as having been up on the internet for years.

I'm not, in the end, trying to educate academics in my field. They are already ejumacated. My audience is the general educated public. The Chicago Trubune years ago decided to not write my highly praised (by them) revisions because of the, their words, academic back stabbers and the academic intrigue.

"truth spreads by contagion not veracity.." Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Last edited by Carl J. Weber; July 29th, 2012 at 09:08 AM.
Carl J. Weber is offline  
Old July 29th, 2012, 08:16 AM   #49

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 20,094
Blog Entries: 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeGlidden View Post
That's because copyright doesn't cover titles; ideas and content are another story. Trademarks would be more likely to cover a phrase (e.g. "Lets Get Ready To Rumble!") but it's not very common.

This is simply a case of a person who has come up with a catchy way of referring to an event/scenario in history and isn't thrilled with its parodical use. This has happened to me before and I am sure countless other historians. The best course of action is to engage the gentleman in the realm of academia by providing a more solid argument to dispute his own findings.

It was mentioned that when you give lectures, you're not required to cite sources. Although that may be the case, it shows that your argument has more solidity because it is backed up by facts and evidence. I have sat through many lectures where people fail or refuse to mention even the largest source which leads me to question the validity of their arguments. I see the lack of mention of sources during verbal presentations as a deceitful actionl; what's wrong with mentioning the sources, especially when someone asks for them, or are they hiding something?
In such a context, overall if sources are requested, I would say that the lecturer is not exactly above suspicion ...
AlpinLuke is online now  
Old July 29th, 2012, 08:37 AM   #50
Lecturer
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 462

I urge some of you to go back and re-read this thread. Carl was mentioned by name in the lecture. In the context of a lecture on a subject identified with few people generally and one person specifically, this is the equivalent of citing a source.

The more this thread progresses the more I am convinced that this is a "nontroversy" created in Carl's own mind. To make the point yet again, having your work scrutinised by others is how things work. Either your research stands up to that scrutiny or it doesn't. Find a way to make your own research stronger (which may mean taking what he has said on board and adapting your own theory to account for it) and prove him wrong. Or don't. End of story. Like it or not, that is how these things work. No amount of bleating about semantics will change that.

I find the comments about "academic backstabbing" especially interesting since you quite clearly are searching for just the right knife to use on him.
Sokar Rostau is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
carl j. weber, chicago map society, forgery, marquette map hoax, plagiarism



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Plagiarism in the Field of History JoeGlidden General History 8 July 29th, 2012 05:54 PM
Plagiarism Ranke General History 10 April 20th, 2008 05:53 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.