videorb

I subscribe to your Indiana Jones Magazine. While reading the "No Time for Love?" article in the latest issue earlier this week, I was stunned to discover that the description of Sophia Hapgood closely resembles an article I wrote not long ago for the Indiana Jones Wiki ( http://indianajones.wikia.com ). The relevant text from the magazine appears below.

"Born into a wealthy family from Boston, Massachusetts, Sophia Hapgood first encounters Indiana Jones on the Jastro expedition in Iceland. The two become close . . . . Later, Hapgood becomes convinced that a piece she has horded [sic] from the Jastro expedition once belonged to Atlantean king Nur-Ab-Sal. Indy warns her of the Nazis' interest in all things Atlantean and, after a series of adventures, they become romantically involved for a short while."

Compare this passage to the "Sophia Hapgood" entry on the Indiana Jones Wiki (authored in large part by me, under the user name Icybro, on June 5, 2007):

"Sophia was born into a wealthy family from Boston, Massachusetts . . . . Her first encounter with Indiana Jones was on the Jastro expedition in Iceland, where the pair unearthed many unusual artifacts. The two became close . . . . [Hapgood] became convinced the piece had once belonged to Atlantean king Nur-Ab-Sal. . . . Indiana Jones . . . warn[ed] Sophie of an urgent Nazi interest in all things Atlantean. . . and after the case, they became romantically involved—though briefly."

The similarities are unmistakable. Though I am obviously a fan of the Indiana Jones franchise and your magazine, the fact that my words were appropriated without proper attribution is unacceptable.

As you may be aware, all content on Wikia, including that of the Indiana Jones Wiki, is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Because the content in question was published without regard for the terms of this license, I would like to offer alternate terms. (I must clarify that I am writing on behalf of neither Wikia nor any other contributor to the Indiana Jones Wiki; but only myself, as author of the above text.) Please list my name, Joe Frese, among the contributors for the next issue, and I will relinquish all claims of infringement with regards to the material described above.

I understand that the pressures of publication occasionally lead to this sort of oversight, and I am confident that you are as anxious as I am to see a just resolution. If my terms are unsatisfactory, I am open to your suggestions. I look forward to your response.

Cordially,
Joe Frese

Thank you for your gracious response.

A clarification is probably in order: I have absolutely no complaint against your magazine's use of the Indiana Jones Wiki as a source of information. The site exists as a resource for Indiana Jones fans, and the fact that official representatives of Lucasfilm like yourself would turn to it as a reference is nothing if not flattering for contributors like myself.

Instead, the issue at hand is plagiarism: specifically, the appropriation of my words and phrases in an article attributed to you and ________ _______. As you rightly point out, Lucasfilm owns the characters and story elements that I wrote about. I cannot claim credit for the fact that in "Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis," Indy warns Sophia Hapgood of "an urgent Nazi interest in all things Atlantean"; but I can claim credit for expressing it in those words. When you express it using those same words--among others that I authored--without citing me, that is plagiarism.

I am sure that as a successful writer and editor, you understand this distinction.

I would assert that in such a situation, the subject matter is irrelevant; but the premise of your argument (and please correct me if I have misinterpreted anything here) seems to be that Lucasfilm, as creator of the Indiana Jones creative property, can legitimately claim ownership of anything written *about* that property. (Therefore, because you have been given the authority to use Lucasfilm's material as you see fit, the allegation amounts to, at worst, some sort of meaningless, corporate self-plagiarism.)

It is a fascinating position, but a strange one for somebody who has, as far as I can tell, built a career writing about other people's creative property. Would DC, then, have a legitimate right to reprint portions of your recent review of "The Dark Knight," giving credit to some staff writer? Would it be ethical for a reviewer at Disney-owned ABC News to write that "WALL-E" is a "____ _______, __________ ______ _________, _________ ______ _____" without citing your review?

With these questions in mind, I hope you will reconsider your position. Again, I would be satisfied to see my name among the magazine's contributors in the next issue--as I am convinced that I have in fact contributed--but I remain open to other ideas. Thank you again for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Joe Frese

I hope that you are enjoying the holidays, and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this set of entirely new arguments.

I am uncertain what to make of your first point, that the copied text made up a relatively small portion of the article. Plagiarism is plagiarism. Small-scale plagiarism is not categorically different than large-scale plagiarism, and is therefore no less deserving of corrective action. If you mean to say that such action should fit the magnitude of the offense, then I agree; but my suggestion (that you list my name among your contributors) is about the most mild remedy I can conceive. As I understand, it is significantly less severe than what the industry normally demands.

Your second argument asserts that Wikipedia-like articles "do[] not express any unique or original ideas or research," implying that such expression is unworthy of attribution and therefore cannot be plagiarized. In response, I can only reiterate that the subject matter is irrelevant. The expression itself is unique, and that is sufficient. I could point out recent cases in which a journalist (e.g. Tim Ryan at the Honolulu Star-Bulletin) was fired for plagiarizing Wikipedia specifically, but the most damning counter-argument is provided by the "No Time for Love?" magazine article itself. This article summarizes information from widely available sources, and contains no scholarly analysis or original research, exactly the same as my article on the Indiana Jones Wiki; yet you and ________ _______ saw fit to give yourselves credit for the words. If you are going to insist that my words amount to no contribution at all, then what exactly was your contribution?

There are several points I would like to make about your final argument, that determining the author of a wiki article can be difficult, making proper attribution difficult. First and foremost, the level of difficulty does not change the ethics of the situation; it is often difficult to do the right thing. That said, it may be easier than you think. The wiki software maintains an exhaustive, publicly accessible record of all edits made to every article, for the specific purpose of determining who wrote what; if you wish to copy text from the Indy Wiki, you may want to familiarize yourself with this feature. If the attribution process represents an undue burden, then there is a simple, ethical alternative: you can write your articles in your own words.

All debate aside, your last message hinted at the possibility of crediting the Indiana Jones Wiki as a source for the magazine. Again, speaking solely for myself, I may be willing to consider that as a satisfactory resolution to this issue. Is it a genuine offer, or have I misinterpreted your intentions?

As always, thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Kind regards,
Joe Frese