Visitor Comments, Feedback

Annotated [in boldface] Extracts of Comments and Feedback from Visitors to the FamousPlagiarists.com Website

Address your comments/criticisms/feedback to:

Dr. Lesko reserves the right to publish any comments/criticisms/feedback in this space. Anonymity of correspondents preserved upon request except for legal threats (other kinds of threats too) and institution-affiliated correspondence.

. . . today I came across your extremely useful homepage . . . Thank you for this resource!

Just came across your plagiarism website and am extremely impressed with all the hard work you have put into it, and the way you've managed to strike a balance between academic argument and entertainment . . . Many thanks and keep up the good work.

I have read through your web page regarding plagiarism and find it very
interesting, both in content as well as in format . . .

I have viewed your website a few times and find its design and presentation
entertaining and its content eye-opening and informative . . .

Communications Monitoring in Universities [ !?! ]

Dear Prof. Lesko:

I came across your website http://www.waronplagiarism.org/, and I wished to point to the relation between communications monitoring policy in universities and plagiarism.

Communications monitoring is carried out by the principle investigators/supervisors of a research project under the auspices of monitoring their researchers’ performance. This allows supervisors to have access to the researchers’ e-mail, files on the server, etc…, often without warning the researchers.

This provides the perfect platform for supervisors to plagiarise researchers’ ideas in their infancy; prior to publication and prior to further development by the researcher. When this happens, the researcher is left with little evidence to support his/her case. Even a noticeable change in the supervisor’s research focus or intellectual level -which usually accompanies plagiarism- is often overlooked at the highest levels in academic institutes for the purpose of reapping the rewards that come with the execution of a plagiarised idea.

This is often made worse by the supervisor's transfer of the plagiarised idea to a favoured researcher or a colluding academic.

Sincerely yours,

Z.R.

Response:

Dear [ZR]

Thank you for your note about communications monitoring. While I was generally aware that communications monitoring by employers is widespread (moreso than most people are aware), I was not aware that research supervisors use it (in the UK?) to monitor their students' email and server space. Are you aware of students being alerted to this in advance? Or is this done without letting the students know?

I would have some very serious reservations about such a communications monitoring policy if students do not agree to such in advance.

There are indeed instances of good ideas being stolen by supervisors/advisors, many anecdotes in this regard, and this is unfortunate. It eliminates the trust factor and prompts students to take actions to protect their own discoveries/achievements (unless they haven't yet realized the need to do so).

Have you had a chance to read about the Pyshnov case?

http://www.famousplagiarists.com/scienceandmedicine.htm#larsen

I've corresponded with Pyshnov, and he has devoted his own website to describing what happened when his supervisor stole his work (as he claims).

Again, thanks very much for your email, and best wishes with your own research. In addition to my "Famous Plagiarists" website (with a popular audience emphasis), I'm also the editor of the scholarly journal Plagiary, homepage www.plagiary.org . If so inclined, please feel free to submit a "Perspective" or "Research" article in the future for publications consideration.

With best wishes,

Dr. John P. Lesko

Every other teacher nowadays faces the problem you describe in such a
detailed way. . . . Students have to realize that plagiarism will not be helpful
for their future and will cause a lot of problems after being caught on plagiarizing . . .
Thank you for your essential contribution to the solution of this burning problem

I found your very interesting website as the result of a mention of it
in a very good article about plagiarism in yesterday's Globe and Mail . . .

4/23/2006 5:21 am >>>
Dear Sir;

I just reviewed your list of plagiarists, and found it curious to find that
while Alan Dershowitz is missing you include Ward Churchill. The former has
simply copied Joan Peters' fabrications into his own books -- amply
documented by Norman Finkelstein. As for Ward Churchill, the neocons have
pulled no stops in smearing him -- and it seems to me that you are simply
buying into the smears Horowitz and his assorted slime have produced.
Simply put, your listing of Churchill in your list is dishonest, and given
that you don't even list Dershowitz, I suspect your little project is next
to useless.

Attentively,
Paul de Rooij
London

PS: Jayson Blair is not a case of plagiarism, but fabrication.

Response:

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your note. Please rest assured that Dershowitz is on my "to do" list as are many others. I don't have the leisure to sit around and do nothing but profile famous plagiarists, so between a very heavy teaching load and other responsibilities, I write a few profiles at a time and post these as they are completed.

I agree with you that the Ward Churchill case seems to have drawn much attention to this "quintessential professor run amok" (as John Gravois put it in the Chronicle of Higher Ed.). My research suggests to me there is much more to this case than a mere smear campaign. I'm not sure when the official results of the investigation at the University of Colorado will be forthcoming, but I will update this profile once I am able to read the report. And I am open to correcting any inaccuracies. Rather curiously on your part, you have not listed any specific inaccuracies, choosing instead to generally accuse me of being dishonest (an accusation which I reject).

What is your opinion of "Nasdijj", another author with dubious claims to Native American ancestry? (see http://www.famousplagiarists.com/popfiction.htm#nasdijj ). Are critics also wrong about this case?

As I wrote to another correspondent with an interest in the Churchill case, "Particularly troubling with regard to the Churchill case are the dubious claims to Native American ancestry (c.f. the 'Nasdijj' case) as well as threats against a Canadian professor some years back who alleged that Churchill had plagiarized her work."

Thank you for your interest in the "Famous Plagiarists Research Project" and for this feedback.

Dr. Lesko

P.S. Yes, Jayson Blair was a fabricator as well as a plagiarist. In fact, Blair's plagiaries made possible the detection of the more serious fabrications which Blair was submitting as "news" to the NYTs.

Paul writes back:

Dear Prof. Lesko;

Many thanks for your response. Perhaps my criticism regarding your website
came about when I detected the Churchill entry and the fact that there was
none for Dershowitz. If anyone were to ask me to name one notorious
academic plagiarist, I would name Dershowitz -- hence my criticism. I am
pleased to hear that he is on your to-do list.

I am not acquainted with Nasdijj... I also reject all those silly claims
that this or that person is not "x" ethnic/racial group -- if my memory
still operates: this was one of the uncivil accusations flung at Churchill.
Furthermore, allow me to suggest that one should differentiate between true
plagiarism, and tendentious ideologically motivated smears. I fear that the
accusation against Rashid Khalidi may fall in the latter orbit; I would
suggest that Churchill falls in the same category. NB: after the hoopla
about Churchill his university instituted a commission to look into his
scholarship, and they exonerated him -- his academic work was considered of
high standards. It annoys me to find one or another right-wing pipsqueak at
Horowitz's FrontPage continuing that smear. You may find my article about
this of some interest: www.counterpunch.org/rooij04112005.html

Kind rgds
Paul de Rooij
London

Lesko responds:

Paul,

After writing back today I just came across the latest on the Churchill case in the Chronicle newsblog:

April 24, 2006
Fresh Accusations of Misconduct Against Ward Churchill
The Ward Churchill investigations won’t end. The Daily Camera,
a newspaper in Boulder, Colo., reports that the committee investigating the University of Colorado professor is considering whether to expand its inquiry into new allegations of research misconduct.

The committee is already reviewing seven charges of misconduct against Mr. Churchill, who became notorious in 2005 for calling some victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks “little Eichmanns” (The Chronicle, September 23, 2005).

The latest charge involves alleged misrepresentations in his 1997 book, A Little Matter of Genocide. The committee is expected to release its findings in early May, and a university spokesman said that the decision could make the new charges “moot.” For his part, Mr. Churchill said the new allegations are merely an attempt to wear him down, “but I don’t wear down.”

Posted on Apr 24, 09:13 AM | Permalink |
( http://chronicle.com/news/index.php?id=328 ) subscriber only.

You're certainly right about political (and other) motivations behind some allegations. I do attempt to make such clear when writing my profiles. In the Khalidi case, the Dean felt the charges were "malicious" as I've noted in the profile. I assigned this a mid-level 3 on my 5 point scale (parody of the threat level analysis) accordingly. This might just have been a case of Khalidi lending his name to something a lower level assistant dug up--as has happened with other scholars whose research assistants' kleptomania lands them in trouble. Hard to say without more info. So far as I am aware, Khalidi has not publicly responded to these allegations (please alert me if you know otherwise).

With thanks,

John

Love your site. A friend of mine just sent me the link to your site and I perused the hall
of shame of journalist plagiarists. I have been covering a case of
plagiarism here in Canada and would like to contribute my research to your
site . . .

What is a Plagiarist? Cartoon Version. Trolling Cartoonist-Manipulator Lifts Answers to Question,

Cartoon Rage Follows

"I wish I were a Plagiarist!" [note]

Never heard of Nemi before the above was apparently swiped from a "Nemi" cartoon by a trolling cartoonist?? See Lise Myhre's http://www.nemi.tk/ They took my work too!! My answers to "What is a Plagiarist?" and plunked them right into the above cartoon template! See my critique/analysis of this below in footnote below with a lesson on the use of the subjunctive mood. See also my "Cartoon Rage" analysis of what seems to be a bizarre "Aha! gotcha!" attempt--a rather crude attempt in my view.

Fair Use statement for the screen shot above: The above is a screenshot of a copyrighted web page (http://s7.invisionfree.com/n3ta/index.php?showtopic=4282), and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the owner of the website. It may also contain trademarked logos/images, which are likely not affiliated with the website or FamousPlagiarists.com. It is believed that the use of a limited number of such screenshots

• for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question
• on the English-language, non-commercial, scholarly, informative (reporting), educational "Famous Plagiarists Research Project" homepage (http://www.famousplagiarists.com), hosted on servers in the United States

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image may be copyright infringement (statement adapted from Wikipedia template for "Fair Use" citations of web-screenshots)

Note: Found this cartoon on an Internet blog/discussion forum. Curiously, the image was titled "Troll002". If I can remember exactly where I found this, I'll link to this blog troll which references "Famous Plagiarists". They must have liked my answers to "What is a Plagiarist?" ! ! ! Found it. This was on a discussion forum at http://s7.invisionfree.com/n3ta/index.php?showtopic=4282 and the actual image URL for "TROLL002.gif" is http://davidguy.brinkster.net/goaste/pictures/nemi/TROLL002.gif

Maybe it's just the old English teacher in me coming out, but that last line should properly read "I wish I were a plagiarist" in the subjunctive mood. Not that folks seem to care much about proper use of the subjunctive mood anymore . . . the English language deteriorates even further. Or is it not possible for a language to "deteriorate" as some linguists would have us believe. Language changes, to be sure. Are such changes always for the better? I don't think so, but that's just another of my "old-fashioned" views coming out I guess, kind of like the "old-fashioned" view that plagiarism is still a wrong thing to do (i.e. "Plagiarism is an old-fashioned concept, and not always as straightforward as it might appear." Julia M. Klein in "Plagiarism and Other Unoriginal Sins." Chronicle of Higher Education. November 11, 2005). For being such an "old-fashioned concept", there's been a tremendous amount of interest in the new scholarly journal Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification (press coverage in New York Times, Inside Higher Ed, Chronicle of Higher Education, Sunday-Telegraph, Prospect Magazine [the last 2 published in Great Britain], . . . )

As the cartoon above (swiped from both the original cartoonist and myself) correctly indicates, there are certainly benefits to engaging in plagiarism: more time for extra-curricular activities in the case of students; easy quotes for journalists; "stressless scholarship" for politicians-in-training who want to devote time to things more important than learning; a great idea for movie directors or songwriters. What's so old-fashioned about wanting something that belongs to somebody else? Don't we still do quite a bit of this today? Or have greed and laziness gone out the window?

*Mara's* Bizarre "Aha! Gotcha Cornered!" Attempt

>>> "Mara Woods" <mara.woods@gmail.com> 3/19/2006 2:37 am >>>
Hello!

Thank you for your interesting site, FamousPlagiarists.com. I used it as a
launchpad for my research into theories of authorship and ownership in the
age of "intellectual property".

I'd just like to point out the irony of using an uncredited cartoon on your
site. I recognize the artwork and characters (especially Cyan) of the
popular Norwegian comic strip "Nemi" of authoress and illustrator Lise
Myhre. Considering the fact that this particular comic ran recently in
Dagens Nyheter (www.dn.se) with a completely different subject matter, I'm
guessing someone has simply swiped the artwork and inserted texts for
humorous appeal. Perhaps the irony is intentional, but the copyright
violation is probably serious. Especially, the lack of credit to the artist
speaks against the sincerity of your position.

Sincerely,
Mara Woods

Reply:

Thanks very much for this info! Ironic indeed. I was wondering where this "Troll002" came from and will reference the "Nemi" site, also crediting you for this info on my "Feedback" page.

You wouldn't happen to be party to this "Troll" now, would you?

Best (and sincerely--honestly!),

John

Cartoon Rage: Trolls, Copyright, and "Fair Use"

>>> Håkon Strand <haastra@online.no> 3/20/2006 1:49:52 pm >>>
dear sir,
i am the agent of lise, who is the creator of the nemi comics, and we want an explanation and an apology for your misuse of the nemi strip mara woods brought to our attention.
without knowing too much about your site, it seems to be a clear violation of the artist´s copyrights, and should be removed immediately.
we hope you respect that,
yours sincerely,
håkon strand/iblis ans.

Videresendt melding:
Fra: iblis <iblis@nemi.no>

Reply:

Apologize for what?

Making "Fair Use" of an image which also appropriated my work?

Nice try, but sorry, I'm not the originator of this image.This 'new' troll of a cartoon posted by "thy evile" has borrowed from both my website and your work, apparently. I am simply reporting on, critiquing, researching, educating on such "transformative" uses (of my work included) and happened to come across this image at http://s7.invisionfree.com/n3ta/index.php?showtopic=4282

Are you sure it's not the other way around? You, or someone associated w/ Nemi (never heard of this cartoon before today--is it a well known one?) appropriating my unique answers to the question, "What is a Plagiarist?"? I ask this because I notice a link to "Nemi" and associated works at the bottom of the discussion forum page cited above (for example, linked to http://www.goaste.cx/goaste/nemi001.html )

I would suggest you contact the poster at this website directly about "TROLL002.gif" which appears on this page: http://s7.invisionfree.com/n3ta/index.php?showtopic=4282 The actual image URL is http://davidguy.brinkster.net/goaste/pictures/nemi/TROLL002.gif You might also try contacting the creator of this website to complain (put a word in for me too, will you?!?! Thx).

I'm copying below my initial response to Mara as well.

I have also copied my "Fair Use" statement below.

Good luck in tracking down this troll of an image manipulator,

John P. Lesko

FYI: According to the “Fair Use” clause of International Copyright Law, the author declares that the use of the photos/images/information in this academic/reference/scholarly work ["Famous Plagiarists Research Project"] is for purposes of “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research” according to Section 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use, U.S. Copyright Code.

Håkon Strand Acknowledges "original 'violator'" Is the Real Infringer

>>> Håkon Strand <haastra@online.no> 3/21/2006 12:11 pm >>>
thank you both for your answers!
i can see john´s point to make contact with the original "violator" of lise´s comic strip (which actually IS read by more than 1 million readers only in great britain every day through its daily publication in the metro newspaper, distributed in 13 cities in england and scotland, and additonally published in some 100 newspapers and magazines in scandinavia), but to me it seems like a bad excuse for you to publish it on your website without crediting lise and explaining the violation of the strip done by someone else.
anyhow-now you know more about this, and i hope you will remove the strip from your site.
mara, thanks a lot for your efforts, and clarifications- that is very useful for me to know also in the future!
sincerely,
---
Håkon Strand/Strand Comics (Iblis/Strand&Øverli)
office +47 22 71 40 49
mob 47 988 35 553

Cartoon Rage Continues. Payback attempt?

>>> "Mara Woods" < mara.woods@gmail.com > 3/21/2006 3:39 am >>>
John,

I've copied Håkan on to this email, and Dr. . . . I've copied Dr. . . . [SVSU English Dept. Head 2005/06] since my experience with institutions of higher education has led me to
believe that academic integrity is of the greatest importance, especially in
the humanities. Your refusal to acknowledge the misappropriation of Lise
Myhre's artwork on your website weakens your position of anti-plagiarism and
compromises your reputation.

No matter if it was someone else who appropriate your work and integrated it
into Lise's artwork, your use of Lise's artwork is still without permission.
Fair Use covers scholarly use and criticism, and I honestly do not see your
use as either. Allow me to explain.

Since your website does contain useful information about plagiarism, it
could be considered a scholarly site. However, the particular use of Lise's
artwork does not make support, highlight or disprove any scholarly insight
at all. Further, under Fair Use practices, scholarly usage of someone else's
work must be accompanied with the appropriate annotation of who it belongs
to. If you have an advanced degree in the humanities, you are likely already
familiar with MLA standards of referencing material. For example, I am not
permitted to quote from "Catch-22" without giving Joseph Heller the credit,
no matter if I am quoting for scholarly reasons or just for laughs. In fact,
the rules of referencing are much further reaching than those of copyright.
I cannot quote Plato's "Republic" without indicating my source, despite the
fact that it is not protected by copyright.

Further, the Fair Use clause does not allow a general appropriation of
protected works. Instead, it permits use of a work for criticism or satire
of the work itself. This might not be completely obvious at first glance,
but one is not permitted to simply modify passages of "Republic" in order to
satirize "Catch-22" and especially not without indicating the original
author. In the case of this Nemi cartoon, your use does not satirize the
cartoon and it does not indicate the artist. Even if it was used to make
some scholarly point (which it was not), you are still required to document
your references.

Now, I can see from your photographs that you are getting on in your years, [Ageism? How young must one be to understand code? Enlighten us, please!]
so perhaps you are not adequately familiar with how website coding works. No
one has to get permission to provide a hyperlink to another site. The
instance of a hyperlink on website A to website B does not at all imply an
agreement between the authors of these two websites. (The code for a
hyperlink begins: <a href="http:// ) On the other hand, if website A
sources an image from website B, it is actually appropriating the image from
website B. Website A is instructing the user's browser to "resolve" an
image. It does not matter if the image actually sits on Website A's server
space. Website A has the capability of sourcing the image without Website
B's permission, although of course it's not necessarily a legal action. (The
code for imaging is different: <img src="http:// )

So, let me lay it out for you.: [please do, help me to understand!]

1. Someone took your text
2. Someone took a Nemi cartoon
3. Someone put your text in Nemi cartoon
4. You take doctored Nemi cartoon

The problem is that the "someone" stole both the art and the text. By
posting his image, you are stealing the art. Just because you didn't know it
was stolen doesn't remove your responsibility. Especially in your position
as a scholar, you must realize that it is always your actions, your
plagiarism, that you are accountable for. If you wish to hold the position
that plagiarism is inappropriate, you must be prepared to "live" it. Your
failure was in not securing permission and not identifying authorship. You
had a choice about whether to use the comic on your page or not.

Nemi is very famous in the Nordic countries, but I have no expectation that
you could know this. My argument is: How can you expect students to act when
they cannot figure out who the original author was of some interesting quote
they want to use in a paper? Shouldn't they "play it safe" and simply omit
the quote? Or do you really think it's appropriate for a student to simply
state that they didn't know who created it, if they get caught?

Or, could it be that you actually agree with Foucault and Barthes?

Sincerely,
Mara Woods

Lesko Defends Himself Against Cartoon Rage

Transformative, Scholarly, Teacherly, Critical and "Fair" Use of the Nemi Comic Strip

Mara,

So, having now accused me to my Department Head, are you suggesting I am not even able to use the "transformed" comic to defend myself, to illustrate how someone else appropriated my unique linguistic formulations and plunked them into a comic template?

It seems to me your position is not only weak, but also rather curious (that is, from my perspective at this point). What's your true agenda?

Not only have I given credit to the Nemi creator once I was informed where the image actually came from before it was "transformed" (by whoever did so), but I actually have critiqued this new transformation as you will see from a closer look at my "Feedback" and "What is a Plagiarist?" pages (links below--look closely, now). And I have transformed it a bit more myself even, crossing out was and writing "were" for correct use of the subjunctive mood.

See in particular the footnote, the caption directly beneath the picture, as well as the image itself which I have modified to reflect a more correct use of the subjunctive mood (both at http://www.famousplagiarists.com/feedback.htm and also at http://www.famousplagiarists.com/whatisaplagiarist.htm ). Whoever appropriated Lesko's word's and Lise's cartoon didn't get the subjunctive right, so being an English teacher, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to correct this error of the trolling cartoonist-manipulator ( cartoon rage following shortly thereafter as is evident from your correspondence; don't have a vache; d'accord, La morte d'author n'est pas sur, n'est pas? Possible, mais pas sur ).

What could be more pedantic and educational than correction for proper use of the subjunctive mood, let alone commenting on/analyzing the appropriation of my words for use in this cartoon? My site is not a commercial venture; it is an educational research project which speaks for itself and which has been cited as educationally useful by many of my colleagues and other professionals, not to mention my own students who appreciate learning about proper conventions for academic citation, including the difficult and "gray" areas in this age of electronic media.

We have much to learn from these "Famous Plagiarists", and my students make excellent observations in the papers they write on plagiarism and related topics, using this educational resource (my "Famous Plagiarists Research Project") for reference in their papers. And not just my students either! Students have won awards in papers which have referenced "Famous Plagiarists"! Librarians have used it too! It has been referenced by numerous other scholars. So please don't be so condescending in your attempts to lecture me, implying it might not be a scholarly project after all. Sure, I'll admit there are "pop" elements, and you're not the first to offer criticism (or praise, thank you) which I take into account for this ongoing work-in-progress, adding corrections and updates where and when needed. The pop elements actually seem to be what makes this project so appealing and accessible to a wide audience and not to just some obscure, introverted, small-minded band of intellectuals whose ideas will never reach beyond their small circle (s). I'm not necessarily implying you're involved in such a small circle, or that all intellectuals are, just observing that we as scholars, in general, need to try to reach a broader audience to communicate our research results to the public (who after all, funds much of what goes on at our state schools and research institutions).

*You have not yet answered my question as to whether you might be party to this "troll". Specifically, I would like to know

A. Who are you, as in what are your academic affiliations?

B. Were you involved in the production of, or in communication at any point with whoever produced the image "TROLL002.gif"? ( at http://s7.invisionfree.com/n3ta/index.php?showtopic=4282 )

C. Beyond your purported research into authorship and intellectual property issues, what is your agenda? What are your true motives for critiquing my "Fair Use" (yes, I continue to maintain it is Fair Use) of this altered cartoon image?

D. Could you provide references of your work on authorship and intellectual property? Conference presentations? Papers? Name of thesis advisor? Anything to substantiate your work in this area. My work is openly listed on line; I would like to know more about your work before engaging in further correspondence with an unknown individual.

E. Have you been in contact with any of the Famous Plagiarists featured at www.famousplagiarists.com ? (i.e. might this be a payback attempt involving someone taking exception to being featured as a "Famous Plagiarist"? Or are you just a death-of-the-author partisan?)

As for Foucault and Barthes? Although I've never met these esteemed semioticians (they were before my time actually), I suppose it is conceivable we might have found areas of agreement had the deaths of these authors not transpired so unexpectedly, so prematurely. Life is but a vapour . . .

What a stimulating and educational interchange! Thank you!

Best,

John

Courtesy Request to Use Cartoon, 3/21/06 (even though still "Fair Use")

Dear Håkon Strand/Agent for Nemi cartoonist Lise Myhre:

Thank you for your response and further info about this Nemi cartoon--I never heard of this before and didn't realize it was so popular!

After receiving Mara's initial complaint, I did in fact credit Lise with a link below the altered cartoon and an explanation of how someone borrowed my words, and Lise's cartoon template. See updated info at http://www.famousplagiarists.com/feedback.htm and also at http://www.famousplagiarists.com/whatisaplagiarist.htm .

As a courtesy, though I do believe I have made appropriate "Fair Use" of this manipulated cartoon, I wonder if you would permit me to use this image as posted now on my site for educational, non-commercial purposes?

My situation is as follows. Mara has now publicly accused me, including a letter to my Department Head at Saginaw Valley State University. How am I to defend myself against such accusations if I am unable to let people see the altered cartoon and the explanation of it? Again, although I believe this constitutes "Fair Use", as a courtesy, I am requesting that you grant permission for me to use this altered version of the Nemi cartoon which was posted at http://s7.invisionfree.com/n3ta/index.php?showtopic=4282 I have given a reference, a link, and an explanation as you will see from the notes below the image.

With thanks.

John P. Lesko

No reply at all from either Mara or Håkon Strand . . . the silence is deafening!

Note: Consulted w/ a technology law and policy lawyer who states this is an "obvious case of fair use"

BUT, just to be on the safe side, I have removed the cartoon image, replacing it with a screenshot of the web discussion board where the offending image was first posted. And I have added the following "Fair Use" statement:

Fair Use statement for the screen shot above: The above is a screenshot of a copyrighted web page (http://s7.invisionfree.com/n3ta/index.php?showtopic=4282), and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the owner of the website. It may also contain trademarked logos/images, which are likely not affiliated with the website or FamousPlagiarists.com. It is believed that the use of a limited number of such screenshots

• for identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question
• on the English-language, non-commercial, scholarly "Famous Plagiarists Research Project" homepage (http://www.famousplagiarists.com), hosted on servers in the United States

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image may be copyright infringement (statement adapted from Wikipedia template for "Fair Use" citations of web-screenshots)

good luck with your book!

Dear Prof. Lesko --

As someone who has written about academic plagiarism from time to time -- and, indeed, been plagiarised from, on a couple of occasions -- I was very interested to learn of Plagiary.

I write a weekly column called Intellectual Affairs for the online newsmagazine InsideHigherEd.com and would like very much to devote some attention to what you are doing. Is there a chance we might talk soon?

thanks,
Scott McLemee [of InsideHigherEd.com]

Interview With InsideHigherEd.com 's Scott McLemee conducted on January 23, 2006:

Link to Scott McLemee's "Stolen Words" in which Scott also references FamousPlagiarists.com. [I've heard this title, "Stolen Words", somewhere before . . . Mallon somebody or other . . . seems to ring a bell]

From "Stolen Words":

While the journal Plagiary has a link to Famous Plagiarists, and vice versa [minor correction--there are no links from Plagiary to Famous Plagiarists] , Lesko insists that they are separate entities — the former scholarly and professional, the latter his personal project. And that distinction is a good thing, too. Famous Plagiarists tends to hit a note of stridency such that, when Lesko quotes Camille Paglia denouncing the poststructuralists as “cunning hypocrites whose tortured syntax and encrustations of jargon concealed the moral culpability of their and their parents’ generations in Nazi France,” she seems almost calm and even-tempered by contrast.

“It seems that both Foucault and Barthes’ contempt for the Author was expressed in some rather plagiaristic utterances,” he writes, “a parroting of the Nietschean ‘God is dead’ assertion.” That might strike some people as confusing allusion with theft. But Lesko is vehement about how the theorists have served as enablers for the plagiarists, as well as the receivers of hot cargo.

“After all,” he writes, “a plagiarist — so often with the help of collaborators and sympathizers — steals the very livelihood of a text’s real author, thus relegating that author to obscurity for as long as the plagiarist’s name usurps a text, rather than the author being recognized as the text’s originator. Plagiarism of an author condemns that author to death as a text’s rightfully acknowledged creator...” (The claim that Barthes and Foucault were involved in diminishing the reputation of Nietzsche has not, I believe, ever been made before.)

To a degree, his frustration is understandable. In some quarters, it is common to recite – as though it were an established truth, rather than an extrapolation from one of Foucault’s essays – the idea that plagiarism is a “historically constructed” category of fairly recent vintage: something that came into being around the 18th century, when a capitalistically organized publishing industry found it necessary to foster the concept of literary property.

A very interesting argument to be sure — though not one that holds up under much scrutiny.

The term “plagiarism” in its current sense is about two thousand years old. It was coined by the Roman poet Martial, who complained that a rival was biting his dope rhymes. (I translate freely.) Until he applied the word in that context, plagiarius had meant someone who kidnapped slaves. Clearly some notion of literary property was already implicit in Martial’s figure of speech, which dates to the first century A.D.

[. . . ]

Given Lesko’s evident passion on the topic of plagiarism as a moral transgression – embodied most strikingly, perhaps, in his color-coded War on Plagiarism Threat Level Analysis – I had to wonder if the doors of Plagiary would be open to scholars not sharing his perspective.

Was it worth the while of, say, a Foucauldian to offer him a paper?

“It may be that I’m a bit more conservative than some scholars,” he conceded. But he points out that manuscripts submitted to Plagiary undergo a double-blind review process. They are examined by three reviewers – most of them, but not all, from the journal’s editorial board.

There is no ideological or theoretical litmus test, and he’s actively seeking contributions from people you might not expect. “I’m willing to consider articles from plagiarists,” he said .

That’s certainly throwing the door wide open. You would probably want to vet their work pretty carefully, though.

[Will do, thanks for this advice, Scott. And good luck with the new magazine Inside Higher Ed, the un-Chronicle (of Higher Ed) ! ]

Sam Zan on my references to Foucault & Barthes:

“[Paglia] seems almost calm and even-tempered by contrast.”

Wow, you’re not kidding. I haven’t read Plagiary, but I hope its standards are a little higher than the stuff that appears on Lesko’s site. Given the unhinged glee at Barthes’s and Foucault’s deaths and the manic use of italics, this site reads more like some nut’s ranting than a scholarly or professional resource.

By the way, Prof. Lesko, if you’re serious about integrity in publishing and academia, you might think about citing some sources. For example, where exactly is your evidence for making this statement: “Foucault deliberately exposed himself to AIDS in the gay bath houses of San Francisco.”

And just so I don’t come off as an outraged Theory-partisan here: if you’re actually interested in the “Death of the Author” debate, you might want to check out Walter Benn Michael’s work and H.L. Hix’ book, “La Morte d’Author” in addition to Burke.

Sam Zan, at 8:30 pm EST on January 25, 2006

Lesko: Response to Sam Zan (cross-posted at http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/01/25/mclemee):

My "Famous Plagiarists Research Project" is a work-in-progress, and I take issue with your "unhinged glee" portrayal of my references to the unfortunate, early demise of Foucault (unfortunate tragedy for any victim of this disease--fortunately, now at least a glimmer of hope with anti-viral medications).

If I'm wrong about the speculation/controversy which has gone on about Foucault's death from AIDs as a possible suicide, I'll be the first to admit this.

Note that Foucault did attempt suicide earlier in his life. I've tracked this down, and the source which you asked about appears below, both an excerpt, and a link:

"Foucault was a proponent of suicide. He believed suicide to be a great personal victory. The taking of one’s own life was an event, like a great play without an audience. Foucault first attempted suicide in 1948. His death in 1984, from a neurological infection, is believed to be AIDS related. Foucault often frequented bathhouses in the San Francisco area during the early 1980s. It has been suggested Foucault knew about the risks of contracting AIDS and this was possibly his elaborate scheme to intentionally take his own life (Maier-Katkin, 2000)." (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/foucault.htm)

All sources used in development of this project (possible corrections/updates when needed, as with your inquiry--many thx) are listed on my references page at http://www.famousplagiarists.com/books.htm

And other criticism/feedback related to this work appears at http://www.famousplagiarists.com/feedback.htm (to be updated shortly with your critici