If you were falsely accused of plagiarism, how would you react?

[TinyBubbles]

Imagine you're a world famous landscape artist. You've created hundreds of beautiful paintings and displayed them in galleries all over the world. Some of them you've sold for tens of thousands of dollars. You're doing good, very happy, everything seems to be going great, but then one day, while in your studio creating your latest masterpiece, you get a letter informing you that your gallery is to be shut down. Apparently one of the gallery patrons believes your work is copied from old, unseen Monet works. You know this to be untrue, yet the accusation alone is enough to destroy your entire career. The patron in question is an unscrupulous type of character, and is willing to take a bribe of, say, $10000 in order to keep his mouth shut and for your gallery to remain open. You remain defiant, yet your lawyer advises you to pay up, as even though you are innocent, because if word got out that your works are not originals, their market value will drop substantially.
You hang your head in your hands and lament your fate. What to do? What's the right thing to do in this situation?

 

[Shai Gar]

I punch the guy in the face immediately. I inform everyone immediately of the guys intent to blackmail me, and then I demand proof of plagiarism.

 

[Wyote]

In junior high I actually was falsely accused of plagiarism. My teacher did not believe that I was capable of writing well because I slacked off hardcore in their class LOL. So I had my Accelerated English teacher explain some things to them and I dug up my sources and all that jazz. It was a pain. Don't let people push you around! Even if it's an authority of some sort.

So to answer your question; I would not give them the bribe. Fuck that. They would get a shit-storm of counter-suits from me.

Edit: And also, depending on how far fetched their claims were I would probably do all within my power to humiliate them and their retarded immediate family for living with such a wretched creature.

 

[yumiii]

I would be shocked at first, and probably even laugh for a while. And then it would sink in, and I would just be down-right furious.
What I would do then is call up the a-hole, record the conversation with him asking for the bribe, and then give it to the police or whoever can take care of this infuriating jerk.

 

[bamf]

I'd counter claim and win the lawsuit.

If my "reputation" is to be tarnished, so be it. Yeah, it's not fair, but I refuse to compromise my integrity or the integrity of my art by giving into blackmail. I wouldn't be in it for the money in the first place.

 

[enfp can be shy]

People should stop caring about it, because it's impossible to track. I used to care a lot, really a lot, how my own ideas are formed, where do they come from, are they original enough. Well, I finally realized it's an illusion, all the creative people I've ever met got inspired by others and so on. The specific errors of each mind produced the differences in interpetation that imitate originality.

Besides, well, our inputs aren't that different. It isn't a miracle if two different people with completely different methods of work and thinking end up making the same thing. Happens all the time. Instead of enjoying that, people keep discouraging it, like it's wrong. Luckily, there are some limits of the possible human freakness, soon to be reached, and to quit all that crap they falsely call originality today.

 

[bamf]

Soooo...you don't believe originality exists at all any more?

 

[enfp can be shy]

Soooo...you don't believe originality exists at all any more?

It never truly existed in the first place. You simply can't keep conscious track of all your inputs, so you are unaware of how it's working.

 

[bamf]

It never truly existed in the first place. You simply can't keep conscious track of all your inputs, so you are unaware of how it's working.

Interesting way of looking at it. So does this mean you think plagiarism isn't something people should worry about?

 

[enfp can be shy]

So does this mean you think plagiarism isn't something people should worry about?

Yep.

They even kill each other's natural senses by this enforcement. Suppose there was a law to require each human to breathe differently. Expect lots of sickness.

 

[bamf]

Yep.

They even kill each other's natural senses by this enforcement. Suppose there was a law to require each human to breathe differently. Expect lots of sickness.

Well plagiarism and breathing laws are a lot different in nature. Plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as your own. Like if I took a big thread you posted and put it somewhere else and just claimed it as my brain child.

While even if originality doesn't exist, I find a big difference between forming opinions/ideas/art that is influenced by others, and claiming someone else's work as your own. The later is nothing more then stealing, while the former is borrowing.

Saying plagiarism is alright, in my book, is akin to walking down the street and claiming your name is King Henry the Eigth or Leoardo DeCaprio. It just ain't right.

 

[enfp can be shy]

I give the breathing example, because at the end we only judge plagiarism by final results. We look at two things and say if they are the same. So what's really wrong if two separate people did the same things separately? I really dislike the "Simpsons did it" effect. It shouldn't count.

Simpsons did the breathing too, should I stop breathing now? Guess what, they did it, because they are not so different from me, and if I'm naturally similar, that shouldn't be considered wrong. Otherwise we interfere with our own natural sense, as I said.

I find a big difference between forming opinions/ideas/art that is influenced by others, and claiming someone else's work as your own.

Well, you can't enter people's heads to tell the difference. I don't support copy/paste plagiarism too - just because it's stupid, and doesn't help you to grow - but it's also very hard to check objectively. It is much better for everyone's sake if we declare it alright. If you try to chase it down, you'll only produce tricks and workarounds. For example, someone copies a text, and just edits it sufficiently.

In the past, however, I was even more extreme: in the terms of the given example, I wouldn't even like to be influenced, to be able to claim originality. I.e. I should completely come up with it on my own. So when I read anything, it actually hurts me, because it tells me what things I'm not allowed to create anymore. ^^ This, of course, is really too extreme, and was a mistake to assume such a hard policy on myself. I'll tell you why: because no matter how hard I try, all images and patterns I could form in my head, consist of elements I have perceived. It is the way this system operates, it can't be changed.

As an example: Anything you dream of, at night, consists of (distorted / mixed up) images you have seen while you were awake. If there's a law for original dreams, most people should stop dreaming, to not copy the rest, who claimed it first. It's just sick.

 

[bamf]

I give the breathing example, because at the end we only judge plagiarism by final results. We look at two things and say if they are the same. So what's really wrong if two separate people did the same things separately? I really dislike the "Simpsons did it" effect. It shouldn't count.

Simpsons did the breathing too, should I stop breathing now? Guess what, they did it, because they are not so different from me, and if I'm naturally similar, that shouldn't be considered wrong. Otherwise we interfere with our own natural sense, as I said.

Well, you can't enter people's heads to tell the difference. I don't support copy/paste plagiarism too - just because it's stupid, and doesn't help you to grow - but it's also very hard to check objectively. It is much better for everyone's sake if we declare it alright. If you try to chase it down, you'll only produce tricks and workarounds. For example, someone copies a text, and just edits it sufficiently.

In the past, however, I was even more extreme: in the terms of the given example, I wouldn't even like to be influenced, to be able to claim originality. I.e. I should completely come up with it on my own. So when I read anything, it actually hurts me, because it tells me what things I'm not allowed to create anymore. ^^ This, of course, is really too extreme, and was a mistake to assume such a hard policy on myself. I'll tell you why: because no matter how hard I try, all images and patterns I could form in my head, consist of elements I have perceived. It is the way this system operates, it can't be changed.

As an example: Anything you dream of, at night, consists of (distorted / mixed up) images you have seen while you were awake. If there's a law for original dreams, most people should stop dreaming, to not copy the rest, who claimed it first. It's just sick.

I think you're taking this to the extreme. Two people creating the same thing separately hardly accounts for plagiarism and could probably be proven so. The plagiarism that I'm talking about is the stealing with intent to steal. Sure, it's hard to prove, but that doesn't mean we should stop protecting people's work. In doing so, we'd be allowing people to steal manuscripts the night before publishing and claim them as their own. It's all about the intentions, and that's extremely important, even in law. (for example there are things that are malicious and things that are accidents. We can't simply stop prosecuting crimes that are for a majority malicious because there is a chance that an accident could falsely be seen as malicious) Anti-plagiarism is about protecting the integrity and dedication of the creator.

Of course those are just my two cents.

 

[Puck]

I'd laugh and say "Show me the Monet"

...or admit to plagiarism, but state that it wasn't Monet I had stolen my ideas from, rather God, and that I'd been making exact replicas of the gardens surrounding his heavenly mansion.

 

[enfp can be shy]

It's all about the intentions, and that's extremely important, even in law.

I agree with this full-heartedly. Unfortunately, in reality very few people have the talent to sense or investigate beyond the results.

Sometimes it's extremely hard to imagine that someone else could come up with exactly the same idea on their own, but they did. Instead of rewarding them for having extraordinarily natural sense, they get punished. (for not creditting the owner, for example, even though they never even knew about it*)

* - This one is so unnatural, that it's like forbidding people to walk, without creditting the one who first learned how to walk. Well, guess what, I can do it on my own, without ever hearing about who did it first. How is that wrong?!

I have similar reasons to dislike the assumption that if something is popular, it is necessarily of bad value, and people were just manipulated to like it. How about the possibility that it was naturally the thing most people needed at the time, so all of them spontaneously liked it? And why is such situation viewed as inferior.

Again seems very unhealthy to me. To continue with the breathing analogy, this is like accusing people of cult-following, because they all need to breathe the same air.

 

[Matariki]

Imagine you're a world famous landscape artist. You've created hundreds of beautiful paintings and displayed them in galleries all over the world. Some of them you've sold for tens of thousands of dollars. You're doing good, very happy, everything seems to be going great, but then one day, while in your studio creating your latest masterpiece, you get a letter informing you that your gallery is to be shut down. Apparently one of the gallery patrons believes your work is copied from old, unseen Monet works. You know this to be untrue, yet the accusation alone is enough to destroy your entire career. The patron in question is an unscrupulous type of character, and is willing to take a bribe of, say, $10000 in order to keep his mouth shut and for your gallery to remain open. You remain defiant, yet your lawyer advises you to pay up, as even though you are innocent, because if word got out that your works are not originals, their market value will drop substantially.
You hang your head in your hands and lament your fate. What to do? What's the right thing to do in this situation?

Ok, this is coming from an artist.
For starters I would laugh my head off!

Then I would point out that the gallery patron has no idea what he is talking about and that he obviously had no clue on how art works.

All artists are inspired by other artists and the envoriment around them, this also includes Monet himself who was inspired by the dutch masters.

I would also point out that the painting style I did was called Impressionism, not Claude Monet and that there are plenty of artists that practiced it inculding Edgar Degas and my favorite Edouard Manet.

Lastly I would take the gallery patron to court so everyone could see how much of a fail he is.

 

[bamf]

I agree with this full-heartedly. Unfortunately, in reality very few people have the talent to sense or investigate beyond the results.

Sometimes it's extremely hard to imagine that someone else could come up with exactly the same idea on their own, but they did. Instead of rewarding them for having extraordinarily natural sense, they get punished. (for not creditting the owner, for example, even though they never even knew about it*)

* - This one is so unnatural, that it's like forbidding people to walk, without creditting the one who first learned how to walk. Well, guess what, I can do it on my own, without ever hearing about who did it first. How is that wrong?!

I have similar reasons to dislike the assumption that if something is popular, it is necessarily of bad value, and people were just manipulated to like it. How about the possibility that it was naturally the thing most people needed at the time, so all of them spontaneously liked it? And why is such situation viewed as inferior.

Again seems very unhealthy to me. To continue with the breathing analogy, this is like accusing people of cult-following, because they all need to breathe the same air.

Interesting way of looking at it. I think we can agree to say it's all dependent on intentions, but differ in what we should do according to it.

I agree with the whole popular thing. It makes me shake my head when someone says "I hate it because it's popular". As different as I like to see myself, there are some popular things that I adore as well. Popular doesn't equal bad, and liking unpopular things doesn't make you unique.

 

[Norton]

Were I accused of plagiarism (falsely or otherwise), I would first talk to my lawyers, whom I know too well, and then tell the accusers to put it in writing.

 

[Stellar Affinity]

Imagine you're a world famous landscape artist. You've created hundreds of beautiful paintings and displayed them in galleries all over the world. Some of them you've sold for tens of thousands of dollars. You're doing good, very happy, everything seems to be going great, but then one day, while in your studio creating your latest masterpiece, you get a letter informing you that your gallery is to be shut down. Apparently one of the gallery patrons believes your work is copied from old, unseen Monet works. You know this to be untrue, yet the accusation alone is enough to destroy your entire career. The patron in question is an unscrupulous type of character, and is willing to take a bribe of, say, $10000 in order to keep his mouth shut and for your gallery to remain open. You remain defiant, yet your lawyer advises you to pay up, as even though you are innocent, because if word got out that your works are not originals, their market value will drop substantially.
You hang your head in your hands and lament your fate. What to do? What's the right thing to do in this situation?

To tell you the truth, knowing myself, I'd probably be stricken with such an extreme amount of shock and disbelief that I would probably shut down and withdraw altogether and take time to wallow in my misery/fury. After I feel like I can face the issue, I'd probably call up/consult someone very close to me. Like a family member or a spouse or something. Also, take a talk with my lawyer or manager/agent and try and get to the bottom of this whole mess!

Once everything is settled out and I'm found to have been innocent the whole time, I'd probably stop drawing for quite a while...take a long break from it. I'm not sure but it seems like that's something I would probably do. :-/

 

[Lucifer]

Id get angry, red in the face, then awkwardly walk away.

Then I'd sue his pants off for libel.

Then I'd gather up an angry mob and chase him out of town.