This article explores contemporary debates regarding the ownership and control of creative works by examining the different values attached to the act of copying in two types of knowledge making activities. Specifically, the following will address the construction of ethics surrounding
(1) The public reaction in 2006 to Kaavya Viswanathan’s plagiarism in her fictional account, and
(2) The popular perception of Bikram Choudhury’s attempts to prevent the unauthorized commercial instruction of his signature yoga series.

Due to limited space only the details of the former instance will be discussed in this article. The details of the latter example have already been discussed in the previous Global Commons Local Context August article “Source-ing Yoga: the implications for the Commons”.

In the following we argue that the moral outrage that is attached to the act of copying in the former instance is exactly the opposite of the reaction in the latter example. On the one hand, Kaavya is chastised for copying passages from another author’s works, an act that is assumed to be obviously unethical and completely degrading to her own creative work. Conversely, Bikram’s actions are assumed to go against the essential nature of yoga and are, therefore, immoral. The result is that in these two situations one is loathed for preventing the proliferation of a copy and another is despised for perpetrating a copy. In seeking to understand these differences this article proposes a third perspective; one in which the copy can be understood as a valued site of innovation.

Kaavya’s Plagiarism
Kaavya Viswanathan is an India-American, Chennai born, Harvard sophomore who shot to literary fame in 2004 when she signed a reported $500,000 two book contract with Little, Brown, and Co. Publishers and Dreamworks motion picture deal for movie rights to her first work. This contract grew out of her first book, How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life. The book is a fictional account that holds many parallels to the author’s own life. The plot revolves around an Indian-American high school student and her family’s obsessive drive to ensure her admittance to undergraduate studies at Harvard.

Unfortunately, the book, published in April 2006, generated immediate criticism and international media coverage upon the discovery that approximately 40 of its passages were the product of plagiarism. Making matters worse these passages were taken from only two other works aimed at a similar audience demographic and written by an author of whom Viswanathan admitted being a fan. These works, published by Random House, are the novels Sloppy Firsts and Second Helpings by Megan F. McCafferty. As a result of the controversy Kaavya’s publishers have cancelled her contract and recalled all copies of the book (incidentally, pirated copies can still be found on the streets in Bangalore which is where I bought my copy earlier this year).

The debate in the media regarding Kaavya circled around whether the teenager merely committed an innocent act of 'unconscious copying' or indulged in the intentional and unethical act of plagiarism in order to promote her own book. In either case, the reactions from the literary and journalistic communities have had strong moral tones and members of these professions have condemned her acts as pitiful, overambitious, and despicable. Furthermore, it is fascinating to note that popular opinion assumes that the use of several short passages of another author’s work erases the creative value of the entire piece. Though it is undeniable that copying occurred, no one is asking why Kaavya copied, what she did when she copied, or whether her copying served some larger, and possibly creative, purpose.

An Alternative Perspective
In the Indian context the most fascinating tale ever told of plagiarism is that of Premchand, one of India’s greatest Hindi literary and poetic figures. Premchand has written about 300 short stories, several novels, many essays and letters, and plays - several of which have been translated into English and Russian. However, what is less known about Premchand is that many of his own famous works such as Premsharam, Rangbhumi, and Kayakalp, were allegedly “lifted off” through processes of translation, from the likes of Leo Tolstoy, William Thackery, and Hall Caine. In his defence against the charges of plagiarism, Premchand said that he took those parts that were inscribed on his heart. He further rejected the “romantic” vision of authorship by which an author “becomes” by a god-given gift and emphasised on the need for a wide range of reading in order to become an author.

As these instances show, plagiarism and copying have always existed and been the subject of public critique in many different types of knowledge making ventures. We are interested in exploring how law enters into this essentially moral debate. We ask 'what is the vision of 'original' and 'copy' that this endorses?' and 'what "public interest" is at stake, which should shape the terms of the debate on the issue of the copy?' This enquiry will take us into the critical arena of copyright scholarship, which has been fast evolving, but has a long way to go before such questions can be definitively answered. Critical scholarship of copyright argues that law of copyright is founded on the “romantic” view of authorship, a detailed account of which is unwarranted at this time. This romantic view of authorship, which is at the heart of copyright law, suggests that an author is a divinely inspired individual and is the agent of all original works of art and literature.

The criticism against this view is that, its an individualistic theory ingrained with the values of Enlightenment and doesn't reflect, either historically or in the contemporary context, actual modes of creative production. It further shows that “criminal” views of plagiarism evolved at the same time as our views on copyright developed, which is at the end of eighteenth century in England and Western Europe. Scholarship by Rebecca Moore Howard argues that plagiarism is not merely a moral and ethical issue but that it also indicates profound failure in understanding the purposes of academic writing. In her book, Standing in the Shadow of Giants: Plagiarists, Authors, Collaborators, she introduces the term “patchwriting” which she describes as the process by which students integrate their own writing with other texts, though not necessarily in the way it would be considered appropriate in an academic context. She argues that patchwriting is an important step in the student's learning process and is a useful tool for writers to help them gain their own voice.

Howard further argues that patchwriting should be viewed not just as part of a process through which the writer becomes a member of the discourse community, but also as generative of a legitimate product. Teachers often use the term “stealing” to refer to the misappropriation of even small amounts of texts and this is the same metaphor used by record and movie company executives to attack those who download intellectual property from the Internet. With its emphasis on collaboration and the social context of writing, contemporary composition theorists, such as Lunsford and Ede, have argued for more socially oriented concepts of authorship. Arguments that diverge from traditional views of authorship forces us to redefine the conventional moral views associated with all forms of intellectual property. Instead of just focusing on catching and punishing possible instances of plagiarism, Howard argues that we need to utilize patchwriting as a positive learning strategy, not necessarily as the only way to utilize source texts but as a legitimate approach in and of itself.

The question, whether lessons from the critical studies are applicable beyond scholarly and academic writing remains unexplored. But acknowledging the existence of this question certainly urges us to re-evaluate contemporary norms regarding the control of knowledge and the impact this has upon public opinion regarding copying - whether it be literary plagiarism or the replication of a yoga class. Perhaps it is time for the literary community to reassess its norms of dealing punitively with plagiarism. Instead this group might find it more productive to address how processes such as patchwriting or borrowing can best be utilized to make the imagination flourish not only in literature, but also in other creative endeavours.

Authors: Anuranjan Sethi and Alli Fish

tags: Bangalore India policy-law ownership

extracted from: