(Next in Ward Churchill Saga) Prof accused of plagiarism

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7156384/




Complete Story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7156384/

Churchill has some good points but he has been swiping other people's stuff for years and getting away with it. Not to mention his false claim of having NA heritage. He is a fake.

Left of cool

Indian's work, like Vine deLoria for instance.

Left of Cool

and some things that were 'just his opinion' and not necesarily true. I admire him for some attempts to do some good things, but think he is a fake all the same. All in all, he has the right to his opinion, but like the rest of us, must pay the consequences and take responsibility for what we say and do.

Left of Cool

speaker. A fairly high profile "example" made as a warning to dissenters. Perfect.
Same old same old. This "new" fascism in America so...
mediocre.

Republican fascism 101. When in doubt smear. Where have we seen this before?

but if the allegations of plagiarism are substantiated he deserves to lose his job.

Perhaps the allegations are bogus -TBD. Perhaps we would have never known about them sans the 'flap'.

Nevertheless, plagiarism can be established fairly objectively. If guilty he doesn't belong in the academy.

Nova Scotian declined to pursue the case. Now it will be pursued by others. Rather than a witch, this witchhunt has turned up a cheat and a fraud--it's all over but the shouting for Churchill.

... stories like this for several months. Maybe Rocky Mountain News is right, maybe not. We'll see.

What about when they call in the middle of the night and threaten them? This is very simple to prove, but I guess your response will be ....ROVE, ROVE, ROVEEEEEEEE.

... if he really called her up and threatened her. At present, these are allegations, not established facts.

mine will be examined in the court of law and peer review. As for the post I was replying to, this is it's court of peer review and I was addressing th accusation.

... against Churchill this year? Do you monitor any of the rightwing sites?

you would have never even have heard of him if they weren't gunning for him.

peace

last weak and I was throughly underwhelmed. Maybe it was stage fright but man did he suck. That being said, the plagiarism claims seem to be the new weapon of choice these days. Really, is there an original thought left to be thought?

Jay

but he really should have been better prepared, and Maher certainly should have made sure the Prof. was ready before putting him up there....

Bill handed him the stage, gave him every opportunity to make his case, even FED him his own lines, and he came off as lame. Lame. And -- worst sin for a college prof -- inarticulate.

I don't know as much about the guy as some here, but my uninformed take is that he is running on empty. He may have had something going for himself in his ardent youth, but his glory days are well and truly gone.

- then discover its about an article! He's versatile in his plagiarism, if nothing else.

This guy is a true "piece of work". And probably not his own, either.

should find out who really penned the "little Eichmann" passage and give him/her their due credit.

Jay

it was his interpretation of another popular Indian piece.

that kind of thing goes on daily in the art community.

this is all, not surprisingly, RW wacko spin.

peace

- as in "an explanation of something that is not immediately obvious"?

There was no "interpretation" between those two pieces of artwork. What did flipping and tinting the original explain? The two pieces appear identical with the exception that one is a mirror-image of the other and Churchill gave it a tint. I could do the same to the Mona Lisa in three keystrokes with any imaging software program.

As far as it going on daily in the art community, I remember George Harrison doing his interpretation of "He's So Fine" except George actually changed the words and renamed it "My Sweet Lord". While I don't believe that George did that intentionally, the courts found Harrison's "interpretation" to be plagiarism and fined him accordingly.

Spin? Churchill himself has personally handed them the ammo for it. Sorry, he'll get no defense from me.

it was not an exact copy, the color and perspective were changed.

that is done ALL THE TIME in the art world and makes it different.

you wanna keep persecuting him, go right ahead with roves plan, i'm sure he's pleased.

peace

and throughout DU or I swear I would think I'm in the wrong spin area. :crazy:

If anyone takes the time to google, they will find who the true instigators are regarding Churchill. People do not like his "in-your-face" attitude and abrupt style...I happen to think he's got a damned lot straight, to-the-point, and hellacious knowledge!

It took me all of ten minutes, if that and in another Churchill thread, to find the man who is behind the group of Indians who denouces Churchill as NOT Native American. Let me tell you, this guy is a Native American *... not pretty!

Lots of flap about Churchill...reminds me of Iraq and Iran, Syria, Venezuela, etc. Wonder why people want to get rid of him? Could it be because he speaks truth AND his mind even IF he isn't perfect?

:shrug:

and no, it is not done "ALL THE TIME" in the art world, not without permission from the author of the original work. If you do it without permission, it is a violation of the copyright law.

it's a smear campaign, end of story.

tell it to andy warhol and hundreds of other less famous artists.

what you gonna point me to a corp lawyer who swears it so, please.

then you'll point me to an article he wrote the intro for and then when he writes his own cry he's a plagiarist, too.

next you'll - M$MW - be telling us he plagiarized the
'LITTLE Eichmann's' 'manifesto' :crazy:

peace

Big soup cans, and silkscreens of people in bright colors!

Call me old fashioned, but I don't think he is an artist. A showman, maybe, clever with graphic design, but that crap ain't art!

Rove is a very busy guy.

Why would Rover give 2 hoots about this pissant plagiarist? He gets way more credit for being some all-powerful being than he ever remotely deserves. It makes me sick.

because they get to hold up the straw-man for everyone to hate and associate the whole left with.

i say we need to start holding their wackos up to the light like Ann Coulter but of course she gets her own column and frequent appearances on the M$M.

the whole system is hopelessly corrupt.

peace

I don't know - I think she should have pursued the case in 1997 if that is when it occurred. I find it hard to believe an established professor would go around threatening another one with middle of the night phone calls. Of course, in an academic context "I'll get you for this" might just mean "I will use my influence in academia to diminish your reputation".

Remember, the plagiarism is not a speculation. Dalhousie University investigated Cohen's claims and found them substantiated by the evidence.

Did you read in the article where Cohen talks about her fear of Churchill? I consider it credible and then some.

I've got better things to do than run cover for someone who plagiarizes other people's writing, copies dead men's artworks and sells them as his own, lies about his heritage so he can land a job supposedly reserved for true Native Americans, and blames everything on a conspiracy. But when I find out he makes threatening calls in the middle of the night to women whose work he has stolen, I have just become his active enemy.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3613033,00.html

"The third is by Fay Cohen of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia. In an e-mail Thursday, she declined to comment on LaVelle's allegations."

To tell you the truth, I haven't followed the story much. I gather he is a controversial figure who has made some enemies, on the right particularly. Breaking the taboo against commenting critically (i.e from both sides) about 911 seems to have landed him trouble, and a lot of conservative elements want to make an example out of him.

He may not be that terrific a scholar, but I am inclined to think that there is a movement afoot to stifle left of center academic opinion (especially what would be called radical, I suppose). I don't necessarily agree with these lines of thought (the more radical ones), but I think a range of opinion is needed in a pluralistic society.

As for the allegations of plagiarism, I think a lot of scholars would be guilty of technical infractions if their work is really closely scrutinized. I checked the Dalhousie website, but didn't see anything on this issue. That is too bad, as an unvarnished account would be worthwhile. It is also unfortunate that Ms. Cohen didn't supply a quote for the article you linked to; she may be concerned that this is being blown out of proportion, though, and doesn't want to become ammunition for a right wing attack on academic freedom.

I appreciate your different point of view, and your calm way of stating it.

I vigorously defended Churchill's unpopular speech here in several DU posts when the controversy first erupted, although I did not agree with him. As I posted then, the only speech that needs protecting is the speech we dislike.

However, as more and more unsavory facts about Churchill came to light (each time decried here in DU as blatant smears, secret Rovian dissembling, MSM distortions, etc.), I became less and less interested in defending the speech rights of a man who has a serial and pathological history of lying.

This is not about his enemies trying to silence him (although, naturally, they are). This is about his own worst enemy - himself. Not only has he lied about truly important things, such as his phony Native American heritage, to get things he wanted, but he has casually stolen the work of others. The Cohen plagiarism is just one of several cases Churchill perpetrated. Can you doubt that there will be more? Every word the man has written is currently being combed through. My experience with liars is that they don't tell one lie and then shut up. They keep going, and going, and going.... May I remind you of a certain pResident of the US, if you need more examples?

When I made my original post, I was referring to a different Rocky Mountain News article (for which I provided a URL). You read a more recent and specific article dealing with multiple allegations of Churchill's plagiarism.

For reference, that article's URL is
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3540066,00.html

I read through that article again, and it is simply devastating to Churchill. Clearly cited evidence, line-for-line comparisons of purloined passages, multiple sources, direct quotations from peers slamming Churchill's propensity to steal.

Daleo, you're a thoughtful poster, but you're cutting too much slack toward anyone in academia who would take from the work of others. ("He may not be that terrific a scholar...") A not-so-terrific scholar writes uninteresting papers or conducts unoriginal research. Someone who steals what others produce and calls it his/her own is not a scholar, but a poseur and a thief. Also remember, Churchill not only stole from the work of others, he literally stole the "work" of at least one other by taking a job under false pretenses that was intended for someone with actual Native American blood flowing through their veins.

I agree, I wish the article had contained a quote from Ms. Cohen, but she's probably been listening to Churchill's paranoid ranting on TV and thinking this guy is certifiably nuts. What could possibly be in it for her to poke that hornet's nest? She may also be following attorney advice. The work was stolen long ago and Dalhousie forwarded details of the case and their investigation to CU, corroborating her account. Good enough for me, by a country mile, and good enough for her, I'd wager. Plagiarism, from what I've read, feels like a particularly intimate form of violation. The business about the phone call in the middle of the night is beyond disturbing, it's purely criminal. It's hard to imagine her thinking about becoming a tool of the right. I think her reactions, and decisions, come from a far more intimate place. Speculation on my part, of course.

Peace.

I have known my share of mediocre and ethically questionable academics, though.

He's using the cover of academic freeddom in order to be a yahoo. And he's just playing everyone who's defended him.

I became bored early on with the story, and stopped following additional items as they were posted. Thus I missed the painting story, and - more importantly (imo) the falsification of his background in order to secure a specific university position. Could you summarize this for me?

Per the plagiarism - looks pretty credible (that he has a history of plagiarizing). Always seems like a huge deal, to me. However, at least in the popular press, the charge seems not to damage careers permanently - pointing to the case of a Boston columnist who went on to have his own msnbc show, AND more significantly the presidential historian who used to be called upon frequently on the Newshour (formerly McNiell Leher (sp) Newshour) - who was shown to have plagiarized her academic work - but who now regularly appears again on various news shows for her "expert" commentary. Sadly the charge no longer seems to be a career breaker.

stating he is NOT Native American. And please read my post above. Those behind outting him are the same ones (Native American RWers I might add) who are hurting and taking advantage of their own people.

As many have said, there is nothing wrong with recreating someone's work if you put a different or a new twist on it...happens every day.

And how many speakers to NOT quote those whom they pulled quotes or whatever from? There are many....he's not the only one.

I've listened to him...there isn't a problem, IMO. The only thing I can see is that people do not like his 'tude and the fact that he BOLDLY steps on peoples' toes.

:shrug:

is always part of the distraction i.e. Dan Rather

freedom of speech is always worth DEFENDING and certainly more valuable then DEFENDING and PROMOTING RW slime.

fyi

peace

My heartfelt congratulations on your superb writing skills.

You're a credit to your namesake, which inspires me to try being a credit to mine.

************
Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice.
- Spinoza

Indians, the law, and the environment join up. Interesting nexus.

Scholars don't always pursue plagiarism cases: it's great to get credit, but it's not always worth the hassle. If you win, seldom is the plagiarizer de-tenured or fired. It can sometimes get you in hot water with your peers, because you're not being "collegial"--esp. if you're a woman. It's not like there's any money involved. It's far worse when they make up information than when they steal it.

The "threat", if it was made, might well not be personal, but professional: her conference abstracts, papers, and books might not painlessly pass peer review. She may not be invited to give talks. Rumors affecting her reputation may be spread. Reviews of her book(s) may be more negative than merited otherwise. Conferences she's hosting may receive only sucky paper abstracts.

My ogre ex-dissertation advisor was blacklisted until *his* advisor died and couldn't keep him from getting a job in the US; an ex-member of my dissertation committee, let's call him Dick, personally kept a grad student, let's call him George, who dissed one of Dick's friend's book. Dick finally retired, lost some of his pull, and George was finally able to get good job after 20 years of lecturing and working in truly podunk universities. Academia can be a petty, snarly, and heartless world.

Just focused on the messenger now.
Ward Churchill and White America
From Rafael Renteria:
I want to speak to you in your isolation, I want you to be in touch with your despair as I speak. I want you to remember what you already know -- the Earth is dying; oil is running out; Iraq is only the first in what will be a series of resource wars, as the impacts of global warming and peak oil cause the infrastructure we call globalization to collapse.

I want you to remember that George Bush and 59% of all Americans believe in Armageddon, just the way that we believe in Justice. I want you to remember that there is no time. It may already be too late. I want you to remember these things because it is only at the bottom of our despair it is only by touching that bottom that we can find its exit and emerge again into the possibility of enlightened, meaningful, even spiritual, action.

<snip>
It's the frontline of a war. Those of us who have not seen our colleagues or mentors purged from the academy can grasp neither the pain of it nor the stakes. Those who are purged are those who dream, for all of us, of a more natural condition, those who have not partaken in the great forgetting of their humanity that characterizes pre-fascist America.

But those of us who have seen it firsthand know the venal face of what America is becoming. I have often joked that those who have never been to jail have no education, no true sense of the meaning of the violence that permeates this culture, like blood seeps through the bandage covering the wound of an Iraqi child.

<snip>

Look in the mirror. The fascism that so many fear from Bush is nothing foreign. It is your own. The ecological horror that awaits us is nothing foreign. It is your own. The weapons of mass destruction, the nuclear tipped missiles, the hydrogen bombs, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, your own. Look in the mirror with me.

http://www.counterpunch.org/renteria02262005.html

more professors GOTTA speak the fuck up... whether they agree with what he said or not.

time to clog the courts :bounce:

peace

Ward is a WIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLDDDDDDDDD (wild) man.

http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

... efforts to disrupt activist movements.

He reminds me of Chavez...that burning blood to speak truth to crap!!!

He edited a book of essays which was published in Denmark. When he wanted to publish the same book in the States, she refused to allow her article to be included. He used the name of his foundation, wrote and published an article about the same article, claimed ownership and, presumably, used her ideas.

All of which begs a few very interesting questions: Why did she refuse publication the second go around? Me thinks bad blood had developed. Why did he do something he knew would be found? This wasn't random, after all--she was bound to learn. Me thinks he was pissed off.

That's all just meat for the gossip burger. He plagiarized, she can prove it, witch hunt successful, bye-bye.

any links? and publication dates?

i know i read many ideas in computer science that are common.

maybe this is all discussed in the article, but i just don't trust the M$MW anymore and there certainly is a PERSECUTION CAMPAIGN going on against this man at the present for simply expressing his opinion.

i notice not many are claiming he plagiarized that thought... though that is certainly not an uncommon thought.

chickens come home to roost.

peace

sounds like he was a contributer from jump.

apparently had his own ideas own this subject that were considered worthy at the time.

anyone got a link to his piece?

BTW: thanks for the link :hi:

peace

I've checked google, barnes and noble, amazon, my local uni library and u colorado library. All list copies published in copenhagen. Why do American libraries have the copy published in Denmark if its locally available?

If this american version exists it either never made it past the test run printing, never passed the planning stage, if not it does not exist.

for your efforts :toast:

i'm pretty sure we got another 'WALKING EAGLE' on our hands ;->

peace

it could have been published under a different title?

I'll wait until Churchill speaks for himself and all the facts are in.

Having some familiarity with baseless attacks that have been made against Ward in the past, I think I can say with a fair degree of confidence that there is certainly more to all these allegations than meets the eye.

:hi:

peace

""The article . . . is, in the opinion of our legal counsel, plagiarism," Dalhousie spokesman Charles Crosby said in summarizing the report's findings."

One university's lawyer's opinion is just that, an opinion. If the case wasn't pressed any further, it isn't conclusive of anything.

"Cohen still declines to talk publicly about her experience with Churchill"
...
"Crosby declined a request for a copy of the report"

At this point, this is all too vague. I have found putting much trust in allegations that people won't back up is dangerous.

"In 1991, Churchill edited a book of essays published in Copenhagen, Denmark, which included a piece by Cohen on Indian treaty fishing rights in the Northwest and Wisconsin. When publishers wanted to reprint the essay in the United States, Cohen declined to allow her essay to appear, Crosby said.

So, Churchill penned an essay on the same topic under the name of the Institute for Natural Progress, a research organization he founded with Winona LaDuke. In the contributors section of the book, Churchill said he took the lead role in preparing the essay."

This isn't exactly riveting stuff (although there seems to be plenty of errors of judgment here). Had Churchill not ruffled feathers about 911, there wouldn't be more than a dozen people in the world who would be aware of this academic dispute.

...it is also the opinion of a lawyer that Bush can legally do whatever the hell he wants to, anywhere he wants to, whenever he wants to.

Ward Churchill revealed as the designer for Janet Jackson's costume at the 2004 Super Bowl.

I don't know all the facts, but my feeling is when one man is being targeted by so many, I will more likely listen to what he has to say....he must be doing something right

I support the guy's right to free speech, and I don't think its right to fire him over his essay, but the more I hear about this guy, the less I like him. The first amendment protects his right to free speech, but it doesn't protect him from being criticized or scrutinized for what he says. If the guy was going to write controversial, inflammatory stuff, the least he could expect is that critics would eventually take an interest in him and start looking into his other activities. Between his bullshit claims to be a native American spokesman/advocate and thus claim aggrieved minority status (despite being only 1/8 Indian and not fully recognized by any tribe), his plagiarizing peoples' artwork and selling it as his own, and now this, the guy comes off as a particularly unsavory character.

One word of dissent and everything will come down on you.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3613033,00.html">Nova Scotia school sends CU a report on Churchill essay

By Laura Frank, Rocky Mountain News
March 11, 2005

University of Colorado officials investigating embattled professor Ward Churchill received documents this week purporting to show that he plagiarized another professor's work.Officials at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia sent CU an internal 1997 report detailing allegations about an article Churchill wrote.

"The article . . . is, in the opinion of our legal counsel, plagiarism," Dalhousie spokesman Charles Crosby said in summarizing the report's findings.

...

In 1991, Churchill edited a book of essays published in Copenhagen, Denmark, which included a piece by Cohen on Indian treaty fishing rights in the Northwest and Wisconsin. When publishers wanted to reprint the essay in the United States, Cohen declined to allow her essay to appear, Crosby said.

So, Churchill penned an essay on the same topic under the name of the Institute for Natural Progress, a research organization he founded with Winona LaDuke. In the contributors section of the book, Churchill said he took the lead role in preparing the essay.

...entire article here...

###

If this is true, it ends his career in disgrace.

When Conservatives are dishonest, they get promoted. That doesn't make what Churchill allegedly did right, but wouldn't it be nice if the RW had the same degree of peer-enforced integrity?

someone.
If this is disproven, they will claim his 7th grade science project was done by his uncle or something.

It may have been derivative, or the same idea of silhouettes in the snow may have occurred to both painters, but it was no forgery or even a copy.

I have a sneaking suspicion this is about at the same level. Another prof refused permission to quote her work directly. However, if he cited the substance of her work without attribution and a referral to the original, then he's a plagiarist. Somehow, I can't see him doing that.

Most academics are fussy as hell about attribution, with footnotes on footnotes.

See http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html

This has pictures of both original painting and Churchill's copy of it. Can you seriously claim that Churchill did not copy the painting? It is an exact mirror copy of the original painting.

And what makes it worse is that the person alleging the plagiarism claims that Churchill threatened her.

I'm not sure what to make of this. If he did this, he deserves to be fired ASAP. It's just so disappointing to see someone like this get taken down.

ON EDIT: Yeah, those paintings do look remarkably similar.

claimed that Churchill did not plagiarize the painting. I showed that it is clear as day that he did copy the painting, no question about it. Since this shows his lack of integrity, I do not doubt that the plagiarism charges have substance as well.

It's obvious, as you stated, the Churchill copied the painting. CU needs to cut this lying plagiarist loose.

Looking at the pictures makes me believe Churchill has the ethics of a Republican.

He basically says he took the lead role in preparing the chapter as part of the book in question:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2758694,00.html

and she was cited. The story itself leaves many questions unanswered and so basically there is no evidence that supports the unequiviocal pre-lynching flaming of Churchill. Some of this reads like a buncha red-knecks standing around in the dark with their burning torches and pitchforks before heading off to string him up.

from the Denver Post:
"Churchill, in a phone interview, denied that he stole other people's work or threatened any professors.

'It's been a blizzard of allegations,' he said. 'First, it wasn't my piece; second, it wasn't my book; third, it doesn't say I wrote it but helped assemble it.' "

And looking at Churchills one book I have read: " A Little Matter of Genocide" he is scrupulous about citations. The taxpayers should have to pay for this kind of work in public universities. It is the least any of those are the descendants (as much of America is) of those who perpetrated the American Holocaust can do. That there is no Native American prominent enough to stand up and say this, which many of us think, speaks volumes about where Indians rate in this society.

It is books like this that they want to take him down for. They just think this is a convenient avenue to do so. These same people are unaffected by real lies with bloody consequences. They could care less. But this feigned outrage at such things as artwork that the artist the work is after never complained about or using someones findings without explicitly claiming it was his own work being called plagiarism is quite a stretch.

But I would be most surprised if Churchill screwed up in that fashion. It's not impossible, but it's improbable.

I will set a pretty high bar here as to whether or not to believe these charges, given that they come at a time when the professor is under fire for some controversial remarks he made on another matter.

In academia, plaigiarism is a serious charge, never to be ignored. Still, the evidence must be overwhelming before I conclude that he deserves to lose his job.

Churchill plagiarized before - proof here http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html

The guy is a scumbag. Between his ridiculous statements about 9/11, his lying about being Native American in order to be hired at the University, and his plagiarizing, I wonder why so many DUers feel they still have to defend him.

His remarks about the victims of 9/11 were repugnant and indefensible. His critique of US foreign policy was more worthy of debate.

Still, I am far more uncomfortable with firing a professor because they made an unpopular statement. That is very dangerous. If he really did plaigiarize what his critics said he plaigiarized, then I can support dismissal. Still, it can also be very easy under the circumstances for his critics to charge him with a removeable offense as a smoke screen for firing him for his political tirade. That's why we have to be careful.

what needs to be said and is still getting press attention. All he's stated is that if the US oppresses other peoples, we shouldn't be surprised when they shove back.
The RW is frothing at the mouth over this because, for all his faults, Churchill has a point.

I'm not a big fan of Churchill, but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. The painting is damning enough, but the plagiarism puts the nail in the coffin.

the current controversy - back to a 1999 article criticism Churchill's work.

There are a bunch of Little Eichmann's walking around a little more smug and supported than before this episode.

For us, he's a losing proposition.

He's not worth defending. Its better to say he's not a lefty.

http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm

defend in ALL CAPS their right to violate copyright by trading MP3s are upset about this.

People can copyright the expression of their ideas, but they don't have a monopoly on the ideas themselves, and that other professor can't embargo a discussion of whatever she learned from her own research. If she tried and if Churchill wrote and orignal article based on her ideas, so long as he attributed everythign to the right people, it's not a career-ender.

I see the article says he didn't attribute Cohen's work to her, but I'd love to read the article and her article and see if she had original work and argument in her piece and whether he plagiarized that, or if she was sythesizing other work, or what.

this thread. :hi:

And plenty of artists were dealing with appropriation issues, copyright issues and concepts of originality in their work in the early 1980s, and even now. The real issue here is they went after this guy, and they are finding every nit-picky thing to get him. I don't know about him that well - and haven't really looked at the copyright issue - but the real issue is who is next. The right-wing wants to destroy academica the way they want to destroy social security and individual bankruptcy rights. At least keep the big picture in mind.

destroy SS. It's been their bases for their agenda since FDR began the New Deal. They liken to refer to it now as the Raw Deal, when in fact FDR was a 4 term (16 years straight) presiding President "and" was a Wall Street Lawyer.

He knew... they're arrogance, greed, manipulation and hatred is beyond belief!

yes, Virginia, you can (and Churchill did) violate a copyright on the painting.

he said he had permission and I believe it.

Prove me wrong.

Ward Churchil may be unfortunately plain spoken. But he's no plagarist.

""The article . . . is, in the opinion of our legal counsel, plagiarism," Dalhousie spokesman Charles Crosby said in summarizing the report's findings."

It is like a company saying that in the opinion of their legal counsel another company violated their patent. If they don't bother pursuing the matter past that point (which they didn't), it has no more legal standing than anyone else's opinion. Also, an unsubstantiated allegation of a middle of the night phone call of a vague threat is also just that - an unsubstantiated allegation.

anyone who wants to pretend their life would stand up to the sort of scrutiny that Churchill is being placed under can be my guest, but you are kidding yourselves. First we had the 'plagiarized' painting, and now this, both of which are frankly misdemeanours at best (well, the painting isn't even that. Any lawyer worth his salt should be able to defend that as a valid visual commentary on the first painting). If this really is as 'bad' as its gonna get, Churchill actually seems to be a pretty clean figure...

Look at the two paintings here:

http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html

and tell me that Churchill didn't copy it.

reflection AND different colour scheme. Setting aside the fact that I don't even think you can be done for plagiarizing paintings (provided you aren't just making photocopies, which he wasn't), it is self-evidently a commentary on the first painting.

art and copyrights, do you.

This if from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;

To prepare derivative works based upon the work;

To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and

In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

in a book his is large wall art.

I think it might be you who knows nothing about art.

Sighting a bunch of legalese bought and payed for
by the MPAA and RIAA has nothing to do with symbol
manipulation and imagery.

Did Marcel Duchamp plagerize this?

from the author of the original art. What Churchill did was illegal, pure and simple. Ryan Mails should (and probably will) nail his hide to the wall.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0%2C1299%2CDRMN_15_3575329%2C00.html

A short time later, Churchill emerged from his office and agreed to comment. He acknowledged his serigraph was based on the Mails drawing, but insists he disclosed that fact during the initial release of the prints.

"It's an original work by me, after Thomas Mails . . . The fact that the purchaser was ignorant of the reality of what was perfectly
publicly stated at the time the edition was printed is not my responsibility."

Churchill gives no credit to Mails on the work itself. The professor also refused to provide documentation to support his claims.

But even if it does exist, it may not matter as far as copyright law is concerned.

"In my opinion, unless there was consent for Churchill to do his piece, then there is copyright infringement here," Hubbell said.

When contacted at his home in North Carolina, Ryan Mails, the son of the late Thomas Mails, said the family retained the copyright to the drawings in the Mystic Warriors book, and that his father fiercely defended the copyrights.

"I cannot imagine he would ever grant permission to anyone to copy one of his pieces," his son said.

You appear to be a unreliable source grinding a right wing axe.

http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_061104654.html

...

Churchill suggested to the crowd he had permission to copy the pen and ink drawing by Mails. Churchill turned his copy into 150 color prints and published them in his own name.

But the Mails family insists Churchill never had permission, and they believe he infringed on a copyright.

Near the end of his stock speech Tuesday night, Churchill added something new.

"Churchill ripped off Thomas Mails," he said sarcastically.

When we confronted about the artwork controversy last week, Churchill said he gave Mails attribution at the time his serigraph was published. Now, though, he suggests he not only attributed the work to Mails, but actually got permission from the artist.

"And Thomas Mails knew it," Churchill said. "Because those were not ripped off. They were adapted and interpreted to what I do, which is not what he was doing. He was making drawings, I do colors."

Compare the two side-by-side, the Mails piece is a pen and ink drawing and the Churchill piece is a color serigraph. According to legal experts, the only way Churchill could have legally published and sold the drawings would have been if Mails had given him permission.

That's exactly what Churchill now implies.

...

Churchill claims he had permission. He has no proof of that, no letter, nothing. The copyright holders say he did not have permission.

Churchill is in deep trouble here. His lying only exacerbates his problems.

It is very unlikely the the "copyright holders" would
have micro managed their fathers life to the point of
hearing every conversation.

You really have an axe to grind it appears and siding
with a orchestrated right wing smear campaign to destroy
a very prolific critic is not a great measure of character
in my option.

I like Churchill's art and hope to own some soon.

The way he brings color and life to the people is
brilliant and he is a great American artist.

You are under informed as you proved with your WRONG statement about
his position on the permission issue and a foot solider in an under handed smear campaign.

Maybe you will be proud with Ward's scalp tacked to your wall.

Ward Churchill lied and cheated. That's my "axe".

As for "verbal conversation is enough" - no it is not. It would be if he had any proof of it, like witnesses. If he does not, and the artist's estate sues him, he will lose. There is no question about it.

I prefer innocent until proven guilty and other quaint
American values like that.

When a known media smear campaign is being perpetrated
against a vocal and outspoken politically dissonant individual
I apply a filter to the lies that the media is using to
smear them.

Rather than swallow the lies hook line and sinker and run around
trying to get in my little shots against the victim of the
black listing attempt.

I guess we differ like that.

that Churchill violated copyright law with his painting, and lied about getting permission from the original artist. That makes him a cheater and a liar. You prefer to close your ears, eyes and hum loudly. That's your prerogative.

or offer to solve cold cases for the local police dept.

You think he lied at least admit that it an opinion
based on your desire to believe whatever smear they
throw at Ward.

I really like his art especially the vibrant colors.

I like his books even better and the way they expose
the history of blood thirst hypocrisy embraced by all
of the innocent heirs of the fruits of the North American
genocide.

You wrote-

"I like his books even better and the way they expose
the history of blood thirst hypocrisy embraced by all
of the innocent heirs of the fruits of the North American
genocide."

So you ignore pretty blatent professional misconduct in the production of his books as documented by

http://hal.lamar.edu/~browntf/Churchill1.htm

which, by the way, casts doubts on his conclusions that you so credulously embrace.

And I guess you also are not bothered by the accusation, from a major Native American group, that he is a liar about his ethnicity?

http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html

Sheesh, the more that comes out about Churchill the worse it gets. I bet that I'll be seeing a thread here before long claiming that Churchill was a Karl Rove deep cover agent trying to discredit progressives by getting them to support him.

and what the matters of blood based tribal identity
are to him. They are the law made to prevent tribes
from choosing their own and a method of control.

http://www.russellmeans.com/

Russell is more creditable than a bunch of right wing hack
journalists and "a major Native American group" to me.

I have read some of his books and they are very interesting
and well researched indictments of repression and genocide.

So I don't really care what they throw at him his books
speak for themselves.

These are both prominent people in the Native community--Mails and Churchill. Where is proof that the artist Mails ever complained to anyone that he was plagiarized? He certainly had the soapbox and standing to do it. Some checking around by a reporter who had any contacts among Indians should bring forth something. (Does the artists family have any recollections that this was an issue with Mails?). But of course none of these great reporters have any contacts, cause they don't give a shit about knowing any Indians or their concerns or communities. Where is Ben Campbell on this, an artist himself, I believe? So far silent it seems.

And from an MSNBC story:

""Intellectual property attorney James Hubbell compared the two works side by side, concluding the likeness was likely no accident.

'It's very obvious that the Churchill piece was taken directly from the Mails' piece - there's just too many similarities between the two for it to have been coincidence,' Hubbell said."

Couldn't they get the lawyer they interviewed to offer an opinion that this might be a copyright violation in this thinly-veiled hit-piece?

Like I said, most people in the MSM don't give a goddamn what Native American concerns are, but love the "uppity" implications and play it up to fuel those (like some of the troll-tools who are so vociferous here) who want to take down or silence or delegitimize voices that are out of the mainstream. Diversity? Bullshit. You are nonwhite and want a place at the table to add your viewpoint. No way, you do and say what we tell you you can say or this institution which was so "liberal" as to let you in will smoke your ass.

This is really about the larger truth telling he has done, Maybe not for those here who are searching for some way to take him down (they are using a low caliber weapon that makes alot of noise , but for those bigger name politicians who have fueled the vendetta.

Go ahead like someone said here, whatever.

that Churchill copied his art and sold it as his own. How could he object?

And he "knows" what happened 25 years ago.

Right?

Mails could very well have liked the idea of his images
being used in a different style and context.

Mails son said he was very guarded about his copyright's
yet he never made any complaint about Ward even though he
was alive for years after Ward did his prints.

Makes a person wonder why now it is such an issue.

Oh that's right there is a right wing smear campaign
going on to silence and discredit Ward because of what he
has said in his books.

without an iota of evidence you decided that Mails knew about Ward's copying of his work and selling it under his own name.

on this subject.... NOT.

I really hope Mails estate sues Churchill and takes him to the cleaners. That's what the scumbag deserves.

in this thread.

There is no shortage of fast right wing money for lawsuits
so the fact that one hasn't happened yet indicates that one
times got no case.

You are a real lover of justice I see.

Your kind of hostile toward Ward.

Why do you seem so hate filled?

because he is a charlatan, a liar, a cheat and a fraud. A better question would be why you're defending such a scumbag.

:boring:

Learn to read.

books, art and TV.

I have seen him speak on FSTV and was very impressed.

He seemed like a very hard working and committed individual
and I believe he is being singled out for his political views.

Period.

the wrong button!

than plagiarism/copyright infringement would be nearly impossible to prove. I'm in grad school and have a classmate who is on the verge of being expelled from school on much less evidence than you would require.

second it is very likely that Thomas Mails knew of Ward's
use of his textbook illustrations in a fine art context
during his life and either approved or didn't care.

No one is denying Wards assertion except a bunch of
want to be lynch mob members and some right wing hack
journalists.

If there is a case don't you think they would bring it?

that the Mails family is plenty pissed. The quotes from the linked article above make the case pretty clear that Mails and his family view(ed) this as copyright theft. I think you've got it backwards--the only people accepting Ward's assertions are a few posters who can't handle the possibility that an ideological ally might be a lying, thieving, unethical hack.

Having said that, my feelings are actually decidedly mixed. The original issue of his Eichman statement is absurd--academic freedom should clearly take precedence. And all of these seedy details of his professional career are in fact being brought out because of this witchhunt.

The people who are getting off too easy are the powers that be at CU--just because they've found a witch doesn't mean that witchhunts are acceptable.

In general, the term "witchhunt" is used to describe an action to bring down a non-existent enemy, or one that only exists in the minds of the hunters.

Most of us who are not defending Churchill's apparent copyright infringements are not hunting for witches; we are discussing the evidence so far presented that Churchill may have infringed on the copyrights held by others. That is not a "witchhunt" by any means.

A "fishing expedition," on the other hand, suggests that there's a possibility of a genuine catch, rather like what AG Phill Kline is doing in Kansas. However, since no one appears to have subpoenaed all of Churchill's academic papers or grading reports or computer hard drives or library borrowing records, I'd dare to suggest this isn't even a real fishing expedition.

Otherwise, one would have to label the Mails' heirs and Fay Cohen witch-hunters just because they are defending their own rights against an infringer. Cohen's case apparently predates the alleged RW witchhunt, so that would seem to exonerate her; the Mails case seems to have come about independently of the RW/CU assault on Churchill.

Is it part of a case being built against him? Well, yeah, I think so. Is it justified? Well, probably in the minds of those who are building it. Will they be successful? That remains to be seen.

But it appears to me that Churchill has provided them with the evidence. If in fact he has been academically and intellectually lazy or dishonest, is that the fault of the people who are accusing him?

reproductions of famous paintings and sold them for pocket money... you'd have a damned long list. Or maybe you could come to my local coffee shop and sue the student who made a reproduction of the Mona Lisa, but replaced the face with that of a cow... surely they infringed the copyright too? Maybe if they ever become a tenured professor, I can come after them and ruin their life over that...

I may know nothing about law, but you evidently have little knowledge of life.

about copyright law.

Mona Lisa is not copyrighted. Neither are most "famous paintings". If you go and copy a work of an artist under copyright, and sell it, and the artist or whoever holds the copyright finds out about it, you will be in deep trouble. As Ward Churchill should be and is.

I really don't know why you keep this losing argument going. Ward Churchill blatantly and knowingly violated the copyright law.

He signed his painting as Ward Churchill. He didn't copy the painting and then sign the original artist's name. For a painting, THAT would be copyright infringement. You can find "reproductions" of fine art. As long as they don't sign their copy of Starry Night with "Vincent", it's not copyright infringement.

Plagarism of written works is another thing entirely.

Copying the work without permission and selling it is copyright violation, whatever the signature is. Copying it and signing original artist's name and selling it as the original work is fraud.

As the owner of numerous copyrights, I'm here to support you, qwghlmian, and elaborate on your arguments.

Original art works can be and are copyrighted and may not be copied without risk.

Deriviative art works are also covered by the original copyright; a larger mirror-image version in a different color is "derivative" and therefore copyrighted under the original. The copier is liable for infringement.

In the absence of proof of permission, which Churchill has already claimed, the other defense is separate creation without possibility of knowledge of original. This is what happened when two novels were used as the source for the Irwin Allen flick "Towering Inferno." The two books had been independently written and did not infringe on each other's copyright.

Copyright law is fundamentally unchanged for the past 100 years or so; it is was not "payed" /sic/ for by the RIAA.

Fair use doctrine under copyright law allows for parody. Thus SNL can spoof just about anything with impunity.

There is a difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism; sometimes plagiarism is perfectly legal. A version of the Mona Lisa with the face of Lynne Cheney is quite all right, as da Vinci's work is not subject to copyright, so that even if the work were not considered "parody" under fair use, it is still not infringement of copyright. "West Side Story" is a modern reworking of Shakespeare's "Romeo & Juliet" and thus is legal plagiarism.

IDEAS and TITLES cannot be copyrighted.

If Churchill's reworking of Cohen's original essay on fishing rights contained verbatim sections of her original work, used her original sources, and included no new or additional material, he is very likely to be hit with charges of copyright infringement. Although it is perfectly legitimate for one academic to build upon the work of another -- with proper attribution -- the unattributed appropriation of another academic's work is, shall we say, bad form.

I was instrumental in bringing not one but two copyright infringers to justice. Armed with copies of their work and the copyrighted work they had copied, they offered some of the most bizarre and even laughable excuses you could ever imagine. They did these thieves no good: both were found guilty and were made to pay for their crimes, not monetarily but with the utter destruction of their artistic reputations.

Just because I may agree with someone on some political points does not mean I am prepared to overlook that person's lack of artistic and/or intellectual integrity. Being on the left does not make one an angel.


(c) Tansy Gold

...and refreshingly free of invective and bile, to boot.

Thank you for opening up the shutters and letting in some sunlight.

then almost every artist on earth--every single one who learned by imitation--is a plagiarist.

Sorry, but it just isn't so.

Copying someone's work and selling it as your own is illegal if the original work is under a copyright. Are people really this ignorant about intellectual property laws?

1. Copying someone's art and selling it as your own is illegal, if the original work is under copyright and the copier did not get permission.

2. Churchill made a copy of someone's art and sold it as his own.

3. Churchill presented no proof that he got permission and the people who hold the copyright claim he violated it.

All these are not assumptions. They are facts. This is apart from the dishonesty of Churchill's claiming that the art was his original art (which is what the buyer of it says Churchill told him).

1. Altering a copy of someone else's material is allowable if you acknowledge the fact that the work is inspired by the original. (By the way, a work does not necessarily have to be registered with the copyright office in order for this to apply.)

2. Churchill offered a rendition/interpretation of Mains' work, which many artists, especially beginners, often do.

3. If Mains or his estate has a problem with this, I'm sure we'll be hearing from them and many others.

citation that I posted from the US government web site that explains what copyrights mean for derivative works. You will find out your opinions are quite incorrect.

than you will find on a dot-gov web site.

Edit: AND--the "rules" are indeed different for some artistic endeavors.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1303943#1309163

and

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1303943

up at on a matter that clearly has no merit, and even less creditability coming from MSNBC.

Even a troll can see that this man is a fraud and an opportunist and not worth the time or the political energy to defend. Do you see the republicans lining up to jump off a cliff to defend Gannon.

fine teacher.

There's a difference, but I wouldn't expect trolls to be able to discern it.

Whether or not he's guilty does not have anything to do with the mighty wurlitzer, get it?
We have a legal system here, anyone accusing him can take him to court and prove it AND THEN UC can take appropriate action.

I am happy to wait for someone to prove it in a court of law. Saying it in the media just doesn't prove it to me.

Too many people here are happy to let any media convict anyone of anything.

Even if you weren't around for the McCarthy era, have you learned nothing in the past 10 years?

And we are officially now all Mercans.

Don

If they feel they have a case against Churchill (plagiarism, copy-write) they should bring it to court. That is the proper forum in both of these cases. The incessant public criticism just looks like a setup smear job due to his political writings.

please use the correct word.

Past tense is "copyrighted."

How strong do you think the case is against Churchill, regarding the painting? One of your posts says that you have some practical knowledge of this area of the law.

I'd say the case against him is good to solid.

DISCLAIMER -- I AM NOT A LAWYER AND I DO NOT OFFER LEGAL ADVICE OR OPINION, only personal opinion based on limited experience in apparently similar cases.

I was involved, but not as legal counsel, with three cases of copyright infringement in the 1990s. Two of those cases involved authors of works of fiction; the infringed authors pressed charges and were granted undisclosed damages.

In the first case, the infringing author -- who was very well known and very successful in her field -- copied an entire plot, character names, and numerous (100s) of verbatim passages from a 40-year-old novel by another author, who happened to still be living and whose work was covered by copyright law. Statements that she (the infringer) hadn't actually written the book but had employed a research assistant who was accused of the actual infringing did not hold water. Speculation was that the infringer forfeited all monies earned to the original copyright holder, but no details were released to the public. The infringer's career was essentially destroyed. I have copies of both books within reach as I write this; there was never any question in my mind of the infringement.

In the second case, the infringing author lifted passages and scenarios from several of the "damaged" author's works. Again, she vehemently denied it at first, then claimed an undiagnosed mental illness "made" her do it. She, like the infringer in case #1 above, was highly successful and very well known in her field. The infringed author was in fact a close personal friend of her infringer and denied that this person could have done this to her. Eventually, confronted with the verbatim passages, she had to face the fact that a friend had stolen from her.

In both of these cases, there appeared no rational reason for the infringers to have done what they did, but they did it.

In a third case, which involved a professional, non-academic essay, the infringed author -- per personal communication I received from him -- declined to press charges. Although a lawyer for the infringer (second hand -- it's a very long and complex story) claimed that there was insufficient verbatim quoting as a percentage of the infringing work, that opinion did not hold up: the percentage of the infringed work was too high. In other words, you can't quote 100% of a 500-word article in a 10,000-word article and claim you only copied "a little bit." It's the percentage of the original that counts. Again, in this third case, the original copyright holder declined to press charges; the infringer got off without so much as a slap on the wrist.

As for Mails' artwork -- just because it's published in a book of illustrations or as an illustration for a book (I don't know anything about the original publishing format) doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted. And "copyright" means, literally, the right to make, sell, and distribute copies. That's three different things: MAKE, SELL, and DISTRIBUTE. A copy isn't just a photocopy -- it's any kind of copy, made through any means. So if Mails' original was a black-and-white pen sketch and Churchill did a full-color oil painting, it doesn't matter -- it's a copy and it's in violation of copyright law. (Although, to be fair, there's going to be more wiggle room the more "different" the original and the copy are.)

If Mails' work had been done for an obscure publication that Churchill had no likely access to and then Churchill claimed it was just coincidence that their works turned out so much alike, Churchill might have a case. A court will look at not only the copiedness /sic/ of the copy but also whether or not the copier had reasonable access to the original. So if Mails had done one painting and it hung in his bedroom where no one ever saw it, and then Churchill did his painting without ever having access to the original, well, it would be a weird coincidence that the works were so similar, but Churchill would likely get off.

However, Churchill himself isn't claiming that. He's admitting that he copied it -- but that he copied it with permission. Therefore, the burden is ENTIRELY on him to provide EVIDENCE that he had permission from the original copyright holder or subsequent copyright holders, in this case Mails' heirs. Again, the burden is ENTIRELY on Churchill, who claims to have had permission. If he hadn't claimed that he had permission, he wouldn't have to prove it. It's kind of like backing up a claim on DU with a link. . . . .

As for the academic copying, I'm not familiar with the original Cohen essay or Churchill's, so I can't comment on whether or not I think it's litigable, not even in my own utterly non-professional opinion. I think it's very very weird, however, that some of the instances cited in the Rocky Mountain News article were of Churchill plagiarizing/infringing on his ex-wife's work! I mean, c'mon, how bizarre is that???!!! In my estimation, that amounts just to a case of one or the other of them not doing their own academic work. That's lazy and sleazy, but probably not illegal. And it is, of course, up to the holder of the copyright to press charges. In this case, the ex-wife.

As for why Cohen isn't pursuing charges related to the plagiarizing of her fishing rights essay, I can think of a lot of scenarios that might fit that. The thing to keep in mind, however, is that there is virtually no remuneration for publication in scholarly journals, and often there's very little when those articles are reprinted in edited collections, such as what Churchill apparently put together. (Royalties would have to be split amongst all contributors, and small printings don't yield big royalties.) I suspect her refusal to grant him rights for the U.S. edition suggest that there were problems between her and Churchill before he proceeded to appropriate her ideas in his own version of her work. I think it's also a sign of something curious that no one here on DU has managed to find a library copy of the U.S. version with the Churchill essay.

So the bottom line for me is that, no matter what Churchill said in his 9/12/01 essay, his academic and intellectual integrity is sorely compromised, by the statements he himself has made and by the hard evidence of the documents in question. I don't care what the Lamar U. lawyer says or the Dalhousie lawyer -- I'm only commenting on what I've seen and what I've experienced.

Again, however, that disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. I am the holder of a sufficient number of REGISTERED copyrights -- as opposed to common law "as soon as it's commited to paper it's copyrighted" -- to have at least some professional familiarity with how they work.


the writer who sometimes uses the pseudonym

Tansy Gold

her article... think they might have similar ideas and agreed with each other, surprise.

but isn't it interesting how many jump on the band wagon with out even seeing his piece :crazy:

it's a smear campaign that is being helped along by the ignorant... bet the poll will come out - did he plagiarize this authors thoughts - before the work cited does.

peace

For artwork, I was under the impression it was OK to 'copy' if the new work is obviously a different work (i.e. not an art fraud), and attribution is given (e.g. "interpretation of Van Gogh's Starry Night, by J. Blow"). I was told something along those lines by an art student, who said a fair bit of latitude was given because re-interpretations are so common in visual art, especially in training. But that may only apply to work in the public domain, not more recent stuff covered by copyright. In any case, it sounds like Churchill didn't give quite that full a disclaimer.

I agree that the case of academic works is made difficult because there is often not much money at stake, but rather issues of priority and reputation. That makes it difficult to litigate (and pay the lawyers). I suppose a truly egregious case of academic plagiarism might be grounds for losing tenure, but probably the evidential bar would be pretty high. Many academics would probably be leery of going down this road too far, as claims might become never ending. After all, it isn't at all uncommon for grad students to claim their supervisors took credit for their ideas - that sort of thing.

and progress would come to a halt since all our ideas come from standing on the shoulders of OTHERS.

fyi: having your OWN interpretation of a piece of art is NOT a COPY it's UNIQUE.

peace

defend this man. I'm sorry but it's true. I've just finished reading the most assinine subthread in which Churchill's defenders have refused to admit that copyright laws would apply to this painting and then after it was painfully obvious, after a careful and thorough (however downright blatantly obvious) explanation of why Churchill very well may have violated copyright laws, the "troll" epithet was dragged out of the cache.

Yes, gee, a lot of us sure sound like trolls. Point taken and very well put. We're all the better for it now that once again we've alerted to the fact that the all-powerful Rove is the omnisciently evil puppet master, pulling the strings behind every single public event through the space-time continuum.

I would like to know how to spot people who "sound like trolls".

I really like Ward's art and the colors and compositions
he create with found images from reference books.

I also like sampling in music so maybe it is matter of
understanding cultural deconstructions place in art.

Very few seem to and often mistake it for copying.

To bad for them.

I guess.

i wish folks would get this worked up over bush crime family's policy of torturing CHILDREN, in front of their mothers for Christ's sake.

the art was HIS interpretation of another Indian piece, he changed it.

those who want to compromise with the right on freedom of speech and promote their agenda is what has lead us to this point.

why don't y'all focus n the BIG EICHMANN'S who are perpetrating FASCISM in our-name?

BTW: I saw the article that he wrote the INTRODUCTION for, apparently he has similar ideas, has anyone seen his 'plagiarized' idea yet?

it's funny how folks get so worked up in a tither when they haven't even seen the 'evidence' yet and then have the nerve to get all indignant about 'standards' - lol

tia :toast:

peace

when 99.9% of the composition is identical, changing the color isn't "interpretation." It's cheating.

Most instances of copyright infringement aren't 100% copies; they're 98% or 95%, but enough that the court says "This is not your original work, you appropriated someone else's work in order to make a profit from it, and that's not legal."

Remember, there's that clause in the copyright law about "derivative" works. A color version of a b&w print is "derivative." A sequel to a novel or a movie is "derivative." An orchestral version of a harp solo is "derivative."

Churchill himself says he had "permission" to infringe on Mails' copyright. He's essentially admitting he did what you're saying he didn't do! Take the man at his word when the proof is there -- he fucking copied.

But when the proof isn't there, get it. He says he had Mails' permission, but it's up to him to prove it. So far, he hasn't. The Mails heirs are under no obligation to prove a negative; they own the copyright and it's up to Churchill to provide the evidence that Mails' approved Churchill's derivative work.

If Mails knew of Ward's work and didn't disapproved
enough to pursue it during his life only a very warped
sense of justice would demand that his heirs have the
right or obligation to do so.

That said if they think they have a case and want too then
they will bring a lawsuit so far they haven't.

That leaves just the barking and braying jackals calling
for blood.

It may be enough for Ward to prove that Mails knew of the
work and didn't pursue it. I'm at least a qualified as you to
render that legal opinion considering you are not a lawyer and
neither am I.

It may also be enough to prove that Mails work was based on
a photo, still from a old movie, or a third party illustration.

It does look a lot like a Kurosawa scene to me from the Seven Samurai.

As the owner of the copyright, he -- or his heirs -- has ever right to pursue this. Silence in not pursuing it while he lived doesn't constitute permission.

Churchill had a limited edition of 150 prints made; he sold them for about $100 each. We have no idea where the rest of them went. It's quite possible that neither Thomas Mails nor his children ever knew anything about these copies until Mr. Prentup (if I remember his name correctly) saw the Mails original in a book.

The Mails estate is the wronged party in this event. They do not have to prove anything, except that Mails held the copyright and it's been infringed. They do not have to prove that Mails knew of the copy at any time, nor do they have to prove that he didn't give permission.

Churchill, as the alleged infringer, must either prove he didn't copy it and that is was an original and non-derivative work (except he's already admitted it was a copy, so that defense is pretty much eliminated) or that he had permission to use Mails' original as the source for the derivative work. As an academic, Churchill would know the basics of copyright law and would probably know the finer points as well. That's part of the job of a compiler/editor of an anthology, and it's part of the work the compiler does in conjunction with the publisher. Churchill is going to have a very difficult time convincing anyone he doesn't know copyright law.

Ward didn't infringe and he had permission and the
art is original enough to stand up in court and
you are just a wanna be prosecutor in a right wing
smear campaign.

Let the "wronged" party bring a case and win it until
then the fact that Wards books are well written and
make carefully layed out arguments against this
terrorist police state is enough for me to be in
his corner.

Your finer points of law bugger the real question why
is a well funded sustained attack being made on one
rather insignificant academic. Supported by the most
powerful reactionary propaganda machine the world has
ever known.

I don't care if he jay walked stole the neighbors paper
or didn't license his dog. He is being sold down the
river be fair minded individuals like yourself who can't
see the forest for the trees.

Rauschenberg, Warhol and Koons all faced similar accusations
and you know what they are three of America's finest
artists of last century. Koons lost the case and
Warhol and Rauschenberg settled out of court. They
all three have my respect for their great art including
the forbidden and illegal pieces.

Maybe Ward has committed an art crime that doesn't change the
fact that I like his art including the one you believe is criminal.

1. yes, it's possible that Mails did know and he gave permission. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that IF he did, it's up to Churchill to provide the evidence. Mails and/or his estate (owners of the valid copyright) are the "injured" party in the infringement. They do not have to "prove" anything, either that Thomas Mails knew or did not know.

Here's how it works: First, the Mails estate charges Churchill with infringement. Churchill says he had permission. They go to court. The Mails estate provides evidence that Mails was the legal owner of the copyright. The Mails estate provides evidence, probably in the form of expert art witnesses and lgal precedent, that the Churchill work infringes on Mails' copyright. If their case is proven, that means than AN infringement has taken place and that Ward Churchill created the infringing work. Please note: Churchill has already admitted he "copied" it. He is himself not using the "different interpretation" excuse; he is saying he had "permission" to "copy."

His defense in the infringement case then becomes that he did not illegally infringe because Mails gave him permission. In a trial, he will be asked to provide this proof, not just his word on it. The evidence of Mails' permission could be a letter stating that, even if the letter is not addressed to Churchill. It could be witnesses who were present when Mails gave verbal permission. It could be witnesses who saw Mails see the copy and announce his approval. There are various ways for Churchill to "prove" he had permission.

If the evidence that the Mails' estate provides to the court convinces the jury that Churchill did not have permission to infringe on Mails' copyright, then the previously "innocent" Churchill will have been proven guilty of the crime with which he has been charged.

2. I am not a "wanna-be" prosecutor and I am not part of a "RW smear campaign." I have not addressed ANY of the issues with which I might be in 112% agreement with Ward Churchill. I have not addressed the issue of his "Native American" status or his use of that status to obtain employment. None of that is germane to the case of copyright infringement. All I have done is set forth the issues relative to copyright infringement and offer my personal opinion on the merits of the case, which is exactly what you've done, no more and no less. I see the "merits" differently; you apparently are basing yours only on opinion, which is quite acceptable on DU.

3. Why the RW is launching an attack on Churchill should not be in doubt. They don't like what he has to say. I don't know why this would come as any surprise to anyone. And he has apparently some history of doing so. But even the RW knows that it's difficult (though not impossible) to attack someone for simply saying unflattering things about the regime. If they could, I'm sure they would silence all dissent, including DU, in a heartbeat. But they aren't quite capable of that -- yet -- so they go after other vulnerabilities. Ward Churchill provided them with that -- exactly as Bill Clinton's philandering gave them an opening (pun intended).

I'm not saying the RW's over-all assault on Churchill is justified; what I am saying is that it appears to me he is in the wrong on the plagiarism/copyright infringement issues. As such, he may not be the case for us liberals/progressives to take a stand on, because we may fall when he does.

If you've ever read Taylor Branch's excellent biography of MLK, you'll know that the decision to make Rosa Parks the "test case" for segregation in Montgomery was not lightly arrived at. Other "victims" were considered, including a young pregnant woman who was forced to give up her bus seat to a white man. Her case was turned down by those who eventually became the leaders of the 1955 bus boycott because she was unmarried and was seen as not sufficiently "sympathetic" to be presented to the general public. The older and more "respectable" Rosa Parks thus became the test case over which the boycott was organized.

4. I'm not selling Ward Churchill down the river. I have not said one word on whether or not I think his other actions are justified or I'm in agreement with them. I am only pointing out that he appears to have a very weak case on these charges of plagiarism/copyright infringement. If there is any "witch hunt," it's directed at those of us who are merely trying to focus on the specific issue.

I do not think it is helpful for the general liberal/progressive movement to utilize icons who do not help the cause. And I will compare Rosa Parks again to Ward Churchill in this way:

Rosa Parks broke the law when she refused to give up her seat on the Montgomery bus to a white man. She did so in direct "civil disobedience" protest of that law. Her action then became a focus for the over-turning of that unjust law.

Ward Churchill's alleged violations of copyright law are in no way connected to his writings on COINTELPRO, the boooosh regime, or 9/11. His alleged violations of copyright law do not help to shine additional light on the issues for which he is being hounded, i.e. his accusations regarding 9/11. He may very well be 112% correct in those accusations, but his failure to maintain absolute intellectual integrity on other works undermines his credibility on this one.


5. You are entitled to "like" his work, literary, scholarly, or artistic. That doesn't change the fact that I think it's infringing and that a court very well may find the same. The Mails estate does not have to bring charges; if they don't, Churchill is legally innocent. Fay Cohen doesn't have to bring charges; if she doesn't, Churchill is legally innocent. The problem is that the publicity about his alleged "crimes" diminishes his status as a speaker for the truth. He will always have that sword hanging over his head.

And when we expend our energies defending someone who is vulnerable, and defend him in a way that shows we don't care about legalities, we leave our entire movement vulnerable.

Anyone who wishes to defend Churchill is perfectly free to do so, and to take the risks thereon entailed. But if in fact Churchill is found guilty of infringement and is discredited as a critic of the right, we have done ourselves no good in defending him.

Is it possible that he will emerge as an unsullied hero? Yes, it is. I don't deny this possibility. Do I think it's likely? No, not really. But I'm keeping my eyes open to the facts as I see them and the experiences I've had in this field.

As the poster "A Sad Little Pony" pointed out with the Jeff Koons case, art works do not have to be "identical" to be considered infringing. A change of medium, a change of "perspective" /sic/, these aren't enough to guarantee immunity. As you said, Rauschenburg and Warhol settled similar cases out of court. All are still considered (by some) to be "great" artists.

The point is, however, that few here are here defending Ward Churchill's artistic talent or lack thereof. The defense is more centered around "He's speaking the truth on one issue, therefore we can ignore the lies he tells/performs on other issues." It seems to be more a case of "I believe him on the 9/11 issue, therefore I'm willing to ignore any and all evidence that he may not be honest elsewhere."

I'm not saying that Churchill's apparent/alleged intellectual dishonesty in the Mails and Cohen cases invalidates anything he has to say about 9/11. I'm saying that it makes me more skeptical of his claims and it makes me far less willing to support him against tangential attacks from the RW.

Do I personally think Churchill is guilty of infringing? Yes, I do. Do I think he should be removed from his tenured position at CU as a result of this infringement? If he's found guilty, even by a court of university opinion, yes, I think he should be removed. As a professor, as a tenured professor, he is to be held to a much higher standard of intellectual ethics than the run-of-the-mill writer or pundit or CU poster. In my never humble opinion, he hasn't maintained that standard.

Do I think he should be strung up or burned at the stake? No. But he has plenty of other outlets -- fiction writing? painting? -- by which he can make a career. Honesty in academia, especially when we have so much dishonesty already on the right, ought to be something we on the left encourage.


Tansy Gold

it really comes down to the fact no one has brought a court case, let alone won one.

Yet you and others are ready, no happy, to find him guilty
because of allegations that fall far short of criminal in
my opinion.

1) If no case is brought considering the amount of fast
right wing money there is probably no case.

2) If a case is brought and he lost he would be as bad as
Koons or Steven Ambrose. Two real threats to American
culture.

3) Don't worry someone who meets your standards will be
destroyed and no one will care because it is more convenient
to toss the vulnerable to the wolves.

Count on it.

alleged copyright infringement?

I've never said I was "happy" about it or that I was glad to see him brought down. Nor did I imply that I was. I never even called him names.

As a matter of fact, I am very dismayed and discouraged and sad that this has happened. But I doubt you'll believe me because you seem to care little for any kind of evidence, preferring only to believe what you want to believe.

I would much prefer that Ward Churchill -- and all academics of every political persuasion -- be honest and ethical. But I will not turn a blind eye to evidence just because I don't like it.

That is a break thought for you and maybe your not "happy"
but believe me many on this thread are.

I certainly am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt
and if a judgment is made against him so be it.

You don't seem to want to extend the basic innocent until
PROVEN guilty standard to him.

Maybe this is because of your detailed knowledge of copyright
or because of your unending commitment to evidence and ethics.

Fine.

To me you seem to be a happy member of the lynch mob.

don't wanna slip to faux-news standards now do we?

fyi

peace

I would not go so far as to say you don't know a lot about art, but I would probably say that you might not be exactly an expert.

Churchill did a mirror-image flip and that is not a "change of perspective." He did not look at the same scene from a higher or lower vantage point, or from the rear or the side. He just flipped it. That is not "an interpretation." Sheesh.

If he had made the riders Mongols under Ghenghis Khan and the shrubbery into rocks and the snow into sand, that MIGHT be an "interpretation." This, on the other hand, is a fucking copy.

The riders are in the same (relative) positions, and there are no additions or deletions. The shrubbery is the same, the perspective is the same, i.e. vanishing point, horizon, etc.

It's a copy.

They guy who wrote profound things you agree with is not perfect. He is not the victim of a Rovian campaign or of RW extremists.

He set up a "foundation" and under its aegis had his ex-wife rewrite Prof. Fay Cohen's article for inclusion in the U.S. edition of Churchill's book, to which Churchill wrote the "Introduction." As the editor/compiler, Churchill is responsible for the contents of the book. If he commissioned an infringing work, he's still liable because he knew it was an infringement.

The article from the Denver Post contains enough verbatim or near-verbatim text to suggest that the Churchill/Guerrero text is an infringement. Citing the original is not always sufficient escape from a charge of infringement; citing too much or failure to inject anything original can produce a verdict of infringement even if the words are substantially changed. That MAY be why Cohen and Dalhousie have not gone after Churchill himself directly for the infringement but instead are relying on the publicity to inflict more permanent damage to his career than a minor lawsuit for a paltry sum in monetary damages.

I contend there's sufficient evidence that Churchill violated copyright law, and that he did so knowingly, for personal gain rather than to make a statement about intellectual property rights. I won't pass judgment on anything else he's done because I have insufficient evidence. I don't know what he said about 9/11 or about his claims to Native American status or anything else.

On the evidence I've seen and based on what I know of copyright law, I'd judge him guilty of infringing on Mails and Cohen.

is certainly a change of perspective where i come from.

and you left that out of your well thought out opinion, just try'n to help out, don't want folks to think you were misleading them now do ya?

:hi:

peace

then you probably do not know much about art or about copyright law.

And I most assuredly did *not* leave that out of my analysis.

Tansy Gold

Below is an account of where a photo was used as a source for a sculpture, and was indeed found to be copyright infringement. Churchill turned an illustration into a print. He didn't do so in order to comment upon the illustration, artist, or genre itself. No.
He just copied it, and claimed it as his own.

http://www.ncac.org/artlaw/sum-rog.html

Rogers is a professional photographer whose “Puppies” photo had been reproduced as a note card. Koons is an artist and sculptor who often uses images from mass culture to comment upon society. Koons modeled a three-dimensional sculpture entitled “String of Puppies” after Rogers’ image. He gave his artisans Roger’s note card and directed them to create a reproduction “just like the photo.” Rogers sued Koons for copyright infringement.



The court found Koons infringed Rogers’ copyright, concluding that:

• Rogers’ photo did indeed have sufficient originality (in the lighting, composition, angle etc.) to merit its own copyright;
• Koons had copied the photograph, as he admitted having access to the image and his instructions to his artisans commanded them to copy it closely;
• This direct evidence of copying and the substantial similarity between the two works was enough to infer copying; and,
• Koons had not just taken Rogers’ idea, but also the expression of it, rendering the copying illegal.

Koons raised a fair use defense, claiming his work was a permissible parody of “Puppies”. Koons suggested “String of Puppies” satirized society at large by criticizing the social deterioration the mass production of commodities has caused. However, this was not parody under this court’s rules, which required that the copied work, not just the society at large, be an object of parody. This requirement is meant to ensure that there is a practical boundary to the defense by making the audience aware that, underlying the parody, there is an original and separate expression, attributable to a different artist. Here the court deemed “String of Puppies” a satirical critique of material society, but not a parody of “Puppies” itself.



In addition, the Court looked at the effect that Koons’s work would have on demand for the original photograph and authorized derivative works. The Court determined that Koons had produced “String of Puppies” for monetary gain, and that it prejudiced the market for the licensing of reproductions and derivative works of the original work by decreasing demand for similar works.

In evaluating a fair use defense, a court will consider whether an artist operates in good faith. Here the court suggested Koons had operated in bad faith.

Excellent information!

I was unfamiliar with this case but will put it in my (mental) files for future use.

Again, thank you!


Tansy Gold

when 99.9% of the composition is identical, changing the color isn't "interpretation." It's cheating.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1303943&mesg_id=1309661&page=

you sure left it out there, and it certainly wasn't a "copy".

anyways, i'm out... i guess will have to wait and see what the judge says.

:hi:

peace

Who are any of you (not all of you here, of course) to render any judgment as to Churchill's tribal status? You don't know what you're talking about. If some extremist hack, Indian or not, wants to impugn his Indianness you fall right into line. That's disturbing and disgusting. And it says something about you in your willingness to treat some right wing Indian opponent's attacks as gospel to follow and repeat.

Those with less than full blood status are typically treated as Indians with all the rights to denegration, stereotyping and marginalization that comes with it. Go to the Montana Human rights Commission website. Quite often the cases are about Natives being mistreated.

No self-respecting decent Indian would attack another based on how close or not to full blood or some arbitrary percentage they haven't attained. Those here who parrot the attacks should think again about whether they are not the real "scumbags" here.

people feeling knowledgeable and self-righteous. They just get caught up in the momentum, y'know? ;-)

that Churchill is not a Native American. It is the tribe from which he wheedled the "associate membership" that says that he is not a Native American. Do you think the tribe has the right to tell you whether someone is its member or not? Are you saying that if someone *says* he is Native American, no one has the right to question the claim?

http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/cherokee.html

The former chairman of the Keetoowah band of Cherokee Indians says University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill was given an honorary membership that required no proof of Cherokee heritage.

...

Former President Clinton also was given an honorary membership in the tribe.

...

Churchill has cited his associate membership in the tribe as proof of his Cherokee roots.

========================================

The above just shows Churchill's dishonesty. Claiming that his honorary membership is proof of his "Cherokee roots", when that membership is given to "friends of the tribe" and does not depend on ethnicity at all, is fraudulent.

It was precisely his POINT that blood was/is not a criterion. Churchill has always been up front about that, as have those who gave him honorary membership.

Why are you after Churchill?

"Blood is not a criterion"? Are you joking? Bill Clinton has "associate membership" in the same tribe - does that mean he is a "Native American"?

I am after Churchill because I despise liars and cheats. I especially despise arrogant liars and cheats who think they can get away with it because they spout leftist views and expect the left to defend them and overlook the lies and fraud (and in your case, at least, that works).

I don't agree with much of what Means has to say either. But I live very close to Boulder, and I have studied, worked, and taught at that university. Churchill is very well respected as a teacher who challenges his students in the ways of critical thought.

He is a political target.

I guess if somebody lies & cheats their way into office, lies & cheats us into war and lies & cheats the economy downward--that's OK with you!

now let me ask you - if someone lies & cheats their way into his job, then plagiarizes and lies about it, is it ok with you?

Seriously - is your response to Churchill's lies and fraud "Bush is worse"? Ok, I agree. Bush is worse. Does that make Churchill's cheating and lies better?

And I hope that academia can deal with the plagiarism charges.

It's just a matter of degree. And perspective--I realize that not everybody at DU is coming from the same place.

that he has never gotten a doctorate. The only reason that requirement was waived is because he claimed Native American status. As we see from the statements of the officials of the tribe in which he claims membership (that I quoted above), he is as "Native American" as Bill Clinton is. That is what I call lying and cheating his way into the job.

I'm sure the rest of the faculty was really bent out of shape, if true. A professor with no Ph.D!

Oh, the Humanity!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-churchill9mar09,1,3617513.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=2&cset=true

...(example of academic dishonesty)...

Three professors have said that Churchill reinvented history to suit his politics. In one case, he wrote that the U.S. Army deliberately infected Mandan Indians with smallpox-laden blankets in what is now North Dakota. His source for the story was UCLA professor Russell Thornton, whose own account of the incident is completely different and makes no mention of the Army.

...(Native Americans denying he is one of them)...

Long before Churchill became nationally known, many Native American groups — including the American Indian Movement — were denouncing him as an impostor. Churchill's claims to be Creek, then Keetoowah Cherokee, have been denied by the tribes. He has often called American Indians racist for their tribal membership rules.

"We have told he is not an Indian and he should not be out there indicting Indian people," said Carol Standing Elk, who heads AIM of Northern California. "How did he get into the university? How did he head a department with only a master's degree?"

...(the lying and cheating to get the job)...

Churchill applied to the University of Colorado in 1978 and was hired to run a tutoring program for minority students. He checked Native American on his application and federal affirmative action forms. In 1991, he got a temporary job teaching American Indian studies, beating out several Native American applicants.

...(He claimed to have gotten a job offer from CA and thus forced his tenure. No such job offer ever existed)...

But California State University officials said they never offered him a job.

"We have records from that time, and we cannot find a hiring offer to Ward Churchill," John Chandler, spokesman for Cal State Northridge, said last week.

...he was never a viable candidate. He didn't have a Ph.D. and no scholarly writings that would meet any criteria of a serious college."

Check out the Seminoles revoking membership from the tribal members with African-American heritage.

as if that's unheard of... ;-)

He makes people think & stirs up trouble. How many academic placeholders have numerous degrees but bore their students shitless?

And you can add the jealous ones into the "hang Churchill" mix too. The fact of the matter is that universities hire plenty of faculty who may have one or more master's degrees as professors, provided they have broken some academic ground, have a history of teaching excellence, and have records of accomplishment in their respective fields. Some of those records would put any run-of-the-mill Ph.D. to shame.

:shrug:

It is quite common in faculties like law, medicine, and business. In the Fine Arts (music, visual arts) this also comes up. Also, leading edge science disciplines sometime hire non-doctorates, simply because the development of the science can outrun the formal PhD programs. A relatively new humanities type discipline (like Native Studies) might also find itself in that situation.

Ward Churchill has lots of information, and makes plenty of thought provoking and TRUE points. If you don't like what he has to say or write, don't listen or read.IMO