© 2015 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/a-special-note-to-the-writers-at-the-dollop/
Readers, please forgive this departure from our irregularly scheduled programming. Also, please do not antagonize anyone involved, we merely want to bring this problem to light and resolve it.
Hello, writers from the popular The Dollop podcast. You may or may not remember me, my name is Alan Bellows, the founder of this website. If my name sounds familiar, it is probably because it has been in the bylines of multiple articles that you have plagiarized word-for-word in the past year or so. You are not the first to republish my work without permission—far from it. But as far as I am aware you are the first who has tried to pass off my lengthy writings as your own. And even if you had credited us, your use cannot be classified as “fair use,” as we are your competitor in the podcast space. You cannot legally or morally use lengthy word-for-word sections of our articles to build your own scripts. Of course, you also go one step further and ask for (and receive) thousands of dollars in recurring monthly donations for this so-called “endless research.”
Dave Anthony, I have no idea whether you pay someone to produce your show scripts or whether you do so on your own (ed. note: we have since confirmed that episodes are “written” by Dave Anthony). In either case, someone working for you has systematically engaged in unethical and illegal behavior, and the offenders ought to be ejected from the profession. Specific examples of offenses follow.
In your episode The Three Jesuses, most of the script you are reading and commenting upon is a word-for-word reproduction of my article, Three Thrown Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. Some Internet searching for specific phrases revealed that some paragraphs are taken word-for-word from this KnowledgeNuts article written by Lance David LeClaire, and a few paragraphs are taken word-for-word from this Slate article written by Vaughan Bell.
The audio file embedded below consists of the plagiarized portions of one episode of the Dollop, and below that is a transcript of the text excerpts from the original writings. We invite you to read along while listening, noting how similar The Dollop's wording is to the original. The text taken from Damn Interesting is highlighted in yellow, the text taken from KnowledgeNuts is blue, and the text from Slate is green. Please note that the quantity of uncolored text is a tiny fraction, and a large majority is in Damn Interesting yellow.
Social psychologist Milton Rokeach was inspired to conduct the experiment after reading an account in a 1955 issue of Harper’s Magazine that told the story of two women who thought that they were Mary, Mother of God who had come face to face by chance within a mental institution in Maryland.
engaged in conversation. They had been chatting for several minutes when the older woman introduced herself as “Mary, Mother of God.”
“Why you can’t be, my dear,” the other patient replied, unable to conceive of such a notion. “You must be crazy. I am the Mother of God.”
“I’m afraid it’s you who are mixed up,” the first asserted, “I am Mary.”
A hospital staff member eavesdropped as the two Virgin Marys debated their identities. After a while the women paused to quietly regard one another. Finally, the older patient seemed to arrive at a realization. “If you’re Mary,” she said, “I must be Anne, your mother.” That seemed to settle it, and the reconciled patients embraced. In the following weeks the woman who had conceded her delusion was reported to be much more receptive to treatment, and she was soon considered well enough to be discharged from the hospital.
Frustrated by psychology's focus on what he considered to be peripheral beliefs, like political opinions and social attitudes, Rokeach wanted to probe the limits of identity. He had been intrigued by stories of Secret Service agents who felt they had lost contact with their original identities, and wondered if a man's sense of self might be challenged in a controlled setting. Unusually for a psychologist, he found his answer in the Bible. There is only one Son of God, says the good book, so anyone who believed himself to be Jesus would suffer a psychological affront by the very existence of another like him. This was the revelation that led Rokeach to orchestrate his meeting of the Messiahs
Dr. Rokeach sought and secured a research grant to test his hypothesis, and he began canvassing sanitariums for delusional doppelgängers. Soon he found several suitable subjects: three patients, all in state care, each of whom believed himself to be Jesus Christ.
set them up to live together in the Ypsilanti State Hospital in Michigan in 1959.
He instructed the medical superintendent Dr. Yoder to arrange the transfers. Yoder dutifully sent them to Ypsilanti’s Ward D-23, and then washed his hands of the matter. Three days later, when the “Three Christs” arose, they were summoned to a small antechamber adjacent to Ward D-23.
Voltaire recounted the tale of the "unfortunate madman" Simon Morin who was burnt at the stake in 1663 for claiming to be Jesus. Unfortunate it seems, because Morin was originally committed to a madhouse where he met another who claimed to be God the Father, and "was so struck with the folly of his companion that he acknowledged his own, and appeared, for a time, to have recovered his senses." The lucid period did not last, however, and it seems the authorities lost patience with his blasphemy. Another account of a meeting of the Messiahs comes from Sidney Rosen's book My Voice Will Go With You: The Teaching Tales of Milton H. Erickson. The renowned psychiatrist apparently set two delusional Christs in his ward arguing only for one to gain insight into his madness, miraculously, after seeing something of himself in his companion. ("I'm saying the same things as that crazy fool is saying," said one of the patients. "That must mean I'm crazy too.")
He thought that it might be possible to alter or even eliminate schizophrenic delusions if patients were forced to confront the existential contradiction of others who possessed the same delusions of identity. A sort of mental “shock treatment,” if you will.
These tales are surprising because delusions, in the medical sense, are not simply a case of being mistaken. They are considered to be pathological beliefs, reflecting a warped or broken understanding that is not, by definition, amenable to being reshaped by reality.
It was a plain room with bare walls and deliberately unstimulating furniture. As was always the case when Dr. Rokeach was present, a nebula of tobacco smoke hung in the air. The doctor introduced himself and his three research assistants, and he explained that they would all be spending a lot of time together over the next few months. The patients sat across from the researchers in heavy wooden straight-backed chairs.
Joseph Cassel, a failed writer who was institutionalized after increasingly violent behavior toward his family;
Rokeach asked the third to introduce himself to the group.
“My name is Joseph Cassel,” the man said. Joseph was a 58-year-old patient who at that time had been institutionalized for almost twenty years. He was quite bald, and he grinned often despite missing half of his front teeth. His shirt and trouser pockets were bulging with belongings such as eyeglasses, tobacco, pencils, handkerchiefs, books, and magazines. Joseph tended to inexplicably fling the reading material from the windows when he thought no one was looking. Although he was not from England, nor had he ever even visited the place, he yearned to return there someday. He was the most mild-mannered of the Three Christs.
“Joseph, is there anything else you want to tell us?” Rokeach prompted.
“Yes.” he replied. “I’m God.”
The next to speak was the eldest of the three. “My name is Clyde Benson,” he mumbled in a low voice that characterized most of his speech. “That’s my name straight.” At 70 years old, Clyde suffered from dementia, but in moments of lucidity he tended to reminisce about working on the railroads, and fishing. He was quite tall and almost entirely toothless.
“Do you have any other names?” Rokeach replied.
“Well, I have other names, but that’s my vital side and I made God five and Jesus six,” Clyde replied.
The third Christ to introduce himself was Leon, the youngest at age 38. He had been raised by a single mother, a militant Christian woman who had struggled with her own mental health. Some five years earlier his mother had come home from her daily church session to find Leon in the process of destroying the crucifixes and other Christian ornamentation that covered every wall of the house. Leon then commanded his mother to reject such false images and worship him as Jesus. He had been committed soon thereafter. He was tall, thin, articulate, and he constantly kept with his hands in front of him to keep them in sight.
“Sir,” Leon introduced himself to Rokeach, “it so happens that my birth certificate says that I am Dr. Domino Dominorum et Rex Rexarum, Simplis Christianus Pueris Mentalis Doktor.” This prolonged moniker was Latin for “Lord of Lords, and King of Kings, Simple Christian Boy Psychiatrist”. Leon continued, “It also states on my birth certificate that I am the reincarnation of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.”
Joseph, the one who had first introduced himself, was also the first to protest. “He says he is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. I can’t get it. I know who I am. I’m God, Christ, the Holy Ghost, and if I wasn’t, by gosh, I wouldn’t lay claim to anything of the sort. I’m Christ. I don’t want to say I’m Christ, God, the Holy Ghost, Spirit. I know this is an insane house and you have to be very careful.”
After allowing Joseph to rant a bit longer, young Leon interjected. “Mr. Cassel, please! I didn’t agree with the fact that you were generalizing and calling all people insane in this place. There are people here who are not insane. Each person is a house. Please remember that.”
Dr. Rokeach allowed them to argue in this way for a few moments before he turned to Clyde, the eldest, and asked his opinion. “I represent the resurrection,” Clyde replied. “Yeh! I’m the same as Jesus. To represent the resurrection…” He trailed off into indistinct mumbling.
Rokeach attempted to clarify, for the record: “Did you say you are God?”
“That’s right. God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit.”
The decorum disintegrated as Clyde and Joseph, the two older patients, began to bellow at one another. “Don’t try to pull that on me because I will prove it to you! I’m telling you I’m God!” … “You’re not!” … “I’m God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost! I know what I am and I’m going to be what I am!” And so on. They argued thus for the remainder of the session as Leon watched in attentive silence. When they adjourned for the day Leon denounced the sessions as “mental torture.”
The early meetings were stormy. "You oughta worship me, I'll tell you that!" one of the Christs yelled. "I will not worship you! You're a creature! You better live your own life and wake up to the facts!" another snapped back. "No two men are Jesus Christs. … I am the Good Lord!" the third interjected, barely concealing his anger.
Rokeach attempted to maximize inter-Christ contact by assigning the three men to adjacent beds in Ward D-23, assigning them adjacent seats in the dining area, and arranging for them to work side-by-side in the laundry. His research assistants were instructed to conduct a daily group session, and to follow the Christs and inventory their activities during the rest of the day. Once per week Dr. Rokeach himself would descend upon the facility to personally prod at the patients’ psyches.
On one occasion, Rokeach asked the group, “Why are you in this hospital?”
Clyde, the oldest, mumbled that he owned the building and adjacent lands and that he stayed on as caretaker. Joseph proudly explained that the hospital was an English stronghold, and that he was there to defend it. Leon, the youngest and least institutionalized, was the only one to acknowledge that he himself was a mental patient, but he stopped short of admitting to delusion. He blamed some ambiguous, jealous persecutors for unjustly subjecting him to the torment of a mental ward.
Weeks of such discussions ensued. As the novelty of the sessions wore off the tension began to rise. Debates became passionate as each Christ attempted to disabuse the others of their misguided beliefs. In the meantime the researchers’ questions became more confrontational. Each patient strained to maintain a rational demeanor, nevertheless outbursts, obscenities, and threats became increasingly commonplace both inside and outside of the daily sessions. On one occasion, as Leon waited in the supper line, a bothersome patient approached him and asked, “Do you still think you’re Jesus Christ?”
“Sir, I most certainly am Jesus Christ,” Leon replied.
The agitator turned to another man waiting in line and said, “This guy thinks he’s Christ. He’s nuts, isn’t he?”
“He’s not Christ, I am!” the man replied angrily. It happened to be Joseph.
Old Man Clyde was not far away, and was heard to bellow, “No, he’s not! I am!”
During the daily group session, Leon contended that Adam of the Bible was a “colored man.” Clyde confronted him angrily, to which Leon replied, “I believe in truthful bullshit but I don’t care for your bullshit.” The old man struck him on the cheek with a solid right smite. Leon sat with his hands folded and made no effort to retaliate or defend himself. Dr. Rokeach and his assistant wrestled Clyde away, allowed him to compose himself, and before long the conversation continued as though nothing had happened.
This was not the only time the self-styled Christs came to fisticuffs over philosophical differences, but gradually the spirited discourse gave way to a shaky, mutually patronizing peace. The men sometimes humored one another’s delusions, and other times they tap-danced around them. Over time, each Christ cultivated new delusions to retain his claim to godliness. Clyde squared his reality with the others’ by concluding that the other men were actually dead—in his mind they were absurd corpse puppets whose limbs and faces were controlled by machines hidden inside of them. Leon explained away the others’ assertions as lies from attention-seeking imposters, or the result of technical-sounding nonsense terms such as “duping”, “interferences”, or “electronic imposition”. As for Joseph, he sagely observed that the other Christ claimants were, in fact, patients in a mental hospital, which proved that they were quite insane.
As weeks turned into months, pedestrian subjects such as favorite foods and personal anecdotes began to dominate the sessions. Even outside of meetings the three men frequently sat together quietly despite being free to roam and mingle with others. They shared tobacco and stuck up for one another against interlopers. Each continued to believe that he was the embodiment of the Holy Trinity, with the power to perform miracles, but all three had learned that discussing religion was not conducive to peaceful co-existence.
During one session Dr. Rokeach produced a newspaper clipping he had brought with him and handed it around. Old Man Clyde and Almost-As-Old-Man Joseph had trouble reading the small text, so Leon volunteered to read it aloud for the others. It was a local reporter’s summary of a lecture recently given by one “Dr. Rokeach.” Evidently this lecturer was conducting an odd psychological experiment at Ypsilanti State Hospital with three men who all believed they were Jesus Christ.
As Leon read aloud, Clyde withdrew into a unresponsive “stupor.” Leon himself grew increasingly visibly upset. He was wholly aware of the article’s substance. After he finished reading he protested the incomplete picture offered by the report. “When psychology is used to agitate, it’s not sound psychology any more,” he told Dr. Rokeach. “You’re not helping the person. You’re agitating. When you agitate you belittle your intelligence.” With that, Leon left.
the doctor was manipulating the men’s lives, especially Leon. Once it became clear that direct confrontation had little effect, he would show them fake newspaper clippings designed to elicit a response, send fake letters from Dr. Yodar (the hospital’s superintendent) to Joseph (in an attempt to see what effect a higher authority figure might have on Joseph’s beliefs)
Rokeach acknowledged the “serious ethical issues” involved, and his research assistants voiced concerns regarding the methodology, but Dr. Rokeach emphasized his intent to employ caution, adding, “we hoped there might be, therapeutically, little to lose and, hopefully, a good deal to gain.”
Dr. Rokeach finally brought the Three Christs experiment to an end on 15 August 1961, just over two years since the first meeting of Clyde, Joseph, and Leon. None of the patients had measurably improved, although by the time Rokeach departed Leon had indeed renounced his claim to being Jesus Christ. Instead he insisted upon being referred to as “Dr. Righteous Idealized Dung.” He had also come to believe that he was one of the Yeti people.
The experimenters abandoned their control group when it became inconvenient, they meddled endlessly, and they had a laughably small sample size of Jesuses.
The patients never did seem interested in resolving the question of “who was the real Jesus among them?” and showed clear signs that they only wanted to live in peace together.
Dr. Rokeach wrote a book on the subject entitled The Three Christs of Ypsilanti, where he concluded (rather weakly) with the Freudian idea that the delusions suffered by the three men were the result of confusion over sexual identity and noting that we all, “seek ways to live with one another in peace.”
Later advances in neuroscience revealed that schizophrenia is disorder of thought processes rather than of thought content, associated with subtle differences in brain structures and in brain chemistry, consequently no amount of psychotherapy can “cure” schizophrenic delusions.
The doctor acknowledges his ethical lapses in the afterword to the 1981 paperback edition of his book, where he writes, “While I had failed to cure the three Christs of their delusions, they had succeeded in curing me of mine—of my God-like delusion that I could change them by omnipotently and omnisciently arranging and rearranging their daily lives within the framework of a ‘total institution.’ ”
This represents a single example of a plagiarized episode, there are multiple others. For more examples of Dollop episodes that are verbatim ripoffs of Damn Interesting articles, see our additional exhibits page.
Note: Your most recent episode as of this writing—The Business Plot—also lifts a paragraph or two from my Revenge of the Fighting Quaker, but it is not as egregious as the others, so for now I will be content to merely be annoyed about that one. But it’s still plagiarism.
In closing, I reiterate that we have not and will not grant you permission to use any of our material. So stop it. We realize that you probably “meant no harm,” but plagiarizers seldom do—plagiarizers just want to reap the benefit without doing the work, with cavalier disregard for the harm their selfishness causes. To all other would-be copyright infringers and plagiarists: if you want to use someone else’s writing, especially when you will profit from it, kindly ensure that you gain permission. Your discovery and slight repurposing of an article on the Internet does not constitute research, and outside of a few narrow categories, your use is not “fair use.” I am aware that it is unfashionable in certain circles to opt for © All Rights Reserved, and those people are entitled to their philosophy, and it is their privilege to give up control of their own work. The rest of us are trying to make a living.
Update: The Dollop have posted a response claiming, incorrectly, that their republishing of our material is Fair Use. They must be quite the mental gymnasts given that Dave is a professional writer claiming that it is Fair Use to repurpose other authors’ work, verbatim, without permission or attribution. They did not apologize for the plagiarism, but they did remove the offending episodes from their catalog, and they claim they will not use our content without permission in the future.
In Anthony’s response he claimed “historical facts are not copyrightable,” which is true, but totally irrelevant to this discussion. That is a ‘straw man’ argument. No one is claiming ownership of facts here, we are claiming ownership of our exact words, our lengthy writings. Those are quite copyrightable. Dave Anthony has also implied that his only misdeed was laziness in citing his sources, not plagiarism. Laziness may have motivated his theft of our content, but plagiarism is plagiarism regardless of the motivation.
Amid discussions involving this post on social media, I have seen a number of commenters assert that the Fair Use exception in US copyright law protects podcasters who wish to use another’s writings—even at great length—without permission or attribution. Fair Use is intended to allow teachers, critics, journalists, and researchers to quote copyrighted material without fear of litigation, provided they cite the source. It does not protect a history podcast that is stealing content word-for-word from a competing history podcast. Fair Use is a complex and nuanced exception to copyright, but according to our legal advisors, The Dollop’s usage was entirely incompatible with Fair Use, especially without attribution. Let us hope we need never test our view in court. To quote Plagiarism Today:
…there is no debate that [The Dollop] took text and facts written by others and used them, often verbatim, without attribution. That is the definition of plagiarism.
I hope this post didn’t cause anyone undeserved consternation, but I feel it’s an important conversation to have. Thanks to all who provided thoughtful input.
© 2015 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/a-special-note-to-the-writers-at-the-dollop/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
Woo! You go guys! Defend your hard work tooth and nail if you have too. Nothing justifies some lazy hack coming along, stealing it, and trying to pass it off as their own. Then they have the audacity to charge for it! Astoundingly criminal!
Whilst it is considered bad form to go with the © All Rights Reserved thing in some circles, it also tends to be accompanied by a non-commercial limitation. And an attribution clause. Because just because people like tomshare, it does not mean that they also don’t like to make a living!
So yes, a pox on plagiarists.
Here, here!
Good on ya for publicly calling out the low-life, filthy stealing dirtbags (though I’m pretty sure I’m paraphrasing).
PS
What can we do to help?
If you happen to be a supporter of their podcast, I’d suggest that you suspend support until/unless they stop cribbing others’ writings. Apart from that, I cannot think of much apart from making sure to inform authors when you notice their work being potentially mishandled.
To reiterate, I don’t know if this is on Dave and Gareth (the voices of the podcast), or whether they’ve hired a writer who has been equally unkind to The Dollop and Damn Interesting.
I’ll bet they copy this too.
Dave from the Dollop emailed me chastising me for posting this publicly rather than emailing him privately, and I can see where he’s coming from although I do not agree. Here is how I responded:
(The original was not censored, but I have to watch my language here.)
I’ve linked this post in The Dollop subreddit here: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDollop/comments/3cotvo/damn_interesting_founder_writes_note_to_the/
Thanks again for the great content Alan, sorry it was stolen by others.
A couple of things for you here Alan:
First, this is a sucky thing that happened to you, and for that I am sorry, as well as all of the writers at DI that have been plagiarized. Secondly, I would like to say that your incredible writing style and voice comes out in your letters as well.
Damn sorry this happened, Alan. (pun intended)
Also, would you be willing to post the original letter you sent Dave?
Consider finding a cheap lawyer and issuing a cease and desist letter? Any publications made after proven delivery of said letter gives you a court case. Not that you want that mess in the first place, but I agree that your intellectual property is yours, and yours only. Just my 2 cents.
Been following this site for a while now, love every piece.
I pushed this link of twitter in a retweet from the dollop pushing their show. Their response? Immediately blocked me. Could be lying to their twitter followers. But in a way I always think of blocking on twitter as the garbage taking itself out.
Here’s the material:
“Vanderleun @Van_der_Leun 2h2 hours ago
Vanderleun retweeted
Best place to find topics is to go to Damn Interesting that these plagerist jerks steal from. http://pllqt.it/1Qr2sC https://twitter.com/thedollop/status/618917552727588864 …
Vanderleun added,
This Tweet is unavailable.”
The Dollop is on full (retarded) damage control on Facebook. First, deleting links to Damn Interesting, then banning those who link, then removing ability to publish on their page, and now, this:
http://s16.postimg.org/ieutxr9k5/thedollop.jpg
You’ll probably see some trolling posts from a website today. Don’t respond. We don’t attack as a pack. It’s not how things should be done. Just hang and we’ll post our official response later.
https://www.facebook.com/thedollop/posts/873378436087344
Classy.
I’ve been a fan of the Dollop since the start, and a fan of Dave’s since before. (don’t attack as a pack is taken from a maxim on his previous podcast, Walking the Room). I can say without hesitation that the guys on the podcast are good guys, genuinely funny, and kind. Dave has told stories before of confronting joke thieves, and he takes it very seriously.
I hope this gets resolved honorably because the comparisons you’ve presented here are exceedingly similar, and it’s super sad and upsetting to think anyone’s work has been misrepresented.
We live in hard times.
also I wish the previous commenter hadn’t used “retarded.” That’s not helping anyone.
As a Dollop fan, I think they have fans that submit some of the stories, and these are probably ones that the fans probably plagiarized the whole thing and passed it off as original and sent it to them. Also Dave is notorious for blocking everyone if he’s having a bad day.
In today’s fast paced, quick to post hateful responses about someone else’s unfortunate situation climate, i am not surprised that The Dollop has gone into “damage control”. You didn’t give them a chance to respond to you; instead you went right to a public SHAME SHAME SHAME EVERYONE ATTACK NOW AT THEIR AUDACITY approach. Why does there always have to be immediate public flaying now? Why couldn’t this have been handled privately, allowing for those accused to actually look into the matter first? You, of course, have gained lots more traffic to your site, as evidenced by my post here-i had absolutely no idea this site existed. Now, while you did not ask your readers to spew hate on your behalf, your immediate public post was taken as invitation enough. Perhaps you, too, could take note at the negativity this has generated in less than 12 hours, and consider not airing grievances in a public forum as a first act. While you have been wronged, those accused will immediately be crucified by those that do, in fact, troll for opportunities to be cruel and hateful. I’m sure that wasn’t your intent; it would be horrific if the tables were turned and you were being vilified. Please consider your position in the public online community and the impact you can have for good or bad.
All, please refrain from being unpleasant to the Dollop on Facebook, etc. Let’s not escalate this reaction into the unreasonable.
Also, is this the extent of said plagiarism? Because to be honest, these are just five paragraphs (counting the business plot episode you mentioned) in almost a hundred episodes of what is often 40 minutes to an hour long podcast. Did this honestly warrant a public shaming? Couldn’t you have honestly just emailed one of them and said “Hey, not sure if you’re aware, but some paragraphs on your podcast is pretty much word for word what I’ve written a few years ago?” or something like that? I’m sure they’d have been pretty civil.
Dave alluded to the same question in an email, and this was my response:
You are very close to grasping the point: You are (presumably) a fan of the Dollop. They have been profiting from reading our writings to their listeners. You had never heard of us. So you see, you would have heard of us if they had done the minimum courtesy of crediting the source. Even then it wouldn’t be cool without permission, but…less uncool.
When I wish to spew something I spew it myself. You make a legitimate point that some people decided to spew on our behalf, but that was not my intent, and I am trying to get those people to stop.
Plagiarism in podcasts is becoming a serious problem, and it won’t end anytime soon if there is no public discourse on the matter.
That is true, which is why I do my best to avoid engaging in things such as plagiarism that invite vilification. That being said, I highly doubt the Dollop’s writers woke up one morning and decided they were going to go find someone to plagiarize. It was a “crime” of opportunity.
You say it’s “horrific” to be on the receiving end of such attention, and I don’t doubt that you are correct. I deliberately made my open letter an appeal to legality and decency rather than an appeal to emotion, but that doesn’t mean I don’t experience emotion when other people frame my work as their own and profit from it.
Dave and I have exchanged a couple of emails, and I believe that he didn’t think of this as plagiarizing until now. There is a chance this can all be set straight, and if that happens, I will amend my original post to make that clear.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Yeah, sorry about retarded.
I just found damn interesting how The Dollop handled this: first the dismissive – even passive-agressive – tweets (including since deleted “Cool language use” tweet.
Unfortunately I didn’t take screenshots of The Dollop’s Facebook page when there were still links to this page, but I didn’t see any hate spewing. Most of the five or six posts there were questions like “How do you respond to accusations of plagiarism?”, worst were on post “suggest topics for Dollops” and they were comments like “go take stuff word for word from damninteresting as you have done before”. To classify that as hate spewing, public flaying or even trolling is just confusing for me. And in my opinion stupid damage control. They should have just said “s**t, we’ll look into this, stay tuned” instead of being dismissive, focusing on publicity rather than matter at hand and acting generally as the wronged party.
No. As I said in my post, “Note that these examples of plagiarism are illustrative, not comprehensive.” If I had included comprehensive transcripts the amount of scrolling would be unreasonable. The infringement is confined to those 5 episodes as far as I am aware, but in most of the cases it is essentially the entirety of the episode. I haven’t busted out my stopwatch, but I anticipate the infringing audio would be counted in hours.
@DamnAwesome
Posting such content on their Facebook page I would consider public flaying. I wouldn’t consider it hate spewing, and trolling is a bit of a stretch but I can understand why someone would consider it that. It’s possible you or someone else could consider me posting this on reddit to be the same, but I didn’t directly attack anyone, and didn’t encourage, nor upvote, any inflammatory posts.
Although there were only a couple of comments on reddit, this is how they seem to have handled it there. Their public response should make things more clear.
While many stand up comics would handle content lifting in a fashion similar to this- I can say that any and all stand ups worth their salt don’t pull this kind of stunt. And as to them saying “Shit, we’ll look into this, stay tuned” is essentially what they have done. What part of “just hang and we’ll post a public response” was confusing for you? Furthermore, as someone who has suggested topics for them personally I will say I’ve never heard of you, and it’s not for lack of ‘damn interesting’ content to read up on and enjoy. No, I don’t think that the word for word lifting is ok- but I also think the way you’ve conducted yourself is pathetic. Good luck with that $1169 you need to stay online this month, because you’re not winning a lot of respect and donors here.
Ah, the Internet, where people have the “right” to air their dirty laundry in public. Perhaps this post would be understandable if you’d approached them privately first and got nowhere. It’s obvious to all listeners of the Dollop that the the true content in the show is the comedic riffing that follows the telling of the story. Hindsight says that some attribution to sources such as yours would have been wise and I’m sure they would have been receptive to this. I think you’re confusing naivety with deliberate actions.
You have been wronged, but you’re not doing yourself any favours by attacking in public.
This should have been resolved privately. Pretty simple really, 2 wrongs don’t make a right.
The quotation marks there are confusing. Are you implying that it one does not have the right to make one’s grievances public?
And perhaps they should have contacted us privately to secure permission to use our content.
If you read my comments above, you’ll see that I am receptive to this possibility. I’ve been exchanging some emails with Dave, and we may be able to reach a resolution.
I’d say Allen handled this as well as any writer could. The internet moves fast and as such people are quick to judge. Allen provided examples of the offenses without holding them personally responsible and asked them to make sure it stopped. This “Dollop” podcast has made revenue (either by ads or by donations, not sure how they operate) using other people’s research and writing, research and writing that was done by the creator to make money for themselves, without giving any recognition or credit to the source. Whether it was done on purpose, or by an oversight regarding submitted material, is not the point. Allen made his claim and had the evidence readily available for all to see. How these Dollop guys respond is up to them. If they want to make an ugly spectacle out of the situation that’s their prerogative.
I’ve been a fan of this site since I was given a copy of “Alien Hand Syndrome” for Christmas about 5 years ago. Keep up the good work. I haven’t been able to donate in the past, but I’m going to see what I can do this month.
Perhaps they should have contacted you to use your content? What if they didn’t know it was being plagiarized? You should have done the wise thing and contacted them via email and had you not received a response, then taken your grievance public. You can claim ignorance, as far as now saying, “Don’t attack”, but you knew full well that writing this post would make your followers immediately attack.
Quite honestly, I hope they stop using your material because you write like a 5th grader (apologies to 5th graders).
I’ve never heard of the dollop but I think you had every right to do this publicly and I’m glad you did.
It does not inspire confidence in their promised public response that they have Facebook and Reddit posts strongly implying that they are the wronged party.
Just a quick bit of feedback on the comment name / email form first – you may not be aware of – when I went to type my name / email in, the details of the last commenter were already populated in the name / email fields – I.e it gave me both their name and email address – you might need to get that looked at.
Back to the issue.
The quotation marks there are confusing. Are you implying that it one does not have the right to make one’s grievances public?
I do question the “right” to handle things sensationally when some measure of class and restraint might have been warranted. If you’ve had the chance to read Jon Ronson’s latest book you’d be aware of the power of the mob on the Internet. Naive actions can be reflected back to the mob as being calculating and opportunist.
My take on this is that they’ve made a naive mistake by not attributing sources. I’m suggesting you’ve made a mistake by bringing this to the attention of the mob when a private approach would have been best.
Surely you have to wonder, had the dollop just been a straight rehash of your stories, would anyone be listening?
Actually it was the first few hours with the dissmissive tweeting and trying to wish this all would go away if ignored. Like this:
https://twitter.com/DamnInteresting/status/619154626072309760
…only that The Dallop responded to Allan’s second tweet tweeting “Cool language use”, which they since deleted.
And finally when responding to this message on their Facebook page, they refer to links to this page as “trolling”.
But I’m still confused how exposing plagiarism is worse than plagiarism. I thought that this was quite mild mannered take on people cashing on one’s hard work.
Now I think you might be confused. This isn’t a comedy site.
That doesn’t make stealing right. They should riff on original content, some public domain stuff or just riff. Not base their comedy on other people’s copyrighted material.
And as for these attacks against the Dollop? Been following this case since Alan’s first Facebook post. Haven’t seen any attacks, just questions about plagiarism. Does that count as power of the mob?
This comment is not under my name or email… But the name & email of the previous commenter.
Your disclaimer about email addresses not being shared etc is wrong.
Probably a good idea to fix this glitch.
Oh crap, I will look into that. It’s probably an artifact of our page-caching system. Thanks for letting me know.
I anticipate that we agree that free speech is a right, but that it does not absolve one from criticism. Just as you are criticizing me right now. I am tentatively receptive to your criticism and you may ultimately prove to be “right” in this disagreement. All involved parties are biased, and unless any is secretly a psychopath (e.g., person lacking a typical conscience), their intentions are “good.”
Most likely, yes. As I mentioned, the Dollop is not the first to take our content without permission. Approximately a year ago there was another podcast I had to wrangle with, and they had used dozens of our articles as the scripts for theirs, with thousands of listeners. One important distinction is that they were giving full attribution; their only failure was to ask permission. Their defense was also copyright naiveté. That is part of the motivation for bringing this conversation into the open…podcasters need to be aware that they cannot misappropriate another’s writings for their own gain. It’s unfortunate for the Dollop that they were the tipping point, because they seem to be pretty decent guys otherwise, but their lack of good fortune does not undo the infringements.
Graeme –
Did you read the transcripts above? Lifting entire sentences and paragraphs several times per article from several different articles is about as blatant as plagiarism gets and way beyond what anyone could shrug off as “not attributing sources.”
I’m glad that he did this publicly because this is not something that should be quietly swept under a rug.
The only thing that would make this halfway excusable for Dave is if, as Alan writes, this was a case of an underling acting without Dave’s knowledge. Claiming for now on social media that they’re ‘being trolled by some website’ and deleting all links to this article makes me doubtful that they’re going to take that route.
Perhaps we can agree on this: That you both sort it out to each others mutual satisfaction and perhaps you both post an account of the process and the (hopefully sensible and positive) resolution. My 2 cents is while I understand your concern, I do think there is a difference between deliberate intent and naive errors of judgement. One of the problems with posts like yours going straight out to the wastelands of the intertubes is that not everyone is smart enough to realise that.
Looking at your content (have never heard of this site until today), you both share an interest in fascinating stories – maybe there’s a clever way for you to partner or collaborate win / win.
You are well within your rights to publicly denounce people stealing your content without permission. Any fallout that the party receives is justified by their fault of stealing in the first place, or the energy they must expend to find the responsible party that they have hired and ensures it will not happen in the future. Background note passing accomplishes only to downplay the serious nature of people stealing others work and livelihood.
Though if there is one positive, the serious and respectable tone of your words has inspired me to support this website a bit more seriously myself. Keep up the good work Alan and team, you’re setting a standard here with both the writings themselves and your actions.
I’ve been a reader of damninteresting.com since around 2007, and I’ve been listening to the dollop since it launched. I’m a fan of both. I did notice some overlap with article/podcast topics but assumed that with everybody drawing from the same pool of interesting events, it was inevitable sometimes.
As far as I can tell Dave does all the research/writing for the show himself. At two or so podcasts a week that should add up to a big time sink. Often autocorrected errors aren’t picked up until mid-recording which suggests it’s a write-once-edit-little approach, quite different from here.
I can also see how this would happen – if you’re researching a topic and find a damn interesting article on it, that’s probably the most entertaining and informative source you’ll get. Changing anything would probably make it worse. So maybe you copy some chunks and paste them into your working document, planning to rewrite that bit later, but never get around to it. Or maybe it was blatant intentional plagiarism. We probably won’t find out.
It is completely unacceptable and I’m glad it was brought to light. I also hope this gets worked out some way – whether they make it clear when they’re quoting other works and attribute them, or they cut down the number of podcasts and spend more time writing each, or even some unlikely collaborative effort where Dave just reads a damninteresting.com article verbatim to Gareth every now and then (Given your final paragraph I feel that dream will not happen)
This is a situation where I like everybody involved and there has clearly been wrong committed, but I’m also pretty sure everybody wants the same outcome. Good luck.
Hope this all gets resolved amicably. I love DI, have been reading it for many years, can’t say enough good about this site. There are people who don’t see plagiarism as theft, but it is. Being my son is a well-traveled, award winning journalist, I know all too well the amount of work that goes into these pieces. It’s not like stealing a bicycle or a TV set, it’s like stealing a piece of the soul. May cool heads prevail, and may everyone be better off for it when it all blows over!
The Dollop’s official response:
https://www.facebook.com/thedollop/posts/873762556048932
Things you can do with something someone else has written without permission:
* Post a small clip of the thing on your public website. (Small clips are considered fair use.)
* Read a small clip of the thing to an audience from a stage.
* Read a small clip of the thing out loud to an audience via a podcast.
* Paint a small clip of the thing on a sign.
* Create an interpretive dance of the entire thing. (The work is substantially changed and is now a new work.)
* Perform a comedic routine about the entire thing. (Mockery is fair use.)
* Write an article in the same style as the original writing, lampooning something. (Satire is fair use.)
* Write your own similar article about the same subject. (Topics are free to all. You can even reference the original article as a source!)
* Email a copy of the entire thing to your best friends (all 12 of them!). (Private use is fair use.)
* Read a copy of the entire thing to your best friends in a private setting.
Things that are quasi-legal but might get you in trouble with the author:
* Make a play/article/podcast/TV show/movie/book/whatever about the thing, using a similar story progression and even similar lines, following the precise plot of the original writing, carefully using the same sources the original writing used – without claiming to be the original writing. (The work has substantially changed, but everyone knows damn well that it’s a rip-off of the original.)
Things you cannot do with something someone else has written without permission:
* Copy and paste the entire thing onto your public website.
* Paint the entire work on a sign.
* Read the entire work out loud to an audience from a stage.
* Read the entire work out loud to an audience via a public podcast.
For the above, it is always, always possible to ask permission of the author if you want to do such things (unless the author is dead, in which case you have to ask his heirs).
I think where Dollop went wrong is this: they considered their podcast a “private setting” – they underestimated their own success. That mindset can be critical to the popularity of a podcast – it allows the speakers to forget about their audience and focus on the cool thing they’re talking about. It’s an understandable mistake. That doesn’t make it right. The authors need to own up and apologize, and it sounds like they’re in the process of doing that.
As for a way to make lemonade from lemons going forward: I think Alan should do a DI on famous or unexpected plagiarism. (I heard Joseph Smith plagiarized part of the Book of Mormon, what’s up with that? How about HG Wells? Etc.) It might be educational.
Dear Dollop, you mumblers, It’s not how many sources you can pile up in retrospect. Plagiarism is about what you swipe and how much from which source. Even teenagers understand this.
The people in the comments section seem to be under the impression that the people over at the Dollop “Read the entire work out loud to an audience via a public podcast.” Can you make clear if this is true?
Read the official response from The Dollop. Not impressed. They claim to have consulted an attorney at some point, but something clearly went wrong since they still seem to have no understanding of copyright law in general or the doctrine of Fair Use in particular. The podcast creators assert a couple of possible defenses against a claim of infringement, neither of which is likely to hold up in court in my humble opinion as a layperson knowledgeable about copyright law.
In your place I would strongly consider retaining an attorney and demanding damages; perhaps settling for your legal fees plus a true and heartfelt public apology. Only way this type will ever get it, I’m afraid.
Damn Interesting is awesome. I’ve supported it in the past with the purchase of some of your stuff, and publicized it as widely as feasible. I sincerely hope that you can continue to make enough money to keep it afloat. Thank you for it!
If it was, in fact, some kind of mistake in good faith- someone submitting a DI article without mentioning where it came from- I could understand that. The response hasn’t been, “oh, we mistakenly got this from an intern, sorry about that,” it’s been “we pull things from everywhere, this is fair use, and furthermore we don’t like you calling us out for using your (clearly copyrighted) material for our public performance.” Doubling down isn’t much of an apology.
And they are weeding out the unfavorable responses on FAcebook.
Have been following this for a few days now, and the explanation The Dollop posted on their Facebook seems more like denial than anything.
“The Dollop isn’t plagiarism, and it isn’t copyright infringement. Listeners of The Dollop understand that I do no original research on the historical facts we tell jokes about. It’s clear that I’m reading the words of other people, through my tone of voice, my constant referring to reading something, and my endless mispronunciations”
This is frankly just bullshit. It is only clear that he is reading *something* from these clues, but when they claim to do research on their Patreon, how are people supposed to know that the thing they read are not in fact their research? Take someone like Dan Carlin who cites a lot of books during his podcasts: He is also using a different tone of voice and referring to reading something. The difference though, is that he is explicitly stating what he is reading before every thing he reads, which is the only proper way to do it.
This is of course up to the writers of Damn Interesting, but I think that The Dollop handled this whole thing terribly, and they seem to show no respect for original writing. When they start talking about how nobody can copyright historical facts, they are so far off the ball that I’m not sure they are even playing the same game.
Hi Graeme.
So sorry to see this happen to such a great site! I’ve been a fan of Damn Interesting for years and years now. The Dollop’s official response is that of an entitled brat and is no apology at all. You should certainly sue them for their theft of your work as they clearly have no remorse for what they have done. Their “apology” seems to be more of the “sorry we got caught” variety. Kudos on your decision to post this publicly Alan, clearly The Dollop wishes you never pointed the spotlight at them for their crimes. I hope a judge decides to make an example of them and they see jail time and fines for their crimes. Long live Damn Interesting!
Another 8 year fan here.
This is reminiscent of when photographers get caught for plagiarizing. There are different ‘phases’. http://stopstealingphotos.com/ lots of interesting copyright information there as well.
People go from:
Phase 1: Denial.
Phase 2: Admitting they did wrong.
Phase 3: Anger.
Phase 4: Lashing out at the original owner.
Phase 5: Leaving the business or going back to stealing again.
Dave Anthony is running around the internet dismissing this whole thing as bullshit. I can’t believe it. Not only is he LEGALLY in the wrong–but he’s really handling this poorly as a professional… and as a human being.
People complaining in the comments section that their apology wasn’t really an apology, you’re right. It wasn’t an apology. Also actually listen to the episodes, please, and confirm for yourself how much is “plagiarized” before your knee-jerk reactions.
I did, it’s quite a lot. He’s literally reading the article verbatim for paragraph-long stretches.
All his talk of DI being “one of many” sources and his total lack of awareness that he’s committing plagiarism just makes me wonder how much of his other content is not copy-pasted from somewhere else.
@Fakename-
I take it you didn’t bother to read the D.I. articles and see that Dave Anthony and The Dollop pulled a Mencia with the material. They were largely copied verbatim and without attribution. There is no Fair Use defence for this behavior. He should get a new attorney. Dave is acting like Nel Holness (Carlos Mencia) when confronted with his poor judgement. Try running Dave’s commentary through a plagiarism checker and see what comes back.
@Righard-
I too would be curious to see the scope and depth of what The Dollop considers fair use.
God, I wish I was a copyright lawyer. I’d take this case pro bono.
Love this site, been reading it for a couple years and didn’t even try and get a refund when I accidentally donated $17 back to back last month due to a network hiccup.
This kinda stuff really slots me off. On top of that, don’t these jokers realize that since the DI crew is now having to spend time and energy protecting their own writings, that’s less energy to spend researching new awesome articles?
Is there any copyright lawyers out there?
It wasn’t great what happened. And I think a lot of what has been said is fair and I’m glad Dave and Alan sorted it out. However, I think it’s a shame that some of you are so keen to go after an “easy” target with law suit threats, tiny pitch forks etc etc . Dave – while not perfect (your affliction as well), has contributed so much content to the world, between walking the room and the dollop all for free. I guess what I’m getting at is there are greater evils out there, more deserving of self-righteous nastiness. Cool things for cool people, no dicks.
I have not threatened to sue at any point. I never ruled it out, but I made no such threat. This post was intended as an alternative to litigation, not a precursor.
He is being compensated via Patreon donations, advertising, tickets to live shows, etc. We here at DI are also not exactly doing this for free, we receive donations, though we get considerably less per month than The Dollop does. This is probably because we cannot post very often due to the amount of time we spend writing our content–some outfits save time by skipping that effort. We also earn money by occasionally selling rights to republish our works.
None of those evils were doing direct harm to us (that we are aware of). And by “self-righteous nastiness” I assume you mean, “You meanies accused someone I like of doing something he did.” Dave and I found an understanding, not a time machine.
I only just discovered this site a few months ago, and I have checked in every day or two to read the older material, as well as anything new that is published. My first impression, and my continued belief, is that the writers on this site are truly original. They are doing true research and true writing, which I know from personal experience is not easy. It is actual “work,” as opposed to amalgamating a few sentences from various sources, or, God forbid, just swiping an entire article verbatim. My point is that I do not think a simple request to stop the plagiarism is crossing the line or unwarranted. The wrong was committed by another party, and it is ludicrous for anyone to turn around and blame this website for their reaction, in a desperate attempt to take the pressure off of the guilty party. I am mainly referring to that third party, who, instead of apologizing for their OBVIOUS breach of both ethics and the law, opt to criticize the response and action of the victimized party. “I was wrong, but so are you!” Except without the “I was wrong” part. Anyway…
The main point I want to make is that even IF the guys from the “site that will not be named because it will inadvertently increase their publicity” were not directly guilty of stealing material for their pod-cast, and the material was submitted by a paid writer or by fans of the show, it is still the responsibility of the party actually doing the publishing to ensure that their published material does not infringe on any copyright. So either way, they are guilty. Is negligence less serious than stealing? I do not really know, but I do know this: it makes little difference to the person whose livelihood is being affected. And these guys should know that nothing pisses Jesus off more than copyright infringement. It’s in the Bible…look it up.
This whole situation is an upsetting mess.
I’m sorry you guys were plagiarized. Your original and thoughtful articles are a welcome break from work and a new opportunity to educate myself.
I hope it reaches a resolution quickly and that the Dollop sees they were in the wrong.
I’m real sorry you have to go through this Alan. It’s a real shame.
Maybe some proper funding should come of this 0.-
I’d save every page, some evidence if it comes to that.
Good luck, and happy writing.
It seems that they (and their fans) firmly believe they are in the right. Sticky situation.
You’re a hell of a writer and entertainer Alan, and you’re right to have a lot of pride in your work. Please don’t let this discourage you going forward!
Just a little ‘positivity’, for what it’s worth.
Best,
Andrew P
I’m sorry that you don’t understand that any body of copyrighted material can be published/broadcast for the sake of commenting on it. I’m also sorry that you felt that The Dollop podcast tried to pass off your writing as their own – I can assure you that as a listener of the Dollop, I never thought that the writing on the show was either of the hosts’. After reading a few articles on here, I also noticed that you don’t acknowledge any of your sources. So what’s up with that, are you just making it all up or do you have a special insight into the past?
Read an impartial analysis of this situation here: https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2015/07/15/how-a-comedy-podcast-sparked-a-plagiarism-debate/
Read a layman description of plagiarism here: http://theeditorsblog.net/2012/11/01/sampling-borrowing-homage-and-plagiarism-writing-essentials/
Fair Use is intended to protect short quotations, not most of the body of the work. And it can hardly be defended as commentary if the source of the material is not given. Further, the Dollop is a history podcast, as are we. This makes them our competitor in the marketplace, and therefore using our word-for-word material in this way is indefensible. If they were refuting and attempting to the disprove the facts of the articles, that would be protected by Fair Use to some extent, but again, only if they cited the source.
I realize that my arguments will fail to persuade any Dollop fans who arrive here, because they are emotionally invested in believing otherwise. It’s rather amazing how humans are able to avoid seeing what they do not wish to see.
There’s a “Sources & More Information” section at the bottom of every article, right beside “Related Articles.” Also, importantly, we do not use word-for-word text from other sources apart from some places where we put quotation marks around the text in question and specifically cite the source.
Hi Alan,
I read that Plagiarism Today article and I think it was pretty spot on. I think everyone on this thread should read through it.
I’m a huge fan of The Dollop and only just heard about this issue. The level of vitriol being thrown around in these comments concerns me. I’m not here to hate on you or Dave, and seems to me that both of you have pretty civil compared to some of the commenters on this thread.
I really hope you guys can come to a consensus on what is acceptable. Like I said, I really love that podcast and won’t stop listening to it.
Upside is, I never heard of your site before and it seems like its right up my alley! So hey, that’s a positive right?
You’ve been bookmarked. I will be back. Excited to have years of articles to check out.
Have a nice day Alan. Everyone else, be kind to each other. We’re all nerds of the same stripe. History and comedy are inseperable!
J.
All this discussion is damn interesting. I’d like to see Dollop pay a cut in the form of a decent quite sizable donation. Having read a heap of articles I was compelled to “want” to keep this site going and hence sent cash.
Thanks everybody for participating in the discussion. We’ve always had a copyright notice at the bottom of our articles, but in light of recent abuses of our content we have added a new “Using Our Content” page to address would-be infringers, and we now include a link to this page in the credits section of all articles:
https://www.damninteresting.com/about-us/using-our-content/
Can’t we all get along. Bad stuff and mistakes happen every where, every day. Perpetuating any of it isn’t the solution to any problem. I’ve listed to the Dollup since near their start and have eagerly waited for them to release sources. In my own debatable opinion, I don’t see how anyone could listen to Dave’s reading and think he wrote it. It’s clearly cut and paste for the most part, but I don’t know that Dave did that himself. Maybe, but I don’t know. I’d be happier if they had given sources with permission since the start, but they didn’t and here we are. Yes, I’d be pissed if I were Allen, but being pissed doesn’t serve anyone well. Allen seems to be dealing with it well though I’m sure he’s not completely un-bothered as are Dave and Gary. I don’t want to see DamnInteresting or the Dollup suffer because Dave or Allen is off their track due to complications or legal battles. From what I see, it doesn’t look like either side is causing more problems, but from the tone of both, there has not be an amenable resolution.
It would server both of them and their fans to make corrections (those who need to), forgive and move on. You might even find a profitable relationship grows between you. For the fans, some of you behave like they are Apple vs Microsoft and all you need to do is check email and browse CNN in the morning. The both provide a great service that gets the job at hand done. I like them both equally even though I knew of the Dollup first (by way of Gary on other shows).
Merge both sites and change the name to “Gary’s Cherries”. j/k You all started the sites and we came to you because we like to laugh. I promise to always laugh at both of you.
With Love and regret,
Steve
I’m a copyright lawyer in Germany (disclaimer: While similar to the U.S., German copyright and IP law is unite different in many regards, and especially that of Fair Use), and lurked DI for a long time. If this happened in Germany, the situation would not be as clear as the layman might be inclined to think. I listened to their podcast (the business episode in particular), and while I think what they do there can be seen as plagiarism, it is not guaranteed a court would follow that argument. After all, they do not simply read the texts, but act them out with improvised speech, noises, dialogue, etc., thereby creating original content which could be compared to a theatre play – the text is used as the base for a piece of improv comedy.
Also, it seems they *do* not quote the text word by word, but rewrite it to some extent, intersperse it with other sources, and create a patchwork of sources similar to a DJ mixing and scratching records.
It’s hard to say how an American court would see this, but I am quite sure that by citing their sources, they’ve already done more than they need to in terms of good copyright citizenship.
The situation would be very different if their podcast was a narrator simply reading the source text with no creative effort of his own. But in the case of the podcast, that creative ‘mangling’ of the source is considerable and at the same time the main characteristic of the program.
Hi Bernd, thanks for your comment.
Well, the Business Plot episode is either more or less damning than the others depending on how you look at it. On the one hand, in that particular episode they only use a few paragraphs from my piece, so I am personally less annoyed about it; but on the other hand, it demonstrates that they are not just ‘reading some article we found online and neglected to cite it,’ rather they are deliberately lifting sections from multiple separate articles and gluing them together. To some observers, this is more egregious, because it’s harder to argue naïveté, especially given at least one of them is a writer by profession.
They added a lot from other sources in the Business Plot episode, but there are some stretches where they do read my original article word-for-word. But if you go listen to their Three Jesuses episode and follow along with my article when they get to the reading portion, you’ll observe that in that episode they absolutely do read most of it word-for-word, with minimal omissions or additions. That was also true of the Michael Larson episode and the Killdozer episode, but they decided to remove those episodes from their site. The last example, Ralph Neves, they read ~90% of my article word-for-word, and sandwiched it between text from other sources. I think they also deleted that one from their site, however.
When we originally called attention to this issue, they were not citing sources at all, in any way. In response to all this they have created a “sources” site–separate from their main site–that is very unlikely for their listeners to discover. But it’s not a very honest list of sources, because, consider again the example of the Three Jesuses episode. My article constituted the entirety of their “script,” they changed very little, and they added nothing apart from their jokes. So it seems odd that there are there *six* sources listed in the source list, and my article is the fourth one down. It’s possible they used other sources to verify, but they clearly didn’t pull any text from them, and they clearly wanted to downplay the amount they got from my article (approximately 100%).
Additionally, when they first posted their claimed list of sources on Reddit, which they did days before they created the sources site, you’ll notice that it is not the same list as that on the sources site: it does not include my article as a source despite the fact that they absolutely used several paragraphs from my article word-for-word. Their source site was the same way for the first day, but then someone must have thought to add mine to the bottom there.
I have no idea how the above revelations would alter the view of a German court, but over here the evidence is pretty damning, especially considering that we are a history podcast, so they were our competitors using our material in the same space. Fair Use is squirrelly owing to subjectivity, but the U.S. legal minds I have consulted are unanimous in their confidence that we would win if the argument were elevated to litigation.
Oh, also, if I recall they uploaded a new version of the Business Plot episode that deletes the parts taken directly from my text, so if you listened quite recently you’re not hearing the version that annoyed me. I have local copies of all of the original episodes, of course, just in case I need them.
The situation is pretty simple if you ask me. If they used your material as a source, you can’t complain about anything: a writer needs sources to do his job, this is how it goes. On the other hand, if they used your text as it was orgininally written (and repeatedly), then you have the right to suit them or ask for any kind of compensations. As for fair use, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t apply here if they copied/pasted your content in their podcasts on several occasions :)
Is this whole f**king thing a publicity stunt between TD and DI (TDDI’s)?
P.S. it’s working…I want more please!
While I certinally can relate to the frustration of others using ones work without compensation or at least acknowledgement, I really want to point out that in today’s electronic frontier such objections are to some “red rag to a bull”. While the actions cannot be condoned, it is nevertheless a FACT that hackers (in particular) tend to punish complaints of this nature with a broadside of disbursement–which as the RIAA and others have found out is absolutely impossible to police let alone stop. Sometimes that old adage “let sleeping dogs lay” is absolutely the best idea, financially as well as for ones sanity.
Plagiarism has been and continues to be a problem on the web which roots extend back to the early days or the “Wild West” period in the late 80’s. I suppose one could claim that the “Napster” culture is too blame, but I feel that would be unjust. The bottom line, people are lazy and if they can take a short cut they will. I’ve read DI for many years even during the dark days when posts were minimal and the site had for all intents and purposes gone dormant. I was very excited when the site returned and of course totally understood the situation which played a part in it’s “pause” at the time. While “talk is cheap” writing is not and the task does take a lot of effort especially gifted writing which many articles on this site show in abundance. I sincerely hope your semi-aggressive stance (which I support) will at a minimum give those that have a tendency to steal content at least a moments pause since you are protective of what is yours. My hope is this situation is resolved in a positive manner for all involved, and perhaps since TD is for all intents and purposes “Fans” of the writing perhaps a collaboration mutually beneficial, monetarily and otherwise for both sites could be arranged..Best wishes Allen, and thanks for the many YEARS of high quality and Damn Interesting content.
Actually, even if they put a citation in, it still technically violates copyright law. Copyright protects a creator’s right to, in general, control the copying of their works for financial gain. Since this site runs for financial gain (how successfully isn’t relevant :) ) you’d have a case.
There are a number of exceptions – and generally, copying without intent to profit or in a way that doesn’t diminish the original work’s value, is safe. US Title 17 section 506 gives the details of exceptions. I think their use of your work would violate at least the second one.
Cheers!
Plagarism shouldn’t be condoned. But if you’re really that mad, then do something about. Take them to court if you think you have a case. If not, then stop complaining. “The Dollop” is a funny show. The appeal of show isn’t in your writing. The appeal is Dave and Gareth’s reaction to the material. Either sue them, or move the F on.
Plagiarism***
Sue them. I read their fb garbage and they were non-apologetic. Let’s see how snide they are in court. All they had to do is be original.
I am ashamed to admit that I enjoyed this article as much as any other article on this website, mostly due to its educational qualities but I also liked the tone set by the author, (rightly) firm yet neither condescending nor rude.
The link explaining fair use was both entertaining and informative and my curiosity was piqued, to hear the author’s opinion on translation of articles with full attribution, would that constitute plagiarism?
Translation with source attribution would be mere copyright violation. Plagiarism, by definition, lacks attribution. Such violations are not as harmful as plagiarism, so when we discover them we just get in touch with the organization hosting the translation and work out something mutually beneficial. Usually they just didn’t know any better. Dave Anthony, on the other hand, should have known better. He is a writer at his day job.
I realize this is all months past now, but to be honest I haven’t checked DI regularly for a while now. Generally I have two or three articles to read when I do finally visit. I just wanted to add my two cents.
I know a lot of people are criticizing you for handling this via an open letter. I, for one, think that is EXACTLY the right way to handle this sort of situation. I’ve no patience for plagiarism. Especially blatant plagiarism. They’ve made thousands of dollars using your work without attribution. That deserves public shaming at the very least. Whether or not it was the driving force of their show is irrelevant. I strongly suspect those using that argument to defend the plagiarism have never worked in a creative field.
Anyway I just wanted to say good for you Alan.
Who cares HOW they used the stories. The fact remains that they used them and made no effort to cite a source, thereby passing them off as their own. For profit. Several times.
If you still don’t get it, let me put it to you this way: Unknown to you, someone makes a direct copy (by no great effort) of several machines you built (through great effort) that brings people joy, then uses those machines to make a living. Some time later you discover this and their response is ‘well I only used your machines to make fun of’
I don’t understand why people say it should have been handled privately.
I actually find RiffTrax to be a great parallel. The guys at RiffTrax take movies and create their own audio track, meant to be played over top the original movies. This is all totally legal because they do not actually distribute the original movie. You have to obtain your own copy and play their audio over top. Whether or not their jokes can be said to transform the original work doesn’t matter, because you’re required to obtain the original work to participate.
While this is not really possible with the format of The Dollop, being an audio podcast reading (large) excerpts of written content betwixt jokes, it’s more or less the same type of thing. Humorous commentary framed around a separate piece of content. Where this diverges a bit is that they aren’t really critiquing the works they’re sourcing – rather the events depicted/retold in those sources (but also occasionally the imagery used within – which does constitute the source to an extent). Thus they aren’t really transforming those sources. Their work also benefits from not being jokes framed around a dry retelling of facts – but around excerpts of stories that are well written and Damn Interesting on their own right.
As I pointed out in their Facebook response, attributing sources does stop their work from being classified as plagiarism. It does not prevent people who did not consent to their content being used from issuing a cease and desist order or otherwise filing a lawsuit over copyright infringement. They then have to make their case in court if they want to continue using that content, and I’d say the scales are weighed against them. (Others may not, which is why it’s up to a judge or jury in the end.) For sure, it’s not clear cut in their favor by a long shot.
But the other point I made, which comes down to their character, is that filing lawsuits costs money. Unlike the guys at RiffTrax, the people they’re taking content from are not monied, big business enterprises. They’re often from other solo authors who are also distributing their content for free. A lawsuit in such a case is almost definitely going to be a drain for both parties, and there’s a good chance the victor will merely be the one losing the least. By using others’ content without permission, they are taking advantage of the work of others just like them – who may or may not be able to defend themselves as well or be as successful as they are.
It’s really a pretty shitty thing to do from any standpoint.
Although I considered your original concerns genuine and fair, I consider how you went about it and how you’ve handled it since quite pathetic. I came into this as a fan of your work after doing a paper on Rokeach. I actually had to have a heated discussion about trying to cite your website as a legitimate source which my professor disagreed with. It was then I researched what took place here.
To simplify my opinion, you turned what could have been a friend, into a foe. There is no guarantee they would have come out and said “hey we stole all this stuff from DI.”. However, the likelihood of them possibly plugging and even helping provide exposure and visibility on your website would have been much greater if you gave them the benefit of the doubt and gathered more information before doing ANY type of public shaming. Fat shaming someone you find out has a genetic disorder or skinny shaming someone you find out has hyperthyroidism is no different.
Instead what you ended up doing was forcing a war, which in terms of fandom, you’ve clearly lost. There are A LOT of podcasts out there doing precisely what they are doing and it is clear that it is still the wild wild west in terms of the proper way to go about it. You could have created a mature dialog with them and then written an informed, impartial recap of exactly all that happened that would have benefited everyone involved in this. Instead, like you said, you decided to get into a fist fight.
They met hostility with hostility and I don’t blame them for it. It should be noted the dollop would and will exist without you. Without a doubt, 99% of why people listen to that podcast has to do with their reactions and jokes to the material, not the way the reference material was written. As previously mentioned, I read your article first. I laughed not a single time while reading your material and found no “entertainment” value in it. I found it educational far more than I found it creative. In contrast, I listened to their podcast and despite wanting to defend you initially, I found it incredibly entertaining and funny.
I firmly believe in addressing issues of copyright and plagiarism. However, I do not agree with your decision to act out of anger instead of professionalism. They have since corrected their citing issues and stayed the course. It is for that reason I will be donating to their podcast and not your website. I wish you the best in your pursuits.
Perhaps, but I have no desire to befriend someone who egregiously and repeatedly plagiarizes others’ work, especially when the ‘other’ happens to be me. As an author of original content, plagiarizers are absolutely repelling to me.
Please. Genetic disorders and hyperthyroidism are not equivalent to a professional writer who consciously chooses to repeatedly plagiarize from other authors, profit from it, then deny any wrongdoing. It is wrong to shame people for things out of their control, but it is perfectly appropriate to shame someone who genuinely ought to be ashamed.
Also, consider: You could have just emailed me directly, but you deliberately chose to post your comments here for the public to read. You seem quite comfortable “publicly shaming” me.
…but their lack of professionalism in stealing our content (and never apologizing or acknowledging wrongdoing) is okay? Your outrage seems cherry-picked.
The “proper way to go about it” is to acquire the content owner’s permission before using their work. To do otherwise is unethical and illegal. This is unambiguously outlined in copyright law.
If they intended to use our writings for their own profit, the onus of opening a dialog was on them. But they didn’t, either out of greed or laziness (or both).
Really? I thought “solid right smite” was chuckle-worthy. And Gareth seemed to find the story pretty funny (speaking of which, he doesn’t appear to have played any role in the plagiarizing).
All they have done is set up an out-of-the-way website with lists of links. If they are still reading others’ copyrighted work without permission, it’s still unethical and illegal, and if they don’t credit the sources in the audio of the podcast itself, it’s still plagiarism. I am guessing that most (or all) of their catalog is based on other authors’ work, used without permission.
Regardless, they stopped stealing from us, and that was the goal of this open letter. In that respect it was wholly successful.
Alan,
This is me reaching out across continents to shake the hand of a true gentleman such as yourself.
Bravo, Sir.
Got here via a link in Dave Anthony’s Wikipedia article. I’ve been listening to The Dollop for about a year and some change, now, and found it to be hilarious. I’ve often thought the subjects were conspicuously well-researched and Anthony missed his calling as a historian or scholar of history. I never paid much attention to the fact that the “script” he was reading was not consistent with his comedic voice at all. Sadly, plagiarism makes much more sense. While I agree with most Dollop fans that the real draw is the joking between the two comedians, the fact remains, as you know, that there would be no Dollop without your hard work. Even though it’s unpleasant to discover something I’ve enjoyed is, at its heart, a fraud, I can at least say that I’ve been an unwitting fan of your work.
As of this comment, Anthony’s been hired on other creative projects as a historical researcher and is publishing a book of The Dollop episodes. I really hope none of your work appears in those pages–having one’s work stolen once is shitty enough.
I am a fan of the Dollop, but I am also sympathetic to you. Works that are not yours should be cited when used, period. However, I don’t believe you fully have the right to require people to obtain permission from you to quote your articles as long as they are citing them properly. According to the article I’ve linked below, many legal battles have been fought over the issue of Fair Use, and these are very grey areas. It’s not a concrete thing.
https://janefriedman.com/permissions/
As far as I’m concerned, if someone is quoting your article and citing it properly, you should be happy for the free publicity, even if lowly podcasters are using it (which is very much the connotation I get from your words in the article, whether or not you intended it) as opposed to scholars or educators. This comment is coming to you from someone who is both a grad student and a podcaster.
DirkSteele and Nikki: Thanks for the thoughtful comments!
DirkSteele: I hope Anthony isn’t foolish enough to include our work in his book, or the work of other authors without permission. Plagiarizing on a free podcast is one thing, but doing so in a commercial product is another. If he’s included any of our stuff, he’ll probably need to replace that imaginary lawyer of his with a real one. Note to anyone who happens to buy the book: If you spot some suspected plagiarism therein, please give the author(s) a heads up! I may go leaf through a copy at the bookstore when it comes out, assuming I can stomach it.
Nikki: I don’t think podcasters are lowly, I happen to be one myself. I do, however, think plagiarists are lowly. I agree with your assessment that limited quoting of another’s work is fine provided the reader cites the source. Anthony strayed from okay because he:
1) Did not cite the sources;
2) Did not even mention he is reading other authors’ work;
3) Used most or all of the texts of the others’ work; and
4) Mixed lengthy sections from various works into one “new” seamless one.
Number 3 is usually not protected by Fair Use, even with citation. At some point the quoter is no longer quoting, but reproducing. That link you provided suggest 300 words or up to 10% of the word count. In my annotated example above, Anthony used over 2,600 unattributed words, which is the bulk of the original article (and that’s just one episode of multiple offending episodes). So, it’s a blurry line, but Anthony stepped well past the blur.
Number 4 is particularly damning, it makes it seem clear that he didn’t write any of the script, but he wanted it to seem like he did. That’s the kind of classic, flagrant plagiarism that has seriously harmed many writers’ careers (e.g., Jonah Lehrer) while somehow barely tarnishing others’ (Fareed Zakaria, Dave Anthony).
Ok, way late to this party, I just discovered DI today.
I’m taking issue with the whole idea that TD shouldn’t be publicly “shamed.”
First, it’s not shaming, it’s bringing to light an offense, done publicly, against another person. Public harm requires public rebuke.
In no way should Alan have been required, either legally or by social norms, to privately address a public harm.
Second, do you really believe TD (Dave, specifically) doesn’t know about plagiarism and what constitutes it? I knew about that back in sixth grade when we started writing research papers and the internet was still barely out of the gate.
I just wanted to say that I see where you are coming from, but Dave does sometimes read information sent in by fans, so it is possible that a fan plagiarized. I also feel this post was a little too passive aggressive towards The Dollop. Do not get me wrong, I would also be upset if my information was copied word for word, but like someone else in the comments mentioned, this could have been done in a more professional manner and maybe even ended up in a partnership. Like a friendly email could have been sent first, and if they had responded with hostility THEN you could have posted this rant, but they were not given a chance to respond kindly and understandably felt threatened or angry when you posted this, which clearly generated a lot of buzz, mostly negative, from fans of both podcasts. So I also see why Dave responded the way he did.
I am not trying to say that the plagiarism should not have been called out or be hostile towards DI, I just feel things could have gone a lot more smoothly if less hostile actions were taken first.
Also to everyone who is saying The Dollop is ruined because you found out they plagiarized, its really not; you can still enjoy listening to the podcast, unless you are just that bothered (which, in my opinion, would be immature). That is like saying you cannot enjoy a TV show because one of the actors did something bad. That was the ACTOR not the CHARACTER, just like the podcast is still the podcast, not necessarily Dave and Gareth.
Is this still an ongoing issue in 2018? Just curious, I’ve never checked the Dollop, I have no interest in a podcast that plagiarizes others content, but I am curious if the two have buried the hatchet, or if TD’s published works ended up containing any work plagiarized from others.
Keep it rocking, Alan. Love your work.
from wikipedia:
On July 9, 2015, Alan Bellows of the history website and podcast Damn Interesting posted an open letter, accusing The Dollop of plagiarism.[15] The Dollop subsequently deleted the offending episodes from their website and established a separate website to cite their sources in the future.[16] After this incident Anthony has ensured that all episodes are appropriately referenced, and all the research and writing for new episodes is done by himself and others specifically for The Dollop
@boopie: Obviously the Wikipedia summary leaves out a lot of key details, framing it as though Dave was apologetic and it was all a misunderstanding. So much so that I would not be surprised to learn that Dave wrote it himself. Dave Anthony did steal many big chunks of writing from our site and others’ without asking, and without credit. That’s clear-cut plagiarism. When he was called out he made all manner of disingenuous defenses, such as Fair Use and “you can’t copyright facts.” When he finally did apologize, it wasn’t for the plagiarism, it was for not “citing his sources.” It’s like a serial burglar apologizing for the broken windows; important but inadequate.
I’m not surprised that this is the case. I am dismayed, of course; I’ve enjoyed listening to The Dollop in the past.
You can tell that dave didn’t write certain material himself by the way he reads it — like he’s reading something someone else wrote and has a stilted delivery because it’s not written in the way his brain would’ve come up with it.
Searching google and copying and pasting passages is probably what dave thinks of as research — or at least he did until this article. His rude response, though, tells me he hasn’t learned anything and will just keep doing things the way he’s been doing them while belligerently dismissing what people think about it, because that’s his MO and he seems to be fine with it.
I’ve updated my review on iTunes to 2/5 along with a reference to this post.
Just a note to show that I read the article, both then and now.
I’ve never herd of “Damn Interesting” until I did a google search of “The Dollop has way too many ads”, and then I found this article. It is disappointing that much of their content is a direct re-read of someone else’s hard work. I don’t know the legalities surrounding plagiarism and fair-use, but I’ve gathered that their show is very different from yours after I briefly listened to a few of your podcasts. Whey they are doing is quoting and reading absurd/interesting/funny facts that they find and then comment on it, making it comic. Did they gather those facts or write those stories? Maybe sometimes, but as you’ve demonstrated, probably far less than they create their own original research and writing. I guess what I am getting at here is that you have two different target audiences, both are great in my opinion…but the dollop needs to be getting permission to use other peoples work or create more of their own content through fact based original research and writing. You both have a talent (whether its writing, research, or delivery), you both have a great following, what if you all collaborated? The facts and writing are amazing that “damn interesting” creates, but I love the delivery and comedy of the dollop.