Plagarism Within the Pagan Community
Lord Drake and Kytheriea
Brighid dhuit!
I would like to draw your attention to a website called the Ravenwood
Witches coven which is located at http://www.xenosphere.com/coven/faq.htm
At their website they have a FAQ which contains several paragraphs which
are blatantly plagarized from the Traditional Witchcraft FAQ which I
wrote in December of 1996, and posted to the Onyx Dimensions website on January
2, 1997.
The views of Ravenwood differ greatly from those of House Shadow Drake,
and so I do not understand why they have gone through the effort of
copying off portions of my FAQ. No accredidation has been given to myself
or my household. The House Shadow Drake FAQ is in publication both off and
on-line, and served as a base model for the USF Anthropology Museum
exhibit on Witchcraft which was placed on display this past May. The FAQ is the
work of many hours of research and writing.
Some of the stolen excerpts on the FAQ include such sayings which are
particular to certain families. One such saying which was plagarized comes from
a specific magyckal tradition, this being, "The whole of the action is the
sum of its consequence." Special permisions were received for the use of this
and other such quotes within the Traditional Witchcraft FAQ that I wrote.
It is very upsetting to find that your work has been taken and not even
accredited to your properly, and then twisted into something else.
I have contacted the Ravenwood Coven in an attempt to remedy this
situation, and they have refused to take any action. I call out to the Pagan
community at this time for support in these matters. What can you do? The first
is to write to the Ravenwood coven and ask them to properly cite the
information that they have plagarized, or to remove the information from their
page. They can be reached at knig...@ix.netcom.com or rave...@bigfoot.com
The second thing you can do is if you have a webpage, place the following HTML
on your page. This is something that I set up as an Anti-Plagarism Page, and
currently hosts information on my situation... as well as it will continue to
host information for other Pagans who have had their work plagarized. That HTML
code is:
<A HREF="http://luna.cas.usf.edu/~miller/stolen.html">
<IMG SRC="http://luna.cas.usf.edu/~miller/drake.gif"
border=3 ALT="STOP Plagarism!"></A>
Thank-you very much for your support in these matters. If you would like to see
more information on this, please visit http://luna.cas.usf.edu/~miller/stolen.html
There are two evaluations of the entire situation which has been provided by a
third party person (NightShade).
Heart in Hand,
Kytheriea
House Shadow Drake
=============================================================================
If you are not familiar with the Traditional Witchcraft FAQ, it is located
at http://luna.cas.usf.edu/~miller/ShadowDrake/HSDwitchFAQ.html
The Ravenwood Witches Coven FAQ ehich stole material from my FAQ can be
found at http://www.xenosphere.com/coven/faq.htm
Julia R. Cochrane
Lord Drake and Kytheriea <mil...@luna.cas.usf.edu> writes:
>Brighid dhuit!
>I would like to draw your attention to a website called the Ravenwood
>Witches coven which is located at http://www.xenosphere.com/coven/faq.htm
Brighid 's An Daghda Mor dhuit, a chara!
Is this the same Ravenwood located in Atlanta, Georgia?
Another Atlantan wants to know.....
Bi Beanacht,
Julie/Fanaire
--
I can see you crying for the children of the flame; I can feel you comforting
their fears from the dread, unspeakable name; I can hear you screaming out
the truth saying children, come be free; I can hear tears in the wind.
Susan Profit
In article <Pine.SOL.3.95.970720...@luna.cas.usf.edu>,
Lord Drake and Kytheriea <mil...@luna.cas.usf.edu> wrote:
>I would like to draw your attention to a website called the Ravenwood
>Witches coven which is located at http://www.xenosphere.com/coven/faq.htm
>are blatantly plagarized from the Traditional Witchcraft FAQ which I
>wrote in December of 1996, and posted to the Onyx Dimensions website on January
>2, 1997.
>accredited to your properly, and then twisted into something else.
Yes, it is. Problem existed long before you drafted your FAQ in the community.
Kytheriea, I wish you well, but I am afraid that my experience in the
community is that folks trying to track attributions can get burned and
most of the community is happier to think that something was written by
Anonymous than to know who really wrote it.
Stems from two problems: if, under the rules for security in the group,
you are presented with a piece of paper with words on it, how do you know
who wrote it, or even if it was written by one in your group, one in your
lineage, etc?
Then you are told (by someone who was told the same thing and believes it
to be true) that it was written by someone in your lineage and you can
pass it on to any of your future students. Only to later find that it is
published in a book written by a Big Name Pagan who hasn't given permission
for its use.
Or what if you are told that it was written by Rjkpwbvn from your group,
and you pass it on to lots of students and people attending a workshop you
teach, and on the 'Net, etc only to find out that good old Rjkp didn't
write it, but it was written by Big Name Pagan. But now there are lots of
folks who honestly believe that it was written by Rjkp, and are telling
others that it was........ And Big Name Pagan has smoke pouring out
his/her ears over that?
Now, comes along a student who wants to track down the attributions for
everything in her/his BOS. On a lot of stuff, all you can say is "I don't
know where it came from." Do you stop using the information in the BOS
until you do know who wrote it, or do you keep using it with the notation
"Unknown Author" until you do find out who did?
Now, having wrestled with this in your own group you are somewhat
sympathetic to how someone could get caught by this one inadvertently.
Someone comes forth and makes a claim of outright and deliberate
plagarism by another individual or group.
Most folks' first response is to assume the plagarism is the sort of
inadvertent stuff they got caught in, not deliberate. The frustrated
author of the original doesn't understand why folks aren't hopping up and
down about the misuse of the information.
How about this second version:
You come from a family of storytellers. You tell stories, think they
originate in your family. Later on in college, you find a book of (Insert
Cultural name Here) Poetry and stories. In it is a substantially different
version of the same tale your family tells. Same plot, but the phrases,
some of the order of the action, names, etc are different. Story was first
collected and written down in the 14th century. Obviously, someone
generations ago heard or saw a copy of it, and started telling it in the
family.
Do you still keep using it? Do you tell people that it is a variant of the
written version, special to your family for generations?
You are then approached by an author of stories, who insists that
Mbhdfrvjg has been telling a slightly changed version of one of his
stories, even published it and gotten copyrights on the thing.
Court says that Mbhd has the legal right to the piece, that your friend is
the plagarist. That night you find out from your HPS that material from
your tradition has been published and your group and every other group in
the tradition has been informed that they can't use their rites anymore
without permission.
In light of what your friend has said about losing his court case over
authorship, do you keep using the rites?
>Heart in Hand,
>Kytheriea
@}->- ;) Tinne :D Laughter Heals :) -<-{@
Fathom
In article <5r8549$ftv$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, ti...@eskimo.com (Susan
Profit) wrote:
> Kytheriea, I wish you well, but I am afraid that my experience in the
> community is that folks trying to track attributions can get burned and
> most of the community is happier to think that something was written by
> Anonymous than to know who really wrote it.
True, but the problem is not as insoluble as you portray here.
> Then you are told (by someone who was told the same thing and believes it
> to be true) that it was written by someone in your lineage and you can
> pass it on to any of your future students. Only to later find that it is
> published in a book written by a Big Name Pagan who hasn't given permission
> for its use.
The founders of most Neo-Pagan trads are still alive. You *can* ask for
confirmation from the alleged author. Besides, if what you are using is
just a small fragment from a book, used for educational purposes,
copyright protection is not really an issue. It's just nice to have
correct attributions.
> Or what if you are told that it was written by Rjkpwbvn from your group,
> and you pass it on to lots of students and people attending a workshop you
> teach, and on the 'Net, etc only to find out that good old Rjkp didn't
> write it, but it was written by Big Name Pagan. But now there are lots of
> folks who honestly believe that it was written by Rjkp, and are telling
> others that it was........
Again, check your facts directly with Rjkp first--which you should do
anyway, before reprinting his/her work.
> Do you stop using the information in the BOS
> until you do know who wrote it, or do you keep using it with the notation
> "Unknown Author" until you do find out who did?
First, there's no problem with *using* the information. Only when you
re-publish it (which is questionable for a BOS anyway) do you need
permission from the author.
> Court says that Mbhd has the legal right to the piece, that your friend is
> the plagarist. That night you find out from your HPS that material from
> your tradition has been published and your group and every other group in
> the tradition has been informed that they can't use their rites anymore
> without permission.
No way. Same as above.
My friend JulieJess has assembled a book of over 400 Pagan chants and
songs. Most have not been published before, or at least not with the name
of the composer indicated. Preparing the book for publication has involved
*years* of asking people, "do you know who wrote this song?", tracking
people down, getting permissions. It was probably more work than all the
music typesetting, editing and layout. And it's still not complete: about
1/5th of the songs are still listed as "author unknown." (E.g.: does
anyone know who wrote "May the Long Time Sun Shine Upon You, all love
surrond you..."?)
If material has been published in a copyrighted form, chances are enough
people have seen the original that a serious effort to make these
inquiries will find the info. If the material was never published it is
probably not under copyright, and is legally "public domain"--often
because the originator wants it to be, or doesn't care.
So, be as meticulously honest as possible--but don't get paranoid.
--
Fathom Hummingbear >8-)>
**Custom-designed reality is a labor-intensive product**
Fathom
> > First, there's no problem with *using* the information. Only when you
> > re-publish it (which is questionable for a BOS anyway) do you need
> > permission from the author.
> actually, that's not true. one must pay royalties. did you hear
> about the girl scouts? they are no longer allowed to sing songs around
> their campfires unless they pay royalties to the publishers of those
> songs. hence, the girl scouts no longer sing, or they do it on the sly.
*Music* performances for profit require royalties. Grl Scout camps are run
for profit, apparently, so ASCAP asked for royalties--but backed off, as I
understand the story, when the issue became public!
Don't post legal advice unless you've done your homework. There's no such
thing as royalties on the private use of religious rituals.
--
Fathom >8-)>
"The zoo has been going downhill ever since soldiers came
and ate the elephant."
--news item from Zaire, April 1997
Myrriah422
>Yes, it is. Problem existed long before you drafted your FAQ in the
>community.
This is the problem I see with this Kytheria's post. First off, Kytheria
worked very hard on this FAQ. Second of all she gives permission for
anyone to use her FAQ as long as it is used in its entirety and the
copyright notice is there if used in its entirety. IHO the Ravenwood
Coven had no right to copy portions of this FAQ and change the wording
around to make it look like it was theirs. Since permission was granted
for anyone to use this FAQ in its entirety why steal it? Use the
original. This is what gets my dander up about the whole issue.
I feel that people take advantage because it is the Internet and they
think they can get away with it. Kytheria is not the only one that has
had her work stolen. A few months back the Arachne's Web site...all of
it, was stolen. This is how I see it. On unmoderated newsgroups for
instance people can come on and insult and threaten others. On the web in
general anyone can come onto a page you worked very hard on and steal your
work and graphics. If you were to go out dining with a bunch of friends
and someone came up to you...slapped you, threatened to kill you and stole
your wallet or purse I am sure the people that saw it happen would not be
saying sorry dear, there's nothing you can do about it. No, they would be
calling the authorities pdq.
I know there are alot of people against regulating the Net, but, at least
just maybe it would stop things like I just mentioned from going on. As
it stands now people can get away with this kind of behavior because they
know it would be hard for the person they did it against to do a thing
about it.
IHO it is just wrong...pure and simple. Done steaming now! <g>...Myrriah
Earth is our Mother, please treat her with respect. Take only what you need from her and
always give back something in return. Love Her, and she will give you shade in the summer, flowers in the spring, fiery colors in the fall and picture postcard landscapes in winter. Myrri...@aol.com Tammi D.
Raven (J. Singleton)
Fathom (fat...@sonic.net) wrote:
| If the material was never published it is probably not under copyright,
| and is legally "public domain"--often because the originator wants it to
| be, or doesn't care.
Don't presume it's in the public domain until fifty years after the death of
the author, the period of copyright set under the new copyright law --
unless the author specifically placed it in public domain to begin with,
as for example I did with the "What You Wanted to Know About Witches" text.
Unpublished material, material never submitted for copyright registration,
and even material not marked with a copyright notice, has now received
protection under the new law. This has been enforced in court cases,
where for instance someone has published previously unpublished letters
by a living or only recently deceased celebrity without the permission
of the author or author's estate -- and has been found to have violated
the copyright which still covered those unpublished materials.
I strongly recommend consulting with a copyright attorney, or at the
very least reading one of the available copyright manuals (perhaps at
a public library, where reading or borrowing it is entirely free),
before taking any actions, or making any public claims... because,
quite frankly, the Internet/Usenet is *NOT* a reliable source.
-- Raven | , "Y Gwir yn erbyn y Byd." (Welsh)
| "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil." (Irish)
raven @ solaria.sol.net | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
David Sands
Lord Drake and Kytheriea wrote:
> I would like to draw your attention to a website called the Ravenwood
> Witches coven which is located at http://www.xenosphere.com/coven/faq.htm
> At their website they have a FAQ which contains several paragraphs which
> are blatantly plagarized from the Traditional Witchcraft FAQ which I
> wrote in December of 1996, and posted to the Onyx Dimensions website on January
> 2, 1997.
I checked this out. It is quite obvious that one was obtained by downloading the other and
editing it. It seems that Ravenwood have almost used it as a 'this is our version' type of
exercise. I agree that this is going a bit too far.
Alas both contain innacuracies and I for one do not agree with either that Witchcraft is a
religion. See my own page below for my own views.
Blessings, David
--
___________________________________________________________________________
If at any time you think I have the answer then please ask me the question.
We are all seekers.
What is Paganism? http://ds.dial.pipex.com/robotics1/pagan.htm
We are the power in everyone
We are the dance of the moon and the sun
We are the hope that will never hide
We are the turning of the tide
David Sands
Fathom wrote:
> 1/5th of the songs are still listed as "author unknown." (E.g.: does
> anyone know who wrote "May the Long Time Sun Shine Upon You, all love
> surrond you..."?)
I recognize the words. Are they not from the Incredible String Band?
Marty G. Price
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Raven (J. Singleton) wrote:
> Don't presume it's in the public domain until fifty years after the death of
> the author, the period of copyright set under the new copyright law --
> unless the author specifically placed it in public domain to begin with,
> as for example I did with the "What You Wanted to Know About Witches" text.
>
> Unpublished material, material never submitted for copyright registration,
> and even material not marked with a copyright notice, has now received
> protection under the new law. This has been enforced in court cases,
> where for instance someone has published previously unpublished letters
> by a living or only recently deceased celebrity without the permission
> of the author or author's estate -- and has been found to have violated
> the copyright which still covered those unpublished materials.
For additional complications: music copyright extends to performances, &
copyrighted music *may not* be photocopied. Performance royalties also
apply to dramatic works.
I don't know of any restrictions on orally reading books (until you start
trying to record one --- time for complications again). Photocopying
print materials is legal within the bounds of "fair use"; likewise print
materials can be copied, with proper attributions, in another work within
the "fair use" bounds.
What is "fair use"? It involves not taking too much, not copying for the
wrong purposes, etc. I am not sure how specific the law is, but I am
certain that publishers claim that "fair use" is more limited than the
courts generally allow, and will work to enforce as tight a restrictions
as they can.
Then, if you're going to talk about publishing someone else's copyrighted
material on the web --- some folks do seem to just have a desire to
involve themselves in law suits ... .
Use in ritual *should* be okay. But note I said "should be," not "is."
Like most things legal, copyright law is complicated; careless people can
easily get themselves into trouble. I suggest following Raven's advice:
> I strongly recommend consulting with a copyright attorney, or at the
> very least reading one of the available copyright manuals (perhaps at
> a public library, where reading or borrowing it is entirely free),
> before taking any actions, or making any public claims... because,
> quite frankly, the Internet/Usenet is *NOT* a reliable source.
>
Blessed Be,
Gale
(speaking as a librarian in this post)
Flax Trickster
To add insult to injury, at this same address, there are pictures,
which go along with a story at
http://www.xenosphere.com/coven/visions.htm. These pictures were
taken from a www site in Russa about Russian Naturists who practice a
form of Nature Religion.
Maybe they have permission to use these pictures by the site owners in
Russia, but, they make no mention of where they got the pictures and
who this "high priestess" is they are showing. It is implied that the
HPS in the story, is in fact, the one in the pictures, though. This
makes me think they do not have permission.
So we may have more plagiarism then just the FAQ at this site.
Blessings!
Aldwyn
David Sands <robo...@dial.pipex.com> amused us with:
>Lord Drake and Kytheriea wrote:
>> I would like to draw your attention to a website called the Ravenwood
>> Witches coven which is located at http://www.xenosphere.com/coven/faq.htm
>> At their website they have a FAQ which contains several paragraphs which
>> are blatantly plagarized from the Traditional Witchcraft FAQ which I
>> wrote in December of 1996, and posted to the Onyx Dimensions website on January
>> 2, 1997.
>
>I checked this out. It is quite obvious that one was obtained by downloading the other and
>editing it. It seems that Ravenwood have almost used it as a 'this is our version' type of
>exercise. I agree that this is going a bit too far.
>
>Alas both contain innacuracies and I for one do not agree with either that Witchcraft is a
>religion. See my own page below for my own views.
>
>Blessings, David
>--
>___________________________________________________________________________
>If at any time you think I have the answer then please ask me the question.
>We are all seekers.
>
>What is Paganism? http://ds.dial.pipex.com/robotics1/pagan.htm
>
> We are the power in everyone
> We are the dance of the moon and the sun
> We are the hope that will never hide
> We are the turning of the tide
>
******************************
http://www.mnsinc.com/flax/plinks.html = Washington/Baltimore Area Pagan Homepage List
http://www.mnsinc.com/flax = Homepage
fl...@mnsinc.com
NightShade
Julia R. Cochrane wrote:
> Is this the same Ravenwood located in Atlanta, Georgia?
>
> Another Atlantan wants to know.....
No, this particular Ravenwood is in California according to
their web pages.
NightShade
Cat
>In article <01ILMN2Q8...@forest.drew.edu>, <JMI...@forest.drew.edu>
>wrote, re using (not republishing) copyrighted material:
>
>> actually, that's not true. one must pay royalties. did you hear
>>about the girl scouts? they are no longer allowed to sing songs around
>>their campfires unless they pay royalties to the publishers of those
>>songs. hence, the girl scouts no longer sing, or they do it on the sly.
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 01:40:40 CST, lcul...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Laura
Jean Cullumbine) replied:
>As I recall the outcome of this dispute, they DON'T have to pay royalties
>for campfire singing -- ...
>Can anyone back me up on this? I wish I had the documentation for it, but
>I didn't clip the article or anything ... just wanted to mention I'd heard
>a different outcome to the case. If I'm wrong, I humbly stand corrected.
You are not wrong. The following is a post from another newsgroup.
Cat
**********************
Subject: ASCAP and the Girl Scouts
From: dkmci...@3Lefties.com (Dean McIntyre)
Date: 1997/07/18
Message-Id: <v01540b0faff4be5b5e16@[129.118.9.60]>
Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.choral
[More Headers]
Some months back we had what was at times a rather heated debate over
ASCAP and royalty payments from the American Camping Association,
including Girl Scout camps. Apparently the issue has been resolved to
everyone's satisfaction, as reported in the following Associated Press
release of July 18.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
MARTINSVILLE, Ind. (AP) - Summer campers can now sing old campfire
ditties and other favorites - for a song. The American Camping
Association has reached an agreement with the American Society of
Composers, Authors and Publishers, which licenses millions of songs,
including "Happy Birthday" and "God Bless America." Under the
agreement, the camping group will pay $1 a year for each of the 2,000
summer camps it represents.
ASCAP caused a stir last year when it notified about 6,000 camps
that they must pay fees for 4 million copyright tunes. Those fees
would have ranged from $77 to $257 a year per campground. ASCAP said
it never intended to target non-profit camps or camps that sing songs
around campfires. The targets were supposed to have been for-profit
camps that stage musical productions, said Vincent Candiloro, ASCAP's
senior vice president and director of licensing.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
J. Northwood
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 06:58:18 CST, m...@myself.com wrote:
>JMI...@forest.drew.edu wrote:
>
>> actually, that's not true. one must pay royalties. did you hear
>>about the girl scouts? they are no longer allowed to sing songs around
>>their campfires unless they pay royalties to the publishers of those
>>songs. hence, the girl scouts no longer sing, or they do it on the sly.
>
>
>items for private, non-profit use. Girls singing around a fire, for
>their own entertainment, with no audiance, would be considered a
>proper, non-profit use of material for which there would be no need to
>get permissions or pay royalties.
Tell that to ASCAP, who has, in the past, denied the rights to "[sing]
around a fire, for their own entertainment, with no audiance [sic],"
based on the "protection of copyright."
Copyright law is interpreted in various ways, and not always as the
author of the piece or song would wish.
As an example, look at the confusion engendered last year when a group
of girl scouts at a girl scout function wanted to dance the Macarena.
They *purchased* the CD. They used a *portable* CD player. Then,
when they were practicing, they were informed by ASCAP representatives
that they could not use the music to the Macarena (dance mix version)
without paying royalties.
Not an urban legend -- it happened, and made *big* news.
CheshireHawk
On Sun, 20 Jul 1997 20:23:38 CST, Lord Drake and Kytheriea
<mil...@luna.cas.usf.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Brighid dhuit!
>
>I would like to draw your attention to a website called the Ravenwood
>Witches coven which is located at http://www.xenosphere.com/coven/faq.htm
>At their website they have a FAQ which contains several paragraphs which
>are blatantly plagarized from the Traditional Witchcraft FAQ which I
>wrote in December of 1996, and posted to the Onyx Dimensions website on January
>2, 1997.
If you would like to know who the culprit is, and prove it, start
skimming backwards in alt.religion.wicca and
alt.traditional.witchcraft. I recall some posts by Raven Blackbane
about her/his "FAQ".. and her/his "fixed" or "new" FAQ. I'm betting
you will recognize parts of it. If you aren't aware, Raven Blackbane
is a Troll on alt.religion.wicca, who claims to have started
alt.traditional.witchcraft as a news group for "real" witches. She/he
hates Wiccans with a passion, and appears to be quite homophobic as
well...
Happy Hunting,
CheshireHawk <ches...@ican.net>
(email address in header field altered to deter spam)
Cat
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 18:42:57 CST, jmno...@gte.net (J. Northwood)
wrote:
>...As an example, look at the confusion engendered last year when a group
>of girl scouts at a girl scout function wanted to dance the Macarena.
>They *purchased* the CD. They used a *portable* CD player. Then,
>when they were practicing, they were informed by ASCAP representatives
>that they could not use the music to the Macarena (dance mix version)
>without paying royalties.
>
>Not an urban legend -- it happened, and made *big* news.
That's interesting. Would you mind passing on some cites? There must
be a few, since it "made *big* news".
Thanks.
Cat
C.J.B. & C.L.B.
jmno...@gte.net (J. Northwood) was rumored to have said:
:->On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 06:58:18 CST, m...@myself.com wrote:
:->>JMI...@forest.drew.edu wrote:
:->>
:->>> actually, that's not true. one must pay royalties. did you
hear
:->>>about the girl scouts? they are no longer allowed to sing songs
around
:->>>their campfires unless they pay royalties to the publishers of
those
:->>>songs. hence, the girl scouts no longer sing, or they do it on
the sly.
:->>
:->>
:->>Never heard that, especially since the copyright laws allow the
use of
:->>items for private, non-profit use. Girls singing around a fire,
for
:->>their own entertainment, with no audiance, would be considered a
:->>proper, non-profit use of material for which there would be no
need to
:->>get permissions or pay royalties.
:->
It is because the girls have paid for the privilage of being at the
camp, and therefore have, (in a twisted sort of way) paid to hear
those songs. Bizzare I know, there was a huge discussion on
rec.music.filk about it, and how it applied to filk circles at cons.
Eleri Twilight