Victor Pross is at it again

[Dragonfly]

Sometimes even SOLO has interesting news: our good friend Victor Pross has published a book, and... it's full of plagiarisms (surprise, surprise)! Here is the Amazon link for this book.

[sbeaulieu]

Sometimes even SOLO has interesting news: our good friend Victor Pross has published a book, and... it's full of plagiarisms (surprise, surprise)! Here is the Amazon link for this book.

Which part/parts do you claim to be plagiarised? I'm unable to access SOLO from work.

~ Shane

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In the interest of precision, any unattributed quote Pross may have made from Wikipedia is proper, although it would have been far better if he had attributed it, given his history. Still, all work on Wikipedia is in the public domain and anyone may use that material in their own works and claim authorship. Thus, there is no impropriety in terms of Wikipedia.

The same cannot be said of authors like Ayn Rand.

I have a bad feeling about what is coming...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

In the interest of precision, any unattributed quote Pross may have made from Wikipedia is proper, although it would have been far better if he had attributed it, given his history. Still, all work on Wikipedia is in the public domain and anyone may use that material in their own works and claim authorship. Thus, there is no impropriety in terms of Wikipedia.

The same cannot be said of authors like Ayn Rand.

I have a bad feeling about what is coming...

Hey, Michael, I went inside the book on Amazon and he had the ironic nerve to quote you with attribution for praise. If there is plagarism he put in under his copyright. Rich wrote a Foreword.

--Brant

[Greybird]

In the interest of precision, any unattributed quote Pross may have made from Wikipedia is proper, although it would have been far better if he had attributed it, given his history. Still, all work on Wikipedia is in the public domain and anyone may use that material in their own works and claim authorship. Thus, there is no impropriety in terms of Wikipedia. [...]

In the interest of accuracy, none of this is true. Wikipedia material is released under terms of use that incorporate a version of the Creative Commons "Attribution-ShareAlike" license. This requires full attribution. It also requires the full extension of and adherence to such a license in any re-use or modification of the material.

That license, in turn, itself relies on copyright statutes. Nothing at the Wikimedia sites, with minor exceptions at Wikimedia Commons for graphic elements that their creators have explicitly thus released, is in the "public domain."

Well, to be fair, one element above is true: It would, indeed, be far better morally if one attributed quotations properly. And it would be the classy thing to do. Pross, as we know already, engages in neither moral nor classy behavior.

[sbeaulieu]

I'll give Victor this, he didn't shy away from harsh criticism on the back cover. Most authors I've seen use only the positive.

~ Shane

[Reidy]

The resemblance between Herb Sewell's case for voting Democratic and the one Peikoff made a few years back, with their talk of theocracy, raises the suspicion that Sewell is a new nom de web for Pross.

[Brant Gaede]

The resemblance between Herb Sewell's case for voting Democratic and the one Peikoff made a few years back, with their talk of theocracy, raises the suspicion that Sewell is a new nom de web for Pross.

Could be. For some reason I can't stand him.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

I don't suppose any of you miserable bastards would have bothered to ask me about this.

Talk about old news. That book has been out for a long time.

I edited the included short story in there (Sal's Diner), for one thing. A few random edits here and there. You should have seen it--somewhere I have a photo of the pages laid out with the edit marks on it. No plagiarism there, just hard work. Harder than someone like Dragonfly, shovelling shit. It wouldn't suprise me if there were some Wiki lines in there: all that was required was descriptions of the paintings, and, after awhile, people tend to write the same things.

I question your motivation. Why now? Do you really think that we (and I invoke Victor, as well as a team that has worked with him for sometime now) only live under other peoples' ideas.

In a sentence: You are a bored pigfucker.

Nothing else to do? Certainly not generating any content. I don't suppose you, or any of your ilk, has looked at any of the actual paintings, lately.

In another sentence: Eff you.

Now, go through every line, word by word, and tear into that bastard real proper. Spend time doing that, rather than something of your own. I know for a fact that you can't paint like he does. Wait until the movie comes out, then maybe you can complain about something larger.

And yes, I did write one of the forewards. The book has a few typos, but overall, we were pleased with it.

And, it is going somewhere. But, I am under confidentiality as to that, other than to say that is is being made into a film. The nature of that film, and the magnitude under which we are working, and the core team, no--I won't tell you anything, other than it is a successful venture, and will remain so.

rde

Blow me. I worked too hard on the screenplay.

[Rich Engle]

Addendum: You should've put this on the Adam Selene post, that way you would be nearly perfect in your emulation of the old Collective court-holding days.

rde

Get a job, or at least write a decent short story or draw fucking something.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Rich Engle]

All he did, btw, was drop a bunch of known quotes into the descriptions. He didn't write the book, he painted it. It is about pop culture. So, no, he didn't have a billion footnotes in there or anything.

Take his ass to court, do it all you wish: he out performs most of you who are starting this. Ever seen his shop??

rde

We Don't Need You Anyway.

[Greybird]

Rich, I'm not sure that I am one of those "miserable bastards" you decry — I suspect that I am, since that term seems to go beyond the thread starter. Yet I would, nonetheless, point out that I focused my posting above on how MSK was talking nonsense about Wikipedia.

In turn, the clear conclusion is that not attributing Wikipedia for such material does not abide by the license used at that site. I haven't read (via Amazon) the whole book, but if you or Pross omitted such attributions, that was not proper or legal.

Apart from that, I did contend that Victor Pross is neither moral nor classy in his behavior. To me, anyone whose demonstrated plagiarisms extend, in their absurdity, even to being inserted in love letters deserves neither description.

Yet those have little to nothing to do, directly, with the quality of his art or of this presentation of it. I find much of his work intriguing, provocative, and thought-provoking. He is a caricaturist of considerable skill. I said all this when he was posting at OL, and I stand by what I have said. Moreover, if the book were half its ~$46 price, I might even consider buying it.

With his past actions being well known in these parts, negative reactions to this book — ranging from bemusement to (probably and eventually) outrage — are inevitable. You're being unrealistic to expect otherwise.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Greybird

[9thdoctor]

I bet he didn’t get permission to use all those blurbs. The one from Barbara Branden is used very prominently on the back, and if the book became successful it would make her look foolish. This book came out well over a year ago, why is this news?

[Dragonfly]

I don't suppose any of you miserable bastards would have bothered to ask me about this.

Talk about old news. That book has been out for a long time.

What does that matter? The discovery of plagiarism in that book is recent and that is what counts. Plagiarism doesn't become out-of-date.

I edited the included short story in there (Sal's Diner), for one thing. A few random edits here and there. You should have seen it--somewhere I have a photo of the pages laid out with the edit marks on it. No plagiarism there, just hard work. Harder than someone like Dragonfly, shovelling shit.

Hard work? Then you should use cut and paste, that's more efficient. And although I like to work in the garden, I also have other activities.

It wouldn't suprise me if there were some Wiki lines in there: all that was required was descriptions of the paintings, and, after awhile, people tend to write the same things.

In Pross' circles, no doubt. There they tend to write exactly the same sentences as Ayn Rand or Will Thomas.

I question your motivation.

Justice and a dislike of sweeping things under the carpet.

In a sentence: You are a bored pigfucker.

No, sorry, you'll have to look for another partner.

Nothing else to do? Certainly not generating any content. I don't suppose you, or any of your ilk, has looked at any of the actual paintings, lately.

Why should I? Plagiarism is plagiarism, even if he could paint better than Rembrandt (which he doesn't).

In another sentence: Eff you.

As Chris Grieb would say: why don't you tell us what you really think?

Now, go through every line, word by word, and tear into that bastard real proper. Spend time doing that, rather than something of your own. I know for a fact that you can't paint like he does.

So, you know that for a fact? Then I'm curious to hear how you know that.

And yes, I did write one of the forewards.

Forewards?

The book has a few typos, but overall, we were pleased with it.

I can imagine that. With the right sources to steal from, you can get a nice text.

And, it is going somewhere. But, I am under confidentiality as to that, other than to say that is is being made into a film. The nature of that film, and the magnitude under which we are working, and the core team, no--I won't tell you anything, other than it is a successful venture, and will remain so.

Ah, another Atlas Shrugged movie project!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In the interest of accuracy, none of this is true. Wikipedia material is released under terms of use that incorporate a version of the Creative Commons "Attribution-ShareAlike" license. This requires full attribution. It also requires the full extension of and adherence to such a license in any re-use or modification of the material.

Steve,

Thanks for the correction.

I have not kept up with Wikipedia's copyright (or copyleft) policy. In earlier times, this material was stated by Wikipedia as being in the public domain and it was widely publicized as such within the Internet marketing community. I know this because I read it all both on the Wikipedia site and in many reports on the different aspects of Internet marketing.

I imagine the spammers and people with autoblogs helped them change this policy. Some of these dudes are ridiculous. I have read methods where they taught you how to create, say 10,000 blogs or more a day. Obviously they used bots and scraped content and Wikipedia was a favorite source.

I am actually glad to see Wikipedia's current attribution thing. It is totally in line with my way of thinking. In my own writing, I hold it as a point of honor to attribute quotes, unless I am using homilies or short catch-phrases. I don't understand the mentality of a plagiarist, but I have come to the conclusion that I don't understand a lot of the things I see around me (envy is a biggie--I just don't feel it although I see it in others and have often been victim of it).

It's odd that I have kept up with some of the lectures of Lawrence Lessig (the founder of Creative Commons) and missed the Wikipedia thing. Oh well, better late than never...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Some idiot named "punkybluntz" showed up to tell us all what children and jerks we are.

I deleted this anonymous poster's stuff and account.

There is the whole Internet for that kind of crap and it is certainly available to "punkybluntz."

But not here.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't suppose any of you miserable bastards would have bothered to ask me about this.

Rich,

Please tone down this rhetoric.

Nobody on OL is a "miserable bastard," nobody is a "pigfucker," nobody is going to "blow you" and all that other childish stuff.

I'm cutting you slack because I like you, but I'm not going to tolerate that on this forum. Do it elsewhere.

I mean it.

Michael

[Greybird]

[...] In earlier times, this material was stated by Wikipedia as being in the public domain and it was widely publicized as such within the Internet marketing community. I know this because I read it all both on the Wikipedia site and in many reports on the different aspects of Internet marketing.

That notion of the material being in the public domain may have been what Internet marketing people perceived, or wanted to operate upon, or publicized, or found convenient to assume — but I'm afraid that this never was stated or practiced by Wikipedia (or its controlling foundation) as being its policy.

Wikipedia operated from the beginning with all of its material being released under a variety of the Free Software Foundation's GNU Free Documentation License. That, also, requires attribution — even more extensively so — and granting of the same license terms to further use, and it also ultimately relies on copyright law.

Many criticisms arose as to that document's terms, some of them becoming less workable as the Net grew, including the formally required overhead of repeating the license's terms in full with any quoted material. Wikimedia and others persuaded the FSF to allow the GFDL to be modified, so as to allow Wikipedia material to migrate to use of a Creative Commons license instead.

I imagine the spammers and people with autoblogs helped them change this policy. [...]

Not really, although the cavalier treatment of Wikipedia material certainly was frustrating. It's by no means vanished under the newer license, but the Creative Commons terms are easier to observe and create fewer inadvertent pitfalls in doing so.

Edited July 22, 2010 by Greybird

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That notion of the material being in the public domain may have been what Internet marketing people perceived, or wanted to operate upon, or publicized, or found convenient to assume — but I'm afraid that this never was stated or practiced by Wikipedia (or its controlling foundation) as being its policy.

Wikipedia operated from the beginning with all of its material being released under a variety of the Free Software Foundation's GNU Free Documentation License. That, also, requires attribution — even more extensively so — and granting of the same license terms to further use, and it also ultimately relies on copyright law.

Steve,

You are correct about Wikipedia and I am wrong. I looked it up on Wikipedia's very first 2001 entry on the Wayback Machine, and there it is in all its glory:

The content of Wikipedia is covered by the GNU Free Documentation License

I have gone through more than one course on how to create information products from public domain material. I am going to revisit them to see if I misunderstood, or if they were wrong/misleading. I suspect the latter, but I am going to check to make sure.

I know where my own confusion came from. Wikipedia has some great PD content and resources on getting PD materials. I sometimes consult this when looking for such materials.

Just now, I also came across a very interesting item : Wikipedia:Multi-licensing. It ends up that some of the written material on Wikipedia actually is in the public domain. Not just quotes from PD works, but original contributions. It depends on the author's preference.

I already knew about the multiple possibilities of status with respect to images and I remember reading some controversy about this a few years ago when they removed the article on public domain movies.

btw - I don't regret making my mistake. That's how you learn.

(But now I only have 2 mistakes left that I can make this year if I am going to keep up my average... )

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Hey, Rich! Dragonfly can paint rings around VP.

--Brant

know what you know

[Dragonfly]

Well this sounds like jealousy coming out doesnt it...I for one have never heard of or seen any dragonfly paintings..I know victor pross quite well

Yeah, that's rather obvious...

and you guys are all wrong about your statements

As you no doubt can prove.

and maybe you should look at your own short comings before judging others when you dont even know that person and what he stands for eh?

Boy, you should see my long comings!

I know very well what Pross stands for: plagiarism.

[Brant Gaede]

deleted by Brant

Edited July 22, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Please folks,

If a troll shows up bashing those who dislike Pross or plagiarism, don't respond.

I suspect it might be Pross or someone instigated by him, so I am just deleting this crap as it happens.

If you respond, you make my job harder.

Thanks.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

All he did, btw, was drop a bunch of known quotes into the descriptions. He didn't write the book, he painted it. It is about pop culture. So, no, he didn't have a billion footnotes in there or anything.

Take his ass to court, do it all you wish: he out performs most of you who are starting this. Ever seen his shop??

rde

We Don't Need You Anyway.

"All he did, btw, was drop a bunch of known quotes into the descriptions."

- without any indication whatsoever that they were quotes. That's called plagiarism.

Not to mention that perhaps, just maybe, one might consider a career doing something other than what carnies do everyday, everywhere - just sayin'