Richard Posner is a Chicago-based judge on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and has been occasionally cited as US Supreme Court material. He is also a prolific author mostly on matters adjacent to the law. How does a judge in an overworked court system have time to write so much extra-curricularly? You'll find the answer in the book.

Why is he (or anybody else) writing this particular book? He writes on page 9, "What makes plagiarism a fascinating subject and the occasion for this book is the ambiguity of the concept, its complex relations to other disapproved practices of copying, including copyright infringement, the variety of its applications, its historical and cultural relativity, its contested normative significance, the mysterious motives and curious excuses of its practitioners, the means of detection, and the forms of punishment and absolution." Not to worry -- the rest of the book reads more easily that this concise summary.

To be sure, the word "little" in the title is physically accurate; the book is small, the type large, the line-spacing generous, and it weighs in at just over 100 pages. It seems a narrow subject. But it will interest anybody with a broad interest in intellectual property, and should be read by anybody confused about how to deal with the subject. Plagiarism is not a legal concept, and Posner does not argue that it should be, but he looks at it from joint points of view as a judge and a professor. The book teases out the complex interrelationships among plagiarism, "self-plagiarism", copyright infringement, fair use, trademark infringement, works for hire, ghostwriting, paper mills, originality, creativity, fabrication, ideas versus their expression, attribution, book packaging, and managed books. This is its chief and considerable virtue.

So what exactly is plagiarism? He sums up on page 106: "Plagiarism is a species of intellectual fraud. It consists of unauthorized copying that the copier claims (whether explicitly or implicitly, and whether deliberately or carelessly) is original with him and the claim causes the copier's audience to behave otherwise than it would if it knew the truth." This is a fine summary, and written in a judicial style, presumably not by a law clerk. However, to understand the many nuances in this definition, it will be necessary to read the book.

The Little Book of Plagiarism

The author of this book is a judge who is an expert on the subjects of plagiarism and copyright infringement. He makes clear the distiction of these two terms and the penalties that will rain down on you for committing each of these acts. Plagiarism brings shame to one wo steals ideas, without acknowleging his/her sources; but infringing the legal rights of copyright owners can call forth financial contributions from you pocket. The author cities and analyzes a few court cases, to clarify your thinking on these subjects.

Plagiarism is not a legal offense in itself. Thus, you might think that Judge Richard Posner might not be the best of guides to it, even though he has written books about non-legal issues before. But plagiarism does sometimes include fraud, copyright infringement, theft, and unfair competition, issues that are clearly legal in nature. In _The Little Book of Plagiarism_ (Pantheon), Posner has turned a legal view onto the very gray areas of plagiarism, an offense that everyone thinks is bad, but which comes in many forms, each with variants that are not offenses at all. Plagiarism has been in the news a lot lately, with famous (or potentially famous) people damaged by the charge. In the digital age, plagiarism is easier, and so Posner has written a useful volume to guide logical thinking on a hot issue. It is indeed a little book, 109 pages of text, but there are plenty of big ideas here, expressed in pithy prose that calls out for re-reading just to appreciate its clarity and lack of superfluity.

People weren't always so picky. One of Posner's examples is that of Shakespeare's use of Sir Thomas North's translation of Plutarch's description of Cleopatra's barge, which shows up in blank-verse paraphrase in _Antony and Cleopatra_. Posner includes both passages here, and it clear that Shakespeare really did borrow North, and also clear that Shakespeare's description is more colorful and fun to read. ("If this is plagiarism," jokes Posner, "we need more plagiarism.") If Shakespeare were writing today, he'd probably be in trouble for all his borrowed plots and characters. Plagiarism changes depending upon time, locale, and profession. So, how do we know when something is plagiarism and when it isn't? Posner suggests, among other things, that we evaluate the harm done. An example Posner returns to repeatedly is that of Kaavya Viswanathan whose novel _How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life_ came out in April 2006. She was a sophomore at Harvard University (Posner gives many examples from Harvard here, and maintains that plagiarism is no more common in that estimable school, just more conspicuous, and more enjoyed by the public when revealed). She got a half million dollar advance for her work and a film deal with DreamWorks. Attentive readers, however, found that there were passages that had been lifted from the work of a fellow "chick-lit" author Megan McCafferty. Viswanathan didn't do her readers any real harm; her book is as good as they found it. She didn't harm her publisher (until she was caught), and she herself brought any harmful consequences to herself. The harm is done to McCafferty, and not simply because McCafferty's words were lifted and re-used, but because by doing so, Viswanathan boosted herself up as a competitor within the chick-lit field, an unfair advantage.

So a key for finding plagiarism is finding that harm has been done, but Posner does not wish to see it among the harms dealt with by the criminal courts: "The harms it causes are too slight to warrant cranking up the costly and clumsy machinery of the criminal law", and often the harm is insufficient to crank up the civil courts, either. Viswanathan got her measure of "... disgrace, humiliation, ostracism, and other shaming penalties imposed by public opinion on people who violate social norms whether or not they are also legal norms." So did Doris Kearns Goodwin, Stephen Ambrose, and Alan Dershowitz, whose cases are examined here. That high-profile authors would risk getting caught in such thefts is something that Posner cannot explain, but he does make the case that the digital technology which makes plagiarism particularly easy these days is also going to make it more detectable. There are programs on the market like Turnitin which are doing better sleuthing for plagiarism than any professor or general reader. Thousands of colleges license the program; Harvard doesn't, and Posner accuses it of being naïve. Turnitin looks for similar passages in previous works, especially those on the web (and remember that many quotations from modern books are found on the web, even if full books are not). The program also looks for similarities within papers that have been submitted to it for inspection before. Publishers aren't themselves using such programs much yet, because they would simply rather not know beforehand, but Little, Brown lost plenty on the Viswanathan affair. Posner says, "We may be entering the twilight of plagiarism." It is a rewarding intellectual amusement to share Posner's thinking about the subject, which presents plagiarism with penetrating originality.

Plagiarism is not a legal offense in itself. Thus, you might think that Judge Richard Posner might not be the best of guides to it, even though he has written books about non-legal issues before. But plagiarism does sometimes include fraud, copyright infringement, theft, and unfair competition, issues that are clearly legal in nature. In _The Little Book of Plagiarism_ (Pantheon), Posner has turned a legal view onto the very gray areas of plagiarism, an offense that everyone thinks is bad, but which comes in many forms, each with variants that are not offenses at all. Plagiarism has been in the news a lot lately, with famous (or potentially famous) people damaged by the charge. In the digital age, plagiarism is easier, and so Posner has written a useful volume to guide logical thinking on a hot issue. It is indeed a little book, 109 pages of text, but there are plenty of big ideas here, expressed in pithy prose that calls out for re-reading just to appreciate its clarity and lack of superfluity.

People weren't always so picky. One of Posner's examples is that of Shakespeare's use of Sir Thomas North's translation of Plutarch's description of Cleopatra's barge, which shows up in blank-verse paraphrase in _Antony and Cleopatra_. Posner includes both passages here, and it clear that Shakespeare really did borrow North, and also clear that Shakespeare's description is more colorful and fun to read. ("If this is plagiarism," jokes Posner, "we need more plagiarism.") If Shakespeare were writing today, he'd probably be in trouble for all his borrowed plots and characters. Plagiarism changes depending upon time, locale, and profession. So, how do we know when something is plagiarism and when it isn't? Posner suggests, among other things, that we evaluate the harm done. An example Posner returns to repeatedly is that of Kaavya Viswanathan whose novel _How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got a Life_ came out in April 2006. She was a sophomore at Harvard University (Posner gives many examples from Harvard here, and maintains that plagiarism is no more common in that estimable school, just more conspicuous, and more enjoyed by the public when revealed). She got a half million dollar advance for her work and a film deal with DreamWorks. Attentive readers, however, found that there were passages that had been lifted from the work of a fellow "chick-lit" author Megan McCafferty. Viswanathan didn't do her readers any real harm; her book is as good as they found it. She didn't harm her publisher (until she was caught), and she herself brought any harmful consequences to herself. The harm is done to McCafferty, and not simply because McCafferty's words were lifted and re-used, but because by doing so, Viswanathan boosted herself up as a competitor within the chick-lit field, an unfair advantage.

So a key for finding plagiarism is finding that harm has been done, but Posner does not wish to see it among the harms dealt with by the criminal courts: "The harms it causes are too slight to warrant cranking up the costly and clumsy machinery of the criminal law", and often the harm is insufficient to crank up the civil courts, either. Viswanathan got her measure of "... disgrace, humiliation, ostracism, and other shaming penalties imposed by public opinion on people who violate social norms whether or not they are also legal norms." So did Doris Kearns Goodwin, Stephen Ambrose, and Alan Dershowitz, whose cases are examined here. That high-profile authors would risk getting caught in such thefts is something that Posner cannot explain, but he does make the case that the digital technology which makes plagiarism particularly easy these days is also going to make it more detectable. There are programs on the market like Turnitin which are doing better sleuthing for plagiarism than any professor or general reader. Thousands of colleges license the program; Harvard doesn't, and Posner accuses it of being naïve. Turnitin looks for similar passages in previous works, especially those on the web (and remember that many quotations from modern books are found on the web, even if full books are not). The program also looks for similarities within papers that have been submitted to it for inspection before. Publishers aren't themselves using such programs much yet, because they would simply rather not know beforehand, but Little, Brown lost plenty on the Viswanathan affair. Posner says, "We may be entering the twilight of plagiarism." It is a rewarding intellectual amusement to share Posner's thinking about the subject, which presents plagiarism with penetrating originality.

This book is meant for a variety of readers: writers (beware), legal eagles (what is the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement?), students (don't copy that Wikipedia article), professors (be careful about your student's research), etc. It is brief and to the point, yet raises several interesting questions. Do we most value originality or creativity? Posner defines the difference, although some readers may disagree with a a few bits here and there.

According to Posner, the concept of plagiarism as a bad thing is a fairly recent attitude. Shakespeare and others in the past -- from the Egyptians to the writers of the Bible -- have copied earlier works, improved on them or not, expanding the ideas and the discussion.

One concept is missing from the present discussion, however, that of "work for hire." For instance, writers are often paid to write works, fiction in particular, in a specific milieu, often under another name, without receiving public credit for that work. This may include students who do the research for a scholarly book that the professor writes (but I would not think the same holds true if the student does the actual writing and credit should be given, of course). Posner also states that plagiarism is more of a problem for students than professors. Given the "publish or perish" mentality of universities in hiring and granting tenure to professors, it would seem that plagiarism could become more and more of a temptation.

Beginning with the young "chick lit" author whose work was full of copied sections, working through scholarly writers, many instances of being caught are cited. Posner, like the news media, places greater emphasis on the fiction rather than the scholarly. The young Harvard student was virtually pilloried in the press. The only plagiarism in scholarly work that came close to being so condemned, was that of Stephen Ambrose. Most professors caught plagiarizing are forgiven by their institutions and, it would seem, the public.

It is important to consider this problem especially in light of the new software being used by universities that can identify plagiarism, access to virtually any written work via the Internet, and the ability for the news media and others to identify stolen work. There are some who espouse the idea that all creative work should be "open source." The possibilities are numerous.

For those of us who enjoyed Judge Posner's Public Intellectuals or Law & Literature, this very little book fits in that niche -- easy to read, full of charming bits, grindingly rational. The book's topic and brevity will give it a natural market among school administrators and teachers. Maybe a private school or two will make it required reading for students. Students in particular need to know that schools now are using an internet software service to catch plagiarists.

But like Posner's other books, this one asks a deep and haunting question. Why do we prize originality so much? The best writers (Posner cites Shakespeare) copied extensively, improving as they went. The ancient Egyptians went thousands of years painting the same odd figures on their tombs; they disdained originality. Ironically, Posner explains, student textbooks may be the least original of modern writings.

The book is well worth $[...], an evening's reading, and further reflection.

While this review is not a copy of any other review (and indeed, to guard against any overt plagiarism, I am typing it without notes and straight to submission, without an editing stage), that is not to say that it will not in fact end up being copied by someone, somewhere. Plagiarism reaching epidemic proportions is one of the unintended consequences of the internet and its vast availability - much in forms easily adapated to cut-and-paste functions - makes it both a blessing and a curse.

Posner's book starts with the now infamous case of the Harvard student, who, having secured book and movie deals even prior to her entrance to the prestigious Ivy League school, was publically disgraced when it was revealed that substantial elements of her first novel were taken from novels of similar ilk, sometimes in almost verbatim terms. Posner's book goes on to look at other incidents both past and present (to what extent would Shakespeare be branded a plagiarist?), the philosophical implications (moral and ethical), and some legal and consequential issues. What should be done with plagiarists? Of course, the answer varies, as will the reader's opinion here.

Posner suggests that the internet will also be a saving grace in this -- indeed, I could relate to the issues he brings up as I am a professor who regularly uses the Turnitin.com service, which scans not only the internet but also a database of previously submitted papers. I have found at least one student in each of the last several semesters who has simply lifted an article or paper off the internet and turned it in as his or her own. Posner suggests that instructors who are not on the ball and using some kind of similar safeguard are naive.

I must confess, I'd heard some of what he's written before, but then duplication is acceptable, provided sources are cited, right? The book itself is very small -- I read it in one go, and reminded me somewhat both in style and size of Harry Frankfurt's book, the title of which the filters here don't permit me to mention...

Posner is an accomplished federal judge and author. As a judge Posner adeptly distinguishes subtle differences in the way ideas are copied. What is plagiarism? - Posner asks. Posner give his full answer at the book's end: "Plagiarism is a species of intellectual fraud. It consists of unauthorized copying that the copier claims (whether explicitly or implicitly, and whether deliberately or carelessly) is original with him and the claims causes the copier's audience to behave otherwise than it would if it knew the truth" (pg. 106).
Posner not only discusses contemporary plagiarism but gives a history of the topic that places the modern version in its context. The first recorded usage of modern sense of plagiarism was in the Roman Empire by the poet Martial who claimed his work was plagiarized, Posner continues by giving additional examples which complicate our notions and require distinctions on terms such as "copy", "fraud", "plagiarism", "imitation", "copyright infringement", etc. Gathering together his ideas in the last chapter, Posner writes, "The vagueness of the concept of plagiarism should be acknowledged and thus a gray area recognized in which creative imitation produces value that should undercut a judgment of plagiarism - indeed an imitator may produce greater value than an originator, once 'originality' is understood, as it should be if we are to understand plagiarism in properly relativistic terms, just to mean difference, not necessarily creativity. In modern commercial society, which places the stamp of personality on goods both physical and intellectual for economic reasons unrelated to high culture, a verdict of plagiarism is pronounced without regard to the quality of the plagiarized original or, for that matter, of the plagiarizing copy" (pg. 108-109).

This book is short, fun, written clearly, intelligent, and a challenge. It challenges the definition of plagiarism as "literary theft" and instead emphasizes "reliance, detectability, and the extent of the market for expressive works as keys to defining plagiarism and calibrating the different types of plagiarism by their gravity" (pg. 109). Unfortunately, Posner gives us only one court case in his brief history of plagiarism (Rogers v. Koons).

While this review is not a copy of any other review (and indeed, to guard against any overt plagiarism, I am typing it without notes and straight to submission, without an editing stage), that is not to say that it will not in fact end up being copied by someone, somewhere. Plagiarism reaching epidemic proportions is one of the unintended consequences of the internet and its vast availability - much in forms easily adapated to cut-and-paste functions - makes it both a blessing and a curse.

Posner's book starts with the now infamous case of the Harvard student, who, having secured book and movie deals even prior to her entrance to the prestigious Ivy League school, was publically disgraced when it was revealed that substantial elements of her first novel were taken from novels of similar ilk, sometimes in almost verbatim terms. Posner's book goes on to look at other incidents both past and present (to what extent would Shakespeare be branded a plagiarist?), the philosophical implications (moral and ethical), and some legal and consequential issues. What should be done with plagiarists? Of course, the answer varies, as will the reader's opinion here.

Posner suggests that the internet will also be a saving grace in this -- indeed, I could relate to the issues he brings up as I am a professor who regularly uses the Turnitin.com service, which scans not only the internet but also a database of previously submitted papers. I have found at least one student in each of the last several semesters who has simply lifted an article or paper off the internet and turned it in as his or her own. Posner suggests that instructors who are not on the ball and using some kind of similar safeguard are naive.

I must confess, I'd heard some of what he's written before, but then duplication is acceptable, provided sources are cited, right? The book itself is very small -- I read it in one go, and reminded me somewhat both in style and size of Harry Frankfurt's book, the title of which the filters here don't permit me to mention...