I remember these little cartoons from when I was a kid, which tells you how old they are, but my kids also read them. They were staples of the magazines in pediatrician’s offices (they might still be, I don’t know). It was a simple concept, a series of panels in which two kids were faced with a situation, and Gallant would respond in a good way, while Goofus would screw it up even worse. It plays out in real life, too!
Earyn McGee is a grad student at the University of Arizona. One of the fun things she does on Twitter is post photos under the hashtag #FindThatLizard, and then post the answer later, under the hashtag #FoundThatLizard. That’s the game. She has some simple rules, like this:
It is that time! The rules are as follows: you will have until 9pm MT to #FindThatLizard, you are welcomed to post guesses in the comments with #FoundThatLizard, and most importantly have fun!!! 🦎🦎🦎 good luck! #HerpetAllogy #HERper #scicomm #lizard #BLACKandSTEM #herpsci pic.twitter.com/icEJnNi4Sf
— Earyn McGee, MSc🦎🦎🦎 (@Afro_Herper) January 10, 2019
Well, a well-known science blogger found that photo, and appropriated it, and put up a post saying “Spot the Lizards!”. Without linking to the original. Or naming the author. Saying he’d name her later, after everyone had played the game on his blog. But…but…that’s just the game on her twitter feed. No one needed his blog to enjoy the idea, and he added absolutely nothing to the game.
So let’s play Goofus and Gallant.
Gallant:
Here’s McGee’s response. It’s a gracious acknowledgment of appreciation, and a polite request that he not undermine her efforts.
Hi Jerry! I’m glad you like my challenge. You can find each one with #FindThatLizard and the solution with #FoundThatLizard. I put a lot of time and energy into these challenges so I would appreciate it if you’d take this down and repost with appropriate credit. Thanks!!🦎🦎🦎 https://t.co/EaNUYzuS9N
— Earyn McGee, MSc🦎🦎🦎 (@Afro_Herper) January 11, 2019
Wow. I’m never that nice. But that’s a classic Gallant reaction.
Now watch how a Goofus can take a bad situation and make it even worse.
Goofus:
This is how a Goofus reacts, by blaming everyone else.
Umm. . . I SAID I’d give the tweet in the reveal post at noon, which I did and which shows who posted the picture. You should know better than to chastise me before you know all the facts. Shame on you. I will accept an apology.
UPDATE: Apparently a Twitter mob was sic’ed on me by people who didn’t even read my post, which said this: “Can you spot both? I’m not giving the original tweet, as it contains the answer, but I will in the reveal at noon Chicago time.”
Credit was of course given; I withheld the source for a few hours so people could guess without looking at the answer in the subsequent tweet.
The Twitter outrage mob didn’t read the original post (this seems to be common), and piled on without doing so. I’d say they all owe me an apology, but of course I expect none. That’s the way outrage culture works. Even if you err, you never apologize.
Wow (that’s a bad wow, if you can’t guess). That he announced that he was subverting McGee’s game ahead of time and would eventually reveal the creator does not change the fact that he was basically stealing attention from a grad student. Then to demand an apology? Hoo boy.
But then he updates to chastise people, calling them a “twitter mob”, for not reading his blog post, as if that were the star around which everyone is supposed to orbit, and demands that everyone apologize to him.
Jebus. That’s too extreme a difference for even a Goofus and Gallant cartoon. No one would believe that Goofus could be that petty in Highlights for Children. But then, the creator apparently didn’t know Jerry Coyne.
By the way, Gallants who use Twitter might do well to follow Earyn McGee.
Can you spot the jackass in this Tweet? I’m withholding results for now. Let’s see how many people can guess!
I don’t get it. What is she supposed to apologise for?
Where is that .gif of Krysten Ritter doing the ultimate eyeroll– ah. If there were ever an image that captured the current Zeitgeist, that’s it.
Coyne sounds like one of those weasels that tells young artists and writers they should be happy to work for nothing for the exposure and how dare they imply he’s exploiting them?! What a tool.
Hahaha! Coyne again. My god I have not seen a more irritable, petulant person. How old is he?
Wouldn’t a scientist be familiar with crediting sources in papers? I mean, he has to know there are ways to credit someone’s work without including a URL link. That’s just a basic part of operating in any science field, isn’t it?
chigau (違う) @ 2:
Why, for hurting his poor Straight Old White Guy fee-fees by attributing an ulterior motive to his actions, of course! Because when a Straight Old White Guy steals your stuff online, it’s obvious he just wants to get you more exposure and if it makes you feel weird, well, that’s your fault for being a big meanie!
Ow! I, uh, gotta go. Blew up my sarcasm meter. Bit of a shrapnel wound situation here…
This also illustrates another important point about Coyne and his fellow classical liberals/ IDW members- a complete inability to acknowledge your mistake, however trivial.
@4: Give the lad a break, he’s not even 70 yet (born December 30, 1949, per wikipedia)
Poor Jer. I’ve been reading and skipping over large sections of his blog for years. While I like his takedown of Creationists, and the Readers Wildlife pics are fun, the fellow needs to come to terms with his finely honed sense butthurt. This is a another example. A reasonable person would have reacted with, “Ah. I see your point. My bad. I’ll fix it. Please forgive me. ” and then gone and fixed the fucking problem rather than spend X times longer bitching about being called out. Hell, because in the Grand Scheme of Things this hubbub was smaller than a frog fart, a reasonable person would apologize even if they thought they were faultless. It’s called manners. Being smart isn’t a license to be rude.
Well, I am glad I stopped reading Goofus’ blog years ago. It does not look like I am missing anything worthwhile.
Laughably, his plagiarism was DMCA’d and hidden by Twitter.
Compounding his own self-injury via even the platform acknowledging that he stole the property and content of others.
Would that qualify as censure by sensor? Or is it simply censorship by sensor?
I used to read Coyne’s blog every day, mainly because I liked the cat stuff. Then one day I didn’t read it–and didn’t notice I had missed it. I think I just got tired of him tooting his own horn so much and putting down anyone who dared criticize him or any of his friends (yup, Pinker and Harris, to name a couple).
There are two issues here
1. He should have asked and received permission before posting someone else’s work in creating a “find the lizard” picture and puzzle.
2. He should have credited her in the first post unless he had specific permission from her to delay it to the second post. Even a fair use exception requires credit.
An ideal situation would have been to ask and receive permission, post, and in the second post give a fuller description of the #findthatlizard twitter feed and creator (much like Myers has described the creator here) and suggest his readers might want to follow it given they like these sorts of puzzles. This would have been a win/win for both sides.
I’m confused. Earyn’s Twitter indicates that the answer will be posted at 9 pm, while Jerry didn’t post the link for a few hours because the answer was at the link. Doesn’t that mean that that particular game was over? If so, what is the fuss?
I can’t view the Twitter link, so I’ll assume I’m missing information. However Jerry’s response that you posted wasn’t to Earyn, but rather to someone on his blog that accused him of copyright infringement. A little misleading as he is not asking Earyn for an apology, but another person who he felt accused him unjustly.
Michael #13
What are you confused about?
@12:
I prefer to get a win/win for just me. ;)
And thank you for the demonstration.
Not to suggest this was his intent, but might someone who doesn’t do Twitter, and who does not want to open an account (install software et al), benefit from good things on it being mirrored elsewhere, on the web?
Just to suggest a way in which someone might want (if not need) such things – which ought be properly credited if done.
He actually demanded an apology from her!
Coyne is outrageously self important – self righteous. Intellectually dishonest prick for behaving this way.
He may or may not believe in yahweh – otherwise he’s in for the religious culture wars 100%. Sam Harris is the same. They use their “atheism” as cover for bashing the religions they are naturally at war with. It’s interesting that they don’t think of themselves as practicing “identity politics”.
@14 Jerry didn’t post the link so people could try it before getting the answer. Earyn’s game was already over, so it wouldn’t affect her challenge. I don’t understand why all the fuss? Jerry posted the link as he promised to, a few hours later. How is this different from posting last weeks NY Times crossword (for those of us who don’t get the Times), and then posting the answers a few hours later.
@18 You missed my comment. Jerry was in responding to someone posting on his site. It was NOT directed at Earyn. As I said in my earlier comment, PZ should have pointed this out as it is misleading people, eg. comment #2.
In defence of Doc (no ,the other one )here is the original post .
Here’s a picture that Matthew found on Twitter. It shows two lizards. Can you spot both? I’m not giving the original tweet, as it contains the answer, but I will in the reveal at noon Chicago time. The photo is by Earyn McGree, who posts as @Afro_Herper.
As you can see ,he names the person who was responsible for the photo .
Can’t we all play together nicely ?
No. He did not.
He snidely and sarcastically asked an apology of “Liz” who wrote:
The quoted response had nothing whatsoever to do with Earyn McGee’s gracious response.
The way PZ posted the story it sounds like:
Coyne found McGee’s “Find the Lizard”. Posted it as “Here’s a game I’m making up called ‘Spot the Lizard'”. McGee wrote a gracious response and Coyne responded with a the above response.
The way is it seems to have actually happened:
Coyne wrote “Here’s a picture that Matthew found on Twitter. It shows two lizards. Can you spot both? I’m not giving the original tweet, as it contains the answer, but I will in the reveal at noon Chicago time.” Then liz commented with “You should know better than to use other’s work without proper credit. Shame on you” to which he responded with the gumby blockquote above. McGee’s tweet happened sometime earlier than the gumby response to liz.
…
In my opinion, posting the original with the intent to release the source later was naive and in hindsight and context really idiotic and stupid but at the time naive and innocent. I have made such mistakes in the past. liz’s comment wasn’t accurate and fair but his response was defensive and self-centered and self-serving (when I made similar mistake had anyone made a comment like liz’s [whom am I kidding– nobody every read or responded to anything I ever posted anyway] I would have responded with something like “Oh, I hadn’t thought of it like that. I fully intended to give credit with the answer. But you’re right I really should have given credit, if not a link, when I posted. Claiming it was ‘found on the Internet’ was a lapse of judgement when it comes to giving credit where credit is due. I apologize for that. But please, believe me when I say I never intended for anyone to think this puzzle was my work or that I would benefit from in any way. I’m truly sorry if it came off that way.”. And as for the “twitter mob”, yeah that is self-centered gallant “hey, I’m the real victim here crap”.
But I don’t think the plagarism is as PZ implies.
Do you want to be the one to try posting material from the NYTimes without link or attribution? They have a much bigger/better legal department than some random tweeter. Follow through with your own analogy and see where it gets you.
Some of you don’t seem to realize that the attribution was a later edit.
Some of you also seem to concerned more about who he’s demanding an apology from than the fact that he is demanding a fucking apology in the first place.
@Michael:
In other words, Jerry didn’t post the link so that he could get the twitter action and the blog traffic of people actually playing the game without any effort on his part to create the game. He took the work of another and used it for his own benefit with his own audience. He thought it was a cool game and wanted to play – which is completely understandable. But the way you do that is to go play the game on the site of the original author.
If Coyne had 40 followers and made $0 off his site, then it would be exactly the same plagiarism, but the consequences would be very different.
Put another way, some people have mentioned the challenge of ripping off the NY Times crossword puzzle, but I like it the other way:
If the NY Times puzzle page would be wrong to do such a thing, or if they would be engaging in problematic behavior to do such a thing, then Coyne is also wrong or engaging in problematic behavior (as the case may be).
If the NY Times could be appropriately asked to apologize for that behavior, then Coyne can (and should) be appropriately asked to apologize for that behavior.
If the NY Times could be appropriately accused of plagiarism for that behavior, then Coyne can (and should) be appropriately accused of plagiarism for that behavior.
And, finally, if the NY Times would be fucked up for getting pissed off at those accusing the Grey Lady of plagiarism, if the NY Times would be fucked up for demanding an apology of those who point out its plagiarism, then Coyne is fucked up for doing the analogous things.
It’s pretty simply here: Coyne is in the wrong. We don’t expect Coyne to be as careful in forethought as the NY Times with its in-house intellectual property lawyers, but whether the problem was ignorance or malice, the behavior itself is exactly as wrong for exactly the same reasons. The source of the error (presuming that the source of Coyne’s error is naiveté) does not at all change the fact that it was an error.
If the response of the NY Times should be to graciously apologize, then the behavior we can and should expect from Coyne is to graciously apologize. He didn’t take that route, so he gets criticized again.
@PZ:
QFT.
Sure PZ could have been a little clearer in the OP. I too initially got the impression that Coyne was demanding an apology from McGee herself. But it makes no significant difference. Coyne angrily demanded an apology from someone correctly describing his actions as plagiarism. It’s a nasty move either way.
@25
I think a more realistic summary of the exchange would be:
Coyne: Here is a fun puzzle. I’ll post the link in a couple of hours.
Rando: That’s plagiarism. Shame on you!
Coyne: Why? I posted it just like I said I would. You should apologize for not reading my post and then insulting me on my site.
PZ: You don’t get to ask anyone for an apology.
I’ll await the angry responses (hopefully with actual explanations) as to why this is inaccurate.
@22 I should have amended my statement as posting the link to the NY Times answer later. My point was that that game was over, so this shouldn’t interfere with her twitter traffic. At the very least she might get more traffic from people who saw it on Jerry’s site.
@24 The difference being is that the attribution was made hours later, not days later. In that event, it would be no different than the Times doing an edit to correct mistakes in the original story.
@Michael:
You didn’t bother answering the question. Let’s take them one at a time, since this appears to be a struggle for you:
Would the NYTimes be wrong to publish someone else’s puzzle with an announcement that they’ll post an attribution the next day simultaneously with the answer to the puzzle?
That’s not how it reads to me.
I quote from the OP: “Well, a well-known science blogger found that photo, and appropriated it, and put up a post saying “Spot the Lizards!”. Without linking to the original. Or naming the author. Saying he’d name her later, after everyone had played the game on his blog.”
For me, plagiarism requires the representation of someone else’s work as one’s own.
The moment he wrote he’d name the source later, that criterion was invalidated.
—
Wayback doesn’t have versions of that post, so I don’t know whether or not the original post was edited without indication at a later time. If that were the case, then that’s where opprobrium would be merited.
—
PS
Me too.
Charitably Coyne does these spot the things quite often. It’s a WEIT past-time. He got fed this one by an acquaintance and given he’s in Hawaii on vacay (not pity party level excuse) he might not have fully thought through the implications of his actions at the time.
Uncharitably he has a blind spot. And he doesn’t handle criticism well. I had the temerity to have a few minor (from my hoi polloi POV) dustups with him. I wound up eventually in awaiting moderation hell. PZ never did that to me, though we kinda go back around 20 years. That said I’m not about to hold back on criticizing Meirz when I think he crosses a line. I have a few paybacks from the late 90s when he was a meanyhead.
I posted recently on a thread over at WEIT a rundown about my issues with how anti-BDS laws in various states violate free speech and even mentioned BDS isn’t how I would resolve the Palestianian-Israeli issue because one state intransigence. Granted the chirping crickets are Hawaiian but that my post got past moderation purgatory makes me wonder who eyeballed it before approval.
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/01/09/the-university-of-illinois-police-stifle-free-speech-by-participating-in-bias-response/
“Something I would like to see addressed given the paramount importance of free speech is this:
https://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/ACLU-files-complaint-against-Texas-schools-AG-13475259.php
I’m critical of Israeli occupation in West Bank and settlements, for a reasonable two-state solution, despise Bibi AND Hamas, regret Arik’s untimely stroke given Kadima moderation and his pragmatic bullheadedness, and don’t think BDS has an agreeable position if one state coupled with right of return. But some law that upfront limits my right to think for myself and express and act on said preferences in such manner pisses me off on principle alone. Reactance is a powerful thing.”
Some may recognize that as a poorly truncated version of a rant I made on a recent thread here. If Coyne reads this thread do I get the bonus of getting back in his craw space. Don’t care.
Ronald McDonald on a cross pissed off Palestinian Arab Christians. Go figure. And every free speech thread he posts without addressing the anti-BDS laws breaks ironymeters everywhere. I thought about addressing that again over there, but why bother?
There is a person not here PZ identified
Earyn McGee and gave respect to who has an issue with how Coyne used her work for his own blog contest. My own self-concerned diatribe detracted from that. Beer on my 51st birthday in my brain. Yes. Nonpology. Arggggg!!!! Sorry!
Is Coyne really that desperate for web traffic? Finding stuff and posting it, with credit, is a classic blog method (I’ve been reading BoingBoing for years now because of their posting that weird Kikkoman ad), but you don’t not give credit immediately. And you don’t respond to legit criticism as Coyne did.
Michael@27–
That’s a very narrow definition of plagiarism you’re using. According to U Chicago Academic Policies and Requirements, under the plagiarism heading:
Coyne reblogged a photo from McGee’s twitter account as well as the rules of her game, without any identification of McGee or links to her online presence. This, by U Chicago’s definition, is unacceptable. (I chose U Chicago because it is one of Coyne’s workplaces). While he did not claim that it was his original photo, he did not give any representation to the person whose work he used. Saying “an online friend showed me this” is not sufficient attribution, and neither is “I will reveal the attribution in the near future.”
Furthermore, the excuse that he didn’t want to spoil the game for readers is a misdirection. Instead of saying “I will blog the answer at noon” (which of course serves to drive more clicks to his own site but not to McGee’s), he could easily have linked directly to McGee’s twitter account and said “SPOILER WARNING! Don’t read the comments until you’re ready to get clues.” Spoiler problem solved, attribution problem solved.
John Morales@29–
As per my post above, you’re using a very narrow definition of palgiarism. In academia, failing to give adequate acknowledgement is still plagiarism even if you’re not claiming to be the original source.
“palgiarism”…whoops
chrislawson, no worries. And I myself missed the attribution to you when I quoted, no better than your typo.
Anyway, I don’t think I’m using a “narrow” definition; I prefer get to the nub of the matter. The omphalos.
<
blockquote>Saying “an online friend showed me this” is not sufficient attribution, and neither is “I will reveal the attribution in the near future.”</blockquot
Is it not plain to you — and should it not be to any reasonable person — that is a rather obvious acknowledgement that someone else did what was shown to him?
(Or: insufficient attribution is not the same as no attribution, and most certainly (and saliently) not the same as false attribution)
@John Morales:
Setting aside the exact nature of “plagiarism” for the moment, do you agree that it would be wrong of the NY Times to publish the puzzle on their puzzle page together with a blurb that on the next day the attribution would be published next to the answer?
@John Morales (and others, though John is likely the only one that will actually listen):
If Coyne were to write a paper and leave out an attribution, knowing full well what the attribution was, and say he was going to include it in the next draft of his paper, any normal journal would reject it out of hand as containing plagiarism. That is pure, bald-faced plagiarism. You may personally feel it’s fine that he promised attribution later, but I, and many other people, are not fine with it. If it was in a venue where he could be found legally liable for not including the attribution, literally any court would find him guilty.
These kind of “find it” pictures are common in children’s magazines. Would you be ok with someone taking a “find it” from a children’s magazine, post it on their blog, and say “I found this somewhere, but I’m not telling you til later.” instead of specifically stating it came from (for example) Highlights magazine? Would the courts find any issue with it, either here in the USA, or any other first-world country? You bet your ass they would think think that person is a dumbass.
Crip Dyke,
No.
—
methuseus,
You’re entitled to your own opinion. I think my position is pretty clear, and it ain’t congruent with yours.
Really?
Well, then we seriously differ on this point.
Michael @19
That doesn’t hold up. The original tweet (obviously) doesn’t show the answer. He could have embedded it, just like PZ did above. Sure, if they click through and scroll down they’ll see the answer – but they’ll also see it if they scroll down to the comments on his own blog, as soon as someone answers.
Can we just remember that none of us are perfect: Prof PZ himself often uses unattributed images to headline his blog posts. No difference whatseover. Someone has taken the time and energy to make those images and then paid server money to host them somewhere
As somebody who creates a lot of visual content, I’d be livid if I found that somebody just took my work for their own benefit.
People probably don’t realise what it takes to get such images. Apart from often several thousand dollars/Euros in equipment, it takes a fucking lot of time.
So, yeah, taking it without asking or linking is theft. And saying that adding the credits later makes it dope when obviously the owner of the image isn’t ok with what he did is just dishonest.
inzvanity@42–
First of all, I haven’t noticed a surfeit of unattributed photos on Pharyngula. For instance, PZ attributes the Goofus and Gallant image in the very first paragraph (not to mention the image itself contains attribution). I went back through the last ten days of PZ’s posts and almost every image and video was attributed and/or linked directly to its source. I found two small unattributed images (an Aquaman and a Spiderman meme pic) and one possibly unattributed (the U Kentucky plaque) out of 23 front-of-blog images.
Secondly, there is the principle of fair use. It is permissible to use fair amounts of other people’s work. For more information on this very important copyright principle, you can check out Fair Use on the Stanford U Library website.
Thirdly there is the issue of de minimis. From the site mentioned above:
PZ’s images weren’t blurry or obscured, but they were scaled down to the point where nobody is going to confuse them with the originals.
Fourth, some people even create work and put it on the internet with a non-attribution license. You can find out more about this at Creative Commons.
Fifth, Coyne would not have been criticised at all if he had posted that exact same image from McGee and linked to her twitter feed in the first place. That would not only have fallen under fair use, it’s likely McGee would have appreciated the uptick in traffic! Just to remind you, Coyne not only failed to link to the source, he deliberately withheld the source until after he had maximised his own traffic by running McGee’s game using McGee’s image on his blog. And the sad thing is, even then Coyne could have responded with a prompt apology and an editing of his post to give proper attribution and a link and he would have avoided a large chunk of the criticism (see the “fifth” factor on fair use in the link above).
chrislawson: with a trivial amount of effort, please have these…
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/12/17/the-movie-this-week-was-spider-man-into-the-spiderverse/
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/12/18/spiders-in-space/
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/12/18/oh-no-the-libs-castrated-the-cookies/
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/12/25/for-everyone-whos-getting-ready-for-xmas-dinner-today/
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/12/16/we-can-all-stop-worrying-about-climate-change-now/
First reference by inzvanity contains an imdb link which contains citation attributes. Are your other links also that self-serving, and inaccurate? You appear to be nothing but a troll out to complain about PZ.
Nerd, congratulations on strengthening my argument.
Let’s assume you are correct in that the imdb link “contains citation attributes” as you said. That would mean that Prof PZ did not provide his own direct attribution, but rather forced his readers to click on an external link if they wanted to see the attribution. What is the difference between this, and the story which forms the OP?
Whataboutery noted.
Meh, whatever, Call it “whataboutery” if it assuages that nagging feeling of hypocrisy. You could just have had the balls to admit that perhaps life is not black and white.
Let us assume I’m 10,000 times worse about this — that my entire blogging career consists of stealing copyrighted material & posting it under my name.
How would that justify what Coyne did?
While you’re struggling to answer that, why did you feel the need to change the topic from the specific case in the OP to your weak attempt to distract with an “everybody does it” kind of argument?
Sorry troll, please show me how YOU EXPECT PZ properly cite the vid by doing so. It’s easy to criticize, but what would you do if you had honesty an integrity? Since I don’t think you have either, I expect crickets chiring.
The Birth of Venus needs a citation?
Sorry Nerd, please English if can would prefer speak but IF CAN’T THEN fine. If you would criticize, but then WHAT WOULD WE EH? Point proofed an since not, then chiring.
sorry
Sandro Botticelli
a dead Italian who painted pictures.
@inzvanity:
Look, I’m sympathetic to your argument. I tend to think that what Coyne did with appropriating the puzzle was a mild sin, and that it was his refusal to apologize and insist that others apologize to him that crossed the line from “wrong, but meh” to “wrong enough to bother criticizing”.*1
HOWEVER, for Freud’s sake, you’re claiming that the picture from “Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse” is uncredited when the title of the damn post is “The Movie This Week Was Spider-Man Into The Spiderverse”? Please. No reasonable person would take that pic to be anything but a promo from the movie being discussed. Nothing is being stolen. The copyright holder is getting free promotion. This is entirely unlike what Coyne did.
Entirely. Unlike.
*1: Although I don’t know if he monitizes his traffic in any way. If he does, and if that monetization does anything more than simply pay for his server space, then that might also carry it over the line. Since I’m not aware that’s the case, though, it’s only the behavior when called on it that does it for me.
OK, last comment from me on this since I don’t believe you’re interested in arguing in good faith.
Of the examples you provided, 3 of the 5 are attributed, in one case within the image itself — the exceptions are the gingerbread man photo and the Botticelli Venus.
You did not address any of the other arguments on fair use, de minimis, and non-attribution licenses that would show that the two unattributed images would be considered fair use rather than plagiarism. Especially the Botticelli. You really need to read up on fair use and academic standards before leaping into false equivalences the size of the Valles Marineris — sure you can enjoy the fall for a long time (72s) but you’re still going to hit with a splat (994 km/h)*.
Finally, you ignored my point that Jerry Coyne’s problem was not just putting up an image without attribution. He posted the image PLUS the game rules McGee invented and WITHHELD attribution in a way that would DRIVE UP TRAFFIC on his own site without referring any of that traffic to McGee’s twitter until he had milked the game for clicks. I don’t know if that was his intention, but it’s certainly the outcome and he should have known better.
*ignoring air resistance
it is the sum of all of this PLUS the refusal to graciously apologize and to act the aggrieved party.
All he would have to do to keep his actions in the realm of “not good, but I wouldn’t bother crossing the street to tell him so” would have been to say, “Well, the copyright holder apparently didn’t appreciate the way I handled this, so I apologize and you should all – as I fully intended at the beginning – visit the creator of this fun game at her blog/twitter, whose address I now provide.”
This is different than merely using a screencap from someone that’s been passed around on twitter without tracking down the original source. It’s different from using an image of the Botticelli that’s been in the public domain for literally centuries. It’s different by at least 20,000 leagues from using a still frame from a movie in discussing that movie when using the movie’s name.
Next someone is going to tell me I’m on the highway to hell because I used the phrase “20,000 leagues” without crediting Verne, fFs.
*this:
should have been
or somesuch to make clear that Coyne was actually acting that way, not refusing to act that way as my careless grammar might have implied.
@CD #57:
Mainly quoting for emphasis.
Exactly. If Coyne had graciously apologized and fixed things without acting aggrieved, it would still have been shitty, and he really should have known better (especially being an academic), but it would have been a literal non-story. PZ may have reported it as an example of something shitty that was handled correctly, but there would have been very few comments on the post in that case, and that would have been fine.
I think the only proper judge of what is plagiarism would be the original author who did complain to Coyne.
When someone complains to PZ that he is plagiarizing their work, then maybe we could talk about it. Otherwise it’s just pure what about ism, a rhetorical device almost always prefaced with a lie.
As in What about Obama…..?????
Speaking of attributions: pls note the 1st pic in the OP credits one Garry Cleveland Myers as author (but not illustrator) of the G & G concept, at least in that one instance.
That first link (to the WikiPffft) notes “the Myerses founded Highlights for Children” – 6 years (and one World War) after launching the Goofus and Gallant saga in an earlier publication. By giving a start date but not an end date, it implies the lads continue their contrapuntal adventures even today.
As a test against his recent whiny ass cultural appropriation thread I don’t even get “awaiting moderation” anymore. Totally banned? Win-win. Good riddance. Matt Cavanaugh still going strong though. Priorities.
Coyne is a speech despising snowflake and officially off my blog roll. Echo chamber of yes men he prefers. Bye bye jackass.