Plagiarism in The Evil Within - Trevor Marriott (moved discussion)

[Monty]

Marks character is being attacked predominantly by Trevor, and this is understandable considering it is he who was exposed, its a defence mechanism of his and I think we all (including Mark) recognise that.

Couple that with Trevor's track record of acting this way then we have a predictable response.

I call people as I find them. I have no issue with Mark and find him articulate, funny at times, intelligent and very honest. He has been very supportive to me and he has berated me also for my behaviour. And rightly so as I have been a tit.

Mark is honest. And I cannot think of one person who I know, and who knows Mark, who'd say Mark is any of the things Trevor and others call him.

Yes, those whose work has been used now have a choice to make. It is up to them how to proceed with the matter, and Trevor to decided ho he deals with his side. No one else's in my opinion.

However, I shall decide on if I will part with my cash on any future work by Mr Marriott.....as it has always been.

Monty

[Ally]

This is true. I am referring to a small group and so should not generalize. That is bad on my part and I recognize that. But I find it galling that Mark's character is being attacked, and somehow there is an implication that this was not an investigation worth doing, especially by someone who has in the past pitched a fit over someone else finding the same article from 100 years ago and publishing it when they thought they had priority.

If people have nothing to say that is fine. Sometimes silence is the best option. I just am appalled that anyone would think to question Mark's integrity over this, or contend that it's not a big deal. I imagine, to the people who didn't receive Marriott's advance, but did a large part of the work, it is a very big deal indeed.

[Monty]

I do not see how it is being 'shrugged off' Ally,

Marks piece is pretty clear, and he has laid it out for all to decide. So what is expected now?

Monty

[Ally]

I am saying simply that Ripperologists as a group are fanatical about protecting their OWN copyright or claim but seem to be shrugging off the breach of other peoples. That was all that paragraph was intended to do.

[Phil H]

...who will split a photo down the middle to keep others from copying their work

Given the risks of plagiarism... which is what you are discussing - surely that is a good idea?

Philip Hutchinson did it with the 1909 picture of Dutfields Yard in his book and I thought it an excellent idea. Had he not done so, I am sure his copyright would have been breached by now - and he had put a lot of effort into obtaining and verifying that photo.

Maybe I am missing your point.

Phil

[Ally]

Apparently Phil, it is as easy as that. Apparently professional integrity, intellectual property and standards have no place in Ripperology.

This is the same group of folks who will split a photo down the middle to keep others from copying their work, horde their knowledge and pitch a fit whenever there is even the suggestion that someone didn't properly credit or attribute their work, pitch a fit because someone found and posted the same article from 1888 they'd been hanging on to for three years without publishing, but if it's someone else's work being blatantly misused, it's just a case of "using too many secondary sources".

Dumbfounded.

P.S I am not saying all Ripperologists are of that sort, I am just absolutely dumbfounded that anyone, ANYONE, much less someone involved in researching and publishing would ever shrug off intellectual property theft.

[Phil H]

Alas, Trevor, I doubt whether it is as easy as that.

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

I stand by the point I made in my previous post, Trevor - answer the allegations point by point.

Go for the ball, not the man.

I think the article would have stood and been as strong without the piece about your talk, but it was not irrelevant - far from it. Read it again and try to see the point being made. Everyone seems to be culpable but you?

I fully support the points being made by Ally and Don which I could not have expressed better.

Phil

Phil

I have set out and given my explanation's etc. Those were given to Mark Ripper when he contacted me. I can add no more on here or anywhere else for that matter.

In the past 24 hours I have answered all that has been put before me I have nothing further to say on the topic. I do not intend to be subjected to a public inquisition by those who would seek to discredit me like Mark Ripper has done.

As far as I am concerned the matter is closed.

[Phil H]

I stand by the point I made in my previous post, Trevor - answer the allegations point by point.

Go for the ball, not the man.

I think the article would have stood and been as strong without the piece about your talk, but it was not irrelevant - far from it. Read it again and try to see the point being made. Everyone seems to be culpable but you?

I fully support the points being made by Ally and Don which I could not have expressed better.

Phil

[Supe]

Trev,

Like I said maybe I was naïeve with regards to copyright issues way back in 2008.

You confuse the issue by harping on the copyright business and how you didn't understand the law (and, as a former policeman, you do know ignorance of the law is no excuse). By taking large pieces of prose from other writers and using it verbatim -- without attribution or compensation -- you committed plagiarism and that is clearly unethical behavior that is inexcusable. And the fact that you did not put the stolen words in quotation marks indicates that you did wish to pass them off as your own.

For shame!

Don.

[Ally]

I realize this is to Phil, but I felt compelled to respond anyway.

The actions of Mark Ripper and the lengths he has gone to clearly show an agenda. That being to discredit me. After all the book had been out since 2008.

The book was re-published in 2013. Which means it's subject to review just like any book published. I imagine he did have an agenda. It's called book review and investigative journalism.

By his own admissions he sits in a theatre hastily writing down everything I say during my 2 hour talk and uses it in the article. What has my talk got to do with the book issue? He passes adverse comments and criticisms about almost every part of the talk. But that is to be expected from one who want to prop up the old outdated theories and that doesn't bother me now.

You seem to be under a misapprehension that what you do or say has no bearing on anything. You are putting yourself out there as a researcher and publishing in the field of non-fiction. That means you need credibility and integrity that is not required of a fiction writer. Your work stands or falls on your own credibility. It is not outside the bounds to investigate the man, otherwise, you wouldn't be trying so hard to discredit Mark. I mean, why would you be trying so hard to paint him as a person with an agenda if you didn't thoroughly recognize that a person's integrity and credibility were central to how well their work is received.

You seem to understand that in regard to others but fail to see how it applies to you.

So why 5 years later does he go on a mission which took months and no doubt he spent a lot of his own money. No one does that as a exercise without a motive and an objective. Certainly not just to prove someone used someone elses words in a book.

Yes indeed, because plagiarism isn't a serious issue in academia. You attempt to minimize it with statements like "used someone elses words in a book". That's called plagiarism. It's a serious charge and a serious offense in the world of academia. It's actionable. It's not some reduced little thing of no consequence. People have lost their jobs and their entire careers for less "borrowing" than has been demonstrated in one chapter of your book. It's not a little thing to people who take research and academia seriously. It's not a little thing to the people who didn't get paid a book advance for their work which you used.

The man is sad he needs to take a look at himself and his life and I will tell him so face to face if we ever meet.

Mark is a gentleman and a scholar. Tearing him down to discredit him is not the way to go on this. Attempting to paint him as a member of some cabal is not the way to go on this. There are many, many people I would say you had a fair beef about if they had been the ones to write this. There are many people I would say, well yes, they DID have an agenda (though that's still irrelevant as I have said before, what matters is did they find anything verifiable). Mark is not one of those people. Do I think there are people all over dancing a jig and doing a "Let's buy him a beer" routine? Absolutely.

Is that at all relevant to what's being discussed? No.

[The Good Michael]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;264383]

So all the original writers have done in my view is gathered all of that together and added their own words to it to make up their articles so in effect it could be argued that all they have done is taken someone else material and used it in their articles. Because I doubt many would have been directly involved in the cases.

Professionals take information and formulate new theses. They quote other sources to support their theses and by doing so, show the reader that these sources are valuable to the writer as pioneers and as supporting evidence. This is how non-fictional writing works. It's academic and it's respectful, and it's the understood method.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Rather than attacking Mark, Trevor - I would like to see your response, in detail, to his case which is argued point by point.

It does not matter to me what Mark's motives might be - though as a published author, and one until recently promising a new book, you are (as any author is) open to "audit" of your methods.

As it stands you have been found grievously wanting in that department and what is now required - if you put any store by your reputation - is your explanation point by point.

Attacking your critics will gain you nothing, but could suggest that their case is a valid one to which you have no response other than a personal one.

I am by the way, pleased to see you here to respond to what might be said.

Phil

Hi Phil
Its not about attacking my critics its defending my actions and putting them in the correct perspective. But his actions motives and his obsession certainly need attacking.

At no time have I said or written that the book was all my own work. I readily acknowledged the other writers. In high insight maybe I should have linked them to the articles but that was in 2008 and I was naïve to copyrighting etc.

The actions of Mark Ripper and the lengths he has gone to clearly show an agenda. That being to discredit me. After all the book had been out since 2008.

By his own admissions he sits in a theatre hastily writing down everything I say during my 2 hour talk and uses it in the article. What has my talk got to do with the book issue? He passes adverse comments and criticisms about almost every part of the talk. But that is to be expected from one who want to prop up the old outdated theories and that doesn't bother me now.

So why 5 years later does he go on a mission which took months and no doubt he spent a lot of his own money. No one does that as a exercise without a motive and an objective. Certainly not just to prove someone used someone elses words in a book.

The man is sad he needs to take a look at himself and his life and I will tell him so face to face if we ever meet.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Ally;264378]

Because you republished it in 2013 and presumably accepted an advance of money for it?



Trevor, darling, here's the deal. It absolutely does not matter if every one on the planet is seeking to discredit you. What matters is how you conduct yourself. This book is copyright infringement. Period. It was not incumbent on a copy editor to find copyright violations. They check spelling and grammar and probably very little else. It was not incumbent on your publisher to catch your copyright violations. I assume they presume people write the works they submit. (Well yes it was incumbent on them, but it was not wholly their responsibility). It was incumbent upon you, to present this work accurately, including who the actual authors were.

You have not apologized to any of the authors whose work you appropriated and accepted money for. They worked hard researching and writing their pieces. They deserve the credit and the financial reward for their work.

As far as I am concerned and was concerned the acknowledgment at the front of the book clearly allows for any writer who feels that their copyright has been infringed were invited to contact the publisher. In the first book that referred to contacting me direct.

I think this whole issue is being blown up out of all proportion after all the whole book is not copied.

As to the book itself it is a compilation of known serial killers whose crimes are widely known and recorded for all to see quite openly on the web. The material content from the writers articles must have come from official police files newspaper and television reports.

So all the original writers have done in my view is gathered all of that together and added their own words to it to make up their articles so in effect it could be argued that all they have done is taken someone else material and used it in their articles. Because I doubt many would have been directly involved in the cases.

Lets face it there are only so many ways you can write "A lured B to country lane and shot him three times through the head"etc etc.

Like I said maybe I was naïeve with regards to copyright issues way back in 2008.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Phil H;264374]

I too think Mark did a superb job of demonstrating the point he makes. The position is made so clear that his case cannot be refuted without seeking to denigrate the man rather than the argument. It is an excellent article, every bit as important as the one that revealed the reality behind "Uncle Jack". Mark should ignore the negative responses and i am sure he will.

Yep. He's got more class in his little finger than I possess in my entire body.

But Trevor is not here to respond to or counter any posts here. So I will say very little.

Phil

So it is clear, Trevor was allowed back to the site last week after speaking briefly with myself and after I ran it by Stephen Ryder. This was prior to the article coming out and prior to any allegations made. I would not have made any comments had I not known that he was able to freely respond should he choose to do so.