Repeat after me, Anne Meadows, Daniel Buck, and Bob Boze Bell

[Daniel Buck]

In reference to the August 2012 issue:

Attention: Letters to the Editor,

"High Doom in the Andes" first ran in the November-December 2012 issue, bylined "Anne Meadows, Daniel Buck, and Bob Boze Bell."  Anne and I wrote the article and Bob was the editor.  For reasons that remain opaque, it was republished in a subsequent  issue, but with Bell as the sole author.  Anne and I had vanished.  We complained, and a correction appeared in a following issue.  Now here it is again with yet a different byline, "Bob Boze Bell and Daniel Buck."  Anne has vanished. 

Repeat after me, "'High Doom in the Andes,' by Anne Meadows, Daniel Buck, and Bob Boze Bell."

Daniel Buck

[Daniel Buck]

Correcton, make that "November-December 2002 issue."

Dan

[Murray A. Gewirtz]

You're lucky they don't name the authors, "Bell, Buck and Candle."

[anthony martin]

  Sounds like someone passed the Buck and went right past the Meadows!

[Bob Boze Bell]

Yes, this is my mistake. And we will print a correction in the next issue.

[Daniel Buck]

Meghan,
Just so you are in the loop, here is what's on the table, the apology letter (in bold below) below.  My email to Bob is in reply to his comment posted over the weekend on the True West blog:  "Yes, this was my mistake.  And we will print a correction next issue."  That was posted after I told him a "correction" was insufficient.  Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: djbuckdc a href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]>
To: bozebell a href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]>
Cc: annehmeadows a href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]>
Sent: Sun, Jun 24, 2012 6:50 pm
Subject: apology letter

Bob,
I'm afraid that publishing a "correction," as you euphemistically put it, in the next issue does not even begin to deal with the matter.  This is not something along the lines of a typographical error, it's plagiarism and more, and you are now a repeat offender.

Here is the apology I would like you to issue.  It covers all the bases -- plagiarism, copyright infringement, misleading the readers, and failure to pay honorarium.  Let me hear from you.

Dan

=========================================
I would like to apologize personally and on behalf of True West to Anne Meadows and Daniel Buck for my having removed their names from the authors' byline and substituting my name for theirs  in the republication of "Classic Gunfights: High Doom in the Andes" in the November-December 2008 and August 2012 issues of True West.   I also sincerely apologize to the readers of True West.   As well, I and True West relinquish any and all rights in the aforementioned article, first published in the November-December 2002 True West.

True West agrees to pay Anne Meadows and Daniel Buck $500 for each of the two republications, for a total of $1,000.  A copy of this letter will be published prominently on the table of contents page of the next issue of the True West and prominently on the "Bob Boze Bell Blog" of the True West website,  http://www.truewestmagazine.com.

Sincerely,

Bob Boze Bell
Executive Editor
=========================================

[Daniel Buck]

Bob,
Let's take the issues one at a time, since you seem to think none of them are relevant.

1.  Plagiarism can get tricky sometimes, but this case is fairly simple.  Plagiarism:  To steal, appropriate, or use the ideas or writings of another as one's own.  You can look it up in any dictionary.  Basically, that's it.  College kids get suspended or expelled for it; journalists get fired.  If you have a different definition of plagiarism, please share it.  

So, here's the history:
2002:  Anne Meadows, Daniel Buck, and Bob Boze Bell publish "High Doom in the Andes" in True West.
2008:  Bob Boze Bell recycles "High Doom in the Andes" in TW as his own article with his sole byline.  He disappeared the other two writers and held himself out as the sole author.  That's plagiarism.
2012:  Bob Boze Bell recycles "High Doom in the Andes" in TW with himself as primary author, eliminated the primary author Anne Meadows, and retained the second listed author, me (unbeknownst to me, I might add).  A bit weird in the annals of appropriating another's writing as one's own, not to mention clumsy, but still plagiarism.

Intent, by the way, is not a pivotal factor, so excuses like "I was busy," "the dog was barking," don't really work.  In the 2008 case, your excuse was:  "I was so emersed [sic] in Mickey Free World it slipped by me."  I never really understood that.  How do two authors, the two chief authors, vanish from a byline?  That takes an overt act on your part.  In the 2012 case it was, "I was leaving on a two week road trip and should have cleared this with you before I left."  Cleared what?  Taking my wife's name off the article and installing you as the chief author?  You jest.  (Anyway, as you well know, your contribution to the 2002 original was a light edit.)

2.  Copyright infringement.  Plagiarism and a copyright violation are not necessarily the same thing.  If you plagiarize something that's out of copyright, it's plagiarism, but there's no copyright violation.  E.g., if you were to republish Don Quijote as a novel by Bob Boze Bell, that would be plagiarism, but Cervantes's heirs would not have a copyright violation case against you.  However, if you plagiarize a copyrighted writing, then there's a copyright violation. The 2008 and 2012 cases both involved plagiarizing a copyrighted writing, though it's complicated because the 2002 original had a triple byline.  Bottom line though, you cannot steal the copyright of your fellow writers, which by taking their names off, you did.  You might be able to find a lawyer who would argue differently; two lawyers, two arguments, three, etc., that's what lawyers are paid to do.  I'm trying to keep this simple.. 

3.  Misleading the readers.  Do I have to explain that?  See 1. above.

4. Honoraria.  In neither the 2008 nor the 2012 cases did TW offer to pay the disappeared authors for the recycling of the articles.   If you have a different definition of "failure to pay honorarium," I'm all ears.  In any event, none was offered until after we protested, and the honorarium now offered is $100 per article, one of which was a cover story.  Times must be tough at TW, $100 for a cover story?   

How did Anne Meadows and I arrive at $500 per article?  In a just world there should be a penalty for plagiarism.

Dan
=============================================
-

From: bozebell a href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]>
To: djbuckdc a href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]>
Cc: ken a href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]>; meghan a href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]>; carole a href="mailto:[e-mail]">[e-mail]>
Sent: Mon, Jun 25, 2012 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: apology letter

Dan,
   Unfortunately we have come to a impasse. We disagree on the definition of "plagiarism, copyright infringement, misleading the readers, and failure to pay honorarium." In an effort to resolve this situation I am willing to give Ann Meadows a correction-credit in the table of contents of the next issue plus a fee of $100 each. I'm sorry that this caused you anguish and I hope this puts the issue behind us.

BBB

[Daniel Buck]

28 June 2012

Bob,
I don't want you to think I forgot the other of your assertions.  Problem is, I'm having trouble understanding what you are talking about.  I don't think we ever said that you had plagiarized from Anne Meadows's book, Digging Up Butch and Sundance.  (If you are feeling uneasy about something, now is the time to tell me.)  The creative work in question is "High Doom in the Andes," first published in True West November-December 2002, republished in TW in 2008 and 2012.

In yesterday's email you say:  "but the fact remains I wrote every single word in my voice and my style."  Hmm, I don't think so.   In an 29 October 2008 email to me, after I had protested your eliminating Meadows and my name from the byline (a form of plagiarism called "misrepresentation of authorship") of "High Doom," you acknowledged that you had little to do with writing of the article:  "I always rewrite the Classic Gunfights copy to reflect my voice.  I do remember on this one there was very little room to rewrite because you and Anne had nailed it."  

That same week you emailed me a regret of sorts:  "Sorry about that.  I was so emersed [sic] in Mickey Free World it slipped by me."  I'm not quite sure how eliminating authors' names slips by.  Seems to me it requires an act. 

Take another look at the apology letter, por favor. 

Dan

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Thu, Jun 28, 2012 5:12 am
Subject: Re: apology letter

Bob Boze Bell
Executive Editor
True West
Cave Creek, AZ 85327

Bob,
Plugging a book entitles you and True West to plagiarize?  Stripping authors' names from the byline of an article they wrote is not plagiarism, is not misrepresentation of authorship?  A several-hundred word article, a creative work, that quotes four words from a report thereby loses copyright protection and entitles you and True West to do with it what you wish?  This is daft.

As I understand it you are a veteran journalist with many years experience in newspaper and magazine work, yet you do not have even an elementary understanding of plagiarism, misrepresentation of authorship, or copyright law.

Please take another look at the letter of apology I sent you on 24 June, and see if you can bring yourself to sign it. 
Dan

 

-----Original Message-----

Sent: Wed, Jun 27, 2012 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: apology letter

Dan,
You and Ann collaborated with me to produce a great Classic Gunfight on the last fight of Butch & Sundance.
 
Is my copy close to the narrative in your book? Yes, of course it is. I would hope so, because a factual narrative would have to be, but the fact remains I wrote every single word in my voice and my style. Still, you are credited with a byline in the current issue.
 
And, it says right up front "Based on the research of Dan Buck and Ann Meadows," and we plugged your book. This is not plagiarism.

 As for copyright issues, you cannot copyright facts. That two heavily armed "Americanos on jaded mules" rode into San Vicente is not owned by you. It is part of the record.
 
   Here's what I'm willing to do: print a correction in the next issue that Ann's name was left out. Pay you $25 each for the use of your two photos and pay you each $100 for a total of $250. That is the fair and equitable thing to do.

BBB

[Marcus Huff]

[Daniel Buck]

Marcus,

I want what he's having.  Dan