[Am keeping a revised version of this post up for the sake of coherency and out of respect for the people who commented on it. Apologies if it doesn’t make a great deal of sense, but then it doesn’t really have to any more. The issue in question has been amicably resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned!]
Okay, going to keep this brief. (It’s ironic that this should happen only a couple of days after I was taking a few minor pops at Stef Coburn for issuing nuisance writs over copyright issues, but that’s life.)
Hey ho. Look, basically I’m going to present for your reading illumination two reviews of the 1970 Doctor Who story Spearhead from Space. One of them was written in 2001, the other much more recently. I am certain the writer of the more recent piece was aware of the existence of the earlier one and read it at least twice prior to writing their own review.
Basically, the question is: is it a no-brainer that the second piece clearly owes a debt to the first in terms of approach to the subject matter?
Without further ado, from 2001:
[My review of Spearhead from Space, hosted on the Doctor Who Ratings Guide, woz ‘ere. Check out the DWRG if you want to read it, it’s terribly good. The DWRG, I mean – well, I think the review’s very good, too…]
Okay, and now from much more recently:
[Robert Smith?’s review of Spearhead from Space, from Who’s 50 (Burk and Smith?, ECW), woz ‘ere. Buy the book if you want to see it (although it was inspired by mine, as all concerned would happily acknowledge). The book itself is an interesting read – although what Nonsense of the Daleks is doing in there, I’ve no idea…]
I am going to remain vague as to the origins of these two pieces and my own particular stake in this matter, but if you’ve taken the time to read this far I would really appreciate your thoughts in the matter, whoever you are and whatever they are. I promise to elucidate more at a future point when I have decided what, if anything, to do.
Update: basically, I was going to be credited in the acknowledgements section of the book, but due to the exigencies of the production process this bit accidentally got left out. From what I know of publishing I can readily believe it. Nothing dubious was intended, this was simply a cock-up. Robert has apologised and I’m happy to get back to enjoying the anniversary celebrations…
You are not going to name and shame?
I must admit once, I or twice I have found myself borrow the odd turn of phrase from another review.
I will eventually. I think this amounts to a bit more than the odd turn of phrase – even if it was only the same central idea, I wouldn’t be so exercised. But it’s the same idea realised via the same conceit.
You do agree that there is a striking similarity?
Definitely
I couldn’t resist consulting Google. It yielded no clues. Is this is from a published book?
Yes. The other piece was published on a website maintained by the writer of the book some time earlier.
I know the website for the first, so I can guess which book the second is from!
Andy, the question is are you pissed off enough to make this legal? If not (and can you afford it?), you’ll have to confine yourself to knowing your version was better written and more elaborate in its use of the central conceit. The worse thing is I’ve read an academic defence of this kind of plagiarism. I think it stinks. It’s the kind of thing Private Eye delights in uncovering in newspaper articles. Strangely I find myself more forgiving of hacks. Also, you might find he’s put enough distance between between his version and yours (perhaps that’s why it seems clumsy in places) to make any legal challenge problematic. It’s your call.
Legal action never seriously crossed my mind – I didn’t write the original review in expectation of ever being paid for it – not least because two Doctor Who fans taking each other to court would be such an unedifying spectacle and bring fandom into disrepute.
In any case I’ve heard from the other writer, who’s acknowledged that his work is based on my original idea and apologised effusively for my credit falling out of the back of the book (so to speak) – I’m well prepared to believe that these things happen in publishing. No beastliness aforethought, so no casus belli.