Previously we were looking at Position 1 in the Times Little Book Of Chess Plagiarism.
Let's have a little look at Position 2.
You think Ray might have stolen those notes from somewhere else?
Yup.
Pages 222-224, specifically.
Here's the first note
and the original, complete with Botvinnik attribution that Ray omits to give.
W30.bmp)
Here's the second
and its, ah, inspiration.
B34.bmp)
Anyone for three-in-a-row?
B37.bmp)
It's four!
W44.bmp)
Seen this one before?
Of course. Twice before, strictly speaking, since Ray plagiarised this set of notes in the Times on 20 August 2011 and 6 June 2013, the second of this one of his ten-in-a-row run.
And now a third time.
But it's copyright Ray, yeah?
No it isn't. It's plagiarism and copyright theft.
Think there's more?
Course there's more.
[Thanks to Angus French and Pablo Byrne]
[Ray Keene plagiarism index]
[Plagiarised by Ray Keene index]
[Ray copies Ray index]
[Ray Keene index]
27 comments:
Best wishes on your continuing quest to make someone - anyone - care about this blatant and extensive plagiarism and actually do something about it.
Did you know there's another new book by the blog's favourite author?
American details at
http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871877515
RdC
Indeed. I am mildly curious as to what might appear in the notes to the "representative games by each of the 19 prior holders of the world title", though reluctant to shell out to find out for myself.
19?! Pitching for the Bulgarian market?
I'm guessing we'll start at Staunton.
Er... If the four not-already-counted FIDE World Champions from 1993-2005 are included then I make it 19 prior holders. If, instead, Staunton, Anderssen and Morphy are added then I think that's 18... Source: Wikipedia.
I often say I accept this is ejh's blog to express his own opinions...
But I find it hard to believe The Times are not now aware of the accusation of plagiarism. The risk of legal action is a powerful motivating factor for corporations. So I find the publication of this book strange, if there is not some agreement with Kasparov and/or Everyman.
RDK hinted on twitter he had permission, even if he was a bit vague. It is easy to speculate, but one probably shouldn't.
Certainly RDK plagarised in one case we know reached court. But isthis massive copying from My Great Predecessors is plagiarism? I really don't know.
Paul C
Enough Ray/Rook endings. Let's have some Xmas puzzles!
But is this massive copying from My Great Predecessors plagiarism?
I seem to remember doing this back in June some time, but to reiterate:
(a) Yes, obviously it is. Plagiarism is passing-off.
(b) It would be absurd to suggest that Ray has permission from other people to pass off their notes as his own. Why would anybody do this?
(c) If Ray had such permission, I think we'd know by now. And I think the Times would be saying so rather than hiding.
But again, (b) and (c) are strictly irrelevant. Of course this is plagiarism.
"Let's have some Xmas puzzles!"
I've written a series especially for you.
I look forward to the quiz too. Responding to ejh:
Plagiarism includes wrongdoing; I’d say that included breach of copyright in a case like this one. I suppose maybe you would consider it wrongdoing even if RDK did have permission, in which case we would not agree. His reuse of his own material does not bother me ethically.
I do not think why The Times is doing nothing is the key question. I could not have a lower opinion of the morality of News Corp, even if they were bang to rights on something, I’d expect them to try to brazen it out or keep any payment secret.
I think the key question is why Everyman are doing nothing. (assuming they are a wronged party here if it is plagiarism, I am no expert on copyright). I don’t think it is impossible that they or Kasparov’s team have some agreement with RDK. It might not be in either party’s interest to admit that, since this blog isn’t harming them as much as making the arrangement public might. An acknowledgement MGP material is available cheaper elsewhere might not be in the publishers interest, for example. There are other possibilities one could speculate about too. My point being, we do not know.
Incidentally, I guess this blog is comfortable it could defend itself if Everyman complained? I saw a comment recently that someone was enjoying reading the game notes here.
Paul C
"I don’t think it is impossible that they or Kasparov’s team have some agreement with RDK."
You might want to take a closer look at Mig's twitter feed then.
There are other possibilities one could speculate about too.
Well, one could, if one were interested in speculating on things for which there was precisely no evidence.
"Let's have some Xmas puzzles!"
I've written a series especially for you.
Goody goody.
Ah now I see. "Paul C" is an anagram of "S Giddins".
How very dare you!
I'm not a friend of rdk, just making the point the plagiarism is supposed, with reasonable evidence, rather than proven. At least in my opinion.
Paul C
Well, most rational people would say that plagiarism has most definitely been proved. The only thing that remains a puzzle is why no action has been taken. (And frankly any suggestion that RDK has permission from all those various sources is so unlikely as to be laughable.)
Of course he's a crook - caught red-handed. Banged to rights, as you say.
So, someone fire him and justice will be done.
It would be absurd to suggest that Ray has permission from other people to pass off their notes as his own. Why would anybody do this?
Why did Nigella Lawson allegedly allow the Grillos to spend as if they were members of the family?
I am essentially repeating myself here, something which I am disinclined to do again, but basically, if at any point Ray - or his publishers, editors or employers - wish to mount a defence of his conduct then I'll be pleased to comment on it. Until that happy, happy day there is nothing much useful to be said on a topic which does not exist.
Further comments which have anything original to add would be welcomed.
I didn't think the point about why the copyright holders are taking no action had been raised before. Apologies.
Clearly I don't agree with you, but respect this is you blog and will not comment again.
Paul C
[This comment accidetally deleted - apologies]
You don't always know who owns what, but is there any chance that the Times correspondent is a financial backer or part owner of Everyman?
This could possibly explain why he or his ghosts appear to have been given unchallenged access to their material. I presume the author could still issue a challenge, but if you wanted to retain a publisher, you might not.
Rdc
Rdc
I have no reason to think Ray has any financial stake in Everyman.
I thought it was fairly well known that RDK's collaborator/ghostwriter on the Times column is a certain individual high up in Everyman (meaning that it is fairly well known who his collaborator is, i hadn't realised he was high up in Everyman until somebody pointed it out to me). Why Everyman (as opposed to, say, Kasparov or the Times) take no action is therefore the relatively easy part to explain.
Well, we can speculate that, but it's not really an explanation unless and until such is shown to be the case.
Looking at my latest Everyman book GK on himself #2, The publisher is Gloucester Publishers Limited with the Copyright in the name of Garry Kasparov and (English translation) Ken Neat.
Everyman is used as a brand name and down the page it says that it is the registered trade mark of Random House Inc, used under license.
The "Everman Chess Series" has three well known titled players as Chief Advisor, Commissioning editor and Assistant editor.
RdC
The publisher is Gloucester Publishers Limited with the Copyright in the name of Garry Kasparov and (English translation) Ken Neat.
Like it says here for instance.
That's a curious thing about Everyman and Random House, though nothing to do with the present kerfuffle obviously.
Post a Comment