Plagiarism and ‘Appropriation’ are the Same Thing

Randy Kennedy’s recent article about Helen Hegemann describes her “free appropriation” of a fellow writer’s work. Kennedy points out that she describes her taking her colleague’s work not as plagiarism, but rather a “remix” entitled to her as nothing in and of itself is original, but rather authentic. I do not buy the explanation that having been born in a media saturated society, that it is her birthright to “remix” the works of others without some form of acknowledgement. If someone’s work is taken in any shape or form, some form of acknowledgement is required, otherwise it is simply plagiarism.
A recent case resembling the one above can be seen in Nick Simmon’s comic book Incarnate. The art in Simmons’ book panel for panel in most cases drew upon identical imagery seen in a popular manga called Bleach. Simmons cited having been “inspired by work [he admires]” and that his work was simply meant as homage to artists he respects.
Looking at the page above, this is but a small sample of the indicated series of “homages” throughout Simmons’ work. Plagiarism Writer Jonathan Baily writes that if this were a homage that “the similarities were too widespread and that there was no indication of such”. If inspiration or tribute were intended, the intended effect, then there was no obvious indicator of such as an artistic citation.
As Baily points out, there are ways to convey homage or tribute. The medium of comics in particular is rife with homage. An example of this can be seen in covers imitating iconic imagery, be it a famous panel, or even another comic cover. Homage or tribute can also be conveyed through parody. However, Simmons’ use of the images had no indication of homage at all. Rather the images were shamelessly taken out for use in his own book, without any sort of acknowledgement to Bleach. As shown in the above image, the transposition of both images together shows a direct taking of the original image for use, but in no way showcases any sort of homage.
Returning to the Hegemann case, the idea of the “birthright to remix” is simply preposterous. While there is a truth to her statement that there is nothing original but rather authenticity, there is a difference between outright taking someone else’s words and making one’s own take or interpretation on a subject. In Hegemann’s case, she outright had “blended large chunks of [her collegue’s] work into her own.” This similar to the case of Simmon’s fails to highlight an example of authenticity. How is it authentic to the author if it wholesale takes out the work of someone else? It fails to show what that author is truly capable of, and therefore is a weaker work for it.
The idea of “communal creativity” as Kennedy puts it in his article, can only ring true if those involved in the creative commune are okay with using one another’s ideas. Even then, there is a contractual obligation that is made, similar in case to any author of a work citing another. Any idea that the appropriation and blending of another person’s work as authentic in Hegemann’s words should be seen simply as a euphemism for plagiarism.




Works Cited
1) Baily, Jonathan."The Nick Simmons Plagiarism Scandal | PlagiarismToday." Plagiarism Today - Copyright, Content Theft and Plagiarism. 4 Mar. 2010. Web. 20 Mar. 2010. .
2) Eve, Empress. "Nick Simmons Accused Of Plagiarism For Incarnate Comic; Publication Halted." Geeks of Doom. 25 Feb. 2010. Web. 20 Mar. 2010. .
3) Kennedy, Randy. "The Free-Appropriation Writer - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 26 Feb. 2010. Web. 20 Mar. 2010. .