Some Comments on Plagiarism

 

Found the image on this page, the credits for the image are as follows "Paper Trident / iStock / Getty Images Plus"

Big news on YouTube (YT), drama has ocurred that has effected several channels that I've watched on occasion. The main actors are Hbomberguy (Hbomb), with an important follow-up video by Todd in the Shadows (Todd), the main topic is misinformation and plagiarism and the main target of the criticism is another YT I've watched headed by James Somerton, the channel has the same name as its owner. I haven't James's video because the channel has taken down every video. 

If you spend a lot of time on YT then chances are good you'll know the gist of this already, but if not I'll briefly explain. Todd has a channel on YouTube that reviews music, while James Somerton and Hbomberguy are what's called video essayists, which is just what it sounds like, essays in video format. 

Both videos are quite long Hbomb's is just under four hours, though James becomes the focus in the back half, the first part is a collection of other YT channels that muddy the information waters. I previously saw a rough draft of the first part some months ago, so I skipped that part in the finished video. They are both thorough and there isn't much in the way of padding, there is some minor griping in both videos, but they mostly document serious acts of foul play, and it's clear that the minor complaints are brought up out of personal frustration and anger and not out of malice for malice’s sake. I do recommend watching them not just for context on this blog but for general viewing. 

Since both do such a good job of documenting James's many misdeeds I'm not writing this to add to them, the case is pretty well solved, I am writing this for a couple of reasons that are somewhat related. I'm a little saddened to learn about James actions, I watched his videos and was a bit of a fan. I'm openly Queer and have been looking for more queer information and content, Queer stuff isn't exactly obscure, but it is niche, gay media that isn't pornography isn't banned exactly, but it often gets stuck in a grey area where it is accessible if you put in some work to find it and can pay more, and books tend to be harder to find online, and you have to resort to out of print second or third hand copies or blogs that quote heavily from them or upload scanned pages. There's been more progress in giving queer material more mainstream exposure, but it can still be quite tricky. 

I've turned to podcasts and blogs and YT video creators. James was a big fish in a small pond, his channel was doing very well with 200,000+ subscribers and videos often in the 100,000s to a million views range. You could avoid him, but you'd have to use a plugin that lets you block certain channels. The videos had a slick look to them, they came out regularly and in large quantities, and often related to topics I had at least some interest in. I wasn't a hardcore fanatic, though I was paying just enough attention to his channel that I can confirm that parts of Hbomb's video about James deliberately trying to fire up his fan base to side with him in his feuds with others was a thing. I saw the comments and community posts where he claimed he was being attacked, didn't know the context of them at the time, I just thought it was another example of toxic interactions with others that online platforms encourage. Which, with hindsight, was correct, just not in the way I thought at the time. Another thing that James used to do that was overlooked by the two big videos is that James wasn't shy of emotional statements of vulnerability that may or may not have been true, I have no grounds or place to comment on his personal life, but, in the aftermath of the revelations I suspect were used to further manipulate his audience. I certainly felt sorry for the guy.

I can also confirm that James was very sloppy at citing sources, his videos gave the strong impression that everything he was saying in them were his own ideas or the results of his own investigations, or of someone he was collaborating with. And I can tell you first hand that he was effective at spreading misinformation, I found Todd's video harder to watch of the two because there are several points where he fact checks bits of the videos that I believed from watching those videos. I did not believe James's Gay Nazi comments which shocked me when I saw them in Todd's video because I'm already quite knowledgable on that subject, and because I was intimately familiar with the source for that video, Richard Plant's The Pink Triangle. I transcribed the damn thing as a way to help more people find out about as at the time I could only get a second hand book and the web was full of Christian right wing sites promoting the Pink Swastika, a tract of propaganda that tries to paint the Nazis as a homosexual movement. Furthermore, I can't be certain, but the part where James says the SS was full of homosexuals probably comes from the Pink Swastika, I know the Pink Swastika makes that claim and Pink Triangle does not, and I can't think of a creditable source that also makes that claim. 

I said I wouldn't join in the pile on, but that did, well, provoked some feelings. If you're curious why I didn't pick up on it at the time, I watched that video once and when I tried to watch it again to pay attention it had been removed.

Anyway, I'm going to borrow Hbomb's trick and now pivot entirely to a different subject, and that is plagiarism and the Situationist International.

 

 

Ideas improve. The meaning of words participates in the improvement. Plagiarism is necessary. Progress implies it. It embraces an author’s phrase, makes use of his expressions, erases a false idea, and replaces it with the right idea.

The above text is thesis 207 of the Society of the Spectacle, by Guy Debord and the Situationists.  It was plagiarised from Isidore Ducasse, according to the English translator of this Situationist text. Debord has committed plagiarism, and it's sort of amusing that he plagiarised a thought on plagiarism. But, to me, the interesting part is that neither Debord nor Ducasse are talking about plagiarism. It's a statement about building off of the work of others and a rejection of the auteur and the belief that ideas are the property of one individual alone. If the thesis an advocacy of anything, it's the necessity of copyright infringement and a damning criticism of intellectual property as an obstacle to human expression and progress. 

I'm going to take that thesis again and bold the parts that point to my interpretation.

Ideas improve. The meaning of words participates in the improvement. Plagiarism is necessary. Progress implies it. It embraces an author’s phrase, makes use of his expressions, erases a false idea, and replaces it with the right idea.

This is the act of adaptation and experimentation, by changing it and removing falsehoods and substituting a new "right" idea you have added your own work and altered it. Technically, plagiarism could still be present if you took credit for the whole thing including the original idea, but that isn't represented in the thesis. Going back to James Somerton and applying this thesis, we see that James does embrace many an author's phrase and makes use of their expressions, but I don't think he erases false ideas and replaces them with better ones. As Todd and Hbomb have shown, the opposite is usually true when he makes changes and inserts his own ideas. So, oddly, I think we've discovered a definition of plagiarism that James Somerton's work doesn't fall under. Perhaps a rebranding to 1950s French inspired anti-art is in store for James Somerton's future?

Generally speaking Debord and the Situationists were guilty of actual plagiarism on occasion, the thesis itself is an obvious example though there is a brief and opaque acknowledgement of where Debord got the idea within the User's Guide. As a group, they were openly contemptuous of art as a concept within capitalist society.

It is in fact necessary to eliminate all remnants of the notion of personal property in this area. The appearance of new necessities outmodes previous “inspired” works. They become obstacles, dangerous habits. The point is not whether we like them or not. We have to go beyond them.

A User's guide to Detournement 

 

But, most of the criticism and evaluations of this that I've seen associate the concept of detournement. Detournement is not just a pain to spell (I find saying it out loud helps) it's the official name for the Situationists most famous activity. The films, paintings and photographs that they altered are all examples of this. It's arguably the Situationists lasting contribution, there are still small groups and individual artists experimenting with the style and there are faint echoes of it in current internet meme culture. Yes, most examples of Detournement I am familiar with take pre-existing imagery and then change them to alter the meaning of the image. But they aren't passing themselves off as the owners of the original works, and I'm of the opinion that many of them don't work unless you are somewhat familiar with the original work and so not likely to think that Debord et al. were the original photographers. If you're not familiar with the original work, or it's one of the materials made by Situationists that were mostly or entirely original, then they often just come across as weird imagery.

Plagiarism is taking others work and passing it off as your own, that's largely not what the Situationists were doing, and when they did that it reads to me as a part of their attempt to reject art and its conventions in totality, a task in which they failed, "Situationist art" and the "Situ style" is quite recognisable, the production of the User guide itself helped codify Situationist art styles and conventions. 

For example

As soon as I saw this on an image search I knew it was an original work by one of the British Situationists, and the link took me to the John McCready archive, which is a collection of British Situationist material. You can definitely plagiarise the Situationists, I wouldn't recommend it as you'd be caught pretty quickly, but it is definitely something that can be ripped off. And they are often parodied and given homage in mainstream works that aren't remotely interested in breaking the depoliticised working class out of their prisons of everyday life. Oh, and you may have noticed that this image has watermarks on it, in addition the search engine warned me that this image may be copyrighted. 

To add to the misery, detournement have also become commodities. The Situationists were a deeply flawed bunch, they were very astute in criticising much of the apparently revolutionary microgroups and reformist tendencies, but they reflected much of what they criticised and while extremely knowledge about art and its conventions often fell into the same traps, if you look up the Situationist International now many of the admirers view them as a clever curiosity, what revolutionary potential they had is just gone.

Going back to that thesis for the third and final time.

Ideas improve. The meaning of words participates in the improvement. Plagiarism is necessary. Progress implies it. It embraces an author’s phrase, makes use of his expressions, erases a false idea, and replaces it with the right idea.

I disagree that this is plaigarism, but I fully agree with its intent. Progress does demand working with ideas that are not your own and allowing others to work with those that are. Copyright and the treatment of art and information as property that can be withheld dictated and traded is not only a personal failing of individual bad actors, its a direct attack on human interaction and intellectual and cultural development. This is what I get from thesis 207, Society of the Spectacle and much of the Situationist legacy is difficult to pin down into unambiguous statements of intent so I wan't say that my reading is the reading of it. I have read many of the works of the Situationists, mostly the French and British ones, but I have not digested everything they put out so these statements on the Debord and his small circle of friends are not to be taken as set in stone, they're what I think based on my experiences.

To tie these two threads Situationism and James Somerton together I will finish up with this thought. Plagairism and copyright infringement are not the same thing, but they are related. James Somerton wasn't just ripping off other writers for giggles, he was monetising them as well, the work of others became "his" and so he was entitled to exploit it for money and influence. So, yes, capitalism should be abolished and while we're at it let's through social hierarchies in the bin too, and create a perfect and harmonious communal society were labours are shared, and we'll never have to worry about the scourge of plagiraism again.