Incorporating an official statement into a story-Plagiarism?

[eroticstoryspinner]

I have a statement that a judge made in a sentencing hearing that I really want to use in a story. In a lot of ways its a generic statement that a lot of judges make in sentencing hearings. The passage is as follows: “Here you are an admired, successful, professional actor with a long-lasting marriage, two apparently healthy, resilient children, more money than you could possibly need, living in sunny Southern California – a fairy tale life. Yet you stand before me a convicted felon. And for what? For the inexplicable desire to grasp even more. To have whatever prestige and instant gratification that comes from being able to show off the admission of your daughters to a preferred university."

I modified it slightly but it is pretty much word for word. At the same time in the story it is the statement of the fictional sentencing judge. I think why I am struggling with this is that I have heard a lot of judges use almost identical language in sentencing hearings. I have thought about changing the wording more to avoid the 5 word rule.

 

[Salacious_Scribe]

I have a statement that a judge made in a sentencing hearing that I really want to use in a story. In a lot of ways its a generic statement that a lot of judges make in sentencing hearings. The passage is as follows: “Here you are an admired, successful, professional actor with a long-lasting marriage, two apparently healthy, resilient children, more money than you could possibly need, living in sunny Southern California – a fairy tale life. Yet you stand before me a convicted felon. And for what? For the inexplicable desire to grasp even more. To have whatever prestige and instant gratification that comes from being able to show off the admission of your daughters to a preferred university."

I modified it slightly but it is pretty much word for word. At the same time in the story it is the statement of the fictional sentencing judge. I think why I am struggling with this is that I have heard a lot of judges use almost identical language in sentencing hearings. I have thought about changing the wording more to avoid the 5 word rule.

I'm not an expert on copyright law, but IMHO use it, and put a footnote at the end that this statement came from Judge X in the case of Dipshit Celebrity v State of wherethefuckever. Then it's not plagerism since you gave ccredit to the source.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Or, maybe, have your judge refer to that quote?

 

[SimonDoom]

Use it. Don't worry about it.

Think about it. A judge is not going to assert a copyright in his or her statements from the bench. For one thing, no copyright exists in oral statements. They must be written down. But even if the judge wrote them out first, there's zero probability that the judge is going to seek to profit from statements made in a sentencing hearing.

Suggestion: change the wording a little bit, so it's not an exact duplicate. Then don't worry. You will not be at any risk.

 

[eroticstoryspinner]

Or, maybe, have your judge refer to that quote?

I like that. I had been leaning toward just mixing it up a bit

 

[eroticstoryspinner]

I'm not an expert on copyright law, but IMHO use it, and put a footnote at the end that this statement came from Judge X in the case of Dipshit Celebrity v State of wherethefuckever. Then it's not plagerism since you gave ccredit to the source.

That had been my first thought, but something just seems wrong about footnoting erotica.

 

[eroticstoryspinner]

Use it. Don't worry about it.

Think about it. A judge is not going to assert a copyright in his or her statements from the bench. For one thing, no copyright exists in oral statements. They must be written down. But even if the judge wrote them out first, there's zero probability that the judge is going to seek to profit from statements made in a sentencing hearing.

Suggestion: change the wording a little bit, so it's not an exact duplicate. Then don't worry. You will not be at any risk.

I had absolutely no concerns about copyright because it is part of a public record and transcript. It as more of a personal discomfort as I hate plagiarism and I thought I heard the duck quacking in my head if you know what I mean ( looks like a duck, quacks, like a duck," etc)

 

[Salacious_Scribe]

Use it. Don't worry about it.

Think about it. A judge is not going to assert a copyright in his or her statements from the bench. For one thing, no copyright exists in oral statements. They must be written down. But even if the judge wrote them out first, there's zero probability that the judge is going to seek to profit from statements made in a sentencing hearing.

Suggestion: change the wording a little bit, so it's not an exact duplicate. Then don't worry. You will not be at any risk.

So I can use Michael Jacksons song lyrics? I mean he's dead so he can't assert copyright. I think this is about more than the risk of being sued, or profits. It's a moral or ethical question.

Everything said during a court proceeding is taken down by a court reporter so it is written and therefore copyrighted. But it is also public record. I didi a quick search and there is nothing about court transcripts and copyright. The only cases I found involved documents created by lawers and submitted to courts that are released under transparency laws.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I had absolutely no concerns about copyright because it is part of a public record and transcript. It as more of a personal discomfort as I hate plagiarism and I thought I heard the duck quacking in my head if you know what I mean ( looks like a duck, quacks, like a duck," etc)

Everybody over-thinks this, I reckon. Plagiarism is taking someone else's creative content and blatantly claiming it as their own. In this instance, taking something from a public record, and a very typical one at that, and attributing it to a judge in a story is just blurring fact from fiction. How are we to know, how is anybody to know, whether or not the judgment is real or not? For all we know, you might be writing reportage, and the finding is real, and your words really are about the person concerned.

I've got a sci-fi story where the landing sequence dialogue is a direct lift from the Apollo 11 moon landing transcript. For those in the know, it's obvious; for those who don't know, they'd never know - but the point is, I'm not claiming to be Neil Armstrong, because it's obvious I'm not. But have I gone off and put a footnote in, crediting NASA? That's like putting a ™ sign in your text every time a character in a story goes to Maccas.

Besides, how is the judge ever to know? Unless he or she reads here, of course, in which case the response is going to be, "Hey, that's neat," or a long-winded comment that you got the legal subtleties wrong. But I don't think they're ever going to think you were claiming to be them.

 

[ElectricBlue]

So I can use Michael Jacksons song lyrics? I mean he's dead so he can't assert copyright. I think this is about more than the risk of being sued, or profits. It's a moral or ethical question.

No, because his estate (or a record company) still own the copyright. It's still something with value, and protected.

 

[SimonDoom]

So I can use Michael Jacksons song lyrics? I mean he's dead so he can't assert copyright. I think this is about more than the risk of being sued, or profits. It's a moral or ethical question.

Everything said during a court proceeding is taken down by a court reporter so it is written and therefore copyrighted. But it is also public record. I didi a quick search and there is nothing about court transcripts and copyright. The only cases I found involved documents created by lawers and submitted to courts that are released under transparency laws.

No, that's a totally different issue. Jackson can't assert copyright but his estate can. All his music is copyrighted.

The fact that a third party records oral statements does not necessarily make those oral statements copyrighted. The judge isn't the one who made the written statement. If the judge did not prepare a written statement first (which he/she might have) then there's no copyright.

Judges don't issue opinions to profit from them. They're not "creative" works like books or songs. They do not register the copyright in them.

If you take a judge's statement, and alter a few words so it doesn't refer specifically to the matter the judge talked about, then you're not going to have a problem. No judge will sue you. It's not a real-world concern. As far as the morality of it is concerned, as long as you change some words, that should do the trick.

 

[SimonDoom]

I had absolutely no concerns about copyright because it is part of a public record and transcript. It as more of a personal discomfort as I hate plagiarism and I thought I heard the duck quacking in my head if you know what I mean ( looks like a duck, quacks, like a duck," etc)

Just tinker with the wording a bit. Then there's no issue at all.

 

[eroticstoryspinner]

So I can use Michael Jacksons song lyrics? I mean he's dead so he can't assert copyright. I think this is about more than the risk of being sued, or profits. It's a moral or ethical question.

Everything said during a court proceeding is taken down by a court reporter so it is written and therefore copyrighted. But it is also public record. I didi a quick search and there is nothing about court transcripts and copyright. The only cases I found involved documents created by lawers and submitted to courts that are released under transparency laws.

Someone else covered the Michael Jackson song. Michael and Elvis have probably made more song royalties dead than they ever did alive. Dead public figures can be very profitable.

As for the court records, there is a lot of case law holding that official public statements, court proceedings and statures are inherently in the public domain.

 

[ElectricBlue]

As for the court records, there is a lot of case law holding that official public statements, court proceedings and statures are inherently in the public domain.

By definition, I think, they are - unless the judge has issued a suppression order, in which case they're sealed records (but will eventually go into the public domain once whatever statute of limitations is over).

 

[Bramblethorn]

Someone else covered the Michael Jackson song. Michael and Elvis have probably made more song royalties dead than they ever did alive. Dead public figures can be very profitable.

As for the court records, there is a lot of case law holding that official public statements, court proceedings and statures are inherently in the public domain.

Don't even need to go to case law for that one - 17 USC S.105 is very clear that "works of the US Government" are not protected by copyright, and this is most definitely under that category. I'm not completely sure whether that encompasses state officials, but it doesn't matter, since this was a federal case.

 

[HeyAll]

Statements made by judges are MEANT to be disseminated. Same thing with court opinions. They're meant for public consumption.

 

[Salacious_Scribe]

The fact that a third party records oral statements does not necessarily make those oral statements copyrighted.

Anything that is written is de facto copyrighted.

The judge isn't the one who made the written statement. If the judge did not prepare a written statement first (which he/she might have) then there's no copyright.

So any author who makes audio recordings of stories and pays a transcriptionist to type them up isn't covered by copyright?

Judges don't issue opinions to profit from them. They're not "creative" works like books or songs. They do not register the copyright in them.

Profit has nothing to do with copyright. Every story posted on Lit is copyrighted, but few have made profit. Tech manuals, instruction booklets are not creative works, but they are copyrighted. Copyright does not need to be registered. You only need to register to PROTECT your copyright. It exists without registration, but it is not legally enforceable.

If you take a judge's statement, and alter a few words so it doesn't refer specifically to the matter the judge talked about, then you're not going to have a problem. No judge will sue you. It's not a real-world concern. As far as the morality of it is concerned, as long as you change some words, that should do the trick.

Again no one asked about liability. That was not the concern. TBH I don't think a Judge could sue over copyright for judicial rulings. I suspect it would be considered a conflict of interest.

The issue was the morality of using it. I don't think anything needs to be changed. I would use it as is adn put a note after the story that it was from and name the judge and case. It's not plagerism if you give credit.

 

[Jada59]

Just tinker with the wording a bit. Then there's no issue at all.

I agree.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

So I can use Michael Jacksons song lyrics? I mean he's dead so he can't assert copyright. I think this is about more than the risk of being sued, or profits. It's a moral or ethical question.

Everything said during a court proceeding is taken down by a court reporter so it is written and therefore copyrighted. But it is also public record. I didi a quick search and there is nothing about court transcripts and copyright. The only cases I found involved documents created by lawers and submitted to courts that are released under transparency laws.

Any and all statements made in a court, at least in the US, by judges and prosecuting attorneys, is in the public domain. The statement was made while the judge was a public servant so there can be no copyright.

Now legal briefs submitted by defense attorneys may fall under the copyright laws as the lawyer isn't working for the government.

Any and all documents produced by the government are yours to use in anyway you feel like using them... unless of course, they are marked Top Secret.

Anything the government creates is without copyright, patent, or other restriction unless congress has passed laws to prohibit their use or reproduction by the public at large. Of course their is only a couple of things that the government produces... Paper work, tons and tons of paper work... and money. The paper work is yours to use and copy if you so desire, the money, you can only use. You attempt to copy it and there a laws in place to punish you if you do.

As far as anything that the government contracts to have made for them are covered under the company producing said items patents, copyright, trade mark, or service mark.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Anything that is written is de facto copyrighted.

The US Copyright Office disagrees with you: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf

Tech manuals, instruction booklets are not creative works, but they are copyrighted.

Again, not true. As discussed in the circular above:

"To be copyrightable, a work must qualify as an original work of authorship, meaning that it must have been created independently and contain a sufficient amount of creativity. Most works meet these conditions. Some works, however, contain elements that either lack the required creativ-ity or are placed outside the bounds of copyright by the law... a simple set of directions is uncopyrightable". It explains that something like a recipe book is only protected to the extent that it contains creativity beyond simply listing ingredients and providing instructions on how to cook them.

This is why many recipe books and websites go out of their way to include creative elements alongside the recipe, e.g. "here's the story of how I learned this recipe", to make it harder for others to rip off.

 

[lovecraft68]

Just swap some of the wording around so it says the same thing, but not an excact quote. We're writers, we make shit up all the time, this doesn't have to be different.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Just use the damn thing verbatim. There will be no fallout. If you want, add a footnote to the story telling readers who made that statement in real life.

 

[SimonDoom]

Just use the damn thing verbatim. There will be no fallout. If you want, add a footnote to the story telling readers who made that statement in real life.

I would agree with this, except suggest that if you have any moral qualms (copyright and legality aside), just change the wording a little bit rather than add a footnote or comment about it. No one will ever care.

 

[AlexBailey]

Law and Order SVU?

Are the cases on Law and Order SVU based on actual events?
https://the-take.com/watch/are-the-cases-on-law-order-svu-based-on-actual-events

From the article:

Law & Order: SVU pulls inspiration from real-life events and national news stories but changes the details substantially to create original scripts that deviate from real life. The show’s tagline lets viewers know the tales are based on real things that happened, but also advertises the plots are fictional and do not accurately represent any real story.



Change the names and a few circumstances and you won't be hearing:

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time."

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Are the cases on Law and Order SVU based on actual events?
https://the-take.com/watch/are-the-cases-on-law-order-svu-based-on-actual-events

From the article:

Law & Order: SVU pulls inspiration from real-life events and national news stories but changes the details substantially to create original scripts that deviate from real life. The show’s tagline lets viewers know the tales are based on real things that happened, but also advertises the plots are fictional and do not accurately represent any real story.



Change the names and a few circumstances and you won't be hearing:

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time."

Law & Order change the names of the people involved and that's about it.

There was an even older show... damn I can't think of the name... that at the beginning always had the announcer say, "The names have been changed to protect the innocent."