# Homage or Plagiarise?



## Foxbat (Oct 14, 2011)

I’ll try and explain what I mean by giving an example (but there are many more than just this one).

Eisenstein’s famous Odessa steps scene from *Battleship Potemkin* is (more or less) recreated many decades later in *The Untouchables*. Granted there are some very basic differences but – essentially- it is a straight lift from Potemkin.

It’s my belief that if this ‘lift’ had appeared in literature then we would all be screaming plagiarism but, because it occurs in film, we call it ‘homage’ and everybody nods knowingly that this director is showing respect to that other director etc….

I just wonder why this should be? Some may argue that there are enough differences between the two scenes not to warrant such a claim of plagiarism. Not only would I disagree but would point out that around twenty years ago, there was a court case based around two word processor packages (one was Lotus 123, can’t remember the other). The outcome of this was a ruling in favour of the complainant based on ‘look and feel’. If we were to apply this precedent to the world of film, there would be many nervous directors.

I think my question simply is: why do we accept plagiarism in literature as wrong but seem to turn a blind eye when in other mediums?


----------



## snoopy369 (Oct 14, 2011)

Plagiarizing is when you lift a _significant portion_ of a work, word for word.  In literature it's possible to do that - copy word for word another book.  In film, that's more difficult; unless you paste in the actually film itself, you are not truly plagiarizing, as the actors are giving the scene their own interpretation, etc.  The screenwriter might be plagiarizing (and sometimes is accused of such), but in the example you gave there were enough differences to suggest they were 'inspired' by the earlier work, not directly copying it.  Additionally, it's not the majority of the work - it's a small portion.  The work stands on its own, and while it might not be quite as good without the scene, it hardly would fall apart without it either.

Basically all literature is borrowing from earlier works at this point.  Terry Brooks is basically rewriting the Lord of the Rings over and over again (as many fantasy writers are, in fact).  Art arises from the interpretation and the stylistic differences, and thus this 'borrowing' is permitted, as long as it does include these stylistic interpretations.  Plagiarism only arises when another author's art itself - style, etc. - is passed off as another's work.  I don't think that you see more of one than the other, except insomuch as it is more possible for a small time novelist to become somewhat famous than it is for a small time film producer.  Big time authors and screenwriters know not to plagiarize; I suspect you see as much plagiarism in small films (see: Youtube) as you do in independent novels, just the latter is actually noticed (as it can earn significant money for the author).


----------



## j d worthington (Oct 14, 2011)

I disagree with that last point (literature being a borrowing from etc.); "borrowing" necessitates a knowledge of, either directly or indirectly, and such may not be the case. Parallels do occur which are completely independently developed -- one sees this with quite a lot of literature as well. And we do still have the common cultural meme(s) which original writers re-create in their own fashion, giving it quite a different feel, as well as a vastly different significance.

Which applies to the broader question raised here concerning film. Being the sort of medium it is, with a much shorter history, the "language" (let alone the memes) of film are much more limited at this stage; thereby such obvious "borrowings" or "nods" are likely to be more common, just as they were in earlier days with various literary movements. At times they are quite blatant, yes; but there is, in most cases, a difference between this and their literary predecessors: film is a universal medium, regardless of the language; hence people from just about any modern culture have a much higher chance of recognizing the original which is being emulated. I am thinking, in particular, of Washington Irving essentially lifting a section of Potocki's *Manuscript Found in Saragosa* as one of his "Talesof a Traveler", _sans_ acknowledgment of any kind. These days, such would be impossible to get by with, without it being caught and branded as outright plagiarism almost immediately.

Filmmakers, on the other hand (especially those who tend toward the higher end of the spectrum, rather than the amateurs and beginners) tend also to not only be aware of their indebtedness, but assume that most knowledgeable viewers are as well, hence expect them to recognize such a nod as an acknowledgment to a filmmaker who has had an impact on their own work; a "thank you" to a mentor, as it were -- even where that mentor may be long dead.

There are exceptions to this but, by and large, they are more likely to come from the schlockmeisters or the amateurs, rather than directors (or cinematographers) who have anything under their belts....


----------



## Pyan (Oct 14, 2011)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> It’s my belief that if this ‘lift’ had appeared in literature then we would all be screaming plagiarism but, because it occurs in film, we call it ‘homage’ and everybody nods knowingly that this director is showing respect to that other director etc….



Not everyone regards this as "homage": Belgian choreographer *Anne Teresa De Keersmaeke*r has just accused *Beyonce* (and the _Countdown_ video's director, Adria Petty), of plagiarism – not just of dance moves, but also thematic elements and costume ideas from Keersmaeker's 1983 ballet,_ Rosas danst Rosas._

http://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/articles/844401/beyonce-accused-of-plagiarism-over-countdown-video

Not the first time that such accusations have been made about her, either - but yes, she's playing the "inspiration" card...


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 15, 2011)

Interesting points people. I must ponder more on this.

Pyan - I didn't know about that situation....verrrrry interesting.


----------



## Jeffbert (Dec 26, 2011)

I finished my BA a few years ago, and as I took several history classes in the university rather than the community college, I was required to take an on-line plagiarism awareness test with every class. It became rather tedious afer a while, but this was not the full extent of the extra pain. In English classes, I was also required to submit my essays to a database that examined them for any sequence of, as I recall 4 words or more, which would flag the essay for additional scrutiny.  I was very much proud of my essays, and a bit offended that anyone should suggest that I was simply submitting someone else's work as my own. Moreover, I was sweating bullets worrying that I might have unintentionally omitted quotation marks, citations, or other things required to identify any properly borrowed material.  

I heard that someone unintentionally used a small tune that John Lennon had originated; though the offender was not convicted of intent, he or, she, as I recall was made to pay royalties. There have been cases of people being inspired by things they could not even remember, not only the source was forgotten, but that there even was a source of inspiration was forgotten. I think that legally they were compelled to pay royalties, but not thought to have an intent of stealing or borrowing. 

In the case of parody, the borrowing is allowed, though the writers of *FAMILY GUY* and *ROBOT CHICKEN* may actually have gotten not only permission but the blessings of *STAR WARS*' creator George Lucas before making such extensive parodies.

In the case of *SIMBA* Vs. *KIMBA*, there are simply too many similarities to discount the charge; but the steadfast denials of the *LION KING*'s writers having been inspired or influenced by *KIMBA THE WHITE LION* is what offends the latter's fans. 

If it were not for borrowing, would we have had *ZORRO*, if not for ZORRO, would there have been a *BATMAN*? Does Batman owe its existence to *ZORRO* and ultimately to * SCARLET PIMPERNEL*? Are there any truly unique literary ideas?


----------

