PublishAmerica author sues Stephen King for plagiarism

MysticWolf12001

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 12, 2005
Messages
72
Reaction score
3
Location
This side of Sanity, but just barely.
This is NOT good; this could set a bad precedent. Works of art (and books and films ARE works of art) of the same genre tend to have similarities. I have read many books and seen many movies which seem to have the same plot lines etc...
 

icerose

Lost in School Work
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
11,549
Reaction score
1,646
Location
Middle of Nowhere, Utah
I'm guessing he's the type of person who thinks there's a major conspiracy because Armageddon and Deep Impact were released the same year and had some striking similarities. Either that or he thinks he's so brilliant that no one could possibly come up with a story in the similar vein.
 

Ari Meermans

MacAllister's Official Minion & Greeter
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
12,853
Reaction score
3,051
Location
Not where you last saw me.
Either is possible, I guess, but I still believe Mr. Marquardt just doesn't understand what constitutes plagiarism and what is and is not covered by copyright law.

On top of that, he just keeps running around the same circular track in his delusion.

His argument, which Victoria termed a "logical fallacy"—and that's what it is—put me in mind of someone who has watched too many episodes of Matlock.
 

Terie

Writer is as Writer does
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
4,151
Reaction score
951
Location
Manchester, UK
Website
www.teriegarrison.com
This is NOT good; this could set a bad precedent.

Huh? What's 'NOT good'? There's no precedent here because there's been no legal judgment supporting the prosecution's claims. It takes more than a response by a deluded person to set legal precedent. :)

Now, if Stephen King were found guilty, THEN we could say 'NOT good', but not over something like this.
 

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
22,611
Reaction score
7,289
Location
Wash., D.C. area
Yes and no, I think. If it goes to trial the precedent would be that given this type of evidence the accuser gets his/her day in court, but that doesn't mean the interpretation of the copyright law would change unless the judgement was for the plaintiff. Now, I think this would waste a lot of time and money if it goes to court, so I hope it doesn't. It's easy for me to sit here and say he doesn't deserve his day in court, but I'd probably feel differently if I were in his shoes.
 

Ari Meermans

MacAllister's Official Minion & Greeter
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
12,853
Reaction score
3,051
Location
Not where you last saw me.
That's what I mean, it "could" set a bad precedent, if this goes to trial. It sounds as if it's headed that way... but, there is some stalling going on.

Only if it goes to trial. Stephen King has been down this road before and the scenery is familiar so far. That case did not end well for the plaintiff. The judge issued a summary judgment against her and read her the riot act, as well.

I don't think this case has legs either but, of course, that's for the judge to decide. Only time will tell.
 

DreamWeaver

Shakespearean Fool
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
2,916
Reaction score
403
There's a new Response in Opposition to Motion filed yesterday, 19 July. Can someone take a look at it and see what it says? Thanks!
 

victoriastrauss

Writer Beware Goddess
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
6,704
Reaction score
1,314
Location
Far from the madding crowd
Website
www.victoriastrauss.com
It's a supplemental response by Marquardt that appears to be identical to his supplemental response filed on July 7--only the filing dates are different. There may be some small differences in wording--I didn't read it word for word. No clue why he'd file the same document twice.

- Victoria
 

JanDarby

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
3,553
Reaction score
1,121
I hit a computer glitch and couldn't access the document, so I'm just speculating as to why it's re-filed.

There may have been a procedural problem with his original filing, and the clerk's office returned it. Although I would have expected some acknowledgment of that in the docket listing, and there isn't any such thing.

I'm still a bit boggled by the number of responses to responses to responses there've been. He may have needed to get the judge's permission before filing this response, but then I'd have expected there to be a request to be allowed to file the response (which he may have done, since I didn't get in to see the document).
 

BenPanced

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
17,864
Reaction score
4,637
Location
dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
Order on Motion to Dismiss -- Marquardt failed to prove "substantial similarity", meaning anybody who would read the two books would not notice any similarities. There are enough court precedents to back King and it's up to Marquardt to prove without a doubt King plagiarized his work. King conceded Marquardt has a copyright and that King did at one point have access to the novel in question and left it up to Marquardt to prove plagiarism and moved to dismiss. There weren't enough similarities between the two books; the only thing they really share is both are horror novels. The courts looked at plot, characterization, mood & pace, and setting, and both novels, again, didn't share any like characteristics.

Marquardt felt the case should have been brought before a jury. King felt the case should be dismissed on the grounds there was enough evidence comparing the novels side by side and in similar past judgments in infringement cases.

The court has found there's enough evidence in King's favor and the case is dismissed.

Clerk's Judgment --
This action having come before the court, Honorable Julie E. Carnes, United States District Judge, for consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and the Court having granted said motion, it is Ordered and Adjudged that this action be, and the same hereby, is dismissed with prejudice.
Dated at Atlanta, Georgia, this 10th day of August, 2011.
(Document's emphasis.)
 
Last edited:

HistorySleuth

Researching History's Mysteries
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
3,791
Reaction score
855
Location
Western New York State
Website
www.gahwny.org
Doesn't it mean it's dismissed and can never be brought before the court again? as opposed to "without prejudice" dismissed but can be litigated again if either of the parties so choose?

So totally a done deal.
 

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
22,611
Reaction score
7,289
Location
Wash., D.C. area
BenPanced, how did King have access to Marquand's novel?

If I recall correctly, Marquardt had sent it to King. I'm not sure if it was one of PA's "Buy 20 of your own book and we'll send it to Stephen King" or not, or if he did it on his own.

Thanks for sharing the documents, those of you who have access to them. This has been quite informative.
 

twm

Zizban
Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
91
Reaction score
7
Location
In My Own World.
Dismissed with prejudice does indeed mean it is finished and cannot be refiled. It's over.
 

DreamWeaver

Shakespearean Fool
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
2,916
Reaction score
403
It was kind of the court not to stick Mr Marquardt with the defendants legal costs. But I expect paying his own lawyers (both sets) plus the filing fees added up to many, many, many times the total royalties for his PA book.
 

Terie

Writer is as Writer does
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
4,151
Reaction score
951
Location
Manchester, UK
Website
www.teriegarrison.com
If I recall correctly, Marquardt had sent it to King. I'm not sure if it was one of PA's "Buy 20 of your own book and we'll send it to Stephen King" or not, or if he did it on his own.

As has been mentioned a couple times in this thread, the publication of King's book predates the offer of sending books to King. King's book was published in 2008; the first offers by PA to send books to famous authors were in January of 2010.
 
Last edited:

allenparker

Naked Futon Guy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
1,262
Reaction score
234
Age
63
Location
Virginia
Website
www.allenparker.net
As has been mentioned a couple times in this thread, the lawsuit predates the offer of sending books to King.

I think the operator here is that King had access, just as I have access if I go to Amazon, find the book, order the book and read it, but that is a far cry from actually seeing the book. Even if he mailed King a copy, King may not have seen the book. Many are given to libraries and charities such as Goodwill Industries.

PA's access claim is similar, your books are available on line and the stores have access to them to order.