When does the use of a familiar and commonly used spiritual phrase become plagiarism?

Can we not do as we will, as long as it harms no one?

Or why do people interfere in the practices of another's religion or spirituality?

Recently (April/May 2007) someone who watches us published “And It Harm None, Do What Ye Will. Is from Wiccan Rede which is attributed to multiple sources but all prior to 1980. It is not in the public domain and is a religious doctrine that equates to many other religions’ “Golden Rule” it was not conceived in April 2007 by the plagiarism couple of California. Doreen Valiente is sometimes mistakenly credited with authoring the Rede and/or Credo....” Note we are identified in the text as “the plagiarism couple of California”. What follows are some thoughts and ruminations on spirituality, religious practices, organizational practices, and possible origins of the phrase we are accused of plagiarizing.

Because this accusation of plagiarism is about the phrase “And It Harm None, Do What Ye Will” we will focus on it and not the entire Rede. Wicca is a spirituality, which for centuries, had been an oral tradition and continues to be such. A book by Vivianne Crowley, “Wicca THE OLD RELIGION IN THE NEW AGE” (1989) advocates ritual based upon memory and not written text. In the 20^th century several books were written to document the oral tradition. Some of the text found in the written Wicca documents, especially the Rede, can be traced to the 1100-1300's. Wittan a spirituality practiced by Susan, predates the Rede by at least 2,000 thousand years, originating with the Druids. It, like the Wicca tradition, is oral. Much of the written content about Wicca and the Rede generally was published within the past 50-100 years or so, with very little written documents prior to this era. The Wittan spirituality is Celtic and far less is written about it than the Wicca spirituality. Wicca and Wittan are parallel spiritualities with intersecting and overlapping philosophies and rituals.
Some history about the origins of the phrase “And It Harm None, Do What Ye Will”

A long time ago, a French author, Rabelais (1483-1553) wrote a book “Pantagruel” which included the phrase “Do what thou wilt ” this phrase or derivative was then published in a book by Pierre Louÿs 9 (1870-1925) “Les Aventures du roi Pausole : Pausole (souverain paillard et débonnaire)”. “Les Aventures du roi Pausole” was then used by Gerald Gardner as he mentions in his book “The Meaning of Witchcraft”. The phrase “Do what thou wilt“ and some of its many variants such as “do as you will” are certainly in the public domain and repeating them or writing them would not be a copyright violation.

“And it harm none” first appeared in print in 1901 in a book by A Crowley. Gardner, mentioned above, 'borrowed' it for his book. If you want to read some of the history of the phrase “Do what thou will” check out the http://www.religioustolerance.org/wicrede.htm The following is a quote from the site and page listed. “Some Wiccans believe that it was written circa 1910 CE by Adriana Porter. Others suggest that it was created during the very early years of Gardnerian Witchcraft, during the 1940s and 1950s”. The phrase “Harm no one” from “Alciato's Book of Emblems” Emblem 27, is a variant of “harm none” and dates to at least 1534 as its earliest written publication. It was probably derived from Greek or Latin text. Another variant can be found here http://www.wikihow.com/Perform-a-Wiccan-Ritual where the author provides a guide for ritual including the phrase “And it harm none, so may it be”. There is also an interesting relationship to the Hippocratic oath The following text can be found here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos296.htm “The Wiccan Rede's "An it harm none" has parallels in many disciplines. Perhaps the most significant parallel is found in the Hippocratic Oath taken by every physician before s/he is certified to practice. The first part of the Hippocratic Oath binds the physician "First, to do no harm." It is sobering to realize that magical ethics, as set forth in the Wiccan Rede, are or should be so similar to medical ethics, an issue with such a powerful effect on so many lives.”

As you can see the words and phrases have been in use for more than 400 years and most probably more than thousands of years. Their use by Susan as a salutation, greeting, signature line, or comment is similar or very much the same usage as any other member of the spiritual society in which Susan participates. It is not much different in use, then to tell someone “God be with you”. Writing the phrase “God be with you” could be called plagiarism if the intent was to suggest authorship for reputation gain. Perhaps someone who is not a Christian using the phrase to appear more favorably to members of a mostly Christian community should attribute the phrase. As any member of the spirituality that uses the phrase knows, adding it to a signature would not suggest a claim of authorship, rather a sharing of sentiment and spiritual blessing. Much the same as members of Wittan or Wicca consider the use of the phrase “And It Harm None, Do What Ye Will” a sharing of sentiment and spiritual blessing, and certainly not plagiarism. Just as important, in a mostly Christian country, the publication of phrases associated with pagan beliefs, would not likely boost a persons reputation.

Do you suppose the person who accuses Susan of plagiarism for using the phrase shares her spirituality? Absolutely not. Like “God be with you”, “And it harm none, do as you will” is widely used. It can be found in greetings, writings, and art. A Google for the phrase “And It Harm None, Do What Ye Will“ returns 1,500,000+ entries, the seventh on the list uses the phrase as the title and heading of a website. It is clearly expressed as a spirituality and no attribution is found and certainly not required by the spirituality. Searching for images with the title “And It Harm None, Do What Ye Will“ returns 24,700 entries, several of the images on the first page not only use the phrase as a title, some even include the whole Rede without attribution. This is an important point. Members of the spirituality freely use and freely share the phrase without concern of attribution. All members know the origin of the phrase as it is used in daily ritual.

It is not only unlikely that any member would consider its publication a form of plagiarism, it would be considered laughable that a non member might believe that they have the position or authority to make such an accusation. For those who accuse us, we suggest you not interfere with the spiritual practices of others. To do so shows not only disrespect but also intention to prevent or interfere with a spiritual practice by suggesting it is somehow illegal. Although anyone can make any accusation they choose about anyone, the intent and motivation are considerations any legal system must evaluate if the accusation is to be considered either a statement of fact or an intent to harm. Perhaps Susan's accuser should write to the Wiccan community with their allegation and let them take action as they will. Members of the Wiccan or Wittan Community encourage the usage and are quite knowledgeable about the 'legal' or accepted use of the phrase. Consider the writings of Vivianne Crowley where the phrase is used without quotes or attribution in “Wicca THE OLD RELIGION IN THE NEW AGE”.

This is obviously someone focused on Susan. Doing a goolge search for the phrase and its commonly used derivatives produces many other 'plagiarizers' according to the allegation about Susan made on a publicly visible webpage. Let me ask you, the reader, if you understand why these other “plagiarizers” are not mentioned in his publication?

Tell me, dear reader, can it be, that when members of a community choose to publish their beliefs in a way consistent with their practices, that they are plagiarists? Does the accuser seeks to prevent Susan from practicing her spirituality as many other members currently do? Is the accuser just not well educated in the spirituality and so made a simple error in judgment in publishing the accusation? Many possible reasons exist.

We believe the accusation is made without merit and furthermore suggests a vindictive motivation since the many other members who publish the same phrase were not accused. Let the reader be aware that some do attempt to properly attribute the phrase however, very few mention Rabelais (1483-1553) who is the originator of a portion of the phrase. Most that do attribute the phrase, state it is part of the Rede, and do not mention A. Crowley or Gardner or Rabelais or Porter who clearly wrote and used the phrase.

There are many prayers and invocations known to all members who practice a specific spirituality. They have been used by many for many years. For those who are not members, the practices and rituals may seem foreign. Not knowing the ways and mores of such a spiritual society, outsiders sometimes denigrate and falsely accuse those who practice their spirituality publicly. Can you imagine having someone accuse you of plagiarism because you used the phrase “Our Father” or “Blessed Be” or “Amen” without attribution? For example, if I write e=mc² do I need to state that Einstein wrote it so that someone doesn't call me a plagiarist? Suppose that same person was not a member of, and likely opposed to your spirituality, as demonstrated in the derisive tone and the use of the word Wittan in their writings (“Wittan Hoax”). Do you suppose they did research? Do you suppose they merely wanted to condemn someone because they can? What about the others, probably numbering in the thousands who use the same phrase without attribution? Should they be accused, as was Susan, for 'plagiarism'? Do you suppose there is any merit in the accusation?

In addition to the accusation against Susan on the author's public website is the following “..the term Amway. Dr. P. W. Nose has never figured out what Amway is but it was shrouded in much mumbo jumbo as in the book of Nasus”. If you have read this far, let me ask. Do you think anyone who uses the words of others should provide attribution? The accuser uses the term “Amway™” in their writings. Do you suppose the author is intentionally plagiarizing or infringing on a trademark? It is ludicrous to allege plagiarism, copyright or trademark infringement without understanding the context and use. But for some, it is their life, chasing after others, watching and hoping to find some bit of information that satisfies their particular perspective. For them the relevancy of context and usage is not a consideration. If their actions harm some, then they do it.

Interesting in this particular instance would be if the accuser is a programmer. I wonder if a programmer ever copied the code of another and used it in their programs? Would that be plagiarism or copyright infringement or just common practice during the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and of course even today? We live in a world where it will become increasing more difficult to create 'original works'. Music that uses the equally-tempered scale of 12 notes per octave has a finite number of pleasing sounding arrangements that could be used for songs. There is a type of forgiveness associated with the number of sequential notes played before copyright infringement can be considered.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s I used “e=mc² Not just a good idea. Its the law” as my signature text in my emails and posting on the USENET groups. The exact origin of the phrase isn't known but it may have come from http://www.mooneyart.com/gravity/historyof_01.html “The time, 1977. The place, Tulsa, Oklahoma. The U.S. was deep into the gasoline crisis, with long gas lines, political uncertainty, and lots of affordable, high quality herb. There was an ad campaign on TV encouraging gas conservation, with the tagline, "The 55 mph speed limit. It isn't just a good idea. It's the law!"

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

“Plagiarism is different from copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they emphasize different aspects of the transgression. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of the copyright holder, which involves the loss of income and artistic control of the material when it is used without the copyright holder's consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation. Both plagiarism and copyright infringement are concepts that vary by culture. In Western thought, both are viewed negatively, many assert that this is due to the relative affluence of these nations and the monopoly they hold on information. In many other cultures, plagiarism and copyright infringement are seen as either a product of necessity, or the most expedient means to an end.”

From the same page

”Plagiarism is presumably not an issue when organizations issue collective unsigned works since they do not assign credit for originality to particular people. For example, the American Historical Association's "Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct" (2005)] regarding textbooks and reference books states that there is no question about taking credit for someone else's ideas. Since textbooks and encyclopedias are summaries of other's scholar's work, they are not bound by the same exacting standards of attribution as original research. However, even such a book does not make use of words, phrases or paragraphs from another text, or follow too closely the other text's arrangement and organization.

Within an organization, in its own working documents, standards are looser but not non-existent. If someone helped with a report, they expect to be credited. If a paragraph comes from a law report, a citation is expected to be written down. Technical manuals routinely copy facts from other manuals without attribution, because they assume a common spirit of scientific endeavor (as evidenced, for example, in "open source" projects in software) in which scientists freely share their work.”

This paragraph may explain why I can use e=mc² and members of a spirituality can use phrases associated with their beliefs without attribution and not be considered plagiarism. In the preceding paragraph, the sentence “On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation.”, is an important point. Do you, the reader believe that Susan's use of the phrase “And It Harm None, Do What Ye Will” incrementally increased her reputation? Based upon the accusations made against her, it would appear just the opposite occurred. Her reputation was diminished by someone who does not share her spiritual and philosophical beliefs. What do you think? Did Susan intentionally intend to boost her reputation by the use of the phrase? It represents approximately 10% of the words and 5% of the characters in her narrative. As you can read, the narrative is spiritual in nature and about growth and transformation. It was posted on Easter Eve.

If you are still reading, we appreciate your interest and hope you have found something of use in your life. We ask those who accuse others and attempt to deny their right to share their beliefs, consider their own use of words and philosophies. If they can not tolerate the beliefs of others without harassment and public name calling then perhaps they should spend their time in other endeavors. Susan's name backwards 'Nasus'. If you do a Google search on Nasus you will see a short list of a few of the 369,00 entries. On the first Google page are at least two companies that use the name Nasus, one dating to 1983. You are just one of many as are we all. Your opinion is just as important as the opinions of others and just as unimportant. What matters is intent and motivation, as those are the qualities that define character and credibility.

Here is the original text and the image the text narrates. http://artwanted.com/imageview.cfm?id=488735

“As we near the Altar Of The Sun, we notice strange and unusual glyphs carved into the stone. These symbols are eternal and lasting, speaking of eons past and eons future. Lay upon the Altar your thoughts and dreams, your fears and hopes. In so doing, you will begin to experience a transformation, magickal, mysterious, and forever altering. Allow your mind to feel the change, and your soul to grow to new heights. Be one with all. And It Harm None, Do What Ye Will. Image and narrative by Queen Type O Negative, Susan :-) Copyright 2007 Flicker Light Studio.”

Copyright © 2007 Flicker Light™ Studio