Books not copyrighted

Ramik discovered that many of the books from which Mrs. White borrowed were not in fact copyrighted. But, he continued, even if they had been thus protected by law, her utilization of phraseology and even multiple paragraphs did not in law constitute copyright infringement, nor plagiarism.EGWPlag 2.13

“If the issues had been court-tested between 1850 and 1915, Ellen G. White emphatically would not have been convicted of copyright infringement,” concluded Ramik.EGWPlag 2.14

The law specialist found it ironic that Mrs. White’s sternest critics themselves offer “the best evidence available” to support a position of noninfringement.EGWPlag 2.15

“Nowhere,” Ramik pointed out, “have we found the books of Ellen G. White to be virtually the ‘same plan and character throughout’ as those of her predecessors. Nor have we found, or have critics made reference to, any intention of Ellen White to supersede ... [other authors] in the market with the same class of readers and purchasers.” Instead, she invariably introduced considerable new matter to that which she borrowed, going far beyond mere “colorable deviations,” and, in effect, created an altogether new literary work.EGWPlag 2.16

Furthermore, “the sheer ‘compilation’ of the works of Ellen G. White necessarily reflects her labor and skill. So long as she did not (and the evidence clearly establishes that she did not) draw from any prior works ‘to a substantial degree,’ she remains well within the legal bounds of ‘fair use.’EGWPlag 2.17

“Moreover, so long as the materials were selected from a variety of sources, and were ‘arranged and combined with certain passages of the text of the original work, and in a manner showing the exercise of discretion, skill, learning, experience, and judgment,’ the use was ‘fair.’”EGWPlag 2.18

Intent is a chief ingredient that must be demonstrated in plagiarism cases; and Ramik believes he has proved not only from Mrs. White’s own published statements but indeed from the admission of some of her critics themselves, that she did not intend to defraud in the borrowing of other literary productions.EGWPlag 2.19

“Proceeding with but the highest motivations and intentions,” said Ramik, Mrs. White, in fact “modified, exalted, and improved” much of that which others wrote, in a manner entirely ethical, as well as legal.EGWPlag 2.20

“It is impossible to imagine that the intention of Ellen G. White, as reflected in her writings and the unquestionably prodigious effort involved therein, was anything other than a sincerely motivated and unselfish effort to place the understandings of Biblical truths in a coherent form for all to see and comprehend.EGWPlag 2.21

“Most certainly, the nature and content of her writings had but one hope and intent, namely, the furthering of mankind’s understanding of the word of God.”EGWPlag 2.22

In his summation, Ramik concluded, “Considering all factors necessary in reaching a just conclusion on this issue, it is submitted that the writings of Ellen G. White were conclusively unplagiaristic.”EGWPlag 2.23