Property and Propriety

Author(s): Stephen Gudeman

Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 102, No. 4 (Dec., 2000), p. 856
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/684213 .
Accessed: 14/10/2014 14:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:34 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
856 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 4 * DECEMBER 2000
Property and Propriety
STEPHEN GUDEMAN
Department of Anthropology
Universityof Minnesota
I was troubled,for legal and ethicalreasons,by DuranBell's
(AA 102:389-90) review of a book I edited,becauseI believe he
may have violatedUnitedStatescopyrightlaw and abradedthe
ethicalstandardsof ourdiscipline.
Let me explain.In preparingfor his review, Bell e-mailedme
four questions concerning my selections for the volume,
whetherI assigned the book in class, who would buy it, and
whetherI expectedstudentsto buy it. I respondedwith an infor-
mal 219-word letter (including the salutationand closing). I
thoughthis requestwas unusualbut felt I shouldanswerit. Re-
ceiving no response,some weeks laterI wroteto ask if he had
received my e-mail. Bell respondedby thankingme for my
"promptreply"and addingthatit had been "invaluable"in pre-
paringhis review. My e-mail system did not preservethe dates
of thesecommunications,butthe entiretywas completedby Oc-
tober27, 1999.
On readingBell's review, I was surprisedto see thathe had
quoted-without seeking permission-the complete substance
of my e-mail (188 words),leaving out only the salutation,clos-
ing, and seven words in one sentence(as well as changingone
wordin my original).
As we know, copyrightlaw is complex and changing, but
some principlesseem well established.First,copyrightinheres
in the authorof a work, whetheror not it is published;no notice
of copyrightis requiredon unpublishedwork.I know fromone
experiencein the United Kingdom,for example, that rightsto
unpublishedletters,even when they arepossessedby the recipi-
ent and deededto a library,pertainto the authoror the author's
estate. Such letters,even if half a centuryold, cannot be cited
without approval.Similarly,several years ago my wife and I
publishedan articlethat analyzeda series of public e-mail ex-
changes on Femecon-L,a feminist economics listserv. The e-
mails were preservedin an archive and could be downloaded
anywherein the world. Before publishing,however, we wrote
(and received approvalfrom) each contributorof 25 or more
words who was quoted.In consideringsuch unpublishedmate-
rials, the U.S. courtsapparentlyhave concludedthatauthorsof
unpublishedmaterialshold the rightto determinethe contextof
first publication.(See, for example,www.cetus.org/fair5.html.)
In a book review, of course,we often quote fromthe volume
underconsideration,but this use of another'spublishedwordsis
itself guidedby the conceptof "fairuse."I cannotpretendto of-
fer a definitive account of the "fair use" concept, especially
since it has been the subject of a numberof court cases. But
thereseems to be generalagreementthatcopyingthe entiresub-
stanceof a work is not fairuse. The QuarterlyReviewobserves
thatif "onehundredwordscomprisea substantialpartof the to-
tal source(for example,if you quotefrom a briefletteror pam-
phlet), it is best to obtain permission"(www.quarterlyreview.
org/guidelines.html).A different source advises that unpub-
lished materialsespecially (such as letters)shouldbe quoted(or
even paraphrased)with care (www.virginia.edu/-urelat/Guide/
PartII-9.html).Thus, while I am not an attorney,I believe Bell
has infringedmy copyrightboth by publishingan unpublished
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:19:34 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
letterwithoutseeking and receivingpermission,and by contra-
veningthe fairuse doctrine.
I amequallytroubledby Bell's ethicalstandards.Forthe past
several decades,and more, many of us in the professionhave
been worriedaboutthe moralpositioningof anthropology,and
readersof thisjournalwill be familiarwith some of the issues.
Forexample,whatdoes it meanthatourdisciplinaryknowledge
has been gained,at least in part,undercolonial andneocolonial
conditionsof solicitationand production?Or, what do we owe
the many people from whom we receive information?In re-
sponse to these and otherissues, some of us undertakecollabo-
rativefieldwork;otherspublishin local venuesor assumeactiv-
ist positions; still others question the "truthvalue" of the
knowledgeitself. But one point seems certain:we are boundto
seek "informedconsent"of those with whomwe live andwhose
ideas we seek and practiceswe observe.It takes little effort to
imaginethe consequencesfor anthropologyof underminingthis
moralityand respect for others;even more important,how do
we wish to comportourselvesin relationto fellow humans?I
am trulyalarmedby Bell's scholarlypracticeor "interrogation"
of me; othersmay drawtheirconclusions.
Property and Propriety: Reply
DURANBELL
Departmentof Anthropology
Universityof California-Irvine
I am intriguedby the notionthatI may be guiltyof impropri-
ety, illegality,and immorality.Assertionsto thateffect contrast
strongly with my relatively unremarkable,academic life. In
makingthese claims, ProfessorGudemanhas broughtrenewed
attentionto my review of his edited book-a fact that is stri-
dentlyto his disadvantage.In thatreviewI pointout thathis vol-
ume, Economic Anthropology,contains importantpapers by
manyof the luminariesin the field, butit is producedwith such
abysmalqualityand priced so absurdlyhigh ($200.00) that "I
questionthe rightof the book to exist in any of its likely mani-
festations."
Having made that very negative evaluation,I was eager to
find some countervailingfacts-something thatwould softenor
even alter my views. With that purpose in mind, I e-mailed
Gudeman.Unfortunately,his reply did nothingto modify my
evaluation,but in orderto include some positive words about
the book among my generallydisparagingremarks,I included,
yes, in its entirety,Gudeman'sreply. My review made only
passingreferenceto his reply-a referencethathadthe effect of
suggestingthathis wordshad producedno effect on my evalu-
ation. But I thoughtthat there might be otherswho would be
moreeffectivelyinfluenced.And it was in this most collegial of
sentimentsthatI chose to includehis e-mailmessage.
ShouldI have quotedonly 99/118 words?ShouldI have para-
phrasedhis remarks?
Obviously,I have failed in my effortto play the role of nice
guy. But if I am to be consignedto the fires of hell for my rude
perfidy, I may as well take this opportunityto speak more
frankly:
Gudeman'svolume standsas an outrageousoffense against
its many fine contributors.I had hoped thatin his reply to my