Is John Carlton pagiarising from Dan Kennedy?

[Sandeep Shah]

I finished John Carlton's Kickass copywriting course a few months back and today I was reading Dan Kennedy's Ultimate Sales Letter paperback book. Many concepts were similar. It is so obvious that John Carlton "learned" from Dan Kennedy and hence used it in his education material as well.

I see many information products which are just a mix of existing material. Say for example, a lot of home study courses about marketing & copywriting have the 6 triggers in common... which were originally formed by Robert Cialdini.

As they say... there is nothing new under the sun.

Now, what is stopping me from buying 10 different WSOs in a particular category of IM and making a new product by "learning" from them? What's the difference?

If I have applied those principles and shared some of my own experience... that's OK. If I don't apply what I learn and just mix up all the content from other sources, that's bad is it?

They say: Preach what you practice...

But then have a look at the various schools and universities... the teachers and professors just teach what is in the books (which we can read ourselves) and they do not have a personal experience to add in most of the cases.

What do they actually do? Are schools and universities scams?

Perhaps what they do is transfer the knowledge from the books to the students in a more understandable manner.

Then what's wrong in taking an e-book or WSO and elaborating it so that it is more understandable by the buyers? They say that's a bad thing to do... in other words... copyright infringement.

So if one takes the info and converts into another format... say an article into video... that not plagiarizing?

Is it mandatory to mention the source everytime? Then I should be mentioning that each letter that I typed in here I learned from my kindergarten text book?

Is there any rule book which says whats right and whats wrong in a legal perspective? Where do I get it?

Sorry for the rant...

I just got frustrated when I read Dan Kennedy's book today!

[Andyhenry]

You are joking aren't you?

You can't see the difference between a teacher teaching a curriculum to students and you stealing someones content and selling it?

[Steven Wagenheim]

Originally Posted by Andyhenry

You are joking aren't you?

You can't see the difference between a teacher teaching a curriculum to students and you stealing someones content and selling it?

Um...what he said.

Wow...just wow!

[Steven Wagenheim]

Okay, now that I've gained my composure, let me try to give you a better
answer that hopefully will put this into perspective for you.

I too have learned from others. We all have to some degree. None of us are
born with knowledge.

However, if I were to be brought into a seminar room right now and asked to
give a lecture on Internet marketing on everything I know, I'd be able to do
so WITHOUT looking at any notes or anything...just off the top of my head.

Why?

Because what I have learned has become ingrained in me and is now a part
of me.

Sure, some of it may even sound right out of somebody's book. But it's my
own knowledge now because I truly understand it and have USED it.

That's the difference between just reading somebody's book and
paraphrasing it or just rewording it.

A school teacher is not paid to come up with his own thoughts. He is paid
to teach a curriculum a certain way. It is his skill of being able to relay
those facts in a way that the student can understand that he is paid for.

Not to come up with his own original thought.

That is the difference.

[fitz10]

You're suggesting that teaching is equivalent to plagiarizing someone's work? Really?

Sticking with that analogy if you knew anything about becoming a professor you'd know that the first thing you need to do to become a professor is write a really good doctoral dissertation. What is a dissertation? It's a collection of knowledge which has been obtained, analyzed, and synthesized to create a new original work. Taking old knowledge, working through it, and creating something wholly original is fine. Regurgitating slightly modified material is not okay and not the same thing at all as recalling old knowledge to come up with a new knowledge based on research, experience, etc.

Furthermore it goes without saying that there is a difference in relaying information in a classroom setting and passing it off as your own in a book or website or whatever which you are paid for. There is a understanding that when a teacher starts talking about Fiboncacci square he or she is not the original creator of the concept. Even young children usually tacitly understand that the teacher is not the creator of the knowledge he or she is imparting. When I read a book or an article or whatever, I have an expectation that the work is wholly the authors own even if he or she has culled from other sources. KWIM?

[Ken_Caudill]

Any copywriter worth his salt will steal anything that isn't nailed down.

Why do you think we call them swipe files?

[Ellen C Braun]

Here's a thought:

“Copy from one, it’s plagiarism; copy from two, it’s research.” — William Mizner

[CDarklock]

Originally Posted by Sandeep Shah

Now, what is stopping me from buying 10 different WSOs in a particular category of IM and making a new product by "learning" from them? What's the difference?

Steven's nailed what I think of as the difference. Read all ten of those WSOs, then close them all down and walk away for 24 hours. Now sit down and fire up a webcam without opening any of those WSOs again, and explain what you just read. No peeking. Just from memory.

Now watch the video. If it's worth buying, go right ahead and sell it.

When you write or record your own product, you should not have looked at any competitor's product for a full 24 hours. Whatever is still stuck in your head is fair game, but no peeking or researching.

I do all my product planning away from the computer with pen and paper.

[ruch1v]

interesting read, i can see both sides of the coin on this one

[hittjw]

Sandeep's ran misses a very important point.

It's quite likely that after real practice, like what John Carlton and Dan Kennedy do for a living, you might agree with some of their ideas. Who cares where the information came from, it means nothing until you use it yourself.

After a few years of making money using what you've learned, you'll be able to answer questions on the topic from experience. You'll know when to use what, and why some things work better than others.

Understand there is more money to be made using what you learned than creating another product based on it -- after all, more markets exist than Internet marketing and copy writing. If you want to teach, then do it from experience, not from what someone else says works.

And what Steven said.

Sincerely,

Justin

[George Wright]

Sandeep,

If I'm not mistaken and correct me if I'm wrong, you have or had another post going trying to figure this out. The other post was regarding rewriting articles from eza.

On first glance it seems as if you are trying to justify plagiarism. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt let's say you aren't.

Assuming you are really trying to learn the diff between plagiarism and not plagiarism you are on the right track. Keep seeking and you will find.

My advice to you would be, DO NOT write anything and try to sell it here until you understand the difference 100%.

For what it's worth,

George Wright

[Chris Steiner]

Originally Posted by Sandeep Shah

Sorry for the rant...

I just got frustrated when I read Dan Kennedy's book today!

I haven't read John Carlton's material, but I have read Dan Kennedy's "The Ultimate Sales Letter," so I don't know just how similar they are, but I can understand the frustration. I've purchased many things, especially in the IM realm, that sound exactly like everything else I've already read.

Perhaps equating a school's curriculum to plagiarism is going a bit far, but it was a self-described rant.

As you also said, there really isn't anything new under the sun. The basic concepts used for writing good sales copy don't change much over time, and any book or course on the topic would touch on the same concepts. And once you learn the basic concepts, you should expect to find them in every book or course that covers the basics.

Once you know how to write a sales letter, you know how to do it. You can now improve by learning more advanced concepts, and maybe picking up some tips and tricks from different teachers, but don't expect the basics to change.

The same would be true of most topics you might study. You mentioned crediting your kindergarten class for teaching you the alphabet. Once you knew this, if you had another class on the topic, the basics would not change. Instead of restudying the alphabet, you moved on to learn words, and grammar, and other topics related to that alphabet, but more advanced.

It's the same with everything else. Since you remembered the Carlton material these months later, and saw the similarities in the Kennedy book, it sounds like you understand the basics.

Chris

[Steve Peters Benn]

Sandeep,

I'm not sure how much attention you have paid to both products - but Carlton and Kennedy are only similar in the grossest sense - there are certain things that don't change. To my mind Kennedy comes from a traditional sales point of view with basic triggers. Carlton covers that, but goes far more into drama and narrative.

I'd go more with Kennedy for key structural points, but for heart and emotion and I would be paying a lot of attention to Carlton.

No offence meant Sandeep as I am not directly aiming this at you - but there seems to be a certain class of newbie who reads something and thinks:

I could have thought of that

Even though they hadn't for years. Suddenly, what they learned seems obvious and common sense. Yet, up until that point, they had never implemented the obvious common sense advice.

There also seems to be a disturbing prevalence of skim reading - where people only pick up on the most obvious of points. By that, I think they miss out on a lot of stuff.

If you have only read / watched a product once, you might well be missing out on a lot of stuff.

Dan's book is great - but I can't help but feel you must have skipped through Carltons product - otherwise, apart from the key basics I think you might have found a lot of clear blue water.

[Andrew Gould]

"John Carlton is a copywriter I would hire, and there are damn few of those. Further, I would pay to be in a room to learn from him, and there are even fewer people on that list." Dan Kennedy

If he is, Dan seems happy enough about it.

[MikeHumphreys]

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Any copywriter worth his salt will steal anything that isn't nailed down.

Why do you think we call them swipe files?

Actually, they are called swipe files because you're swiping the idea used in a particular section of a sales letter.

Could be a theme.

Or a sales letter close.

Or a headline idea.

Or countless other parts of a "typical" sales letter.

Yes, many copywriters have a swipe file. Personally, I use mine for brainstorming for project ideas. Other people are more liberal with how they use their swipe files.

Taking something like a headline and reworking it so it fits your sales letter isn't plagiarism. It's frequently done by marketers and copywriters, although knowing how to rework it so it fits into the sales letter smoothly requires both expertise and skill.

Copying someone's sales copy word for word is plagiarism and is highly illegal. It's grounds for getting sued or professionally ruined at the very least.

[Sandeep Shah]

I don't understand this whole idea completely yet but let me put it this way:

If I learn concept XYZ from author ABC and apply the methods/principles myself and got some results... then I can create a product where I can teach (XYZ + My twist, perspective & experience) to others... then it is fine, is it?

But if I teach XYZ to others from my perspective and method of teaching but if I have not applied or experienced it myself, then that's called plagiarism? Right?

[Michael Taylor]

Copyright infringement occurs when you copy verbatim anything of substance from another writer's material.

Fair Use allows reasonable copying under certain circumstances with attribution.

Taking ten WSOs and synthesizing the ideas into words of your own is legal.

Copyright protects the expression of ideas, but not the ideas themselves.

Plagiarism doesn't have anything to do with whether you've experienced what you've written about or not. Plagiarism is taking someone else's text and presenting it as your own. Experienced or not.

[DogScout]

Dan Kennedy believes in 'swipe and deploy'
meaning, he believes that anything he makes public SHOULD be 'stolen'
and to not do so is stupidity on your part
(Bill Glazer before they knew each other asked him to coffee promising not to pick his brain. Kennedy's retort? "You'd be a damn fool no to.")

so while it may be technical infringement, I believe it is OK with Dan

[DogScout]

Originally Posted by MikeHumphreys

Copying someone's sales copy word for word is plagiarism and is highly illegal. It's grounds for getting sued or professionally ruined at the very least.

I was told by Bill Glazer, personally to NOT change anymore of his sales letters than I had to in order to be able to use them in a niche
Niether him nor DK would ever sue you.

[DogScout]

BTW to be illegal, it has to pass one important test. It has to be against the original autho'rs TOU. nothing DK wrote ever had a do not use sign on it, quite the opposite, he encouraged direct copying of his material whenever possible,

[The Oilman]

I've not read this thread, but ... we live in a remixing world.

Although a decent writer, I lazily plagiarized in college on a small assignment and got caught. I felt bad. I paid the price.

But I never felt THAT bad.

And Christ, if you look around, everything is a remix of something else.

Look at Quentin Tarantino. Some say hes a genius, others say hes a thief.

I say hes a genius because he pullls great stuff and mixes it all together into a beautiful masterpiece.

[Ernie Mitchell]

Over the years I've studied several pre-1926 and therefore public domain books on early American salesmanship that cover the activities of drummers and pedlers from the mid 19th through the early 20th century.

It's surprising how much content there is that we automatically think is copyright protected that isn't. A lot of the old standard copywrite protected best selling books that we assume contain the original gospel contain phrases and stories that were originally published long before the current "known" author was born. Whether this is coincidence or deliberate is not for me to say. All I can say is that it is so.

Having said this, if a person can't be more creative than to scrape and re-write other people's work they should find another profession that requires less creativity and character.

When in doubt DON'T

[Sandeep Shah]

Originally Posted by Ernie Mitchell

Having said this, if a person can't be more creative than to scrape and re-write other people's work they should find another profession that requires less creativity and character.

So...

Original Concept + My twist, perspective & experience = My own brand new product?

[MikeHumphreys]

Originally Posted by DogScout

I was told by Bill Glazer, personally to NOT change anymore of his sales letters than I had to in order to be able to use them in a niche
Niether him nor DK would ever sue you.

Both of them frequently "swipe and deploy" copy to create their marketing and are quite open about doing it.

For every Glazer or Kennedy who says it's okay to copy their marketing, literally word for word, there's 9 other copywriters/marketers/entrepreneurs who will sue you for it.

Or they will contact your website hosting company and have your site shut off.

Or they post the ripoff artists info in a marketing or copywriting forum and publicly embarrass them.

I've seen it done numerous times, including by some pretty well-known copywriters and marketers.

I've personally sent cease and desist emails instead. To date, 100% of the people who ripped off my sales letters have taken them down instead of facing legal action.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe any original sales letter or marketing piece is treated like copyrighted work and protected by law as such.

As a copywriter, I do know that I own 100% of the copyright on anything I write for a client until I am paid in full.

Even when I am paid in full, I am still co-owner of the marketing piece because I can post it as a portfolio example on my site or re-use something like graphic bullets on another marketing piece without it being copyright infringement.

So I don't care if Glazer or Kennedy say it's okay to do. There's more people who would be upset if you ripped off their marketing and will do something about it.

Mike

[Ernie Mitchell]

I own a boat load of marketing and reprint licenses for Dan Kennedy products.

After spending thousands of dollars for licenses I was not only told that the sales letters for the products could not be altered but also that I could not write about the products or Mr Kennedy. That sure put the damper on creating an autoresponder series.

[Ernie Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Paul McQuillan

Well since Dan's book and John's course are on the
same topic, yeah they're similar.

I own both and Carlton's goes a lot deeper

I like how people think there is a right way and a wrong way.

I have swiped and so has EVERY copywriter that walks the
earth. I do not restate my swipes, I redo them to suit my
needs. My swipe file is an idea factory

Those saying "if you can't be creative enough to come up
with your own sh-t, go punch a clock"....

You do not know what the hell you are talking about

Well Paul if there isn't a right way or a wrong way what way is there?

The way I see it, without the establishment of a preconceived right/wrong standard we are into practicing opportunistic situational ethics. Where is the compass?

[TimGross]

Originally Posted by DogScout

Dan Kennedy believes in 'swipe and deploy'
meaning, he believes that anything he makes public SHOULD be 'stolen'

Dan's definition of "Swipe and Deploy" is to grab an idea from one field and apply it to another. (IE, find a trick that insurance salesmen use to close sales and apply it to selling engagement rings)

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Any copywriter worth his salt will steal anything that isn't nailed down. Why do you think we call them swipe files?

Just because copywriters use terms like "swipe file" as terminology does not mean they encourage plagiarism. "Swipe" to a professional copywriter doesn't mean the same thing as "swipe" to a kleptomaniac in a jewelry store.

Originally Posted by DogScout

nothing DK wrote ever had a do not use sign on it, quite the opposite, he encouraged direct copying of his material whenever possible

Everything Dan Kennedy writes has an actual sign on it, it's called a copyright notice. You're confusing his encouragement of others to "swipe ideas" with copyright infringement.

If you think Dan Kennedy encourages you to plagiarize his sales letters, maybe you should fax his office for permission to clarify. In fact, for his L.O.S. "Look over my shoulder" copywriting subscribers he implicitly tells them not to plagiarize his sales letter examples, and to only use them for ideas/brainstorming, etc.

[Steven Wagenheim]

I don't know how common this is now, but a while ago (a long while ago)
some copywriters actually had "swipe" files on their server that you could
download.

These contained snippets of headlines, subheads, bullet points, price pitches,
guarantees, signature PS files and so on.

One copywriter, who actually gave me access to these, told me to use
the ideas but NOT copy them word for word. In other words, tailor them to
YOUR niche and market.

Is this still common today among copywriters? I don't know because I
haven't looked lately.

For the record, and maybe this is out of laziness, I never really used any
of these. I could never seem to get them to fit with my sales letter,
probably because most were for niches outside of IM and all my products
are MMO products.

Makes a big difference, believe it or not.

Anyway, any info anybody can supply on this subject in case there is
somebody out there who actually wants to download swipe files.

I do know hardtofindads had quite a few you could download free, but I
don't know about today.

[ExRat]

Hi Steven,

Anyway, any info anybody can supply on this subject in case there is somebody out there who actually wants to download swipe files.

Just buy the products Jason Fladlien sells at giveaway prices.

He starts with swipe files, deconstructs and analyses them then tells you how to program your brain to be a copy machine so that it's original. He's pretty good.

Get To Know The Real Fladders

Swipe Product

Read ^ reviews on the swipe product above