In conversation with Marilyn Strathern’s work on kinship and especially on metaphors of intellectual and reproductive creativity, this paper provides an analysis of plagiarism not as a violation of intellectual property but of the kinship relationships between author, work, and readers. It also analyzes the role of figures of kidnapped slaves and children in the genealogy of the modern concept of plagiarism.
BentlyLShermanB (2008) Intellectual Property Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
BestS (2004) Fugitive’s Properties: Law and the Poetics of Possession, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BiagioliM (2000) Rights or rewards? Changing contexts and definitions of scientific authorship. Journal of College and University Law27: 83–108.
4.
BiagioliM (2012) Recycling texts or stealing time? Plagiarism, authorship, and credit in science. International Journal of Cultural Property19: 453–476.
5.
BradleyKR (1984) Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire, New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
CoombeR (1994) Challenging paternity: Histories of copyright. Yale Journal of Law and Humanities6: 397–422.
7.
DolginJ (1992–3) Just a gene: Judicial assumption about parenthood. UCLA Law Review40: 637–694.
8.
DolginJ (1994) The ‘intent’ of reproduction: Reproductive technologies and the parent–child bond. Connecticut Law Review26: 1261–1314.
9.
Foucault M (1977) What is an author? In: Bouchar D (ed.) Language, Counter-Memory, Practice. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
10.
Gaius (1904) Institutes of Roman Law, trans. Poste E and Whittuck EA. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
11.
Galilei G (1607) Difesa di Galileo Galilei Nobile Fiorentino Contro le Calunnie & Imposture di Baldessarre Capra Milanese … . Venice: Baglioni.
12.
HillJL (1991) What does it mean to be a ‘parent’? The claims of biology as the basis for parental rights. New York University Law Review66: 353–420.
13.
HomesteadM (2005) American Women Authors and Literary Property, 1822–1869, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14.
KwallRR (2006) Inspiration and innovation: The intrinsic dimensions of the artistic soul. Notre Dame Law Review81: 1945–2002.
15.
Long G (1875) Patria potestas. In: Smith W (ed.) A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. London: Murray.
16.
Martial (1919) Epigrams, trans. Ker WCA. London: Heinemann.
17.
Martial (1993) Epigrams, trans. Bailey S. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
McGillS (2012) Plagiarism in Latin Literature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
MergesRMenellPLemleyM (2009) Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age, New York: Aspen Publishers.
20.
Merriam-Webster (1991) The Merriam-Webster New Book of Word Histories, New York: Merriam-Webster.
Plato (1994) Symposium and Phaedrus, trans. Jowett B. New York: Dover.
23.
PottageAShermanB (2011) Kinds, clones, and manufactures. In: BiagioliMJasziPWoodmanseeM (eds) Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 271–274.
24.
Price A (2006) Cases of plagiarism handled by the United States Office of Research Integrity 1992–2005. In: Plagiary: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification 1: 1–11.
25.
RoseM (1993) Authors and Owners, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
RoseM (1996) Mothers and authors: Johnson v. Calvert and the new children of our imaginations. Critical Inquiry22: 613–623.
27.
RoseM (2002) Copyright and its metaphors. UCLA Law Review50: 1–15.
28.
ShultzMM (1990) Reproductive technology and intent-based parenthood: An opportunity for gender neutrality. Wisconsin Law Review2: 297–398.
29.
SmithW (1891) A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Vol. II, London: Murray.
30.
Spackman B (1994) Mafarka and son: Marinetti’s homophobic economics. Modernism/Modernity 1.
31.
StrathernM (1995) The Relation: Issues in Complexity and Scale, Cambridge: Prickly Pear Press.
32.
StrathernM (1999) Property, Substance, and Effect, London: Athlone Press.
33.
Strathern M (2003) Emergent properties. In: Biagioli M and Galison P (eds) Scientific Authorship. New York: Routledge.
34.
StrathernM (2005) Kinship, Law, and the Unexpected: Relatives Are Always a Surprise, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Stumpf A (1986) Redefining mother: A legal matrix for reproductive technologies. Yale Law Journal 187–208.
36.
WatsonA (1985) Examination of pregnant women and the observation of delivery. In: MommsenTKruegerPWatsonA (eds) The Digest of Justinian, Vol. 2, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 740–742.
