Marsha Petrie Sue, Professional Speaker, Found Guilty of Willful Copyright Infringement by US Federal Court, Also Accused of “Plagiarism” By Stanford Professor

 Stanford  University Robert I. Sutton accused Marsha Petrie Sue, an Arizona professional speaker of  “plagiarism” . Marsha Petrie Sue is a now known “copyright infringer” after  a unanimous jury in a  US Federal Court jury in  Los Angeles found her liable of willful  copyright infringement on December 9, 2010.  

Marsha Petrie Sue unlawfully copied  Dr. Lillian Glass’ materials and  placed them  in her 2007 Toxic People book, which by the way was the same title as Dr. Glass 1995 best -selling  Toxic People book.

STANFORD PROFESSOR REPRIMANDS MARSHA PETRIE SUE ON AMAZON BLOG

The Stanford University professor openly accused Marsha Petrie Sue  of  plagiarism.

 In  a  post on  Marsha Petrie Sue’s  amazon blog (which has hence been removed)  which Professor Robert Sutton wrote in  2008, he tells Petrie Sue that she took nearly word for word from an article “ that  Professor Sutton published  in the McKinsey Quarterly ,where he  provided a quote from Lars Dalgaard, CEO of one of the  one of the  most successful and fastest-growing software companies. Apparently  Marsha Petrie Sue used Dalagaard’s quote without attributing it to him, thereby claiming it as her own.  

 Professor  Sutton is quoted as saying  “There are some words omitted, but there is no attribution to original source and note below how you have pretty much simply removed some of the words from the opening of the original article. Note that I am a professor at Stanford, and directly taking text from a source with providing any attribution fits our definition of plagiarism.”  

He provides her with the original source and says to  Marsha Petrie Sue:Note the identical sentences” which you can read below as Professor Sutton  points out the specifics of  Marsha Petrie Sue’s plagiarism.

He then as concludes  his admonishment of  Marsha Petrie Sue by writing” Perhaps Amazon blogs don’t need to follow the Stanford  honor code, but I would never use so much text from another source without attribution, and I think that nearly  all other universities –and authors –would agree that acknowledgment of the source is appropriate.”

Professor Sutton is correct in his statement that he believes that all authors would agree that acknowledgement of a source is appropriate.

 Not attributing someone’s work to them and claiming it as their own is copyright infringement as a US Federal Court unanimous jury confirmed in a  trial against Marsha Petrie Sue where she was found liable for willful  copyright infringement. 

 

STANFORD PROFESSORS EXACT WORDS TO WILLFUL COPYRIGHT INFRINGER MARSHA PETRIE SUE

Robert I Suton says:

Marsha

 


The quote about Lars Dalgaard is taken nearly word for word from an article that I published in the McKinsey Quarterly earlier in the year called “Building the Civilized Workplace.” There are some words omitted, but there is no attribution to original source and note below how you have pretty much simply removed some of the words from the opening of the original article. Note that I am a professor at Stanford, and directly taking text from a source with providing any attribution fits our definition of plagiarism.

Here is the original source. Note the identical sentences:
Lars Dalgaard is CEO and cofounder of SuccessFactors, one of the world’s fastest-growing software companies-and the fastest with revenues over $30 million. Dalgaard recently listed some milestones that his California-based company passed in its first seven years:
*
the use of its software by more than two million employees at over 1,200 companies around the world
*
the use of its software by employees speaking 18 languages in 156 countries
*
growth three times that of the company’s nearest competitor
*
enthusiastic recommendations of the product by nearly all customers
*
dramatically low employee turnover
*
employing no jerks That’s right-no jerks-although the word SuccessFactors really uses (except on its Web site) is a mild obscenity that starts with the letter A and sort of rhymes with “castle.” All the employees SuccessFactors hires
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/postIPLNKX1TXDN55FD8G
10/6/2008
agree in writing to 14 “rules of engagement.” Rule 14 starts
out,
“I will be a good person to work with-not territorial, not be a jerk.” One of Dalgaard’s founding principles is that “our organization will consist only of people who absolutely love what we do, with a white-hot passion. We will have utmost respect for the individual in a collaborative, egalitarian, and meritocratic environment-no blind copying, no politics, no parochialism, no silos, no games, -just being good!”

Perhaps Amazon blogs don’t need to follow the Stanford  honor code, but I would never use so much text from
another source without attribution, and I think that nearly  all other universities –and authors –would agree that
acknowledgment of the source is appropriate
.

 

MARSHA PETRIE SUE  ALSO  PUT  DR. LILLIAN  GLASS’ MATERIALS ON HER WEBSITE AND CLAIMED IT AS HER OWN

What Marsha Petrie Sue did concerning  her word for word copying of Lars Dalgaard’s work  without attribution and claiming it as her own, she to Dr. Glass as well.

Petrie Sue  not only wrongfully copying Dr. Glass’ materials from Dr. Glass’  1992 “He Says, She Says.” book and placed those materials in Petrie Sue’s 2007 Toxic People book,(the same name as Dr. Lillian Glass Toxic People book written in 1995)  Petrie Sue took Glass’ material and openly placed it on her website.

On  Marsha Petrie Sue’s website  she  had the audacity to give written  permission to others to freely use Dr. Glass’ work only  if they included  Petrie Sue’s website address in order to promote  Petrie Sue’s Professional Speaking business. 

www.drlillianglass.com

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Marsha Petrie Sue, Professional Speaker, Found Guilty of Willful Copyright Infringement by US Federal Court, Also Accused of “Plagiarism” By Stanford Professor

  1. “Audacity” is the right word alright! Does she think she lives in a vacuum? Did she imagine that everybody would read “her” work and nobody would ever recognize having read it before? How could she even dream that there would be no discovery and repercussions?

    Like

    1. Thank you so much Forrest for your very insightful comment and for your support. Marsha Petrie Sue who will forever be known as a “willful copyright infringer” as well as an accused “plagierist” by a Stanford Professor is now publicly exposed and is being held accountable for her egregious actions. Let’s now hope that people learn from Marsha Petrie Sue’s example that they cannot get away with copying other’s materials and claiming it as their own without discovery and repecussions as you put so well..

      Like

  2. Hello! I know you analysed some gosselin kids pictures before and I have three,they basically contain the same thing: Kate stearing one of the boys by the head(so to speak) It’s a picture of Collin and there are two of Aaden. I was wondering if you could take a look at them because I would really like your professional opinion on how these little boys might feel about it.Just because I have heard people saying they would not handle their kids like that and I wouldn’t either.Also this happens just to the boys for some reason.Anyways here is the link,I uploaded the photos on sendspace.com.Thanks for your time 🙂 (I know you must be really busy but I hope you can answer my question but if not, it’s okay,I understand)
    http://www.sendspace.com/file/2ghuwz

    Like

  3. I drop a leave a response whenever I like a post on a website
    or if I have something to contribute to the discussion.
    Usually it’s a result of the sincerness communicated in the post I looked at. And on this post Marsha Petrie Sue, Professional Speaker, Found Guilty of Willful Copyright Infringement by US Federal Court, Also Accused of “Plagiarism” By Stanford Professor | Dr. Lillian Glass Body Language Blog. I was actually moved enough to post a commenta response 🙂 I do have a few questions for you if it’s allright.

    Is it simply me or does it give the impression like a few of the comments
    come across like left by brain dead visitors? 😛 And, if you are writing at other
    online social sites, I’d like to follow everything fresh you have to post. Would you list all of your public pages like your Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?

    Like

    1. MARSHA PETRIE SUE committed a crime which many have said which is against the law of the United States of America by taking my material which I first presented in her book named Toxic People which is also the name of my book Toxic People which I wrote 15 years earlier than her book, So Marsha Petrie Sue is NOW and FOREVER a plagerist in the eyes of people who are familiar with this term. But in the legal term she is a copyright infringer. So she needed to be held accountable for her egregious actions and thus she was taken to FEDERAL COURT where there was a unanimous decision for her to pay for her consequences.

      Like

      1. Good! Congratulations on a successful court judgment. Although I admire well written works, it would never occur to me to try to steal what someone else has written and call it my own. That really takes a very special kind of nerve… and, a lot of stupidity and dishonesty, too.

        Like

    1. Stealing your property whether it is physical or intellectual is the same things and people must be held accountable for their actions no matter where they are from as it is international lawn not just American law.

      Like

    1. Don’t be ridiculous joebama. Marsha Petrie Sue not only used world for word copying of my materials she also had the audacity to call her book Toxic People, the same title as my book which I worte 13 years earlier.

      Like

    2. Ministers SAY they are quoting from the bible so that’s not PLAGIARISM of a written work but, rather, is admittedly QUOTING from a written work.. It would behoove you to look up the word “plagiarism” and familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word because you would certainly then know that what you wrote in your comment is not a valid comparison to this case. As far as American’s loving to sue each other.,. ;that, too, has nothing to do with this case. This is not a frivolous case and, if you had ever written anything you were proud of and then had it stolen and then the thief claimed your work as their own and profited from that thievery… I’m sure you, too, would sue the thief. If not, you would be a fool. By your reasoning, I should be able to steal a house that you built and call it my own and then sell it and keep the money. Nice world that would be if we all lived by those rules!

      Like

  4. “Using quotes” is not a problem as long as we give credit to the person we are quoting, thus making it clear that the words are not our own. Using quotes is not the same thing as claiming those quotes as being our own words while expecting financial gain or recognition by keeping hidden the fact that we did not produce those words ourselves. Surely you can see the difference between using quotes and plagiarism? Ministers clearly give credit when they speak by using such qualifying phrases as “Jesus said…” Ministers do not claim that they wrote the Ten Commandments or the Dead Sea Scrolls but they may quote from them… see the difference?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s