Get 6 Months of ShootQ Free With Any Workshop Purchase!

Your content will be up shortly. Please allow up to 5 seconds
Inspiration

The Stolen Workshop Follow Up – Responses from Rob and Adam

By Hanssie on December 18th 2013

A Note From Pye, Our Editor-in-Chief

In the past, I have shut down any and all articles that essentially “outed” those in our industry for poor behavior and business practices. In most cases, I felt that while the offending parties were wrong, I didn’t want to use our influence to essentially make mountains out of mole hills.

Despite receiving monthly notifications of photographers stealing and using our own images, I have resisted the urge to make a public example of them. On one occasion, one local photographer was using our images to advertise their services in a wedding magazine. On another occasion, someone had completely copied every bit of text from our studio’s website in a poor attempt at SEO.

I have always believed that these people would eventually get what they deserved. When one of our writers stumbled onto this Rob vs. Adam story, I felt that it was on a completely different level than anything I have seen. I began to feel that we aren’t doing the industry any favors by continuing to stay silent on these topics. Those that know me, my business partners, and the writers behind SLR Lounge should know that we are about creating an uplifting platform with solid education. We are against non-constructive criticism and openly moderate rude and abusive behavior as it creates a negative environment for learning.

We have absolutely no desire to gain traffic and visits from dirty tabloid-like articles that are written for shock value and slander rather than for inspirational and educational purposes. We want to create the best educational community website built on a solid foundation of inspiration and great educational content.

My decision in approving this article was simply to call attention to things that aren’t right in our industry in the hopes that perhaps we can change and better prevent these things happening to others in the future. After all, who exactly would we be helping by not bringing light to these stories? If these stories are seldom reported and discussed, wouldn’t that be all the more reason for other individuals to perpetuate this type of behavior?

I am truly sad for both Adam Forgione and Rob Adams. For obvious reasons, I am sad for Adam Forgione. Preparing and creating educational content is extremely difficult, and to not be rewarded or even recognized for those efforts would be absolutely crushing. I am also sad for Rob Adams. Rob has an extensive body of work that is extremely impressive in its own right. His work clearly demonstrates that he has the ability and knowledge to be an educator. Yet for whatever reason, this costly mistake will forever negatively punctuate his work and reputation.

We won’t be perpetuating each of these dramas with ongoing articles and debates to fuel each fire. This final article has been approved to allow both individuals a platform to speak their story. Afterwards, we will bury the hatchet and move on. Going forward we hope that making you all aware of such stories will foster more mutual respect for your peers and dissuade others in the industry from such behavior. As always, please feel free to let us know if you think bringing light to such stories helps or hurts the industry in the comments below.

— Pye

Rob Adam’s Response From Behind the Shutter

Yesterday, we posted the following video showing Rob Adams, a former student of Adam Forgione’s, using an uncanny amount of examples, anecdotes and verbiage from Rob’s original workshop while he taught the same subject on CreativeLive. You can read the original conversation by clicking here.

stolen workshop from Pennylane Productions on Vimeo.

Since Rob is a friend and a writer with Behind the Shutter, Sal Cincotta wrote his thoughts on the situation prior to posting Adam’s direct response to the situation. Both can be read in full on the Behind the Shutter website by clicking here.

Here was Rob Adam’s response:

rob-adams

I thank you all for your patience while I read and took in all of your comments and this situation. I wanted to respond with an answer as best as I could and in less than 24 hours and I believe I have done that.

When I first saw this video post, I thought to myself “What did I do? Did I do this??” I had to take a good look at it, myself, my intentions and my entire presentation to find answers as I took Adam Forgione’s course years ago and taught that specific class over a year ago. It wasn’t easy, but I was ready to be honest with myself if I did make mistakes.

From what was shown, more than 90% of this is basic filmmaking concepts…..

The comparisons address universal video principles like time-shifting (first brought to wedding cinema by David Robin in 2006, and a part of movies for years before that) and facetime (so generic a term that Apple uses it), that are taught the same way no matter who teaches them. It is much like if you were teaching in photography how to expose for ettl off-camera-flash – “expose for the background” (you’ll hear that exact phrase every time) or industry trade-secrets that are as old as the day is long (like walla-walla since the “early days of radio” and music theory and timing which we can trace back to the BC era —- For the record, I am a guitar and bass player and have been for years and learned my music theory from that), regardless I think that as speakers and educators we’re called to a higher standard. Forgione didn’t invent those basic concepts that I spoke about; neither did any other educator teaching those concepts today.

The editor of this video, (said to be Dustin Blake), malevolently took a skewed microscope to 18 hours of one of my workshops on CreativeLive, and then had to search through three separate workshop video and audio bits of Adam Forgione’s in order to pull up about 6 minutes or .005% of similarities. 80% of which is attested for above in basic cinema or worldly concepts, so that the only thing that can accurately be said to have been regurgitated from his workshops was about .001% of my entire workshop. Anyone could make a mash up like that from pretty much any two speakers speaking on the same topic because they’re teaching THE SAME TOPIC and the same basic principles need to be taught. To say that my entire workshop and educating career over the past four years is all fraudulent and fabricated based on .005% of debatable material is a gross exaggeration and a purposeful insult from those who already had a vendetta that they were looking to validate and who typically thrive on stirring the pot whenever they can as seen in this “warning” message I got earlier in the day:

Rob Adams and Adam Forgione
As I’ve mentioned numerous times in other forums like this one, I’ve clearly been influenced and inspired by Adam Forgione, Ray Roman, David Robin, Joe Simon, Dave Williams, and many of my other industry peers. I have nothing but respect for them. Their teaching and work continue to impress me because their concepts work and I use them in my business alongside with concepts I’ve come up with myself and others I’ve learned over the years from my Video Production College education. It’s the cycle of learning: You learn, then you do, then you teach.  I’ve implemented their concepts along with many others through out my 15 years of education into my business, made it my own, adapted it to work for me and now teach what works for my business and me. I’m sure some of their presentations style and vocabulary have leaked into my presentation and way of explaining things because it’s how I was taught it and how I remember it subliminally. But to say that I am now at fault to complete plagiarism of all of my educator works is absurd; and all over not mentioning in that workshop instance that I learned things from a Forgione workshop two years prior (as I did mention I learned from Ray Roman in that workshop). It’s a wild overreaction and an illogical exaggeration.

However, regardless of how miniscule the percentage of seemingly copied verbiage and jokes that were in my workshop, I do believe that as educator’s we are called to a higher standard. I should have, 100%, quoted or given credit to Forgione for anything even partially resembling his workshop material. I could have easily done so while teaching and this entire thing would have been completely moot, but I failed to for a variety of reasons including not realizing it was so similar or simply forgetting to credit where I remembered it from in this particular instance, even though I have said it before. It was absolutely not my intent to plagiarize or rip off any of his material, but only to give good information. I am truly sorry for this and all of the hurt it caused Forgione and others. I only wish that Forgione had come to me first rather than seeing the video that someone else made and taking it as a representation of my entire education career. I do hope that others will not be so fooled.

In the future, I plan on working to regain the trust and respect I have lost, first with my family and friends, and then with my peers.

Again, I am truly sorry for the happening and will be happy to make any public, in-person apologies as well. I do, humbly, ask for your forgiveness and understanding, though seemingly undeserved.

Rob Adams

Adam Forgione’s Response to the Situation

adam-forgione1. I worked really hard on this stuff and I am mad at Rob for what he did to me.

2. I believe he was fully aware of what he was doing.

3. I wanted him to stop teaching my style and I would never know for sure unless I exposed him to the industry.

4. I have no problem with him or any attendee copying the style I teach at my workshops if they are just using it to make wedding films, although I always encourage and hope attendees will take what they need and create their own style.

5. What Rob did greatly affects my business and that is personal to me and my family.

6. I would be fully willing to speak at a public event with Rob Adams covering both our workshops and proving his .005% theory is a lie (this statement from Rob made me very mad), lets all watch hours together then. I edited the 12 minute video because it proves the point in 12 minutes and it shows the exact moments that made my jaw drop while watching.

7. A screenshot was shown (and then removed, why I have no idea) on the Behind the Shutter article. Rob seemed to imply I was planning something mischievous all along. The image implied that it was me saying that I wanted more drama and it was taken off a popular wedding cinematography and photography Facebook forum. If anyone knows me, they know I’m a wise guy and that it is common for me to horse around with my peers in this Facebook group. Many of us do it for fun. The post he was referring to was obviously out of context and something I said out of fun before I even found out what he had actually done.

8. I always thought Rob was talented and I have no idea why he would even need to do this. I hope he cleans his slate and I am willing to forgive him one day, as I hope others do too because we all make mistakes. Right now, I am mad at him and I hope for a personal apology someday with no excuses (ex. Adam I am very sorry…)

9. I do not want to be affiliated with anything he is affiliated with so I will be contacting any 3rd party companies and organizations to remove me if his name is attached.

10. Lastly AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, anyone who blames or bashes organizations like WPPI, CreativeLive, Exposed Down Under, etc are 100% wrong. Don’t even go there. These organizations had no idea and in my opinion owe NO ONE an explanation for Rob’s actions, Rob does. They are probably waiting for contact with Rob and are just as shocked as you. They are not to blame so please do not bad mouth any of these EDU programs that help us grow as an industry. Please respect #10 please.

For everyone involved remember time heals

— Adam Forgione

Open Discussion

As always, your thoughts and discussion is welcome below in the comments.

Would You Like SLR Lounge to Bring Light to Similar Stories in the Future?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
This site contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links, however, this does not impact accuracy or integrity of our content.
About

Hanssie is a Southern California-based writer and sometimes portrait and wedding photographer. In her free time, she homeschools, works out, rescues dogs and works in marketing for SLR Lounge. She also blogs about her adventures and about fitness when she’s not sick of writing so much. Check out her work and her blog at www.hanssie.com. Follow her on Instagram

Q&A Discussions

Please or register to post a comment.

  1. Jesper Ek

    Some people just believes what is most convenient for their own conscious… sad really.

    | |
  2. hack for simpsons tapped out

    Heya i’m for the first time here. I came across this board and I
    find It really useful & it helped me out much.
    I hope to give something back and help others like you aided me.

    | |
  3. RéFéRencer Website

    I simply couldn’t ggo away your web site before suggesting that I actually
    enjoyed the usul information an individual provide
    in your visitors? Is going to bbe again ceaselessly iin order too investigate
    cross-check new posts

    | |
  4. Mike

    I can understand that you are teaching basic fundamental concepts and some things will be similar. However, dropping a microphone during your presentation is not a fundamental concept. It was too big of a coincidence for me. It was the thing that really showed me how badly this guy copied someone else. Ask him too explain that part.

    | |
  5. William Bert

    “For everyone involved remember time heals”

    Time to move on and hope this is the last article from SLR Lounge on this!

    Also the above quote is from Adam Forgione, I like his advice.

    | |
  6. Cai

    I´ll admit, at first I jumped to the conclusion that the video was an accurate portrayal of expropriation. Upon further critical examination (damn you frontal cortex!), the facts may be very different than the conclusions many of us seem to have initially jumped to.

    I have over ten years of film/video experience and have written extensive formal curriculum on the subject. Hopefully the following helps other photographers, who may not have extensive video experience, better understand why this video appears to be edited out of context. In other words, intended for all the photographers, with no formal/informal training, who don´t know jack about video and simply believe the video function on their camera makes them an expert in all visual media. The differences between photographer and videographer/cinematographer go far beyond similarities of what is produced by either. For video, it may take truckloads of equipment and several hours or days to set up. Of course, the photographer´s job is just as difficult: show up with a small bag, fifteen minutes prior, then find a strategic location between the videographer and essentials. OK, fortunately these asshole photogs aren´t the norm, just wanted to establish that my video experience, at a minimum, qualifies me to point out a few things I noticed in the ¨stolen¨ video.

    The video is taken from two video workshop instructors, one by Adam Forgione and one by Rob Adams.

    1. Anchor (00:12 and 00:23)

    Everyone has heard the term News Anchor. What does it really mean? ¨Anchor¨ is a common video/broadcasting term meaning dominant.

    Context: Furgione and Adams are talking about having an underlying theme. Like a book or any other ¨story¨, video works best if it has an underlying theme. If you have no video experience and your friend gives you three hours of her wedding video, what would you most likely use to try and create a story with? It just makes sense to put B roll of the wedding over the A roll of friends and family telling who the couple is and why they are special (i.e., their wedding ¨story¨).

    2. 4/4 time signature (00:34 and 00:40)

    ¨Most songs are in fact 4/4 time¨…yep, sure are. Also referred to as ¨common time¨…because it´s so common! BTW, from now on you can no longer say: f8 and be there, use the rule of thirds, move in closer, the sky is blue, etc.

    Context: common musical reference.

    3. Waltz (00:51 and 01:11)

    Context: Seems like they are both trying to relate to their audiences with common references. Tom Waits or Fiona Apple may have some 3/4 songs but are a little more abstract in comparrison. Off the top of your head, can you name one waltz or example of 3/4 time?

    4. Song Climax (01:32 and 01:38)

    ¨the song will grow and climax.¨

    Context: Yeah, songs tend to do that. From now on musicians are not allowed to instruct other musicians on any of the following:

    ▪ Breaks create a tension that lead power to the next section
    ▪ Have most elements come in and repeat every 8 or 16 measures
    ▪ Have the breakdown around 50% in the track
    ▪ Have the climax after the breakdown or around %50-%60 into the song
    ▪ Create change and interest in your song by breaking it up a little with melodic changes or drum breaks
    ▪ Most pop songs are 3:30 and electronic songs can be any length, but to keep a really tight song that keeps interest try and keep it on the shorter side.
    ▪ There is a difference between the dance floor and the bedroom. On the dance floor and live take out mostly intros and have songs last around 5-8 minutes to keep the beat and audiences attention. Bedroom is much more fluid and shorter attention span.

    So that´s why music is awesome! Dance floor.. bedroom…climax!

    Work Cited: Parts That Make a Song Structure, http://www.subaqueousmusic.com/production-articles/music-theory/86-dubstep-and-electronic-music-song-structure

    5. Emotional Moment

    ¨those are big moments and that´s what I´ll put on the chorus ones.¨

    Context: Ever made a photo slideshow and noticed the timing was off with the photos (cuts) and music? Once you have that process down, the next thing you might notice is how crappy pics at a musical climax are pretty annoying too. What ARE the best shots to accompany musical climaxes in a wedding video? OK, not a fair question since there are just tons and tons and tons of great highlight clips available to a wedding videographer.

    6. Ceremony Audio Grid

    Audio is a key area that many photographers just don´t understand. If anyone thinks this is an indication of ¨stealing¨, then the basis for saying so is extremely ignorant. In photographers terms, a source, mic and recorder is like saying a camera, a light and a subject. Hey, let me rephrase that camera(™), a light(™) and a subject(™). Use these terms in your workshops at your own risk!

    There´s a lot more content that I would address in the same way. If you are ignorant about audio, video, music, editing, etc. then don´t be so quick to judge. Oh crap, I just noticed they both dropped the microphone in a similar fashion. Oh wait, is that a Shure-58 which has a reputation of repeated demonstrations on how tough it is? It Shure is! ( Shure SM58 – the world’s toughest microphone? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33QPLbQi9FI )

    The ¨stolen¨video is simply edited in a way to make it look like Rob Adams stole the ¨product, delivery, agenda¨, etc., as stated by Adriana above. The bottom line is that neither of these videos address anything other than common practices among experienced videographers. Show this to your friends with extensive video experience and ask their opinion on this ¨stolen¨workshop video.

    | |
  7. Adriana

    Perhaps the issue itself is not being fully understood by some. Let’s use this example:

    There are 1,000′s of motivational speakers around the globe. They all basically give the same messages. Now, say you’re Tony Robbins. You’ve invested years gaining the knowledge, developing your system and it’s delivery. Your seminars are THE PRODUCT — it’s delivery, it’s words, it’s music, it’s agenda.

    Now, Joe Smow is the last row is thinking ‘man, this guy’s incredible, he must be making more money in a day than I can do in 2 weeks (read Rob’s own bio on his page, or in his Rangefinder article — does this line sound familiar?) — I can probably do this better.’ So Joe diligently takes notes, buys the DVD’s, and he’s off to the races. He is now teaching Tonys PRODUCT — the delivery, the music, the agenda, and, most of his words.

    That is the issue is here. No one disputes that the information has been around forever, but Rob stole the PRODUCT!! And at times, word for word, action for action. It was like watching a cheap imitation of a master.

    I’ve taught business accounting for photographers, creating the course from my 20+ years business experience (in my ‘other’ life I’m an accountant). What I learned early on in the class materials development was that if I couldn’t fully explain a concept in my own words, I didn’t really know the concept. So besides ripping off the Product, Rob, by not being able to express what concepts were in his own words, was ripping off the students.

    | |
    • metro

      I would add:

      It doesn’t matter how much he ripped off. Debating that would be like debating of my images you can use in your portfolio as long as the rest of the images are yours. The correct amount you are allowed to use of someone else’ material is 0… nada… zilch.

      | |
  8. Steven Inglima

    Rob Adam’s Program. Is that what it is, or what he did? :)

    It surely appears that, while perhaps not 100%, (what isn’t shown is 99.5% of it the CL class), those that didn’t watch the entire thing can’t know for sure the entire story. But….there are so many ways for a person to describe a methodology or a set of guidelines. When someone uses the exact same adjectives, descriptive words, jokes, timing, even pattern references; the preponderance of evidence is pretty overwhelming that there was more than a little influence here. While neither of these guys invented microphones, fades, editing…Adam correctly and generously attributes concepts created by other to their originator. No mention of Adam Forgione’s ideas were in Rob’s program that we could see, and there would have been ample opportunity to have done so before starting the next concept. It’s one thing to learn from others, as we all have done; it’s another thing entirely to present content like this, clearly created by another and lifted, as one’s own and more than imply ownership of it at one point. The worst part of this for Rob is that for what might quite some time into the future, everything that he speaks about might be viewed as rehashing someone else’s ideas, and that loss of credibility would require considerably more of an apology and explanation that was already given.

    | |
    • metro

      How much of Adam’s content can be used before Rob can be called a fraud or a plagiarist or a thief? Does it have to 100%?

      | |
  9. Tom Brooks

    I would like to offer two things to this discussion. First, I honestly believe Rob used some of Adam’s material, and the video clip proves this to some degree. Do I find this to be a character flaw by not attributing (at some point) some of his teachings to Adam? Yes. Do I find it utterly abhorrent? Not entirely. Before you beat me up, let me explain. Sunday I was shooting the Nutcracker ballet being performed for the 75th year in a row here in Toledo. During one of the scenes I heard a tune or “refrain” that sounded suspiciously like the theme music from the original movie “Stargate”. It was only for about 5 seconds, but the similarity was unmistakable, and as a refrain it was played more than just once. Did I suddenly feel as though the composer of the Stargate theme music had plagiarized Tchaikovsky? Everything we say or everything we create has been, at some point, said or created in some measure by someone before us. Which brings me to my second point. Plagiarism is taking someone’s work and repeating it verbatim, which I think he did to *some* degree, and that is offensive but not necessarily abhorrent. Rob’s offense is simply not mentioning Alan as the originator of *some* of his teachings. Rob could have at least used a different song to reference or mixed up his examples more than he did. It is hard to give a man 50 severe lashes for lacking the skills of cunning or imagination, so perhaps his punishment should be limited to .5% of 50 lashes. But we should not label him as a 100% fraud.

    | |
    • Daniel

      Let’s not mince words. A fraud is a fraud.

      Can he apologize and change his ways? Yes, I hope he does, but until he apologizes to Adam directly and stops selling that stolen workshop, he’s not worthy of any respect as a professional.

      Just because there is widespread plagiarism in other parts of society doesn’t mean Rob should be let off the hook. If he wants off the hook, he knows what he need to do.

      | |
  10. Cai

    Can’t stand people who plagiarize, but this isn’t plagiarism it’s just “common knowledge”to most who are experienced in video/film. What EXACTLY is plagiarized? Don’t use a bad mic? Don’t touch the camera when recording? I definitely understand how someone with no video experience, when viewing out of context A roll, may think the material was “stolen”. Again, can’t stand people who plagiarize, but jumping to conclusions that this guy plagiarized material is just as stupid, to me, as plagiarizing. Can anyone point out something in the videos that isn’t common video knowledge to vidiots?

    | |
    • Ranalli

      Did you even look at the comparison video? Clearly not. This wasn’t as simple as two guys explaining the same technical point….it was two guys using the SAME EXACT EXAMPLES FOR EXPLAINING THOSE TECHNICAL POINTS.

      It’s plagiarism…..get it?

      | |
    • Daniel

      What about that checklist Rob was giving out for free? Many have said it’s 90% or more of Adam’s checklist. Is that not significant?

      Moreover, it’s not necessarily the individual elements themselves, it’s the combination of all elements together as a whole and the method of delivery that smacks of deliberate plagiarism. There’s too much similarity to ignore.

      I’ve been to many photography and marketing workshops that essentially teach similar general knowledge concepts, but never ever verbatim copies of one another. There is clear fraud here. You can deny it all you like, but I hope it never happens to you, cause if it does, you’ll sing to a different tune for sure.

      | |
  11. Jim

    Pye,

    I completely understand your reluctance to weigh in on a case by case basis, but perhaps it is about time someone wrote an article about the ISSUE of plagiarism and/or using other people’s images rather than on specific incidences. Often articles about incidences turn into a pedantic splitting of hairs (“he did this, but he didn’t do that”) that hides the bigger issue and our inability to understand it. I think a lot of people assume that most photographers, writers, and creative professionals are on the same page about this, but comment sections on stories like this one generally prove otherwise. I find that there are a lot of intelligent and creative people who don’t understand why the issue alone is a big deal, or they write it off as simply about money. There are so many aspects to this issue that become confused in the minds of readers, particularly the difference between the ethics (even what ethics are) and the legality. You hinted at part of this when you mentioned the hard work a presenter puts into his presentation and how that goes to benefit the “thief”, but what those benefits are remain a mystery in a lot of people’s minds. This a such a rich topic of discussion with so many aspects to be discussed (identity, money, potential, misrepresentation of authority to the students/readers, etc.), that I hate to see it relegated to over-simplification in the comments section. For once, I would like to see someone with an authoritative voice in the industry lead the discussion of EXACTLY WHY plagiarism, copyright theft, etc. can be so detrimental to the industry, and ethically if not legally wrong.

    If you or your contributors don’t feel up to the task (and I completely get that), maybe try finding someone who writes about ethics, plagiarism, or copyright for a living. I think everyone could benefit from some clarification and deeper discussion.

    Jim

    Jim

    | |
    • wjp

      Jim,
      I couldn’t agree more. I am not a pro-tog. I am a hobbyist who enjoys visiting these blogs. I have no skin in this game as it were. However, I do deal with fraud in my profession and take a lot of continuing education regarding fraud to support professional certifications. There are common hallmarks of fraud that we should all recognize. Do a little reading on “The Fraud Triangle”. You won’t be a crime fighter, but it would be helpful to understand how sometimes things like this occur and how some people reconcile their actions with their self professed belief in truth and justice. I’m not passing judgment on Rob Adams here. I am just hoping to provide some background on how and why these typed of things generally occur. Very good people with very honorable intentions can become victims of their own actions through pressures, ample opportunity, and copious rationalization. I hope that the parties (both of them) in this situation are able to overcome it and move forward.

      Pye,

      I live in your neck of the woods. If you want to discuss fraud as background material for an article of this sort Jim is suggesting; I would be happy to help. I am a professional and certified in fraud examination.

      | |
  12. Joshua Birge

    I can understand someone learning from a great teacher, and using everything they learned to teach others. That is not wrong. However the way you do things and how you present a product can be done completely inappropriately.

    If you cannot take your own experiences from your professional carrier and implement into your curriculum then you should not be charging for your teachings, (nor should you say it is your own by not crediting the appropriate person)

    Making something your own style is hard in the art industry because their is nothing new just different. This is why someone can charge for their teachings. When you make the jump to charge people then your students should be paying for unique revelation that is relevant to what they want to learn not basic principles.

    In this case the hard work and experience was stolen from someone and used as a tool for personal gain, witch is never ok, but then at the same time you have to ask yourself “wasn’t this bound to happen”.
    When you decide to teach you are putting yourself into a position of vulnerability because you are placing your name, work & knowledge on the table for a price. You cant take that back nor can you control what people do with that knowledge.

    We are in a time and generation where everyone wants to teach and be in the spot light when in my own opinion that shouldn’t be the case. Their has to be a understanding that being in a teachers position also puts you in the eye site of everyone so you have to be transparent genuine and most importantly have respect for the industry like you would for art or you are really just filling your students with empty principles and morals.

    | |
    • Jim

      I think your statement had more in it about the issues around this incident than Rob Adams did.

      He spent six paragraphs before he admitted any wrong doing. By that point, for me, he had already undercut any humility in a case for his victimization. I have sympathy for the amount of vitriol he received, but anyone who has spent anytime on the internet knew that was coming. It was personal to him, I understand that, but pleading for pity instead of immediately addressing what part you played in this incident is not the way to encourage my sympathy, or to make me want really listen to what you have to say.

      When will someone teach these guys how to make an authentic sounding apology?

      It makes no difference to the actual issue, but it does color the way I see him.

      | |
  13. Christopher Wren

    I think articles like this keep everyone honest, especially those in teaching roles. 6 minutes out of 18 hours is .5%, not .005%! Basic math shows Rob is off by a factor of 100 in what portion he was called out on. He is also wrong in that all failed to do was not give credit, because in doing that he’d have to admit that a large portion of what he said was lifted directly from another teacher. His “apology” is not one at all, and he should really try again to make this right.

    | |
    • Wil

      Convert 18hrs to minutes. 18hrs=1080min (18×60). 6 minutes of 1080 minutes is .005%. 6/10180=0.0055555555555556
      Just sayin.

      | |
    • Jon

      @Wil… Um…what?! 6 divided by 1080 is 0.00555555555556 = .5%.

      Just like 6 minutes out of 1 hour -> 6 divided by 60 which is 0.10 = 10%.

      | |
    • wjp

      Will, I deal with percentages quite frequently and there are some very common errors in the mathematical presentation of percentages. One of the largest common errors has bitten you on your arse, but I’m here to help not flame or troll you.

      One hundred percent is represented mathematically as 1.00 You can carry that decimal place out as far as you like.

      Ten percent would be 0.10 Again that decimal place can be carried out as far as needed or preferred.

      One percent would be 0.01.

      6 minutes divided by 1080 minutes would give you the mathematical representation of 0.5% or .0055555555 represented as a number rather than a percentage (that would be a repeating 5 out to infinity if you wanted to be as completely accurate as possible, but it isn’t really necessary in this case).

      Your presentation of 0.005% would actually be quite a bit less than you intended. It would be 0.00005 if expressed as a number and not the 0.005 returned from your calculation.

      I’m not trying to be a math nerd, a know-it-all, or to flame you. Just trying to help. I hope I didn’t come off poorly here and also hope I didn’t start a flame war.

      | |
    • Bob

      LOL Basic math…how ironic.

      | |
  14. Alan

    Ok, for one, did he do it on purpose? maybe. Does it matter? No. (but like he said credit should be given)
    For Adam who clearly is a stuck up Jack***, “teaching my style”…um, once you teach someone “your style” and they use it, it then becomes “their style”…and if that person then becomes a teacher, then they teach how they do things, which just so happens to be how you do them because otherwise them listening to you teach is pointless and a WASTE of money they paid to learn.

    BOTTOM line…in schooling, to teach is to learn, to learn is to put into action and to put into action is to teach!

    GROW up… There’s enough to go around for everyone!

    | |
    • Youmustbejokingsurely?!

      Rubbish… if this was university, it would be called plagiarism and he’d be kicked off campus… if it were a company he was working for, he’d probably be sacked… what you’re saying is: it’s cool to rip people off in a lazy manor and claim hard earned work for yourself. What a selfish, self centred opinion? Where is the respect? Good Lord, the whole thing is morally and ethically wrong!!!

      | |
    • Stan Rogers

      You might have had a point if the Rob Adams version wasn’t so thoroughly riddled with technical errors (and I don’t just mean the 4/4 time signature thing — take a look again at the audio line diagram, where microphones are in the middle, following some of the electronics, for example). He was simply repeating, with some significant misunderstanding, what he’d gotten from somebody else; it wasn’t a matter of taking it into the field, using it, proving it, then riffing on an established theme. It was a poor attempt at a note-for-note cover.

      | |
    • Jim

      STAN

      You hinted at something there. He may very well have been correct in what he was saying. He may not have been. To a student, the evidence that he knows about this stuff is that he can talk about it in depth and make a presentation about it.

      The problem is, now that he appears to have lifted everything (ideas, structure, phrases, demos) from someone else, what evidence is there that he actually knows anything about it other than what the other guy told him? He has undermined his own ability to claim any authority.

      | |
    • Jim

      Our Alan ties himself up in knots with his dissertation of ‘teaching style’ while he completely misses the major point of plagerism and theft of someone else’s work.

      Oh, wait it minute, you said it doesn’t matter! What a tool. Alan Adam, I presume?

      | |
    • Jim

      Our Alan ties himself up in knots with his dissertation of ‘teaching style’ while he completely misses the major point of plagerism and theft of someone else’s work.

      Oh, wait it minute, he said it “doesn’t matter”! What a tool. Alan Adam, I presume?

      | |