I should not be surprised given that his writing is nothing short of official propaganda for various Bollywood personalities. But lifted interviews seems a new low.

This never would have made it past a competent editor.

In my opinion Mumbai Mirror owes the original author a check, and Jha owes him an apology.

Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work);

Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.

Mumbai Mirror has violated these recognized legal conditions by not giving credit to the source material (passionforcinema.com), and by using it in a commercial format.

Interesting that today the lead story on the Creative Commons weblog is the sucessful launch of Creative Commons licensing in India, meant to give Indian blogs, websites and computing organizations the same protections that exist here in the US.

The article may not be plagarism, but it is in violation of recognized American copywrite law – soon to be recognized in India, as well.

And the Mumbai Mirror piece is getting picked up all over the net and propagating. If any of us had written the piece, I am sure we’d like to get due credit for it, right?

probably not ‘copying’ in the obvious sense but failure to mention the source (‘Passion for Cinema’) constitutes as plagiarism.

Adding one line that Srinivas is a blogger at Passion for Cinema would have sufficed, I think. The question also raised is if Subhash K Jha contacted PFC to use their content. Journalists usually do.