Plagiarism

Professor Meisner
English 105.001
May I Borrow That?
Throughout grade school, when the teacher would tell us to take notes or copy something, I always remember the student sitting next to me would turn and ask, “Do you have some paper I could borrow?” This question always annoyed me not because I had to give away my paper but because they were not borrowing, they were taking and never returning something I had given to them. That paper, which they were about to write upon to make it their own, was never to return to me. Why did they not just ask if they could have the paper or use it? Perhaps the word borrowing has a more polite connotation than the words use, have, take, or even steal. But does borrowing become stealing if the object never travels back to the rightful owner? Does asking for permission make it just or lawful? Or maybe I should feel proud or honored that I am helping out someone in the world. That that paper they write on, which may just be some ideas they are conjuring, will become a great paper or story they write, something exciting to read. I, then, have helped work to be produced. It may be the same feeling an intern has when they have helped on the set of a popular movie being filmed. Their name may not necessarily appear on the big screen when the credits roll but they know that they worked on that production. Unfortunately that is not enough in this day and age. Credit and acknowledgment are everything. Possession and ownership have taken over people’s minds and we seem to be more greedy than ever. Maybe I should start copyrighting every sheet of paper that is supposedly mine.
The concept of plagiarism has always been associated with feelings of shame and immodesty. The word has been preached to scare those grade-schoolers who believed they were just “borrowing.” Most teachers and books propose that the word means lying, stealing, cheating, or lack of originality. To put it in most simple terms, Barbara Francis writes, “to plagiarize is to take work that is not your own and submit it as your own, without giving credit to the person who created it” (14). This explanation of plagiarism lacks a sense of the complexity of the word and the confusion which follows behind it. When someone has created something that is original why should we so immediately put a stamp on it that claims it is our own individual idea? To solidify the broad meaning of plagiarism, Rebecca Moore Howard, a writer and professor at Syracuse University, tries using, “more specific, less culturally burdened terms: fraud, insufficient, and excessive repetition” (Howard 475). Howard would rather eliminate the word altogether. This would seem like a dream, to travel back to times when borrowing and being influenced was appreciated. Borders would be indefinable on people’s “property” so they would become less stingy and protective. By living in a society where copyrighting is forbidden, people would rely on borrowing by permission and plagiarism may cease to exist. Plagiarism is not simply stealing, it is about following our ancestors work and creating new expressions upon it. The intent and amount of originality which is added to a work of art must be examined before proclaiming one has plagiarized.
Before the printing press was invented, people relied on word of mouth. Stories were told from memory and obviously they changed each time. This not only allowed tales to travel slower but the original was not of importance, instead originality was appreciated. Each story teller had their own rhythm, their own way of speaking, and their own diction, all which help create the plot. Creativity was the main importance and stories were told for pleasure not for money and fame. Imitation and borrowing were forms of flattery and “most cultures valued following traditions more than creating original work” (Francis 20). Once the printing press was invented it allowed books to be made quicker and travel around the world faster. This allowed two major events to evolve. One, copyright laws were enacted and, two, writing had become a profession (Francis).
It almost seems as though the invention of the printing press ruined our little world of folk tales and story time and erupted into a disaster of mass distribution and eventually theft. However, books “helped to educate people in a world where many were illiterate” (Francis 23). Still, fame and money mattered more than education once the world spread to be populated in more than just one region. Writers realized that what they wrote could be copyrighted as “theirs,” and they could be given money for it. In fact, since 1787, the U.S. Constitution writes that they have the power, “…to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries” (Francis 25). Equality was no longer in balance; people were poor and rich and only fame would give one money.
People began to copyright what was theirs for fear that originality might run out. In other words, lack of one’s own voice was appearing. Everything had already seemed to be said. This fear is almost illogical because the word “originality” seems to be overestimated. Washington Times writer Scott Galupo believes that the notion of plagiarism is just “as slippery as the notion of originality” (1). He writes that Vanity Fair essayist Christopher Hitchens warns people that they are making a “very large claim” to say they “know originality when you see it” (Galupo 1). People fear that all originality has been taken from them and all that is left is the thought of inspiration and imitation. But this is absurd since all creation has some individuality within it. Like stated before, everyone has their own rhythm and choices which they put into their work, whether it is a piece of work which they will claim as new or work which they will call an imitation or cover. Something which can not be copied is uniqueness. Yet Galupo still questions originality by claiming that there is something that appears every once in a while which seems refreshing and unheard or unseen. “The evolution of art,” he claims, “requires artists- novelists, painters, songwriters- to imitate before they innovate” (Galupo 1). This is true since from when we are born untill we die we are constantly taught and reminded of the “old masters,” the ones who have come before us. We read Shakespeare and Greek mythologies, we listen to music before our time, and we study art which was painted centuries ago. People “study old forms, experiment with new ones and,” Galupo claims that, “if lucky, stumble onto a fresh voice” (1). Apparently a “fresh voice” is what society is looking for in these days; the smaller details of originality are being overlooked and only something “new” will become famous.
However there are many occasions where old-fashioned can be very affective, attractive and reusable. So what is wrong with having originality that encompasses old styles and features which are put out into the world to educate and inspire? Jonathan Lethem reminds us of what is called an “open source,” or, “pre-existing melodic fragments and larger musical frame-works,” that are, “freely reworked” (2). Although this term is usually applied towards blues and jazz music, the concept tests that of plagiarism. Rephrasing and reworking an art form cannot be held as plagiarism since it is putting that touch of individuality into it or originality. Then again, Lethem defends the artists who are taking recognition for art work which is less eminent. He defines this as “imperial plagiarism” or “the free use of third world or ‘primitive’ art works and styles by more privileged (and better-paid) artist” (Lethem 7). Some artists may feel violated that another more famous individual has used most of their work without changing it and without giving credit. Sharing is not as fair when the outcome favors one person more than the other. This deals with the respect we give towards each other; we are taught to cite other’s work when taking their exact words but only so much credit can be given when someone adds new to something old. It is unjust to be paid or acknowledge for something which embraces no originality or uniqueness.
Plagiarism cannot be used when an artist has been influenced and added or even changed some aspects of the original work. It is the taking of another person’s work without conforming it to a new appearance of creativity and passing it off as original which makes plagiarism. The magazine The Economist wrote, “plagiarists, like forgers, have guilty intent, but of interestingly different kinds…forgers sin against authenticity, plagiarists against originality” (“What’s Wrong With Copying”). Plagiarism is an act which is immoral due to the lack of ingenuity and concern for the artist who created the source. Intentions, good or evil, can identify whether an artist is genuinely creating artwork or has simply copy and pasted. It is difficult to accuse someone of plagiarism since finding the original intent is unobtainable however, it is distinguishable when an artist has been influenced and carefully borrowed. Artists explore and redefine meanings to fit their personal desire to create an outcome which differs in some way from the source they obtained. They caringly add and input ideas and information to educate and amuse the public. It is just like the old folktales, traveling around and changing form or meaning to begin new morals which revolve around the customs and cultures of society.
Everyone has something “new” to contribute to the world of art. We collaborate intentionally and unintentionally and neither is wrong. Art strives best when it has others to support it and explain its being. Sources are there for people to bounce ideas off of and from there we work on more forms of integration. Howard says it best when explaining that imaginations are “only the jumble of what we see and hear; creativity lies more in the mixing than the making” (478). Plagiarism is degrading and morally wrong but borrowing is part of creating art.
















Works Cited
Francis, Barbara. Other People’s Words: What Plagiarism Is and How to Avoid It. NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 2005. 11-25.
Galupo, Scott. “Artful Mastery of ‘Borrowing’.” The Washington Times (DC). 17 November 2006.
Howard, Rebecca Moore. “Sexuality. Textuality: The Cultural Work of Plagiarism.” College English, Vol. 62, No. 4. (Mar., 2000), pp 473-491.
Lethem, Jonathan. “The Ecstasy of Influence.” Harper’s Magazine. Feb. 2007, Vol. 314, Iss. 188, pp 59-71.
“What’s Wrong With Copying.” The Economist. 5 April 2007. Vol. 343, Iss. 8011. pp77- 78.