Can One Plagerize Oneself?

[AsylumSeeker]

Thought I'd Introduce an Interesting Topic for Discussion.

I originally signed up with a user ID of flyer333. I wrote six stories under this handle, name, whatever.

Then when in the forums someone suggested I share my writing addiction with my wife -- bad idea! She was so pissed and I panicked, left Lit. But then found myself incapable of NOT suppressing my urge to write, so I re-signed on to Lit but under a different name as you know me by now.

I'm a better writer now and am considering revisiting my earlier writings.

Just saying in advance I'm no plagerist, I have written them before, just under a different name.

 

[PennLady]

FWIW, I wouldn't consider that plagiarism.

I was actually accused of plagiarizing myself, and I only have one name. I started a story called "Language Barrier" before Christmas 2009, I guess. I wrote two chapters, lost track of it and when I tried to go back, nothing happened. I let it sit for a few months, then started again, heavily revised it and now it's up as "Numbers Game."

Someone left a comment after one of the first three or so chapters and said they'd read this story before and it was not me!

This, after I'd posted a couple of author's notes explaining what happened. There's just no pleasing some people.

Sorry, btw, that your wife was so upset. Was it that you'd done certain themes like incest, or was it just that you wrote explicitly about sex? And feel free to tell me to MYOB.

 

[sr71plt]

No, a writer can't plagiarize him/herself.

 

[mynameisben]

No, a writer can't plagiarize him/herself.

At many universities in the United States, a student can be expelled for plagiarizing himself, herself, or the selves of others. Self-plagiarism usually occurs when a student submits an essay or term paper for one class, and then includes extracts (or even the whole damn paper in the most blatant cases) for an assignment submitted in another class, without properly referencing the source. The practice is particularly egregious because a twice submitted essay with improper citations is self-plagiarism on the one hand, and when properly cited is academic fraud on the other hand.

 

[sr71plt]

At many universities in the United States, a student can be expelled for plagiarizing himself, herself, or the selves of others. Self-plagiarism usually occurs when a student submits an essay or term paper for one class, and then includes extracts (or even the whole damn paper in the most blatant cases) for an assignment submitted in another class, without properly referencing the source. The practice is particularly egregious because a twice submitted essay with improper citations is self-plagiarism on the one hand, and when properly cited is academic fraud on the other hand.

No. That's not plagiarism. If the universities are using the term, they are missusing it. It's a legal term; not really for adoption for something else.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

FWIW, I wouldn't consider that plagiarism.

I was actually accused of plagiarizing myself, and I only have one name. I started a story called "Language Barrier" before Christmas 2009, I guess. I wrote two chapters, lost track of it and when I tried to go back, nothing happened. I let it sit for a few months, then started again, heavily revised it and now it's up as "Numbers Game."

Someone left a comment after one of the first three or so chapters and said they'd read this story before and it was not me!

This, after I'd posted a couple of author's notes explaining what happened. There's just no pleasing some people.

Sorry, btw, that your wife was so upset. Was it that you'd done certain themes like incest, or was it just that you wrote explicitly about sex? And feel free to tell me to MYOB.

That's okay, just trying to clear the path for what may, or may not, happen in the future. I still write and pretend not to, she pretends that I don't, so life goes on.

All I'm trying to establish here is that if one of my stories resembles that of flyer333, then I am not a plagerist, I am merely reverting to a previously witten story but using a different pen name.

 

[estragon]

No. That's not plagiarism. If the universities are using the term, they are missusing it. It's a legal term; not really for adoption for something else.

Agreed, it's not plagiarism, it's misrepresentation, falsely representing that the submitted work was generated solely for the purposes of that course, and not for any other. The work wasn't created by someone other than the purported author, because it was created by the purported author. But it wasn't created for the purpose stated.

 

[jeninflorida]

No, a writer can't plagiarize him/herself.

Not true! Yes one can, and one can be taken to court over it too! Just ask John Fogerty. Granted this is an extreme case. I’m a plethora of useless information

 

[sr71plt]

Not true! Yes one can, and one can be taken to court over it too! Just ask John Fogerty. Granted this is an extreme case. I’m a plethora of useless information

You'll have to lead me to what you're talking about, because I don't believe you. I seriously doubt that whatever case you're talking about is about someone plagiarizing themselves. I'm prepared to be wrong. Cite the case please from a good source.

Plagiarism ipso facto is something someone does to someone else. (stealing/passing off work of another)

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

At many universities in the United States, a student can be expelled for plagiarizing himself, herself, or the selves of others. Self-plagiarism usually occurs when a student submits an essay or term paper for one class, and then includes extracts (or even the whole damn paper in the most blatant cases) for an assignment submitted in another class, without properly referencing the source.

As others have said, this isn't plagiarism. Including snippets of your own work from a previous paper (or submitting the same paper to two classes) might be a violation of an honor code of some sort and might lead to expulsion, academic probation, etc., but it isn't plagiarism. And in grad school at least, it's might even be encouraged.

Not true! Yes one can, and one can be taken to court over it too! Just ask John Fogerty. Granted this is an extreme case. I’m a plethora of useless information

You'll have to lead me to what you're talking about, because I don't believe you. I seriously doubt that whatever case you're talking about is about someone plagiarizing themselves. I'm prepared to be wrong. Cite the case please from a good source.

Plagiarism ipso facto is something someone does to someone else. (stealing/passing off work of another)

Jen is talking about this copyright infringement case, though that seems to be more about fees and less about copyright.

Nonetheless, Jen, I think that copyright infringement is different from plagiarism, and it's absolutely possible for an author to be in violation of copyright by re-publishing work that another entity holds a copyright over.

 

[baphemetis]

I found several excellent articles on this topic by doing a search for self-plagiarism. In particular, an article by Miguel Roig addresses the matter thoroughly.

Roig writes:

The concept of ethical writing ... entails an implicit contract between reader and writer whereby the reader assumes, unless otherwise noted, that the material was written by the author, is new, is original and is accurate to the best of the author’s abilities.

According to Roig and others who have written on the matter, you should notify your readers that you are offering re-written work previously published under a different nom de plum.

According to Dr. Irving Hexam,

self-plagiarism occurs when the author attempts to deceive the reader. This happens when no indication is given that the work is being recycled or when an effort is made to disguise the original text.

I would say that under that criterion what you are describing would be a case of self-plagiarism.

This is an interesting topic. I learned quite a bit by researching it. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

I found several excellent articles on this topic by doing a search for self-plagiarism. In particular, an article by Miguel Roig addresses the matter thoroughly.

Roig writes:

According to Roig and others who have written on the matter, you should notify your readers that you are offering re-written work previously published under a different nom de plum.

According to Dr. Irving Hexam,

I would say that under that criterion what you are describing would be a case of self-plagiarism.

This is an interesting topic. I learned quite a bit by researching it. Thanks for bringing it up.

Thanks for researching it!

 

[sr71plt]

Miguel Roig's area is philosophy, not publications law. He can make up a term but he can't give it a legal connection to plagiarism. Plagiarism is something requiring at least two separate, real people to tango.

 

[baphemetis]

Miguel Roig's area is philosophy, not publications law. He can make up a term but he can't give it a legal connection to plagiarism. Plagiarism is something requiring at least two separate, real people to tango.

You love splitting hairs, don't you? I'm game. Let's be concise.

Roig's area of expertise is philosophy. He seems well qualified to discuss matters of ethics. Indeed, an ethical definition of self-plagiarism seems to be at the heart of his argument.

I'm curious, did you at least read the articles I referenced before condemning them? Both Roig and Hexam address your point of plagiarism being an act that requires two people. In fact, Hexam addresses it in the very first sentence of the article I linked to:

Some people argue that self-plagiarism is impossible by definition because plagiarism is theft and people cannot steal from their own work. But, this is not correct in law. There are circumstances, such as insurance fraud, embezzlement, etc., when it is possible to steal from oneself.

Hexam goes on to say that self-plagiarism is fraud because it is misrepresentation. He cites sources that state it's the same as selling a second-hand car as new or changing the car's odometer reading.

The Roig article divides self-plagiarism into four categories:

1.) Redundant and duplicate publication
2.) Academic self-plagiarism (or double dipping)
3.) Data fragmentation (or Salami slicing)
4.) and the type of plagiarism sr71pit is referring to: Copyright violation

#4 also seems to be the type of self-plagiarism referred to by jeninflorida when mentioning the Fogerty incident. The OP's question about self-plagiarism doesn't seem to fit neatly into one of these categories, but the Roig article is focused on academic publishing and not freely distributed stroke stories on the Internet. (Shows how messed up his priorities are!)

I think we are treading into areas that go beyond the realm of the OP's question. He is self-publishing his own work for free distribution on the Internet. I think his question is an ethical and philosophical one rather than a legal one. I don't think he is talking about work he sold to a publisher and is now planning on re-writing and reselling. To satisfy his own ethical conundrum, I stand by my suggestion to inform readers that the work has been previously published and since reworked and rewritten.

Plagiarism is not solely a legal matter, sr71pit. It is an ethical matter as well. It can be about being honest with one's readers and with oneself. If a student takes a paper written for a high school English class and resubmits it to fulfill a college composition assignment, it is unlikely there will be any legal repercussions under Copyright Law. However, the university likely has academic integrity policies that reflect the ethical issue of being honest with one's instructor. Even if no such policy exists, has a student been honest with himself or herself by engaging in such a practice? The goal of the assignment is to learn and improve. By recycling a paper such a student is defrauding himself or herself.

 

[sr71plt]

You're the one trying to split hairs. "Plagiarism" is a term in law. A philosophy professor can't change legal terms--when applied by the law.

I have better credentials to be posting an article on the Internet on publication law than he does.

But the bottom line is that he can't redefine law by usurping the term for nonapplicable use.

BUT, whatever. You can be just as surprised (and hardheaded) as old Miguel would be in trying to take his definition to a court.

 

[baphemetis]

"Plagiarism" is a term in law. A philosophy professor can't change legal terms--when applied by the law.

But the bottom line is that he can't redefine law by usurping the term for nonapplicable use.

BUT, whatever. You can be just as surprised (and hardheaded) as old Miguel would be in trying to take his definition to a court.

I'm afraid I have failed to be clear and I've confused you. I'm sorry for that.

Yes, you are right, sr71pit. Plagiarism is a term in law. The use and application of the term in philosophy and ethics are not the same as in law. Yes, you are right when you say using a philosophical definition would be inapplicable in court. I agree with you.

Asylum Seeker was not explicit as to whether he wanted his question answered within a legal or ethical framework. Legally, you are again correct. Re-writing his own work and publishing on the Internet is unlikely to fit the legal definition of plagiarism. Asylum Seeker, this is not legal advice. I am not an attorney. You should consult an attorney for legal advice.

However, just as words like "harassment," or "ignoramus," or "intoxicated" have different legal and colloquial definitions, so too can plagiarism have different definitions in legal and ethical contexts.

I agree that you are right. Would you object to both of us being right or am I operating under a mistaken point of view that you feel the need to clarify for the good of everyone reading?

 

[sr71plt]

I have no objection, certainly. My clarification was to prevent just what was happening on the thread--the assumption that something was plagiarism when it wasn't just because somebody usurped the word to create a different concept altogether.

 

[LissaSue]

AsylumSeeker, I would just post a little blurb at the beginning of your story saying that you are one and the same as the original author. That should take care of any and all issues.

 

[k_m_d_]

Not true! Yes one can, and one can be taken to court over it too! Just ask John Fogerty. Granted this is an extreme case. I’m a plethora of useless information

Damn, I came to this thread just to post about this.

 

[sr71plt]

Damn, I came to this thread just to post about this.

And so maybe you can actually cite a good source on the case so we can see what we see concerning plagiarism. Copyright infringement and plagiarism aren't the same thing.

 

[Great_Brit]

... Plagiarism ipso facto is something someone does to someone else. (stealing/passing off work of another)

As others have said, this isn't plagiarism. Including snippets of your own work from a previous paper (or submitting the same paper to two classes) might be a violation of an honor code of some sort and might lead to expulsion, academic probation, etc., but it isn't plagiarism. And in grad school at least, it might even be encouraged. ...

... The use and application of the term in philosophy and ethics are not the same as in law. Yes, you are right when you say using a philosophical definition would be inapplicable in court.
...
However, just as words like "harassment," or "ignoramus," or "intoxicated" have different legal and colloquial definitions, so too can plagiarism have different definitions in legal and ethical contexts. ...

What a lot of noise without much light.

If I say that trying to keep track of all these different ways of saying the same thing was murder, how many of the posters will be sent to 'Old Sparky'?

AS-
I know a number of authors who post on Lit and on other sites using different names. Provided they haven't assigned the copyright of their stories that is 100% legal. The worst that happens is that a reader warns them that this is happening. Off hand the only one I recall by name is "Expatdad" who is/used to be "Author on Africa" on ASSTR.

 

[sr71plt]

Provided they haven't assigned the copyright of their stories that is 100% legal.

It's legal anyway. If they own the copyright and haven't reassigned any of the rights, they can do anything they damn please with the work under whatever name they wish to publish it.

The issue here is plagiarism, not copyright.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

What a lot of noise without much light.

If I say that trying to keep track of all these different ways of saying the same thing was murder, how many of the posters will be sent to 'Old Sparky'?

There's no need to get snippy. Ben provided an example of plagiarism; I replied, and, horrors or horrors, explained why it wasn't. People are apparently confused about the related concepts of plagiarism, copyright infringement, violations of honor codes, etc. I don't see what's so terrible about clearing these things up.



baphemetis, I understand your concern, but what you're discussing really isn't plagiarizing in the true sense of the word. I met a professor once who used the term "plagiaromping" to describe the ethical dilemmas you outline. I like the word; it gives a nod to plagiarizing, but distances itself just enough to not confuse the ethical act with the actual issue of plagiarizing.

 

[baphemetis]

baphemetis, I understand your concern, but what you're discussing really isn't plagiarizing in the true sense of the word.

I had hoped to avoid getting into this discussion again. I had thought that several rounds with sr71pit was sufficient enough to beat the point into ground.

Rather than retread over old ground, I will just say that the word "plagiarism" appears to be evolving beyond its strictest legal definition to encompass other, similar behaviors that are of concern. Just as the words "idiot" and "moron" were hijacked from psychology and as "ignoramus" has changed beyond its definition in law, so too does "plagiarism" appear to be evolving in different contexts.

Yes, yes, yes, by its strictest legal definition one cannot plagiarize oneself. However, reusing one's own work can be unethical and can have serious consequences, particularly in academic publishing. Perhaps the use of the word "self-plagiarism" is too confusing for some people. I'm sorry about that. I didn't create the word, but its use seems to be widespread without my help. I can cite several other sources and give you more examples, but seriously, I think we've beaten this topic into the ground.

Perhaps the original poster should have asked "Is it ethical to republish one's own revised work under a different name?" Really, in the world of online stroke stories where Kirk and Spock have done unspeakable things to one another without Gene Roddenberry's knowledge or approval, we're treading on some pretty thin ice. I think the point is moot.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes, I think we certainly have been around the block too often on this. Hint, hint.

Do/think/make up what you like--right up until you run against what actually is.