Is it acceptable to plagiarise yourself?

[TarnishedPenny]

Rather than ‘plagiarizing myself’, I prefer to think of it as ‘honing and improving my earlier works based on a lifetime of experience’.

 

[mildlyaroused]

As I've already noted, you've left out the most important part. By definition, it's using the work of ANOTHER, not yourself. It doesn't require some convoluted interpretation.

It certainly SHOULD work this way. But in scholarly and academic fields, you can still get in trouble for plagiarising your own previously-submitted work.

 

[Senor_Smut]

In one of my ongoing, multichapter stories, I always repeat a fair stretch of the end of the previous chapter in the next chapter's beginning (I write very slowly, so I do it as much to get myself back into the swing of it as I do for content) but I don't copy-and-paste verbatim. I try to take a new angle on the old material to highlight slightly different aspects or mention things that would have slowed down the ending of the previous chapter. At the very least I rephrase most or all of it.

Maybe that wouldn't work for you, but different word choices in a few places can put a new spin on old material. It might be worth a shot as a test, and if it doesn't work, well, just CTRL+V again and you've lost nothing but a little time.

 

[KeithD]

It certainly SHOULD work this way. But in scholarly and academic fields, you can still get in trouble for plagiarising your own previously-submitted work.

Cite examples? Of commissioned work or writing as a paid staffer? Someone else getting the copyright for what you're paid to write? Those are cases of it not being your owned work to begin with. (e.g, when I was doing journaled analysis for the U.S. government, the paid result wasn't mine.)

 

[mildlyaroused]

Cite examples? Of commissioned work or writing as a paid staffer? Someone else getting the copyright for what you're paid to write? Those are cases of it not being your owned work to begin with. (e.g, when I was doing journaled analysis for the U.S. government, the paid result wasn't mine.)

Copyright can be an issue, but also in education. I've had friends punished for repurposing work, because I suppose part of the assumption in an education field is that your work is not only original but also new: you can't get two sets of credit for applying yourself once. That's a matter of honesty. In terms of academic publications you should usually treat your own previous work like you treat other sources, otherwise you're misleading readers or giving the impression that more research has been conducted than actually has.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter here. The OP's question is one of whether they "should", not whether they "can."

 

[KeithD]

Copyright can be an issue, but also in education. I've had friends punished for repurposing work, because I suppose part of the assumption in an education field is that your work is not only original but also new: you can't get two sets of credit for applying yourself once. That's a matter of honesty. In terms of academic publications you should usually treat your own previous work like you treat other sources, otherwise you're misleading readers or giving the impression that more research has been conducted than actually has.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter here. The OP's question is one of whether they "should", not whether they "can."

Punished how? Can you cite an actual, verifiable instance of this?

Yes, I know what the OP was asking (which is based on a fallacy. You can't plagiarize yourself--by the definition of plagiarism). I'm responding to possible disinformation published to the thread.

 

[mildlyaroused]

Punished how? Can you cite an actual, verifiable instance of this?

Yes, I know what the OP was asking (which is based on a fallacy. You can't plagiarize yourself--by the definition of plagiarism). I'm responding to possible disinformation published to the thread.

It's less an issue of specific instance than it is generally not allowed, the same as it is with regular plagiarism.

But yes, there are specific variable instances.

During 2010 and 2011 Frey, with co-authors Benno Torgler and David Savage, published four articles concerning the Titanic disaster in four different journals. Concerning these articles, in 2011 Frey and his co-authors were accused of self-plagiarism.[34][35][36] On 3 May 2011 David Autor, editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives, wrote a public letter[37] to Frey claiming "very substantial overlap between these articles and your JEP publication. Indeed, to my eye, they are substantively identical." Pointing out that the other articles were not cited, Autor further wrote that "your conduct in this matter [is] ethically dubious and disrespectful to the American Economic Association, the Journal of Economic Perspectives and the JEP's readers." In a public response Frey accepted theses accusations and offered his apologies,[37] writing, "t was a grave mistake on our part for which we deeply apologize. It should never have happened. This is deplorable."

 

[TheRedChamber]

The conversation is getting hung-up on definitions.
The question isn't really whether the behaviour described in the OP is or isn't (self-)plagiarism.
The question is is the behaviour described in the OP acceptable.
Deciding to lump or not lump the behaviour under the term plagiarism does nothing to clarify whether it is okay.

As others have noted self-plagiarism is a thing in the academic world - for students because the university doesn't give them permission to submit or resubmit the same work for different (or resat) modules and for academics because is considered ethically unaccaptable behaviour.

If I bought a book and found that it was identical to another book I'd read by the same author with a different title, saying 'na-ha it's not plagiarism because he gave himself permission to copy himself' isn't going to make me any less pissed off. Maybe we can agree to call it 'misrepresentation' for my example.

(Again, my original answer was 'it's probably okay if it's clearly a stylistic choice' but this thread is engaging in definitionalism.)

 

[32aa]

I've reused phrases that I would recall from previous stories that seemed at the time to fit in to what I'm currently working on. But not whole pages. I want to be somewhat original.

 

[32aa]

An after thought, because that's what wine does to me at this time in the evening. I've used this phrase as the the two characters in my story come together and join for the the first time... "we each let groaned with sound sex would make, if it had a voice ". A few times.

 

[ElectricBlue]

As others have noted self-plagiarism is a thing in the academic world - for students because the university doesn't give them permission to submit or resubmit the same work for different (or resat) modules and for academics becuase is considered ethically unaccaptable behavious.

This happens every time. People confuse plagiarism in academia and research with plagiarism in fiction. Where it's someone else's work being plagiarised, it's always a foul, unethical, blah blah, regardless whether it's fact or fiction.

Where it's your own content in academia, your previous work should be cited, along with all other citations, as if it were someone else's. It's you then, not you, now.

When it's recycling your own content in fiction, it's a little different, because you've given yourself permission, but I reckon it's lazy, unless you're making it absolutely clear to readers what you're doing. But why would you do that? How easy would it be to write something new? How genius brilliant is that first content anyway, that it's worth repeating? Wouldn't you rather say, "I can do better than that old stuff."

 

[KeithD]

It's less an issue of specific instance than it is generally not allowed, the same as it is with regular plagiarism.

But yes, there are specific variable instances.

Thanks. By definition, though, "self-plagiarism" is nonsense.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Thanks. By definition, though, "self-plagiarism" is nonsense.

Nope, as repeated multiple times throughout this thread, its a well understood phrase commonly used through out the academic world.

There are also cases where it would be perfectly valid to use it for fiction writing - for example, if a competion requested the submission of 'an original' story from entrants and an author cut and pasted bits together from other already published works.

 

[mildlyaroused]

 

[lilshymynx]

Thanks. By definition, though, "self-plagiarism" is nonsense.

Harvard University disagrees:

"Whenever ideas or facts are derived from a student’s reading and research or from a student’s own writings, the sources must be indicated (see also “Submission of the Same Work to More Than One Course” below.)"

https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/harvard-plagiarism-policy

 

[KeithD]

Harvard University disagrees:

"Whenever ideas or facts are derived from a student’s reading and research or from a student’s own writings, the sources must be indicated (see also “Submission of the Same Work to More Than One Course” below.)"

https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/harvard-plagiarism-policy

Thanks. I still tag it as nonsense and not being covered by the dictionary definition of plagiarism.

 

[KeithD]

Nope, as repeated multiple times throughout this thread, its a well understood phrase commonly used through out the academic world.

There are also cases where it would be perfectly valid to use it for fiction writing - for example, if a competion requested the submission of 'an original' story from entrants and an author cut and pasted bits together from other already published works.

Thanks. I still tag it as nonsense and not within the dictionary definition of plagiarism.

In addition, I don't think it's relevant to the works posted to Literotica, so it's not something a Literotica author should have in his/her mind as a writing limitation.

 

[Dark_Logan_]

I’m now regretting using the P word given the usual demonstrative response from the ‘community’ that descends in to nothing but infantile one upping

 

[M_K_Babalon]

No, in fairness, if the back cover says 'this was originally a short story which people liked so much it's now expanded to a full novel' then it'd be more understandable.

Basically what I did with the novel I have on Wattpad. It was a short story based off something in r/WritingPrompts. I felt there needed to be more, so I basically wrote a story around the it and where the short story is, it had to be changed slightly to fit, but it's all pretty much there.

 

[gunhilltrain]

You’d better watch out, or you might file a copyright infringement notice against yourself, leading to long court sessions and exorbitant payouts. Better to get a permission from yourself first.

That reminds me of when Woody Allen interrogates himself in court.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Academically, you can actually plagiarise yourself - and this can get you into trouble.

In fiction, not so much. Repetition is a tool in the writer's toolbox, and you have a right to use it. Though I would recommend being careful, especially if the duplicated passage takes up an entire 25% of the chapter. It may come across to readers as lazy or stale, rather than thematically intentional. There are definitely ways to repeat a meticulous process with new flavour and wording (maybe new characterisation or introspection, if the protagonist has been through change), but you're the author so you should do what you think is best.

As for Lit, I don't know. A note to the moderator is the best you can do.

With the huge amount of stuff published here every month, I doubt that either the readers or the moderators will ever notice. I've got one story on here that has more than 50% of the text duplicating the version it replaced. It does have a new title. I have a couple of cases where both versions are still in place.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Thanks. I still tag it as nonsense and not being covered by the dictionary definition of plagiarism.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/self-plagiarism

self-plagiarism, noun: an act or instance of reusing ideas, passages, etc., from one’s previous work in another work and not referencing the original content; plagiarism of oneself

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-plagiarism

self-plagiarism, noun: the reuse of one's own words, ideas, or artistic expression (as in an essay) from preexisting material especially without acknowledgment of their earlier use

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/self-plagiarism

self-plagiarism, noun, also selfplagiarism: the process or practice of using your own ideas or work that you have already used before

Language evolves; once upon a time plagiaris meant a kidnapper, before it was repurposed to cover the appropriate of words and ideas.

 

[KeithD]

The word I looked up was "plagiarize," which was the topic until an irrelevant concept was brought into a discussion on the writing we do here, which is fiction, not academic writing. The Webster's definition of "plagiarize" is "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own." Now, if you are more concerned with making points off me by changing the thread goalposts than you are about not confusing authors writing stories for Literotica about what they can and cannot write for posting here, by all means keep chipping away at the irrelevant application.

The bottom line is that there is no plagiarism problem with repeating phrases/sentences/paragraphs you have written in another story you are writing for Literotica, and those telling you there is are providing limiting disinformation on what you can write for Literotica.

You can either make points on me by chasing irrelevant goalpost changing here or you can support Literotica writers by not confusing them about what they can write for posting here. Choose. Which is more important to you?

 

[SimonDoom]

I think Keith is right about this. "Plagiarism" is a tricky concept in the context of fiction. It applies most often in the case of academic writing. It's easy to see how an academic who plagiarizes ideas or specific text from his own Article 1 and puts them in Article 2 has committed an ethical wrong, because he is presenting Article 2 as having presented something new (which academic writing is supposed to do, and which can determine the outcome of academic careers and reputations) when in fact it is not, and this is a serious ethical wrong in the context of academic publishing.

This has no application at all to fiction. If I write Story 1, and then I take big chunks out of it to create Story 2, I haven't done anything ethically wrong in the same sense that an academic writer has. It's just fiction. I personally wouldn't do it, because I personally feel an obligation to try to be original each time I write a story, but I can't come up with a strong ethical reason why everyone else should be ethically bound to feel the same way. Fiction allows more flexibility.

 

[gunhilltrain]

It certainly SHOULD work this way. But in scholarly and academic fields, you can still get in trouble for plagiarising your own previously-submitted work.

Harvard University disagrees:

"Whenever ideas or facts are derived from a student’s reading and research or from a student’s own writings, the sources must be indicated (see also “Submission of the Same Work to More Than One Course” below.)"

https://usingsources.fas.harvard.edu/harvard-plagiarism-policy

I'd like to see the day when a Lit-like story gets submitted for academic credit at Harvard, even in an English course. Well, they do offer a master's in creative writing. I think I've got one story on here I might dare submit because it's truly non-erotic. But did I catch this right? Total cost of $38,640? I don't think I'm going there after all.

Master's Degree Program