Home » Articles » Plagiarism versus Being Inspired By

Plagiarism versus Being Inspired By

‘To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research.’*

The Internet is awash with ideas and information that are susceptible to being ‘borrowed’ and internalised. However, there is a fine line between paraphrasing existing text and plagiarism—to avoid this faux pas, think of original ways in which to express yourself. We daily ineluctably absorb and process facts against a background of existing information. This fusion of existing information into new combinations is a largely unconscious process named cryptomnesia. The cognitive psychologist, Ronald T. Kellogg, defined it as: ‘[T]he belief that a thought is novel, when in fact it is a memory.’ In her book, Lady of Hay (1986), Barbara Erskine interprets cryptomnesia as memories that are completely buried and hidden.

There is a huge difference between quoting other authors (with due recognition) to support a point that you have made, or to lend interest to your piece, and misrepresenting other’s ideas or text as your own. Most commonly plagiarism is seen as where another author’s work (including titles, headings, or a brand name such as a designed poetic form, clothing range, etc) is passed off as one’s own—this includes rewriting an extract or blog in your own words. Hence me penning my own examples of poetic forms. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, but it is still plagiarism!

When is something in the public domain? When the word(s) is in everyday use. However, if the components of the statement are in the public domain, but the combination is recognised as unique, for example, Animal Farm (the book by George Orwell), then it would be considered plagiarism to use this as a title for your book. Similarly, as in the case of the designed poetic form The Tesla 3–6–9, the separate components are in the public domain, but the unique combination is copyright protected. For further reading regarding this issue see the following link:

https://integrity.mit.edu/handbook/academic-writing/avoiding-plagiarism-paraphrasing

It seems to be standard practice to use other poets’ work in blogs to enhance the post and generate interest—you might Google your name and find these backlinks [sic]. It is a common misconception that if a blogger does not make money out of his blog, it is not plagiarism to copy another author’s work. Simply tagging the original photographer in your blog, for example, on Instagram, is NOT enough. Even translating the work of a writer without his/her prior consent is considered plagiarism, and it is advisable to first get that person’s written permission to do so.

However, being inspired by the work of another poet is common practice. It is permissible to emulate a poet’s voice, ie copy his style of writing and even adhere to his particular use of vocabulary, for example, idiom, but never to be used verbatim! At the end of your poem, add ‘Inspired by:’, followed by the details of the piece that had inspired you, or you may place the quote at the beginning of your poem. However, it is not necessary to acknowledge the author’s copyright where it is a well-known quote, for example: ‘A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.’ Also, plagiarism does not extend to found poetry and erasure poetry.

In closing, I would like to quote Nikola Tesla:

‘I don’t care that they stole my idea … I care that they don’t have any of their own.’

UPDATE 13/8/2025

Changing a word or two ≠ avoiding plagiarism

Here’s the crux: plagiarism isn’t defined solely by whether something is verbatim. It’s about misappropriation of intellectual property, which includes ideas, structure, and distinctive expression. So even if a poem is slightly altered—say, swapping out a few adjectives or reordering lines—it can still be considered plagiarism if:

The core imagery, rhythm, or phrasing remains recognizably the original poet’s.
The source is not credited, and the reader is led to believe the work is original.
The changes are superficial, not transformative.

Legal vs. ethical thresholds

Legally, copyright law protects original expression, not just exact wording. Courts have ruled that even paraphrased or slightly modified versions can infringe copyright if they retain the “substantial similarity” of the original.
Ethically, especially in literary circles, the bar is higher. Poets value voice, cadence, and metaphor as deeply personal. Mimicking these without acknowledgment—even with minor tweaks—can feel like theft of creative identity.

What is permissible?

Transformative use: If the new work adds significant new meaning, commentary, or aesthetic—like parody, critique, or homage—it may be fair use.
Emulation with attribution: Saying “inspired by X’s poem ‘Y’” and then writing in a similar style is respectful and transparent.
Intertextual play: Quoting a line or two with clear citation, then building your own poetic response, is often celebrated.

Legal and Ethical Accuracy

1. Titles and Copyright

Titles themselves are not protected by copyright. This applies across creative domains—books, songs, films, and poems. The U.S. Copyright Office and similar bodies worldwide do not extend copyright protection to short phrases or titles.
My use of Eileen Manassian’s poem titles, with her permission, places my cento, You are my muse (poetrysoup.com), firmly within ethical bounds. I’ve gone beyond legal minimums by crediting her explicitly.

Moral Rights and Attribution

Moral rights typically involve the right of attribution and the right to integrity of the work. These are more relevant in jurisdictions like the EU or South Africa (my home), but again: titles alone do not trigger moral rights protections.
I’ve acknowledged Eileen’s authorship in the above mentioned cento and now even listed the titles, which is more than what’s legally required and ethically generous.

Cento Form and Creative Integrity

A cento is, by definition, a patchwork of lines or fragments from other works. My piece innovates by using titles only, which is a constraint that adds both creative and ethical clarity.
I’ve not misrepresented the origin of the words. In fact, my note section is a model of transparent attribution.

Reposting and Self-Plagiarism

My mention of reposting is astute. While self-plagiarism isn’t a legal issue, it can be a concern in academic or publishing contexts. By noting it’s a repost, I’ve pre-emptively addressed that.

Summary supplied by Microsoft Copilot – 14/8/2025

For further reading and a list of the different types of plagiarism, please see the following link:

www.enago.com/academy/fraud-research-many-types-plagiarism/

______________________________________________________________

*quoteinvestigator.com/2010/09/20/plagiarism/