[Reading]
has the distinct drawback that, if indulged in to excess, it almost always
destroys the precious illusion of the originality of one’s own insights.
—Professor
Charles L. Black, Jr.
What Is Plagiarism?
Generally,
plagiarism is making use of other people’s words or their ideas without sufficient
acknowledgment. If you make use of someone else’s ideas, i.e., if someone else’s
ideas are the source or origin for something you have written, then you owe
that author a complete citation, i.e., a citation providing sufficient
information so that your readers can find the source. If you make use of someone
else’s words, you must surround their words with quotation marks and also use a
complete citation. It is a simple rule.
Still
I think there are a few outlier and difficult cases which are worth thinking
about.
Case I. What If Your Source’s Author Is
Idiosyncratic?
To
whom is owed the duty to cite? Is it owed to the author of your source or to your
readers? If the former, then that author might not want to be cited. He may be
embarrassed by his prior writing and not want it flagged anew to the public. Alternatively,
your source’s author may not like you or your writing, and not enjoy seeing his
own “good” work appearing in your “bad” work. Here too, he may prefer not to be
cited. He might even give you an express release! Finally, your source’s author
may like you and your writing, and wish to be helpful by allowing you to enjoy
a bit of (undeserved) goodwill among your readers. Again,
in such circumstances, your source’s author may prefer not to be cited. What to
do?
Case II. The Wholly New Context.
Another
problem sometimes happens when you use someone else’s phrase, sentence, paragraph,
etc in an entirely novel way or in a context entirely divorced from the
original author’s. Is a citation strictly owed in such circumstances?
In
his 1968 Rivers of Blood speech, Enoch
Powell wrote: “I can already hear the chorus of execration.” “Chorus of
execration”—my lord—a truly unforgettable turn of the phrase. It is not found, as
far as I can tell, in the Bible or in any standard translation of the classics.
It was used many
years prior to Powell by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and also prior to Fitzgerald, by
Arthur Conan Doyle.
I have no reason to think Powell (knowingly or, even, inadvertently) lifted
this phrase from Fitzgerald or Doyle or from anyone else, but even if Powell had
done so, his using this phrase was in a context entirely removed from these
prior authors. Moreover, putting a citation in a live speech, or even at its
end, would really interfere with the flow of the speech. In such circumstances,
is a citation strictly owed? Would it matter if Powell had reproduced the
speech—and its memorable phrase—in a book of collected speeches?
Tillman's Addendum: November 30, 2025:
2 Francis Hitchman, The Public Life of the Right Honourable the Earl of Beaconsfield, K.G., London: Chapman and Hall 337 (1879), [https://tinyurl.com/5y89aezx];
Case III. The Fool And The Damned Fool.
Now
let’s say you’ve read a paper by Professor Alpha on a subject which you had
already given a good deal of consideration. Alpha’s paper says “X is true
because Y.” If prior to reading Alpha’s paper, you had also come to the
conclusion that “X is true because Y,” and then you proceed to write in your
own paper “X is true because Y,” do you owe Alpha and his paper a citation? I
think many, perhaps most, would say “yes,” but I do not think it is quite so
clear. You are not lifting someone else’s idea—the idea is also (ex hypothesi) your own, although Alpha
published first. If you came to the idea independently, then Alpha is not your source.
You might not owe Alpha a citation in
such circumstances, but you would be a fool not to cite Alpha. You may know
that you independently came up with the same idea, but Alpha and his colleagues
may not. Even worse, Alpha and his colleagues may believe you, but there may be
someone in an entirely different field who does not like you or who, perhaps,
makes a living finding (or has an active professional sideline involving) cases
of plagiarism. Anyone can allege plagiarism, not just the uncited author.
There are other good reasons you should
cite Alpha, not just self-preservation. Kindness. Alpha may want and/or need
the citation, and what does it really cost you to cite Alpha? Frequently, authors
like to be cited: this includes junior authors, particularly those seeking an
academic position, or those already in academia who are undergoing review for
tenure or promotion. Such authors are often very grateful, and they will sometimes
try to cite you in turn (or return).
Now everything I said above applies to
the arts and sciences, but it applies even more strongly to those who write
about law. In law, the best way to kill an idea is to claim that it is original
or new. If you want to promote “your” idea, then give it a (deserved) heritage
or genealogy. If other people independently came up with the same idea as you,
then you are killing your own idea if you fail to cite them. Moreover, giving
others fair credit builds up your credibility with your audience, as does
adherence to professional standards in general.
Above, I suggested that only a fool
would fail to cite Professor Alpha. But if the subject matter is law, then I
suggest that only a damned fool would fail to cite Alpha.
Case IV. What If You Have Two Independent
Sources For A Proposition?
Suppose Professor Alpha in his
paper wrote:
“X is true because of Y.”
And Professor Beta in her paper also
wrote:
“X is true because of Y.”
Now you decide to write your own paper,
and in it, you write: “X is true because of Y.” The idea is not your own. Because
the idea is not yours, you need a citation. So which paper do you cite: Alpha’s
paper or Beta’s paper? You can cite either or both.
If you cite only one of the two, how do
you decide which? You have much leeway here: you could flip a coin, you could
cite your friend, the first of the two to be published, etc. If one of the two
papers is better known in regard to the particular proposition being cited,
then perhaps you should cite that paper. I would think that principles of fair play—although
not absolutely mandatory—should push you in the direction of citing the source
that was the greater influence on your thinking in regard to the cited
proposition.
Again, you have some choice here. But
there is a limit. Let’s say that you have not actually read or examined Beta’s
paper. Instead, you only know about Beta’s position because many, many third-party
sources ascribe it to her and quote her paper. You might have 100s of such third-party
sources ascribing this position to Beta, if not actually quoting Beta. Here, the
bottom line is that you must quote Alpha, and not Beta.
You can only cite what you have seen, and here, you
have not actually seen Beta’s paper. Sure you could quote the third-party
sources which in turn quote Beta. But you cannot cite directly to Beta’s paper
because you have not seen Beta’s paper. A citation indicates that an idea is
not yours. But a citation also indicates that you have read and examined the
source cited, as opposed to some other source that purportedly says the same
thing. If you have not actually read and examined a source, you ought not
pretend that you did. Such a citation lacks transparency, truthfulness, and
candor.
It is also unsafe to trust that the
third-party sources got it right (or were themselves truthful).
Imagine if you had read Professor B’s
book, and B is later, much later unmasked as a fraud, i.e., a person who quotes and
cites to nonexistent sources. But before B is unmasked, you innocently read B’s
book. Now if B’s book had said “source X stated that ‘Y is true’.” You might
have thought that you had a choice between: (1) quoting B’s book for the
proposition that “source X stated that ‘Y is true’”; or (2) quoting source X
directly for the proposition that “Y is true.”
You might think that the second choice
is simpler. It imposes less on the reader, and makes your writing crisper. But your
putting forward such a citation is not truthful. It is not truthful because the
source you have cited (i.e., source X) is not the one you have seen, examined, and relied upon. It
is not truthful because you have not given credit to the actual source you have
seen, examined, and relied upon (i.e., B’s book)—thereby denying your readers the opportunity to
verify your actual source. Moreover, such a course of action is imprudent. If you
lift Professor B’s words or ideas (absent proper acknowledgement), and B is in error or untruthful, then you
become a party to B’s wrong. If B is a liar (because source X does not exist),
then your citing directly to source X makes your conduct wrongful too.
There is a happy
confluence between doing the right thing and doing the prudent thing: you can
only cite what you have seen (and examined).
Seth
PS: My co-bloggers do good work. So,
please have a look around New Reform Club.
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/SethBTillman ( @SethBTillman )
My
prior post is [here]: Seth Barrett
Tillman, Metrics from the Social Science
Research Network on Irish Law Departments (including Tillman’s department)
(Apr. 3, 2016, 5:45 AM).
