XPost: alt.arts.poetry.comments, alt.poetry

On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 16:35:05 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 21:31:00 +0000, HarryLime wrote:

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 16:52:45 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 21:44:28 +0000, NancyGene wrote:

On Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:07:21 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

So I did. I began with NastyGoon's claim, and what follows is the
conversation we had from it. (His comments are the ones in quotation >>>>> marks,

________________, if a poet uses a line from another poet in a poem of >>>>> his own, unattributed, does that make him a plagiarist?

Same question to ChatGPT - Answer:
"Yes, if a poet uses a line from another poet in their own poem without >>>> attribution, that is considered plagiarism. Plagiarism is the act of
taking someone else’s words, ideas, or creative work and presenting them >>>> as one’s own without proper credit. In poetry, borrowing lines, phrases, >>>> or even stylistic elements is common, but ethical and literary standards >>>> require acknowledgment.

However, if the line is well-known or has entered common usage (such as >>>> Shakespearean phrases or lines from ancient epics), it might not be
considered plagiarism. Some poets also engage in intertextuality or
allusion, where they reference other works, but typically, they signal >>>> this through quotation marks, italics, or explicit acknowledgment."
-----

Same question to Gemini - Answer:

"Yes, generally, using another poet's line in your own poem without
attribution is considered plagiarism. Here's a breakdown of why:

Copyright and Intellectual Property: Even short phrases can be
considered intellectual property. While copyright law is complex, and
"common phrases" are generally not protected, a unique phrase within a >>>> specific context, especially a literary one, can be.

It can be, but that doesn't apply to all authors. An author whose works
are in the public domain can be quoted, with or without attribution,
without violating IP laws in any way. There's nothing "complex" about
that; it's shit simple.

Legally, yes.

However, an author who gets caught quoting without attribution will
nevertheless be labeled a "plagiarist" by their peers.

Of course, Michael Cook took my poem "Karma Bombs" word for word,
without attribution to me as the writer, and most of his "peers"
(basically his fellow trolls) applauded and defended him

LOL! Are we back on that again?

In that case, I think a revival of "Doc" Pendragon's poem is in place:

Karma Boobs

The bustier falls apart,
nothing left to hide.
breasts bounce apart,
nice and easy in my face.
When the Cross My Heart
is gone to stay.

Carefully try to tuck them in the cups,
then the whole thing falls apart,
feeling naked and exposed,
feel it straight inside your heart.

I have been exiled,
from my main squeeze
where in this bed we'd had some foreplay,
boobies, derrière and oo la la,
it's a swirling raging storm.

I woke up this morning,
looked at my gonads
blue in the bed,
the doors with locks
that don't let me cum in.

You told me it was okay
for a man to cry,
still feels strange.
Hope he slaps
your ass around some,
love the thought of you in pain.

Look out, Babe,
Karma's coming down,
it's got you now,
threefold inside you.
Karma Boobs,
break free and fly,
like flags of many nations,
for all the world to see.

Piece, please,
for the common good,
you look so good
I want to eat you.
Titties,
arousing eye candy,
catch the snatch,
shag carpet munch,
sweet magnolia and honeysuckle.

I will personally
mail the curses
to anyone else who eats you.
Little storm,
torrents,
it rained,
we ponder the negro nude painting.

Your prime lips,
trap of lust,
tropic,
look out little piece,
Karma's coming.
It's got you now,
threefold inside you.

Look out, Babe,
Karma's coming down,
it's got you now,
threefold inside you.
Karma Boobs,
break free and fly,
like flags of many nations,
for all the world to see.

Karma Boobs,
rattattap on my head,
spume washes mermaids to shore.

-- "Doc" Pendragon

But in theory I think you're correct, Harry.

Authorship and Originality: Poetry, like other forms of writing, values >>>> originality. Using someone else's words without acknowledging them
misrepresents the source of those words and falsely claims them as your >>>> own.

No one can write a poem or anything FTM using only "unique" words; no
one would be able to understand it. Poets have to use words that other
people, including other poets have previously used.

Stop playing the dunce, George. The term "unique words" came from *your
restatement* of the quote you're pretending to address. No one can
"own" an individual word: however, an author can own a series of words
set forth in a particular order. Shakespeare doesn't own the word "To"
-- but if you stick that "To" in front of "be or not to be," it's
indisputably his.

No argument with that, you've just made the case against Michael Cook on "Karma Bombs" in my favor after 22 years.

I thought you and Michael Cook settled this decades ago. Obsess much,
Donkey?

Ethical Considerations: Plagiarism is a breach of ethical conduct within >>>> the literary community. It demonstrates a lack of respect for the
original author's work and undermines the integrity of creative
expression.  

It sound like Gemini AI is quoting, but it's not giving any
attributions. Is Gemini AI committing "plagiarism"? Is it breaching
ethical conduct?

If you can show some proof (other than what you think it sounds like),
then, yes, Gemini would be guilty of plagiarism. It's creators would
have to reprogram it to provide its sources.

Really good points, artificial intelligence obviously has a ways to go
yet.

Obviously not.

In our discussions at the Official AAPC, we've noted how AI not only
produces extremely high quality musical compositions and artwork, but
that it appears to be exhibiting *sentience.* [That means, it appears
to be making creative decisions of its own volition.]

I think that in the very near future, AI will be composing literary
works that rival mankind's greatest. A lot of writers (and other
artists) are trembling in their boots right now at the prospect, and
lashing out against AI left and right -- but AI will soon be in direct competitions with humankind in *all* creative fields, and AI will have
the definite edge.

I'm excited by the idea, and view it as a challenge that should be
highly enjoyable.

Context Matters: The degree to which a lifted line is considered
plagiarism can depend on its context. A very common phrase might be less >>>> problematic, but a distinctive line, especially one that carries
significant meaning within its original poem, is more clearly
plagiarism.

Four paragraphs down, Gemini AI is finally saying that lifting a line
may or may not be considered "plagiarism".

As Gemini says, "Context Matters." That's something I fear you will
never understand.

Intentionality: Whether the plagiarism was intentional or unintentional >>>> doesn't necessarily absolve the writer of responsibility. While
unintentional plagiarism might be viewed more leniently, it still
constitutes a misrepresentation of authorship.  

"Unintentional plagiarism" opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. Is a
poet supposed to do a google search for every line in his poem to make
sure it was never used on the web? If a web search does find an exact
match, how can it be proven whether the poet ever read it or heard of
it, or not?

Of course not. Unintentional plagiarism isn't a crime, as there was
never any intent to steal someone else's work.

However, the unintentionally plagiarized work will suffer from both its
relationship to, and in comparison with, the original.

But the odds of that happening are slim. Borel's monkeys, after all,
were of an infinite number.

Exceptions and Nuances:

Allusion and Homage: Poets sometimes allude to or pay homage to other
poets by incorporating lines or phrases into their work. However, this >>>> is usually done with some form of acknowledgment or in a way that
clearly signals the reference.

So allusion is not plagiarism, even when there is no attribution.

I didn't think it possible, but George Dance just paraphrased something
correctly!

Go George!

Parody and Pastiche: These forms of writing intentionally borrow from
other works for satirical or artistic purposes. In these cases, the
borrowing is usually obvious and part of the artistic intent.

So pastiche is not plagiarism, even when there is no attribution.

George is on a roll!

Public Domain: Works that are in the public domain are not subject to
copyright restrictions.

There is no "public domain" exception for plagiarism. If it's plagiarism >>> to use a line from a copyrighted work, it's plagiarism to use a line
from a public domain work.

Too bad. I thought you were going to get three in a row.

The quoted passage was not talking about "plagiarism," George. It
specifically said "copyright restrictions." These are not the same
thing.

In most cases, using another poet's line without attribution is
considered plagiarism and is unethical."

Maybe. Since Gemini AI doesn't provide any data on cases, this sounds
like pure speculation.

There's no "maybe" about it, George.

Most poets, most writers, and most people in general consider it to be
plagiarism.

Poetry such as my poem "Karma Bombs" used by Michael Cook without attribution, for example.

You're not only still obsessed with Mr. Cook, but you're a little Donkey
one note regarding it.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)