Re: NastyGoon vs a trusted source on plagiarism

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 19:53:10 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 17:23:33 +0000, Will Dockery wrote:
>

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 16:17:52 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>

On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 13:06:54 +0000, MummyChunk wrote:
>

Will-Dockery wrote:
from Re: Robert Creeley's poetry
>

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/post.php?id=256779&type=reply&group=alt.a
rts.poetry.comments

>
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 17:38:30 +0000, NancyGene wrote:
>

Note that we are not Michael but have been accused of having plagiarized
a line in a poem that does not seem to exist. Using even one line from
another's work, without attribution, is plagiarism.  It is plagiarism
because it is not one's own work. Robert Creeley's poems are also not in
the public domain.  George Dance, do you understand now? If you don't,
ask your "trusted source."

>
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?
>
"It's a gray area. If a poet lifts a line word-for-word from another
poet without credit, it could be considered plagiarism, especially if
it's a distinctive or significant line. Plagiarism isn't just about
legality  it's about ethics and intent. If the poet's trying to pass
off the line as their own original thought, that's where it gets dicey.
But poetry's tricky; it's built on echoes of what came before.
Borrowing, allusion, and homage are part of the game  think of how T.S.
Eliot stuffed The Waste Land with references, though he often nodded to
his sources in notes.
>
"Context matters too. A single line might not carry the same weight as,
say, copying a whole stanza or poem. And if the borrowed line's
transformed  woven into something new  some would argue it's fair use,
creatively speaking. Still, the unwritten rule in most artistic circles
is: give credit where it's due. If the poet's banking on no one
noticing, they're rolling the dice. Readers and critics can smell
unearned ink a mile away.
>
"What's your take  do you think intent or originality matters more
here?"

>
Interesting artificial intelligence experiment.
>
 😏
>
Are posters here using AI to make poems?

>
Both NastyGoon and HarryLiar (MMP) have said in the past that they've
used AI to write poems, but the only ones we actually know of are the
specific ones that they've labelled as being written using AI.
>

If so, shame on them! 😳
>

I agree. Writinb poetry using AI could mean the death of poetry. If a
poetry "publisher" (like MMP, for example) could fill his chapbook with
AI-written poems, no better and no worse than what he currently
publishes, what need does he have to bother with human poets at all?
>
Though I have thought of a good use for AI in my poetry. If I write a
poem on my own, I can get my AI to criticize it, and use their criticism
in the revision process. I tested that in this conversation by asking it
about "At the Gates of Dawn" and I'm quite happy with the results.

>
I definitely see potential in artificial intelligence being useful for
certain things such as feedback and so on, but I'm still writing my
poetry the old fashioned way, with a pen or sometimes my trusty old
typewriter.
>
And so it goes.

>
You write poems with a typewriter? Why not just carve them into stone
tablets? <jk>
>
Seriously, I'd be lost without my word processor. Not only is it as easy
to use as a typewriter, but I can make as many copies as I want, when I
want. For example, if I want to see which of two possible lines works
better in a poem, I don't have to retype the whole poem twice; I can
just change the one line in my existing copy, and save it under a new
filename.

Oh yes, when I wrote that I usually write with a pen and then type it, I
meant that I type with the computer keyboard.
In most ways I just consider the computer a "glorified typewriter"
really.
Sorry for the confusion.
😏