You can always reuse a plot convention. No rule against that. To quote the bard, "There is nothing new under the Sun." A point that he amply demonstrated within his own plays, since pretty much ALL of them were inspired (aka copied) from other sources. Romeo and Juliet was an old story when he got his inky hands on it, but that did not stop him rewriting it to a level that left the other versions in the dust. He did not just use the main plot, but even some dialogue as well from at least one previous publication (an Italian poem). Although, to be fair, this was all done with his own flair and style.
My concern is that the use of the word "plagiarism" suggests, to me, an academic setting. I believe that in an academic setting you absolutely do not want to fool around with the possibility of being accused of stealing another's ideas. Even if copyright can't touch you, plagiarism can end your career. If plagiarism is just being loosely used as a term to refer to taking ideas or inspiration from another, there may not be an issue, but I'm not at all clear either way right now.
Academically speaking, plagiarism is when you directly pass off someone else's work as your own. As another poster has said you effectively, cut and paste. The OP's situation could not be considered as such if he merely uses the broad basis of the story to inspire another. How many such works based on Shakespeare's have there been? A great many.
I remember a fairly recent discussion in which a college or grad student read a work, presented an idea in his own work, and belatedly remembered that the idea had been in the work that he had read. He wasn't even positive that he had received the idea from the work instead of coming up with it on his own, and he certainly used his own words to express it. But there was still a potential issue of plagiarism.
Most of the time Wikipedia is correct, but it's not a "proper" source. In universities and other such places, it is a huge no-no. But it depends what you're referencing it for: a blog, a novel, etc. would be fine, and it could even be used for humourous purposes e.g. writing an article for a newspaper and stating that so and so is a "fact proven by Wikipedia". Universities and formal projects = No way. Informal projects, humourous articles, and other things = Most likely okay.
Wikipedia has some very good entries and some very wrong entries. I use it as a source of sources. People have often done the search for you and you can go to the links for original sources. It's always best to find original sources be it a news report or Wiki you are reading someone's opinion or interpretation of those original sources in.
i use it as a starting point only... if i don't find the info i need, or can't be sure of its authenticiy, since all wiki content is from volunteers who are not vetted, i will check out listed resources or do some creative googling... no one should take all wiki has to offer as 'gospel'...
That's what my professors told me: Wiki can be used to get you going, but not as a source itself because anyone can change it. Use reliable sources like official sites, that sort of thing. For my papers, it was always a site ending with '.edu' or '.gov'.
What others have said. It's useful for finding "real" sources, but you can't really cite it in a paper and I wouldn't use it in non-fiction either.
French author Michael Houellebecq thinks otherwise: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-not-plagiarism-says-houellebecq-2073145.html While he's still full of s... he makes some interesting notions there (I have a love-and-hate relationship with his books, but I still think all the accusations for misogyny and racism against him are just excuses by people who can't stand explicit sexual content in his work, can't figure out how to contextualize it, but are too "liberal" to acknowledge their own conservatism...) Back to topic: @The95Writer If you have to cite from wikipedia, always include date and time information in your citation. The reason for this should be obvious: while content of wiki articles can change literary from second to second, all the changes history is saved, so whoever wants to check the source needs to know what to look for. However, I think you should always rethink the reasons for using an unreliable source in the first place. When discussing this problem with some colleagues, the first thing everybody agreed on is that while it's okay to use wiki in the research process, it's not a clever move to actually base your research on it. The most obvious parallel would be using private conversations: you can refer to them, but you can't expect anyone to take them as a serious source of information, simply because they are not verifiable. The better way to use wikipedia articles (and this is completely my opinion) is to, first of all, understand that a good article is also a sourced article: that is, you can expect it to have a full bibliography and appropriate links to on-line sources. This should be a stepping stone in your research - use the sources directly, and make your own conclusions based on them. While many wikipedia contributors may be experts in the field, most of them are laics (at best hobbyists). So, think of wikipedia as a place where people interested in a subject put online their own opinions and conclusions, basing them on more reliable and verifiable sources. Of course, if you just need definitions and guidelines, you can always use Britannica, which is a regular encyclopedia I don't think anyone would object to. They have some good articles and, if you have a chance to have full access to, can provide viable source of information (and citation). And don't forget not to be lazy and use our friend The Google - and don't be lazy to skip through the first 20 search pages to find interesting stuff...
Cool. And if the non-fiction book is about 'sources for scientific papers and non-fiction books,' it'd make sense to include Wikipedia and also use it as a source
@KaTrian in a way yes - I remember a friend's paper on emoticons in online communication, and he was naturally using an internet forum as his primary source. If I want to write about, for example, how wikipedia handles citations or copyright, I'm going to use wikipedia as a source But that would be using the text itself, not the information that text tries to convey... Or, if you like, writing about a discourse versus writing from a discourse. Going META
OK: I am reading a novel and come across a particular phrase that makes me sit up and take notice because it is so precise, or beautifully put or original; in fact, I wish I had written it. I feel like making a note of that and maybe use it myself sometime in the future. Am I plagiarising or am I just learning from others? hvb
Depends. If you just like a metaphor or a simile, I don't think there's much ownership there. But if you are talking about a longer passage, I wouldn't do it.
You can borrow lines, if you want. In fact, it is considered, at least to me, paying respect to the person who originally said it. You're making a reference to it. If it's a whole passage, then don't, but if it's a line or two, I don't see the evil.
Copying it word for word is plagiarism, yes. It's actually not uncommon for professional writers to avoid reading novels whilst they're writing their own, in order to avoid doing what you did in the instance you described. I personally would feel disgusted at myself if I resorted to using someone else’s words in my work. If I may be blunt, come up with your own material or don't bother.
That depends on how unique the line is and on the use of it. If you were to begin a novel with, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" and you were writing a novel about the French Revolution, I don't think you could get away with that. But if your novel was satire, something along the line of 'Scary Movie' for example, it should fall into fair use.
I agree. What I've done on occasion is copy a phrase into a notebook for inspiration, not to copy. For example I liked a description I read where the long lawn was described up to the house and how it continued, blending with the ivy climbing the walls. I don't remember now the book or the exact words, just that I liked the idea. It's in my idea book, but definitely I would not write anything with even remotely similar words.
