Here's a question for some of the more academic forum members.

For my history class this term, I was supposed to write a paper based on a piece I selected at the Art Museum. I have been to the art museum numerous times, but last time I wrote on a painting that I took a great liking to. This term, another teacher in another class assigned a similar piece, but instead of being an analysis of the artistic forms, I was to analyze the historical background of the piece.

In writing the paper, I looked to my old one. Not for ideas on what to use, but for the sources I had cited for the original. Since it was a completely new topic on a familiar subject, I didn't want to rehash my art analysis, especially since she wanted a historical subject analysis. So, I took portions of my old paper and inserted them into the new one.

Now, I am aware of plagiarism. I am aware of what self-plagiarism is. Here's the catch: The only things I copied over were the artists biography (Pretty much cited every other sentence) and the description of the painting from the museum. Every single piece I copied was cited properly in MLA format. The only thing was I copied it because it was relevant to my paper and I had already covered the same material before, and since it was all material that was properly cited anyways, I put it in.

So, what do you guys think? I already turned the paper in knowing the risks, and I doubt anyone will even notice it since they were two completely different classes, but I wanted to know your opinions on this. Yes, I know it was a little bit lazy for me to do, but to be honest, the EXACT same information would have been copied over and cited in the exact same way if I had done it using my original highlighted documents.

EDIT: To give you an idea of how much was copied, the entire paper is 2 1/2 pages long. The copied work takes up roughly half a page since it's all biographical information. Oh, and a paragraph long quote that I couldn't leave out (cited as well). And actually, looking at it, EVERY sentence I copied has a citation at the end of it.

There is no plagianism in literature, it's fluid water you can choose which form it should take.

Bertholt Brecht wrote a book called "Kriegfibel". It's a book with quotes and poens where pictures of wars are added to give the interpretion the right direction.

The special case about this book was that none of the material he used were originally from him. He used old epicgramms from ancient Greek tombs or quotes from famous politicans and add the pictures which were in complete opposite to the said text.

And this is art, dude. Fuck copyright, do your shit and be proud of it.

Well it seems like you're just reeling off facts more than anything. Such things can only be written so many ways. That said, it may be a good idea, once you've got that down, to rewrite it. Not necessarily to force in small changes but maybe to improve the flow.

In fact as a general rule I tend to rewrite everything important at least once as it does seem to significantly improve my writing.

The most important thing in any academic work is using citations properly such that it is clear which parts are your work and which are simply facts you have gathered based on other peoples work that you find relevant to yours.

With proper citation use you need never fear plagiarism.

It is quite simple really, you can just reference your own previous work. It is only self plagiarism if you do not acknowledge that you have used material you have had from before. You can even quote yourself if needed. If you read research articles you will see that this is a common practice, a lot of research is building on what the researcher have done previously.

Remember it is only plagiarism if you pass it on as original work, as long as you do give acknowledgments you should be fine.

Morally, I find no problem with this. It's still your work, and it's not like you submitted the exact same paper twice.

The difficult part is knowing how strict your university is with things like that, if anyone ever finds out (and no one probably will). I'm quite sure mine would be fine with it, because, after all, it's not all that uncommon for the professors to do things like this fairly often. Everyone quotes themselves to some extent, that's perfectly normal. And if you know you have written something well, there's no reason to rephrase it.

Work smarter, not harder.

If you cite your previous work as a source there isn't anything wrong with that as long as all citations are made correctly.

I believe it's okay. At most you should include your previous work among sources.

Most professors I've had wouldn't have minded that at all. If you're worried, you can always cite your own work :P

Academically, you have the right to cite your own work. It's your call whether you just copy/paste from it or actually provide a citation. That would depend on your sense of the professor and school, honestly, but I'm sure you'll be fine.

No, you can not just copy/past, but must always give a citation. if you do not you can get done for self-plagiarism.

Legally, yes. Always cite and, when in doubt, over-cite. And from now on, I'd even go so far as to ask specific professors if they allow self-citation (some of mine in undergrad and graduate school did not). But since he has already turned the paper in, I was trying to be reassuring :)

Self-Plagiarism is an oxymoron. I prefer Content Duplication because you can't steal from yourself ffs.I don't see a problem with handing an essay in twice if it's still referenced properly. It's not like anyone owns the copyright and you're selling it again. So if you'd been paid by a company who now owned the rights then it'd be breaching a contract. You haven't so it shouldn't be a problem morally. It seems pointless to rewrite the same thing again just for the sake of it.

Off-topic: Turabian citation FTW.