Is Plagiarism Really Plagiarism?

What’s really considered plagiarism? Everyone seems to have their own interpretation. We all know there’s flat our bold stealing-your-work type of plagiarism, which consists of copying word for word of ones work without giving credit, but there’s an interesting point Isserman speaks about in his article. How far do we really have to consider plagiarism? Does it trickle down to the very ideas , creative or artistic work us human beings develop. A lot of it has to due with influence. We are naturally influenced by our peers and role models. If I love the concept my friend has on “economic consumption”, do I manipulate his work & put a twist to it with a bit of my ideal, or start from scratch & try to come up with a concept that’s totally different from his? Isserman mentions the term “contested terrain”, which was used by Eugene Genovese, a fellow historian he admired. He claims that he pays homage every time he uses that term. Homage is the least you can do to deliver some type of respect. But what about ‘like’ ideas? Who’s to say one man was the originator of a particular theory. Do I pay homage if I’m unsure? This all balls down to the misunderstanding of information. Is the information legit, how do I know this? Where did it come from? The creation of an idea must in fact develop from experience. Us humans share the same experiences all the time. The experience then turns into an ideology. Who’s the developer of the ideology, if more than one person uses the ideology without referencing a source, is it considered plagiarism? So many unanswered questions…