One of the things an editor must do before publishing work is ensure it hasn't been copied from elsewhere. You might be surprised just how often plagiarism happens, and every editor has his/her own way of handling the matter. Most editors I know run work in a search engine before accepting it. Others keep a record of all published poetry in the genre they edit (something I greatly appreciate). Yet others subscribe to many poetry magazines and check on anything that comes across their desks that might sound familiar.
As someone who's had her work stolen more than once (and always returned, thanks to my copyright lawyer and some great editor friends) I appreciate editors who diligently do their jobs, and try to be as thorough in my own editorial duties.
Art poses its own series of discernment as far as copying goes. As an artist, I can pretty much tell if someone is submitting something in the genre he/she claims. (One artist submitted a watercolour piece of art that he claimed was oil, a pretty obvious sham). One time, a woman claimed she painted something that was a clear photoshop special of an online cartoon. Yet another time, someone sent me a haiga with art he claimed he painted. Unbeknownst to him, we used to live in the same town (his son and I went to neighbouring high schools) and that weekend, neighbouring homes received a Sears flyer. This man had scanned the wallpaper sale page, and photoshopped it. I recognized it, and asked him how he produced the image. He was heavy in imagination and enthusiasm for what he lacked in honesty, as he lied about how he'd experimented with paint and pen. Obviously, when I told him what I knew and how I knew it, he realized he couldn't go on with the scam any longer, but became quite belligerent when I told him I would not publish any of his work ever since I couldn't be sure it was his.
While I keep a list of poets and artists who have pulled this scam, I don't pass it around to other editors. That's called blacklisting, and I know quite a few editors who practice that. While I think it's a good idea, and appreciate receiving the information, I typically don't pass on information unless asked. I don't know why. Perhaps I should.
I know that some editors choose to publicly shame offenders. While I'm not opposed to this, I don't do it either. Again, perhaps it's time to reconsider.
I am disappointed when someone I've taken to be a real writer and artist reveals him/herself otherwise. Awhile back, there was a blog I liked to visit. I thought the poetry was original until mine showed up on that same blog. However, I still held out hope that the photographs were original until a photographer pointed out a major discrepancy. He got in the habit of asking this blogger how she took her pictures. "Oh, I just point and click with my little camera", she'd say. He'd press further (knowing how the photos were really taken), "Are you sure you didn't use such-and-such lens?", or "Are you sure you didn't use this type of camera?" Later on, he showed several of us the sites she was nabbing her work from. Yes, I should have seen that the photographs were not taken with the camera she claimed to have used, but since I was looking at her work casually and not as an editor, I suppose I was lax.
I hope that those of you who take time to submit work sincerely send work that's from the heart. Every time a poet writes, or an artist creates, a little bit of him/herself goes into that work. That's why plagiarism is a particularly putrid offence. It's impersonation in the lowest form.
It's better to not be published than to be published under false pretenses. Think about that before you hit your next submit button.
