Copying from the public domain is not per se plagiarism. The public domain is meant to be copied. I consider it praiseworthy to copy and/or imitate and/or modify good works in the public domain. "Plagiarism", as I define it, contains a conclusion about the motives of the copyist, not just an observation of the fact of copying. For plagiarism to exist as I define it, there needs to be some deception or bad faith present, not just copying. The position taken by many in this thread, as interpreted through the filter of my definition of plagiarism, is that if Dylan had acknowledged his sources openly, there would be fewer doubts about his good faith or lack of it.

T.