There was also the thing a few years ago about allegedly original Dylan paintings which were shown to be based on photos and paintings by other people. It's nice to pay tribute to artists you like, and "borrowing" IS part of the tradition, but it is kind of weird that so much of this stuff is "borrowed" - like Dylan's "New Pony", no shout out to Charley Patton or Son House in the credits - why not? Why not give credit where credit (and possibly royalties) are due?
Are we really supposed to believe that Dylan is wanting us to play detective and give ourselves an education in the history of the blues, etc (with his help)? Or is it just laziness on his part? Or is he mocking us? Or, more troubling, is it simply yet another example of an artist ripping off another artist and claiming it as his own... as in the shameful history of white artists ripping off Black artists (Rolling Stones claiming they wrote Robert Johnson's "Love in Vain", numerous Led Zep songs, John Lomax claiming credit for co- writing Leadbelly songs he didn't actually write (while charging a 50% management fee for gigs he arranged),etc., etc.)?
From The Daily Beast
For half a century, fans of rock’s enigmatic poet laureate have picked apart his words—and even his garbage—searching relentlessly for hidden meaning. Now a small band of Dylan sleuths led by an Albuquerque disc jockey may finally have found the key … but, to what?