# Fanfiction - an homage or plagurism?



## traceya (Apr 26, 2010)

I may get shot down in flames here but I wanted to ask the question anyway. There's been a lot of buzz about an author who's work bears a striking resemblance to another best-selling author. The plots, character development etc are all very, very close to being the same. So is this fan-fiction or is this plagurism?

I ask the question for two reasons - I was once accused of plagurism by a reviewer about a scene in my book, Erich's Plea, in which Slade the MC, is tortured by walking endlessly pushing a large wooden wheel. Apparently there's a scene that is exactly the same in the movie Conan the Barbarian - which I haven't seen BTW. I used that scene knowing it had been written before but only because I also know that from early Persian times right through to the Inquisition that was a very commonly used form of torture. Therefore I don't feel that what I wrote was plagurised - it was just something I knew was very common.

Secondly, I've recently heard about a new RPG game for Xbox [I think] where good and evil characters have to work together for a greater purpose - that's basically the overall plot line of my book and again, something that has been done before. There's nothing really new under the sun but it's how you work your plot that makes your work original.

In the case I'm referring to I'm not sure whether this should really be considered original work when so much of it is already out there in best-selling novels. However, it may be that as fan-fiction this type of work is allowed and accepted.

Opinions, thoughts, death threats?


----------



## SailorMerry (Dec 18, 2010)

I love fanfiction. It's what got me into writing in the first place and led me to do very well on writing tests, etc. due to constant practice.

That being said, if you are referring to Cassandra Clare and her use of fanfiction (http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/Cassandra_Claire), I think that is incredibly unethical. I get so angry every time I see one of her books in stores or hear about the forthcoming movie based upon her series. That's partly because of my involvement in the particular fandom she was involved in and some friends of mine that were personally hurt by her, but regardless, what she did was wrong.

Fanfiction is perfectly fine, so long as the fan-author doesn't profit from their work without permission from the original author. There's plenty of "legit" fanfiction out there- all those Star Wars books, movie tie-ins, stuff based on public domain work, etc.


----------



## Daphne (May 27, 2010)

I have friends who love to read and write fanfiction - taking characters from beloved books like LOTRs and Harry Potter and making up new stories - this seems to be perfectly acceptable in the right forum (and, as you say, nonprofit). Beyond that, there are only so many ideas and influences in the world, so writers will always be sharing territory. Shakespeare is famous for the fact that his genius was in the way he delivered the story rather than his invention. Romeo and Juliet was a classic Italian tale and shows up in all sorts of forms. Hamlet was based on the legend Amleth and Othello on the story "A Moorish Captain". As for the story of King Arthur, it has been given so many treatments from medieval romances to modern films, it is hard to know where to begin. There is a very interesting thread about LOTRs over in the Book Corner in which the striking similarities between Tolkien's epic and Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen are discussed. Of course, the explanation  is in the sources both men used - the Norse myths, particularly the Volsunga Saga - and no doubt Tolkien did listen to Wagner. So ideas and themes will be reused and it would only be if an author picked up large chunks of a book and copied them that plagiarism would become an issue. I'll certainly be avoiding the name Harry Potter in my books. I do wonder what would happened if a man called Harry Potter (and there must be many) published "Harry Potter's Cookbook" or suchlike?


----------



## SailorMerry (Dec 18, 2010)

Oh, and a pertinent quote that I just remembered:

"My goal as a writer is not to achieve fame and fortune, but to have entire fanfiction archives devoted to my novels."


----------



## lib2b (Apr 6, 2010)

The key to what makes something plagiarism is if someone takes someone else's work _and tries to pass it off as their own_. I don't really read fan fiction, but in my younger days I definitely wrote a few. At least at that time, it was considered very bad form to post a fan fiction that didn't clearly state that the characters, back story, etc. were created by the original creator and that you were just borrowing them to have some fun in that world. No one was trying to claim the work as their own and that was made very, very clear.

It sounds like the people who accused you of plagiarism didn't really understand what it is.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

I've never been 100% sure what fan fiction is.  If we're talking about writing a sequel to another writer's work, writing a story with characters or a world that somebody else has already created, or explaining the "flip side" to an existing story, I personally wouldn't find that very rewarding.  It's only about half of what writing is all about, in my opinion.  

But if it pays the bills, I have no problem with it...


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Fan fiction is based specifically on someone else's work, using their characters, their world, their rules. just written by a fan, not the author. 
Tracey I read your book, and I recall the torture scene, and I have seen CtB movie... yeah, ok, you used the same torture device.. whoopie, that's not plagiarism. you based it on a fact, the same as the CtB (ERB) people did. Any form of torture has already been written about by someone, so does this mean no one can ever write about torture again? nah.. just blow em off.


----------



## JRainey (Feb 1, 2011)

ScaryMerry said:


> I love fanfiction. It's what got me into writing in the first place and led me to do very well on writing tests, etc. due to constant practice.
> 
> That being said, if you are referring to Cassandra Clare and her use of fanfiction (http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/Cassandra_Claire), I think that is incredibly unethical. I get so angry every time I see one of her books in stores or hear about the forthcoming movie based upon her series. That's partly because of my involvement in the particular fandom she was involved in and some friends of mine that were personally hurt by her, but regardless, what she did was wrong.
> 
> Fanfiction is perfectly fine, so long as the fan-author doesn't profit from their work without permission from the original author. There's plenty of "legit" fanfiction out there- all those Star Wars books, movie tie-ins, stuff based on public domain work, etc.


I just want to second everything you just said, lol! I, too, first really started writing because of fanfiction (oddly enough, I wrote fanfics about The Beatles and Sherlock Holmes in my earliest days [not in the same fic!]. Not the most common fandoms, but whatever!). I owe a lot to those stories, as terrible as they were. I learned a ton about writing through them. And as long as you're not claiming the characters as your own or making money off it or anything like that, I think it's completely okay.

But I also have to agree about Cassie Claire. :/


----------



## JJWestendarp (Nov 2, 2010)

Read through that wiki and all I can say is *wow*. I really have no words for what Claire is said to have done, except I saw crap like that go down all the time back in my MMO heyday. You would not believe what people will do to get ahead in the world, even one that doesn't really exist.

On the subject of Fan Fiction. I don't see any problems with it. I know Robin Hobbe ripped into one poor girl at a book signing for admitting to writing fan fiction, but I actually see it as a legitimate way to hone your writing techniques without delving into the need to burden yourself with some of the tedium an original work requires. I'm certainly better for having written a few in my time, and one of them will even be turned into a book of my own, simply because the only thing I use is the setting, and none of the canon characters, and revising the setting into my own world is easy enough.

Fan Fiction at its core is an homage. As long as it remains not-for-profit, that's fine. When you cross the line though, you deserve to get pimp slapped. Preferably by Mike Tyson.


----------



## Philip Chen (Aug 8, 2010)

Plagarism is a serious accusation and the test for plagarism has to be very exact. So many things have been written about so many topics that a reader might think he has read it somewhere before. The fact that a scene may seem familiar is not enough. After all, how many ways are there to kill off a character. There is no plagarism unless the construct of the passage taken in its totality is deemed by a reasonable fact finder in a court of law to have been so similar in words and construction to the putative plagarized text that there cannot be any other conclusion than to say it was in fact copied. I haven't researched the law on this, but would not be surprised that the aforementioned is pretty close to the legal test.


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

I can understand why people write it, particularly as an young writers who are still flexing their writing muscles... 

But I'm honestly baffled as to why anyone else would want to read it, or why anyone would think they would?


----------



## SailorMerry (Dec 18, 2010)

James Everington said:


> I can understand why people write it, particularly as an young writers who are still flexing their writing muscles...
> 
> But I'm honestly baffled as to why anyone else would want to read it, or why anyone would think they would?


It depends on how obsessed you are with something. I was (and still am) a Harry Potter fanatic, and primarily wrote/read fanfiction that explored events prior to the actual books and focused on characters that didn't get a lot of page time. If it's a character that intrigues you and the author doesn't deliver, why not read what others have written?

It's also fun to explore different what-if scenarios that would never happen in the main story. Stuff like that is why people read fanfiction.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

I haven't read the whole thread, but just something off the top of my head, here.

Fanfic is not plagiarism.  Even unauthorized fanfic is not - if it is unauthorized, then it is copyright and/or trademark violation.  Plagiarism is the COPYING of another's work and claiming it as your own.  ie., if I "wrote" a book that was the same as yours, word for word, and turned it in as my creative writing assignment with my name on it, well, I just plagiarized your book.  I suppose technically that fanfic could be labeled as plagiarism, but I'm pretty sure nobody is going to believe that I came up with the world setting of Harry Potter   Generally speaking where you hear plagiarism thrown around is in academic settings and journalism.  

Also, I would not consider your use of a grist mill as plagiarism.  A rip-off?  Perhaps, I'd have to read it.  From what you've said, though, I'd tend to agree with you.  What, Conan is the only person in the universe to be used to turn a wheel?  Uh-huh.

Anyway, my two cents.  I'll probably have a couple more pennies once I've read all the responses


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

James Everington said:


> But I'm honestly baffled as to why anyone else would want to read it, or why anyone would think they would?


Ever taken a look at how many Star Trek novels there are in the market?


----------



## Maria Staal (Feb 1, 2011)

James Everington said:


> I can understand why people write it, particularly as an young writers who are still flexing their writing muscles...
> 
> But I'm honestly baffled as to why anyone else would want to read it, or why anyone would think they would?


Like ScaryMerry says, it depends on how much people like a certain book/film/tv-series. 
I personally am a big fan of the tv-series Firefly, which was cancelled after only 14 episodes. Much of the fanfiction is based on stories in between those episodes, thus giving the fans another chance to meet the characters. 
Even more Firfly fanfiction is based on the time after the episodes, in that way continuing the story - keeping it alive, if you will.
That's why people read fanfiction. : )

Maria


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

JJWestendarp said:


> I know Robin Hobbe ripped into one poor girl at a book signing for admitting to writing fan fiction, but I actually see it as a legitimate way to hone your writing techniques without delving into the need to burden yourself with some of the tedium an original work requires.


Not familiar with the actual incident, but Robin Hobbe has specifically and publicly asked that people not use her world settings for fan fic. Agree or disagree, that is her right as an author. So that may have been what the kerfluffle was about.


----------



## Budo von Stahl (Aug 31, 2010)

By this point in human history, it's all pretty much tropes and cliches.  Fan-fic isn't plagiarism, plagiarism isn't stringing together common elements of a genre.  Inventive and entertaining ways to bring those common elements of genre together and maybe mix in a few from another is what we do.  There's a thread in here somewhere about author jargon, mentioning things like a little tribute to a mentor/favorite as opposed to fan-fic, etc.


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

Budo von Stahl said:


> By this point in human history, it's all pretty much tropes and cliches. Fan-fic isn't plagiarism, plagiarism isn't stringing together common elements of a genre. Inventive and entertaining ways to bring those common elements of genre together and maybe mix in a few from another is what we do. There's a thread in here somewhere about author jargon, mentioning things like a little tribute to a mentor/favorite as opposed to fan-fic, etc.


True. Fan-fic isn't plagiarism. It can be copyright or trademark infringement, however. I've only done one fan-fic piece and that was for a Star-Trek sponsored contest and thus none of the above. I didn't win.


----------



## JRainey (Feb 1, 2011)

James Everington said:


> I can understand why people write it, particularly as an young writers who are still flexing their writing muscles...
> 
> But I'm honestly baffled as to why anyone else would want to read it, or why anyone would think they would?


A lot of it has to do with shipping, too. Shipping, in case you're don't know, is the romantic pairing of two characters from a canon source. In fanfic, you can ship characters who don't actually get together in the book/movie/tv show/whatever, or even characters that do hook up in the canon source can have a large following. Jack/Ianto from Torchwood comes to mind. Or, for example, if you always thought Harry should've gone with Hermione in Harry Potter, then you write fic about it and other people who are likeminded will read the fic.

Then there's porn. People love reading porn featuring their favorite characters, lol! Long story short, romantic and sexual drives are a big reason people read fanfiction.


----------



## sbaum4853 (May 3, 2010)

Fanfic is an important part of the publishing world now, and it's here to stay.

Cory Doctorow wrote an essay called In Praise of Fanfic that I'd recommend to anyone with an interest in this topic. It is so spot-on and cogent you'll read it and consider this case closed. Here's an excerpt:



> Culture is a lot older than art - that is, we have had social storytelling for a lot longer than we've had a notional class of artistes whose creativity is privileged and elevated to the numinous, far above the everyday creativity of a kid who knows that she can paint and draw, tell a story and sing a song, sculpt and invent a game.
> 
> To call this a moral failing - and a new moral failing at that! - is to turn your back on millions of years of human history. It's no failing that we internalize the stories we love, that we rework them to suit our minds better. The Pygmalion story didn't start with Shaw or the Greeks, nor did it end with My Fair Lady. Pygmalion is at least thousands of years old - think of Moses passing for the pharaoh's son! - and has been reworked in a billion bedtime stories, novels, D&D games, movies, fanfic stories, songs, and legends.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2011)

I think you are confusing a whole lot of terms.

Fan fiction IS plagiarism. It is a violation of the original creator's copyright. Fan fiction is a specific act of taking another person's characters and setting and making it your own. Think of it as the Who, What, Where, When, and Why of a story.

Some creators allow fan fiction under certain circumstances. Some don't care so long as you don't do anything offensive with their characters. Others will pursue you harshly to get you to stop.

Ideas however are not subject to copyright. Only the presentation of the idea. If you want to write a story about a boy wizard going to wizard school, nobody can stop you. You can't, however, write a story about Harry Potter going off to college. You are now specifically stealing the presentation of the idea from the creator.

Sometimes people accuse writers of "plagiarism" when they really mean you are being unoriginal. Though whether or not you are being unoriginal often depends on how well read you are, _as well as how well read the accuser is_. I once had a reviewer say that my book _The Doom Guardian _ was just like LoTR but with more sex. Now forget the fact for a moment that there are no hobbits, rings, or orcs in my book, nor were there any vampires, ghouls, dhampirs and the only demon in LOTR got killed off rather quickly. LoTR is probably one of the only fantasy novels this person ever read, so anything involving a fantasy setting by default in her mind is "like LoTR."

In the case of the person accusing you of ripping off Conan, even though you hadn't seen Conan, it sounds like he has a narrow frame of reference. He doesn't know that the wheel torture was a common practice in the time period you are writing, and so he equates it with his own frame of reference, which is Conan. When I read 33 A.D., my first question to David was whether he had ever played Vampire: The Masquerade, because I had read a lot of V:TM fiction and the vampires had similar behavior. But I didn't accuse him of plagiarism, I was simply fitting the story into my own frame of reference.


----------



## Chris Northern (Jan 20, 2011)

BTackitt said:


> Fan fiction is based specifically on someone else's work, using their characters, their world, their rules. just written by a fan, not the author.
> Tracey I read your book, and I recall the torture scene, and I have seen CtB movie... yeah, ok, you used the same torture device.. whoopie, that's not plagiarism. you based it on a fact, the same as the CtB (ERB) people did. Any form of torture has already been written about by someone, so does this mean no one can ever write about torture again? nah.. just blow em off.


Exactly so. Broomsticks are in the public domain; quidditch isn't. Anyone can use flying broomsticks, the concept doesn't belong to anyone; likewise having a competitive game on broomsticks is (in my opinion) not covered - but the specific game of quidditch is, along with it's rules and structure. Mind you, you would have to be a pretty brave writer to add in a competitive game played on flying broomsticks; the comparison would be immediate and probably not well recieved.

There is a huge difference between using fanfiction to develop the skills needed to write well (and then writing something original in the same genre) and taking that body of work, tweeking out the names and direct references, and publishing it as original. That is pretty borderline, but if it were actionable in any specific case action would have been taken, I'm sure. It might well be that the former is the case and not the latter. The fanfiction would exist somewhere and checking would be simple enough, surely?

There is a huge difference between being accused of being unoriginal and being accused of plagiarism


----------



## Budo von Stahl (Aug 31, 2010)

Chris Northern said:


> Exactly so. Broomsticks are in the public domain; quidditch isn't. Anyone can use flying broomsticks, the concept doesn't belong to anyone; likewise having a competitive game on broomsticks is (in my opinion) not covered - but the specific game of quidditch is, along with it's rules and structure. Mind you, you would have to be a pretty brave writer to add in a competitive game played on flying broomsticks; the comparison would be immediate and probably not well recieved.
> 
> There is a huge difference between being accused of being unoriginal and being accused of plagiarism


Better said. JK took a standard fantasy trope and put a fresh spin on it. Someone else could, say, use flying brooms as a vehicle of war or as a means of common transport in a closed society (wonder who  ) and not be considered fanfic or plagiaristic. Harry P and his friends doing so would be both. Having a race of short people in a work isn't a problem if they are little more than a salute to the master, but calling them Hobbits is no-no.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

I agree that fanfiction is plagurism - however it is also a training ground for new writers. Trends in writing start there. IMO the current trend in m/m romance is a direct result of fanfiction 'slash' writing. 

Just as the "Mary Sue" and "Barry Stew" characters are part of learning to write, fanfiction is part of the learning process. Does that make it any less plagurism? No. Does that make the writing good? Oh, Heavens No!!! 

However, there is a site that has evolved from the fan fiction of Marion Zimmer-Bradley that trains writers who are ready to go to the next step. Forward Motion or fmwriters.com. So fanfiction can be a wonderful way to get started, as long as the newbie is careful which characters they choose to use.


----------



## James Everington (Dec 25, 2010)

ScaryMerry said:


> It depends on how obsessed you are with something. I was (and still am) a Harry Potter fanatic, and primarily wrote/read fanfiction that explored events prior to the actual books and focused on characters that didn't get a lot of page time. If it's a character that intrigues you and the author doesn't deliver, why not read what others have written?
> 
> It's also fun to explore different what-if scenarios that would never happen in the main story. Stuff like that is why people read fanfiction.


Thanks for the answer, it makes sense but it's just not me; I don't want to diss anyone's harmless fun. But surely what was good about Harry Potter was that JKR wrote it, from her own unique vision, and without her HP wouldn't have existed? It seems to me fanfic can't stand on its own two feet and is parasitic on the ideas of others (that's a horible word I know but I'm tired from a bad day at work and can't think of the right one!).

Once I've read everything a great authors read I'd rather get a _new_ obsession from someone equally great...


----------



## matt youngmark (Jan 11, 2011)

The fanfic community is actually about quite a bit more than honing writing skills. Of course there's fanfic out there that's so bad it will make your eyes bleed, but there's also stuff that would genuinely surprise you wit how wonderful it is. For the most part people aren't writing fanfic because they want to learn to write, but because they love the characters so much and are delighted by the idea of putting them in new situations. If you've ever watched a show and thought one character should be dating a different character than she is, that's what fanfic is for. It's not about claiming other people's work as your own. One of the most delightful things I've ever seen is fanfic communities exchanging stories as presents every year at christmas -- someone will ask for a particular scenario and someone else writes it for them. They're making things purely for the love of them, and not for any hope of profit.

It's true that a lot of authors are really bothered by fanfic of their work, but the ones who try to stamp it out are, in my opinion, shooting themselves in the feet. These people are absolutely their biggest fans, who love their stories so much they erect monuments to them.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

I can understand authors not wanting fanfic done of their work. Some don't care. Some do. A lot. Robin Hobb is one of those who doesn't want fanfic written about her characters - or at least not published. Her feeling is that it's like letting someone else play in your toybox, only they don't put everything back the way they found it. Add to that an attachment you develop for your characters, particularly those in a long-running series. I can see why it might horrify a writer to find out that Harry and Draco wind up together, as an example. Anyone who doesn't understand that is, IMO, being selfish. I have no problem with fanfic, I just think that the wishes of the author should be respected.

Speaking of fanfic - if you're a Firefly fan, Steven Brust wrote a full-length novel under the Creative Commons license. It's available for free on his web site 
http://dreamcafe.com/firefly.html


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

James Everington said:


> But surely what was good about Harry Potter was that JKR wrote it, from her own unique vision, and without her HP wouldn't have existed? It seems to me fanfic can't stand on its own two feet and is parasitic on the ideas of others (that's a horible word I know but I'm tired from a bad day at work and can't think of the right one!).


The three writers, that I know of, who encouraged fanfiction were Andre Norton, Anne McCaffery and Marion Zimmer-Bradley. All three published anthologies of their fanfiction and really encouraged people to write and publish from their worlds. MZ-B launched Mercedes Lackey and Holly Lisle. When MZ-B died one of her fans, Mercedes Lackey finished her last novel. Forward Motion came out of Darkover fanfiction via Holly Lisle.

That is just scratching the surface.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

I was going to throw Mercedes Lackey out there, but you had it covered.  I mean, heck, she publishes anthologies of stories set in Valdemar.  That's pretty fan-fic supportive.  I don't know if she says "hands off my characters" or not, but I could understand that.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

ScaryMerry said:


> I love fanfiction. It's what got me into writing in the first place and led me to do very well on writing tests, etc. due to constant practice.
> 
> That being said, if you are referring to Cassandra Clare and her use of fanfiction (http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/Cassandra_Claire), I think that is incredibly unethical. I get so angry every time I see one of her books in stores or hear about the forthcoming movie based upon her series. That's partly because of my involvement in the particular fandom she was involved in and some friends of mine that were personally hurt by her, but regardless, what she did was wrong.
> 
> Fanfiction is perfectly fine, so long as the fan-author doesn't profit from their work without permission from the original author. There's plenty of "legit" fanfiction out there- all those Star Wars books, movie tie-ins, stuff based on public domain work, etc.


This.

There are a number of writers who got started writing fanfiction, but the writer must NEVER profit from it and must withdraw it if the original author objects.

I still write an occasional fanfic piece just to relax--with no apologies. But I would NEVER publish it for profit. That is a totally unethical thing to do.

As for accidental resemblances between works, they happen.

Edit: The only exception is, as has been mentioned, authors who approve the publication of fanfiction. Several have. That is a different situation. Eric Flint for one has approved what is in effect fanfic for his 1632 Universe.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

mattyoungmark said:


> The fanfic community is actually about quite a bit more than honing writing skills. Of course there's fanfic out there that's so bad it will make your eyes bleed, but there's also stuff that would genuinely surprise you wit how wonderful it is. For the most part people aren't writing fanfic because they want to learn to write, but because they love the characters so much and are delighted by the idea of putting them in new situations. If you've ever watched a show and thought one character should be dating a different character than she is, that's what fanfic is for. It's not about claiming other people's work as your own. One of the most delightful things I've ever seen is fanfic communities exchanging stories as presents every year at christmas -- someone will ask for a particular scenario and someone else writes it for them. They're making things purely for the love of them, and not for any hope of profit.
> 
> It's true that a lot of authors are really bothered by fanfic of their work, but the ones who try to stamp it out are, in my opinion, shooting themselves in the feet. These people are absolutely their biggest fans, who love their stories so much they erect monuments to them.


You've hit the nail on the head.

I occasionally write fan fiction stories, as JR Tomlin does, to relax. It's writing purely for the love of writing (and the characters/universe). It's sharing a story for no reason other than making people happy. By now I am fully wrapped up in publishing and the idea of making money from my writing, but I still enjoy sharing my work with others just for the sake of telling a story. It's simple. Now that I write professionally, I find that fan fiction is an escape--from marketing, editors, deadlines, everything.

The legality around fan fiction is actually quite interesting. And you'll find that while creators used to get a lot more upset about it, these days it's often encouraged (with some notable exceptions) by creators who recognize that an active, eager fan base is a good thing.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

flanneryohello said:


> I still enjoy sharing my work with others just for the sake of telling a story. It's simple. Now that I write professionally, I find that fan fiction is an escape--from marketing, editors, deadlines, everything.


Exactly. I went back to writing fanfic after not having done so for a number of years because I found that it helped me write other things. I get so tied up with trying to make my writing perfect, I end up with writer's block. Writing fanfic is the best cure I've ever come across. And people love to read it.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Exactly. I went back to writing fanfic after not having done so for a number of years because I found that it helped me write other things. I get so tied up with trying to make my writing perfect, I end up with writer's block. Writing fanfic is the best cure I've ever come across. And people love to read it.


From a purely selfish standpoint, I also love writing fan fiction because (at least in my experience) you can expect a lot more reader feedback, and sometimes it's just plain nice to get that. I get emails from people who have read my published books, but not on the scale that I receive feedback on fan fiction stories. Given that one of the reasons I most love writing is the knowledge that I'm entertaining people with my stories, engaging in the kind of writing that elicits an immediate, enthusiastic response is balm for this writer's soul. It's also a confidence boost, and every writer needs those on occasion.


----------



## Zackery Arbela (Jan 31, 2011)

A lot of it also depends on the author whose work us being derived from...some are good with it,others aren't. Stephanie Meyers for instance is very supportive of the practice, even posting the best examples of her website (though she probably draws the line at slash...)

George RR Martin, on the other hand hates the practice. From what i understand he sees it as second rate, and thinks anyone who writes fanfic should write their own stuff instead.

Their respective audiences also play a factor...Meyer writes for teens, Martin for adults. Mercedes Lackey used to be good with it until she got sued by a fanfic author who claimed Lackey ripped of something she wrote....


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I think you are confusing a whole lot of terms.
> 
> Fan fiction IS plagiarism. It is a violation of the original creator's copyright. Fan fiction is a specific act of taking another person's characters and setting and making it your own. Think of it as the Who, What, Where, When, and Why of a story.


Just how is FanFic plagiarism? Copyright and trademark infringement I agree with, plagiarism, no. Those who write FanFic do not present the characters or 'universe' as their own. In the few FanFic stories that I've read, all have referenced the the originators, giving credit.


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

Fan fiction is NOT plagiarism! 

I don't know why people repeat this stupidity. I think perhaps it's because they want to live in a world where a writer's work must be jealously protected by a league of lawyers lest someone dare to be inspired and write something interesting.

Go read Cory Doctorow's essay. It is absolutely spot on. 

We learn by imitation, by copying, by modifying what we've copied, by trying on the ideas and styles of other writers and walking around in their shoes for a while. I doubt there is a published writer around who hasn't got some unpublished work sitting around that at the very least isn't "heavily inspired by ..." their favourite author at the time.

Plagiarism is taking work and presenting as your own. In fan-fiction, how can their possibly be any confusion as to the originating source of the characters? Is someone reading Harry Potter fan-fic and saying "hmm, I really love this original work by Joe Blow and want to read more"? Absolutely not. 

People might want to say that J.K. Rowling has created Draco Malfoy and therefore owns and controls that character and all representations of that character for all time but it's not true. One day JK will be dead and one day Harry Potter will be in the public domain. One day in the distant future someone will be writing "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and Zombies" and making money from it.

Our creative works are not so special that they must be defended against people writing fan fiction or creating interesting things from. If someone is raking in a bundle of cash leeching off a writer's legitimate work then yes, bring on the lawyers and take that cash. But I'm yet to see any studies showing there is a negative effect on book sales or on anything else from fan fiction.

To claim fan fiction is plagiarism is simply wrong.


----------



## traceya (Apr 26, 2010)

Seems as though there are a lot of people in favour of fan-fiction and maybe they're right but there's a part of me that agrees with Julie - Bards & Sages.  If I were to, for example, write a novel about a young orphan boy who discovers he's really a wizard and goes off to wizard school I personally would feel that was plaguirising J.K. Rowling's work and ideas, or about a race of humans living on another planet who ride around on dragons fighting an organism that threatens their planet just like Anne McCaffrey - no matter how much I try and change these things around I feel it's, at the very least, a copyright infringement and it surprises me just how much of it exists in the world of publishing.  It's becoming very common to ride on someone else's coattails of success and it's a trend that I personally find a little disturbing.  

I guess I'm a little old-fashioned in some ways and I think if you're publishing a novel under your name as your work then it should at least be able to stand or fall on its' own.  Publishing something under your name that's already been wildly successful feels to me almost like cheating on a test at school.  

Still this has been a very interesting discussion to date.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Well, in the two examples you gave I think a lot of people would be crying out "rip off" and such, and it would be.  Unoriginal would also come to mind.  

However, I'm used to seeing plagiarism in an academic setting and that is, very specifically, copying EXACTLY the work of another and claiming it as your own.  It's also ground for immediate expulsion - universities frown upon it pretty heavily.  An example of that sort of plagiarism would be, for instance, in my library science class.  We have to read one Young Adult book per week and write a book report on it.  Now, if I were to look up a report on an online review site and copy and paste the review into a document, with my name on it as though I had written it, I can guarantee you I'd be standing before the dean within pretty short order if the teacher caught wind of it.  And she probably would - unless I was ripping my papers from the same source my writing style would vary wildly from week to week.  Any teacher worth her salt would probably have her radar going off on the fourth report.  Add to that, my teacher grades our reports in batches, so she'd be reading my reports one after the other... yeeeaaah.  But generally, when someone says "plagiarism", I think that's what most people think of.


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

traceya said:


> I guess I'm a little old-fashioned in some ways and I think if you're publishing a novel under your name as your work then it should at least be able to stand or fall on its' own. Publishing something under your name that's already been wildly successful feels to me almost like cheating on a test at school.
> 
> Still this has been a very interesting discussion to date.


[With tongue firmly in cheek he says:] Then you must be against movie sequels where a different writer does the script and a different director directs. Equally bad must be movies based on books. Can you imagine the gall of Peter Jackson putting his name on 'Lord of The Rings'? How about writers who send in scripts for episodes of TV series? Imagine Harlan Ellison writing 'City on the Edge of Forever' (one of the classic Star Trek episodes from the original series). How about Vonda N. McIntyre who did the novelizations of 'Star Trek III, The Search For Spock' and 'Star Trek IV The Voyage Home" based on the movies. Plagiarists all? How about the writers of the thousand or more novels in the Star Trek or Star Wars universes. Plagiarists?

Obviously Ms McIntyre is no Copyright or Trademark infringer, as she not only had the permission of, but was hired to do that precise job by the copyright holders. But, according to some above in this thread, she is a plagiarist: She is using the characters, ideas and settings of someone else.

How about those script writers whose scripts are eventually discarded for one reason or another--especially if they do the script on spec. Where do they fall?

And, where is the difference between the above and FanFic? Both use already established characters and settings not of their own making. The only difference is permission. And that's copyright infringement, not plagiarism. Writers of scripts or FanFic do not claim to have created these characters. They are not plagiarists.

That said, I agree with you, Tracy. I'd much rather put out a novel with my own characters and my own world. The one fanfic piece I wrote was for a Star Trek contest. If I had won it would have been a publishing credit. All it cost me was time. I learned something from it, so it wasn't a waste of time. I enjoyed writing the story, but I much prefer writing for my own characters.

So, yes, I wrote a Star Trek story. I believe that Dean Wesley Smith was one of the judges of the contest. Am I, therefore a plagiarist? Think he'd call me one? Not likely. If I'd won the contest and my short story had been printed in the anthology, no one would have called me a plagiarist. But, if I now put up that short story on a web site, do I become one? Copyright infringer in the second case, yes, but its the very same story with the very same words. How can one be plagiarism and one not?


----------



## Lynn Mixon (Jan 2, 2011)

Several folks here have differing opinions about fanfic being plagiarism or being copyright/trademark infringement. I don't write fanfic, so I have no horse in this race, but I was curious if my thought that it wasn't plagiarism was correct. I'm not trying to step on any toes or fight, just discuss.

Professor Google, please put up the first slide.

The anti-plagiarism site plagiarism.com has an article talking about fanfic being plagiarized, and nowhere in it did I find mention that the original act was plagiarism.

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/01/18/fan-fiction-plagiarism/

And another from the same organization where they specifically refer to fanfic as a copyright infringement.

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/02/16/recurring-themes-two-topics-i-dont-cover-anymore/

I figure if the anti-plagiarism folks don't see it as plagiarism, it probably isn't. Your opinion might differ, of course.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

So does that mean Rowling was plagiarizing Ursula K. Le Guin who wrote a rather famous series about a boy who discovers he's really a wizard and goes off to wizard school? (It's called _Wizard of Earthsea_ and is a classic in the fantasy genre. It's a series which has won among other awards the Nebula, the Newbery Silver Medal Award, the National Book Award for Children's Books, and the Lewis Carroll Shelf Award). Tolkien and Wagner wrote about the same things. It wasn't plagiarism.

A concept can not be copyrighted. However, with rare exceptions, generally approved by the originator such as Eric Flint, fanfiction writers do not sell their work. People who do it, do so not for profit but for the pleasure it gives themselves and their readers, generally for the love of the characters. However, Flint publishes an ezine specifically for the publication of fanfic.

As for people who disapprove, well, as far as I'm concerned that's their right. I'll continue on as before though.



traceya said:


> Seems as though there are a lot of people in favour of fan-fiction and maybe they're right but there's a part of me that agrees with Julie - Bards & Sages. If I were to, for example, write a novel about a young orphan boy who discovers he's really a wizard and goes off to wizard school I personally would feel that was plaguirising J.K. Rowling's work and ideas, or about a race of humans living on another planet who ride around on dragons fighting an organism that threatens their planet just like Anne McCaffrey - no matter how much I try and change these things around I feel it's, at the very least, a copyright infringement and it surprises me just how much of it exists in the world of publishing. It's becoming very common to ride on someone else's coattails of success and it's a trend that I personally find a little disturbing.
> 
> I guess I'm a little old-fashioned in some ways and I think if you're publishing a novel under your name as your work then it should at least be able to stand or fall on its' own. Publishing something under your name that's already been wildly successful feels to me almost like cheating on a test at school.
> 
> Still this has been a very interesting discussion to date.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I never heard of fanfic until this thread. It reminds me of open source software.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

James Everington said:


> I can understand why people write it, particularly as an young writers who are still flexing their writing muscles...
> 
> But I'm honestly baffled as to why anyone else would want to read it, or why anyone would think they would?


Because they enjoy the characters it is written about and some of it is darn well written.

Fanfic writers get feedback from readers that would have you drooling with envy. They constantly comment and praise if they like what you've done. When I think of how we have to BEG for reviews and how eager fanfic readers are to tell you when they like what you've done... Well, it leaves me speechless.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

traceya said:


> I may get shot down in flames here but I wanted to ask the question anyway. There's been a lot of buzz about an author who's work bears a striking resemblance to another best-selling author. The plots, character development etc are all very, very close to being the same. So is this fan-fiction or is this plagurism?


Plagiarism is a very serious accusation. Plagiarism is, quite literally, literary theft. We should define what it is, first. It is the passing off of someone else's creative work as one's own. It doesn't have to be a direct copy.

Changing the names of people and places in someone's text wouldn't make it any less plagiarism. Taking a book and rewriting it sentence for sentence would still be plagiarism. Taking scenes and characters from a writer's book and building a mirror-world would still be plagiarism. Even taking just characters and putting them, under other names, into newly created events is plagiarism. Those charaters are some else's creation and property.

What is not plagiarism? There said to be only seven plots in all of fiction. Story similarities are not plagiarism if they arise independently; the general test is to look to the characters and the specific events in each case to be different. Stories about the same historical event are not plagiarized if independently created. The torture wheel you mention is an historical fact; why should its use be considered plagiarism, except if the accusation is made ignorantly or maliciously?


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

I agree with others here - you are mixing a bunch of terms.

First - writing something similar to someone else (especially something you've never seen before) - is neither plagerism nor fanfiction. It is conincidence.  Michael's Riyria Revelations is often compared to Fahred and the Grey Mouser...but he's never read any of those stories.  When many people read in book 2 Avemaprtha a reference to the "Grey Mouse Inn" they assumed it was a reference to this series - nope...its just the name of the inn.  Coincidence but kind of interesting.

Second - fanfiction is done by someone who loves the world and characters so much that they make up their own stories based on them. They can't benefit commercially from them (that would be a violation of copyright) but they can share for free with others and it is geneally a great "compliment" to an author's imagination that they sparked people to feel this way.  For me...I find it disturbing that others could pull the strings of Michael's characters and make them do things they would not normally....yes I know I sound like an insane person I know Royce and Hadrian are not "real" but it would still make me feel uncomfortable.  My daughter btw is waiting with baited breath for this day as she sees it as the final tipping point of "making it".

Third - plagurism is blant theft of another's work - taking something someone else wrote and claiming it as your idea. Again it would require you to know their work and make a conscious effort to steal.

Someone said there are no more original ideas...and in many ways that is true.  Twilight is a take off of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  Almost every fantasy novel containing elves or dwarves is in some way following Tolkien. Most books we read have themes or ideas that have appeared somewhere else in slightly different forms ... House is based off of Sherlock Homes (but most don't see the similarities) there.  None of this is plagurism, or fanfiction...it is creating something unique to you but "influenced" by others.


----------



## traceya (Apr 26, 2010)

rsullivan9597 said:


> _Someone said there are no more original ideas...and in many ways that is true. Twilight is a take off of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Almost every fantasy novel containing elves or dwarves is in some way following Tolkien. Most books we read have themes or ideas that have appeared somewhere else in slightly different forms ... House is based off of Sherlock Homes (but most don't see the similarities) there. None of this is plagurism, or fanfiction...it is creating something unique to you but "influenced" by others._


This may well be the most relevant contribution to the conversation. Maybe there really is nothing new under the sun and therefore plot similarities remain unique but 'influenced'. From all that's been said I feel a little less like a plagurist and a little more original - after all a lot of my work has been influenced by RPG games like Dungeons and Dragons


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

So, what about all the anthologies published by Anne McCaffery, Marion Zimmer-Bradley, Mecedes Lackey, the Star Trek stories (DWS wrote a bunch) and Star Wars (ditto) that were collections of Fan Fiction, published by the author?

Many of these authors encouraged (or in DWS case, were paid) fans to write about their worlds and their characters. Go to Amazon and take a look!

Plagurism is copying exact words without crediting the actualy author.

A lot of people on this forum would benefit from studying fan fiction's most famous character - Mary Sue. See if your Main Characters could pass the Mary Sue Litmus test. In fact, I wrote a post about Mary Sue. I wrote it in my Authonomy days.


----------



## rsullivan9597 (Nov 18, 2009)

traceya said:


> This may well be the most relevant contribution to the conversation. Maybe there really is nothing new under the sun and therefore plot similarities remain unique but 'influenced'. From all that's been said I feel a little less like a plagurist and a little more original - after all a lot of my work has been influenced by RPG games like Dungeons and Dragons


Thanks Tracey .... I'm glad that something I said resonates with someone. You made my day.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

K. A. Jordan said:


> So, what about all the anthologies published by Anne McCaffery, Marion Zimmer-Bradley, Mecedes Lackey, the Star Trek stories (DWS wrote a bunch) and Star Wars (ditto) that were collections of Fan Fiction, published by the author?
> 
> Many of these authors encouraged (or in DWS case, were paid) fans to write about their worlds and their characters. Go to Amazon and take a look!


All these cases, both of fanfic and assigned fiction on someone else's franchise, have one thing in common: the copyright holder's consent was obtained.



K. A. Jordan said:


> Plagurism is copying exact words without crediting the actualy author.


In practice and in law a lot more subtle than that.



K. A. Jordan said:


> A lot of people on this forum would benefit from studying fan fiction's most famous character - Mary Sue. See if your Main Characters could pass the Mary Sue Litmus test. In fact, I wrote a post about Mary Sue. I wrote it in my Authonomy days.


Holy Maloney! Now that's what I call a landmark article. I saved the URL in a bookmark file called "Good Reading" -- to ensure that mine is. Thanks, Kat.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

If we learn nothing else from Fan Fiction - we should learn about Mary Sue and Harry Stew (aka Wesley Crusher). 

Because thousands of readers and writers are coming out of Fan Fiction - if you write your MC's a Sue or a Stew, you are in danger of losing readers. 

Andre - glad you found it useful.


----------



## Rory Miller (Oct 21, 2010)

Interesting thread- so much that I've stuck with it even though I'm reading it on a non-3G phone!

A couple things, first academic plagerism goes WAY beyond exact copy and paste as soom have mentioned. Taking a generalization from a historian without citation can be grounds for plagerism in a history class.
That said, fan fiction states up front that it isnt being passed as original work.

I have never read nor seen any of Harry Potter stuff as it doesn't interest me (the only Fantasy I read is Terry Pratchett and that's for the laughs and social commentary not for the dwarves and dragons) but I'm not about to accuse the author of plagerizing any of the dozens of young wizards learning thier trade stuff that came before (not even Gaimen's Books of Magic comics which includes *gasp* an owl). If anything I'd congrat her for putting a new spin on the old once popular British boarding school tradition. Nothing is new under the sun but some are creative in thier presentation!


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2011)

mathewferguson said:


> Fan fiction is NOT plagiarism!


Plagiarism: "the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work."

Plagiarism does not mean just copying the exact words. It means taking another authors work or ideas and trying to make them your own without the author's consent (i.e. wrongful appropriation). This is EXACTLY what fan fiction is. Just because people readily identify the source of the plagarism does not make it less plagiarism. I've actually seen some fan fiction writers post their stories and then add a (c) notice to it, claiming ownership of the story.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I have never seen that done, Julie. The _norm_ at the start of a fanfic piece is to put a disclaimer stating that the characters do not belong to you and you make no profit from them. Anyone who claimed otherwise would get drawn up short by others and told in no uncertain terms that it was not acceptable.

It's fine to disapprove of fanfic, but the people who do it respect the authors whose characters and world they are extending upon. In 99% of the cases, they do it because they love the work and not to profit from it.

And since I am getting rather defensive and feeling attacked, I'll withdraw from the conversation. That's my last word on the subject.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

rsullivan9597 said:


> For me...I find it disturbing that others could pull the strings of Michael's characters and make them do things they would not normally....yes I know I sound like an insane person I know Royce and Hadrian are not "real" but it would still make me feel uncomfortable.


Totally understandable. It is, in fact, Robin Hobb's main objection to fanfic.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> I have never seen that done, *****. The _norm_ at the start of a fanfic piece is to put a disclaimer stating that the characters do not belong to you and you make no profit from them. Anyone who claimed otherwise would get drawn up short by others and told in no uncertain terms that it was not acceptable.
> 
> It's fine to disapprove of fanfic, but the people who do it respect the authors whose characters and world they are extending upon. In 99% of the cases, they do it because they love the work and not to profit from it.
> 
> And since I am getting rather defensive and feeling attacked, I'll withdraw from the conversation. That's my last word on the subject.


I'm not sure why you are getting defensive or feeling attacked. I was only pointing out that if the author disapproves, then it is plagiarism as you are in fact engaging in the "wrongful" appropriation of someone else's work. I've written fan fiction (for Vampire: The Masquerade and Hunter: the Reckoning), but White Wolf approves of and encourages the practice. I completely get the concept of fan fiction. My only point is that if the author disapproves, don't do it (or at least, don't post it online where everyone can see it).


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Robin Hobb's rant on fanfic, via the WayBack Machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060420125659/http://www.robinhobb.com/rant.html

Pretty interesting reading.

Also, I'd like to point out the object lesson of that - NOTHING disappears off the internet, folks  Remember it


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"Plagiarism: "the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work."_

And it all hings on "wrongful."


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Robin Hobb's rant on fanfic, via the WayBack Machine:


I don't know why you describe it as a "rant" unless in your opinion anything longer than a couple of soundbites strung together is a "rant". It is a closely reasoned argument that holds water at all joints, and it persuades me, for one.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060420125659/http://www.robinhobb.com/rant.html



Arkali said:


> Pretty interesting reading.


Absolutely. Thanks for posting it. I don't move in a fanfic world so I'd never seen it.



Arkali said:


> Also, I'd like to point out the object lesson of that - NOTHING disappears off the internet, folks  Remember it


Rubbish. Why should Hobb ever be ashamed of putting down a bunch of thieves of literary property? If I were writing that article I would have been much more cutting. (Oops! I feel some fanfic coming on! Better stop now.)


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Andre Jute said:


> I don't know why you describe it as a "rant" unless in your opinion anything longer than a couple of soundbites strung together is a "rant". It is a closely reasoned argument that holds water at all joints, and it persuades me, for one.


Ummm, because she, herself, calls it a rant? It's even in the title of the document - she named it rant.html. She even says, first sentence, third paragraph:
"To start my rant..."



Andre Jute said:


> http://web.archive.org/web/20060420125659/http://www.robinhobb.com/rant.html
> 
> Absolutely. Thanks for posting it. I don't move in a fanfic world so I'd never seen it.
> 
> Rubbish. Why should Hobb ever be ashamed of putting down a bunch of thieves of literary property? If I were writing that article I would have been much more cutting. (Oops! I feel some fanfic coming on! Better stop now.)


Holy smokes. Quit trying to put words in my mouth or start a fight. I never said she had anything to be ashamed about  A lot of people don't realize that some files on the web get archived, though, so even though you delete a page, it can still be pulled up, years after the fact.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2011)

Plagiarism. The most misspelled word on writers' sites.

Whispering it in a workshop is akin to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Ummm, because she, herself, calls it a rant? It's even in the title of the document - she named it rant.html. She even says, first sentence, third paragraph:
> "To start my rant..."


Russell Hobb is a she? Thanks for the headsup. Her "rant" is probably defensive, because she knew the truth would be unpopular with a bunch of voluble thieves.

EDIT: Robin Hobb of course! Thanks, Arkali.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Andre Jute said:


> Russell Hobb is a she? Thanks for the headsup. Her "rant" is probably defensive, because she knew the truth would be unpopular with bunch of voluble thieves.


Probably, yes, regarding defensiveness. And it's Robin Hobb, and yes, she's a she  And she's definitely worth checking out if you like fantasy. I'm a huge fan of hers and had stumbled across her "rant" right after I discovered her - I went to her web site to sign up for her newsletter. For what it's worth, I think her opinion is fully understandable. Her analogy to the family reunion photos was very well drawn, I thought.


----------



## traceya (Apr 26, 2010)

Didn't mean to start a firestorm folks - it was just a wondering of mine because I'd been accused of both and yet I truly feel my work is original. Yes I was influenced by RPG like D&D or S&S, but some, many of the most 'exact' things in my books come straight out of history. I created the world of Kaynos and all it's characters, I created the idea of two opposing forms of magic being the main point of conflict - these ideas are all mine. Did I imagine elves, dwarves, dragons, minotaurs etc - no but they're out there for public use and I think I've been imaginative in my use of these types of stereotypical characters. Maybe not though.

I was, I suppose, more thinking of how many times people take someone's work and think by mixing it up a little it becomes their own. The best example I can think of at the moment is Stephen King's book The Stand versus the movie Outbreak [and the many other plague wiping out humanity books and movies there were]. Maybe none of those things are plagiarism or even a rip off but to me it _feels_ that way.

Anyway I hope I haven't ruffled anyone's feathers - I was really just asking the question.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Jung would say all these stories are an outgrowth of the collective unconscious. Nobody invented them. Joseph Campbell would say they are deeply ingrained in culture, and the same story sprouts in a thousand different guises.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

traceya said:


> Didn't mean to start a firestorm folks - it was just a wondering of mine because I'd been accused of both and yet I truly feel my work is original. Yes I was influenced by RPG like D&D or S&S, but some, many of the most 'exact' things in my books come straight out of history. I created the world of Kaynos and all it's characters, I created the idea of two opposing forms of magic being the main point of conflict - these ideas are all mine. Did I imagine elves, dwarves, dragons, minotaurs etc - no but they're out there for public use and I think I've been imaginative in my use of these types of stereotypical characters. Maybe not though.
> 
> I was, I suppose, more thinking of how many times people take someone's work and think by mixing it up a little it becomes their own. The best example I can think of at the moment is Stephen King's book The Stand versus the movie Outbreak [and the many other plague wiping out humanity books and movies there were]. Maybe none of those things are plagiarism or even a rip off but to me it _feels_ that way.
> 
> Anyway I hope I haven't ruffled anyone's feathers - I was really just asking the question.


As a huge fan of Stephen King's _The Stand_, I see very few similarities between that story and _Outbreak_. The only similarity is the concept of a disease wiping out huge numbers of humans. In _The Stand_, it's a military-designed super-flu ("Captain Tripps"). The movie _Outbreak_ is (loosely) based on the book _The Hot Zone_, about the real-life Ebola virus. The story of _The Stand_ goes way beyond the concept of a deadly virus--it's an epic tale of good vs. evil. _Outbreak_ has a much more limited scope--and, in fact, the world is saved (i.e. most humans _don't_ die).

I'm seeing a real problem with definitions and concepts in this thread.

It's possible for two stories to use a similar premise or plot element without either of them being plaigarized _or_ defined as fan fiction.

There are countless stories about apocalyptic events. Disease, war, aliens, natural disaster, etc. can be the cause of a mass extinction of human beings, but that doesn't make the stories derivative. There's tons of room for originality in the details, plot, and execution of such a story. There are countless stories about vampires. Simply having a vampire in my story does not make it a _Twilight_ or Sookie Stackhouse series rip-off. Yes, rip-offs are out there. But there's a huge difference between stealing a plot or characters wholesale and simply using similar themes or story elements.

Fan fiction is (specifically) a story about characters or settings written by fans of the original work, rather than the original creator. If I write a story about a boy wizard named Larry Kotter who goes to the Pigpimples School of Magic, it's not fan fiction. It's a thinly-veiled rip-off of Harry Potter. Fan fiction would be a story _about_ Harry Potter, written by a fan of the series. I have never personally seen a fan fiction author attempt to claim the characters or setting of their story as their own. 99.9% of all fan fiction stories I've ever seen begin with a disclaimer that properly attributes ownership of the characters and setting used in the story.

While I'm sure it has happened, the vast majority of fan fiction authors do not attempt to profit off the work of others. They understand that it would be wrong to do so. Writing fan fiction is a labor of love. It's a community of fans celebrating shared interests. It's really not so ominous.

If I ever wrote something that inspired a fan community enthusiastic enough to want to write fan fiction, I'd be thrilled.


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:



> Plagiarism: "the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and _the representation of them as one's own original work."_


Exactly. 'AND the representation of them as one's own original work.' Without the representation of that work as their own original work, it fails the plagiarism test.

And all of the fanfic I've ever read attributes the characters/universe to their creator. The authors do not represent them as their own original work, ergo not plagiarism. As I've stated above, I'll agree with copyright infringement and possibly trademark infringement.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

D.A. Boulter said:


> Exactly. 'AND the representation of them as one's own original work.' Without the representation of that work as their own original work, it fails the plagiarism test.
> 
> And all of the fanfic I've ever read attributes the characters/universe to their creator. The authors do not represent them as their own original work, ergo not plagiarism. As I've stated above, I'll agree with copyright infringement and possibly trademark infringement.


It isn't that simple, D.A., not by a country mile. For some stranger to make a writer's characters do something that he didn't authorize devalues and tarnishes the characters. The author's copyright is worth less. If some unknown person tried to do to the Coca-Cola trademark what fanfic authors do to the characters and worlds authors create, Coca-Cola's lawyers would take his house and he'd be in debt for the rest of his life. And damn right too; the stability of our society stands on the two legs of free speech and security of property.

If fanfic thieves want to be writers, let them create their own distinct characters, milieu and events, and see if they're distinctive enough to survive in a cruel marketplace.

Why should writers, alone, be treated with such disrespect that they are considered fair game for thieves who steal from them in broad daylight?


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

Andre Jute said:


> It isn't that simple, D.A., not by a country mile. For some stranger to make a writer's characters do something that he didn't authorize devalues and tarnishes the characters. The author's copyright is worth less. If some unknown person tried to do to the Coca-Cola trademark what fanfic authors do to the characters and worlds authors create, Coca-Cola's lawyers would take his house and he'd be in debt for the rest of his life. And d*mn right too; the stability of our society stands on the two legs of free speech and security of property.
> 
> If fanfic thieves want to be writers, let them create their own distinct characters, milieu and events, and see if they're distinctive enough to survive in a cruel marketplace.
> 
> Why should writers, alone, be treated with such disrespect that they are considered fair game for thieves who steal from them in broad daylight?


I'm not arguing your point with respect to right/wrong. It is copyright infringement and could be trademark infringement as well. No two ways about it. But it ain't plagiarism. And yes, it is that simple. An analogue might be: I want to have you charged with 'assault and battery' because you made physical threats and swung at me, though you did not touch me as you stopped your fist before it hit me. Well, it's definitely assault, but without you touching me it ain't battery. You would be in the wrong and it's unlikely you'd get support from others, but even though you assaulted me, you still did not commit battery and any charge of battery would be thrown out of court. Fanfic, in the same way, is copyright infringement (and possibly trademark infringement), but it isn't plagiarism unless the author represents it as his/her own and original.

Your example above with respect to Coca-Cola fits in exactly with my argument. I take the coca-cola bears and do a video with them and a bottle of Coca-Cola, but also have them doing something reprehensible. I declare that Coca-Cola created the bears and owns the trademark for the Coca-Cola logo. They'd sue me for trademark infringement, but not for plagiarism. If they tried for plagiarism, it would be thrown out of court.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"Plagiarism: "the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one's own original work."_
> 
> And it all hings on "wrongful."


It also hinges on "representation of them as one's own original work." Fan fiction acknowleges that the characters do not belong to the fan fiction author, so it is not plagiarsm. Opposing fan fiction is foolish, the people who read and write it are usually the biggest readers or viewers (depending on whether the original is a book or a TV show). That is, until you scream at them about fan fiction.

I haven't read a piece of fan fiction in years. But an author opposing fan fiction makes me a lot less interested in reading that author's works. People don't mistake fan fiction for the real thing.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

If someone is taking a book, changing the names and places, and rephrasing things, that's probably going to be a real problem. But if it merely has a resemblance to some other work, then it's like thousands of other books. Some books set the tone for a whole genre. There were a lot of books that came out in the wake of LOTR that wouldn't have been written if LOTR wasn't written.

As far as ideas go, no one owns them. It would be a disaster if they could. It would lead to only one exploration of an idea. Imagine if I couldn't write about robots because Azimov "owned" the idea of robots? The three laws are his, yes, but robots themselves aren't. Then again, if the idea of robots could be owned, Azimov couldn't have written his robot stories, since he wasn't the first to write about robots.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I'm not sure why you are getting defensive or feeling attacked. I was only pointing out that if the author disapproves, then it is plagiarism as you are in fact engaging in the "wrongful" appropriation of someone else's work. I've written fan fiction (for Vampire: The Masquerade and Hunter: the Reckoning), but White Wolf approves of and encourages the practice. I completely get the concept of fan fiction. My only point is that if the author disapproves, don't do it (or at least, don't post it online where everyone can see it).


I may have been being a bit oversensitive, Julie, but you see people in this thread who are openly calling anyone who writes fanfic "thieves". I don't like to get into fights when I can avoid it.

I don't know if the author whose world I write in would approve or disapprove. She has been dead for about thirty years. It isn't an issue.

I agree that if the author says don't do it, then I wouldn't. Since anything I write absolutely respects the author's representation of the characters to the best of my ability (otherwise why bother?), is labeled as fanfic and I would never even consider profiting, I refuse to apologize or feel as though I am a "thief".

Do I consider myself a thief because I carry on the "lives" of certain characters beyond what the author who invented them did? No, I most certainly do not. Do I get fantastic feedback and comments from the people who are also fans of that work? Yes, I do.

Do I think I hurt the author's sales? I suspect that fanfic helps authors sales and the ones who get all up in arms about the whole thing are being unbelievably foolish. But that's my opinion.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

I know of two things that originated in fan fiction and have, for better or worse, spread into genre fiction. 

One is 'Mary Sue' - which is a boon to all writers. There is a name for that annoying character now! Wesley Crusher haters can scream it at him whenever he appears on screen. (LOL)

The other is 'slash' which sprang from fanfic right into the arms of romantica and from there - well the rest, as they say, is sales. 'Slash' is now a big money maker for Harlequin and Carina press. I know a number of women writers making money with it, without having a clue where it came from.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

K. A. Jordan said:


> I know of two things that originated in fan fiction and have, for better or worse, spread into genre fiction.
> 
> One is 'Mary Sue' - which is a boon to all writers. There is a name for that annoying character now! Wesley Crusher haters can scream it at him whenever he appears on screen. (LOL)
> 
> The other is 'slash' which sprang from fanfic right into the arms of romantica and from there - well the rest, as they say, is sales. 'Slash' is now a big money maker for Harlequin and Carina press. I know a number of women writers making money with it, without having a clue where it came from.


Slash is indeed a good thing although it far predated fanfic if you are simply talking about m/m or f/f romances. There are other more complicated definitions of the term though.

Edit: M/M and F/F romances predated the internet for that matter. I mean _The Charioteer_ was published in 1953. _Front Runner_ was a best seller in 1974. (Or perhaps you consider slash to be erotica. I do not) However, it's good if slash online encouraged romance companies to cater to people who wanted those.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2011)

Okay, let me sound off. While I wouldn't ever call fanfiction writers "thieves" or "plagiarists," I would call them unimaginative and take pity on them for failing to use their imagination to create their own unique fictional world and fictional characters. 

I sometimes write historical fiction and am persuaded more or less to include many facts and episodes, and yes, characters from known historical situations. For example, I wrote a short story now on Kindle Amazon, "Pretty Boy Floyd, We Need You Now," which I began with a piece of my family lore and did a lot of research for. I used names, places and the actual character of this 1930s Robin Hood-type gangster. To me this takes research skills and imagination to pull it off well, so that the history is accurate even though mixed with purely fictional elements. 

I would never write fanfic however, because I have more story ideas in a folder than I will ever get to, and I believe that those who do write it simply haven't allowed their inner self to get the imagination harnessed and to work for them. I'd say it is literary laziness, in a way. Though that sounds harsh, I don't think it is--it seems simply a way to crawl before walking.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

MikeAngel said:


> I would never write fanfic however, because I have more story ideas in a folder than I will ever get to, and I believe that those who do write it simply haven't allowed their inner self to get the imagination harnessed and to work for them. I'd say it is literary laziness, in a way. Though that sounds harsh, I don't think it is--it seems simply a way to crawl before walking.


I don't agree. Well, I suppose it depends on what you're talking about. Firstly, I think it's someone trying to do something with what they love. I don't think it's necessarily a lack of imagination or laziness or thievery or whatever. I mean, take the Firefly book I linked above. It was written by Steven Brust and is available for free because it's non-licensed fanfic. The man has over twenty, actually, I think over thirty, published books of his own out there. He's not lacking in imagination or literary work ethic, he just loved the Firefly world enough that he felt like writing My Own Kind of Freedom.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

JR - I consider slash to be romantica, there can be a lot of erotic content.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2011)

Arkali said:


> It was written by Steven Brust and is available for free because it's non-licensed fanfic. The man has over twenty, actually, I think over thirty, published books of his own out there. He's not lacking in imagination or literary work ethic, he just loved the Firefly world enough that he felt like writing My Own Kind of Freedom.


There is always an exception, and of course I was generalizing about most fanfic writers. It seems people on these threads enjoy anecdotes as a way of "proving" or "disproving" an assertion. I would have assumed my comments were taken as a generalization. Next time I will specify that. Thanks.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

MikeAngel said:


> Okay, let me sound off. While I wouldn't ever call fanfiction writers "thieves" or "plagiarists," I would call them unimaginative and take pity on them for failing to use their imagination to create their own unique fictional world and fictional characters.
> 
> I sometimes write historical fiction and am persuaded more or less to include many facts and episodes, and yes, characters from known historical situations. For example, I wrote a short story now on Kindle Amazon, "Pretty Boy Floyd, We Need You Now," which I began with a piece of my family lore and did a lot of research for. I used names, places and the actual character of this 1930s Robin Hood-type gangster. To me this takes research skills and imagination to pull it off well, so that the history is accurate even though mixed with purely fictional elements.
> 
> I would never write fanfic however, because I have more story ideas in a folder than I will ever get to, and I believe that those who do write it simply haven't allowed their inner self to get the imagination harnessed and to work for them. I'd say it is literary laziness, in a way. Though that sounds harsh, I don't think it is--it seems simply a way to crawl before walking.


Pure nonsense and a complete lack of understanding of why people write fanfic.

I happen to have four novels (original works, thank you very much) published and about eight more that are completed in draft form. Lazy? I suspect you'd like to write as much as I do.

But I ALSO write fanfic. Because it is fun to do. I don't spend ALL of my time on what I want to publish, nor do I care to do so. Sometimes, I just have fun with it.

*shrug* Once more I'm out of this thread. Really there isn't anything more to say. People who don't understand, won't. People who will, probably already do.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

If they were taking fan fiction, and altering it just barely enough that it could be legally sold, then, yes I could call that lazy. But generally people who write fanfic are just writing as a hobby, and writing just because they want more. I don't think it is fair to compare a fanfiction writer to a someone who writed professionally. A writer should be happy to have readers that are that hungry for more.


----------



## KerylR (Dec 28, 2010)

flanneryohello said:


> From a purely selfish standpoint, I also love writing fan fiction because (at least in my experience) you can expect a lot more reader feedback, and sometimes it's just plain nice to get that. I get emails from people who have read my published books, but not on the scale that I receive feedback on fan fiction stories. Given that one of the reasons I most love writing is the knowledge that I'm entertaining people with my stories, engaging in the kind of writing that elicits an immediate, enthusiastic response is balm for this writer's soul. It's also a confidence boost, and every writer needs those on occasion.


+1. I love my fanfic fans. I'm still getting emails back about how much they like stories I wrote three years ago. And immediate feedback is a lifesaver when you're slogging through a novel unsure if what you're doing is really working. It's good for the soul to get little, 'you really know how to write' notes to keep you going.

Another great thing about fan fic, unlike commercial fiction you can play in the places most people won't pay for. You can forget about the constant drum beat of is this part of the plot, does this move the story forward, and just relax and let the characters relax. You can let the characters eat, and sleep, and just have fun with each other. Sookie and Eric can enjoy some TLC time without having to worry about what's about to explode. Snape and Lupin can catch a quiet minute during POA and maybe act like civilized human beings to each other.

And also, to the 'I don't get why anyone would want to read it,' commenter it depends a lot on who you are. I don't read much fan fic these days, and the stuff I read is HP fan fiction. Why? I'm an adult. I'd like to see fiction aimed towards adults, starring the adult characters, written by people who have been alive long enough to grasp concepts like sadder but wiser. Lupin and Snape especially are ripe for much more intelligent treatment than they got from JKR.


----------



## KerylR (Dec 28, 2010)

Andre Jute said:


> Why should writers, alone, be treated with such disrespect that they are considered fair game for thieves who steal from them in broad daylight?


Fashion designers, musicians, furniture designers, architects, artists, all of these people see their own work taken, modified, remolded by new users as well as writers. And, unlike fanfic writers, in those fields the people who have modified the original designs often make money on their 'new' products that are in direct competition with the originals. At least when I write Snuppin fanfic, JKR isn't losing a dime on it. No one reads my story instead of buying her book. They read mine after her book.

Meanwhile when Versache comes up with some new strappy little black dress thing, and two weeks later slightly modified versions of it are being shipped out of China to fill high end department stores, he does lose out on sales. And, because fashion is not a protected field, the only way he can get any redress if if the people in China put his tags on it.

For me, I'll be happy to see fanfic of my work. Like JKR, I'll take it as a compliment and let it go on.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

I'm not sure what the Coca-Cola equivalent of fan fiction would be, but it might well be store brands. Coca-Cola can be exactly duplicated. The stuff about Coca-Cola's secret formula is just marketing. Yet no one seriously claims that store brands are illegal for duplicating the taste of one of the major brands, and they do, to some extent cut into the sales of Coca-Cola, while fan fiction does not cut into sales of the original work. People read fan fiction in addition to the original work, not instead of it. Using Coca-Cola's logo can give the false impression that this is an authorized by the company, yet fan fiction is not mistaken for the work of the original author.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

If it's the same formula and they're representing it as their own, that would be plagiarism, I suppose.  Errrm.  Anyone want a cherry coke?


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

J.R. Ward mentions Coca Cola and Mountain Dew in her works - that's not plagiarism.

The bulk of fanfic is for TV/Movies/RPGs. A lot of them have been cancelled. Fanfiction is an exercise - like jogging. You put on a Nike suit and go for it.

As for HP - J.K.Rowling loves it when her fans send her fanfic.

_Lupin and Snape especially are ripe for much more intelligent treatment than they got from JKR._ I think I would be interested in reading that myself. The backstory of Harry's father's friends could have been handled in a very different way - not sure we would have gotten the same results - but still the possibilities....


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

From what I have read here, it sounds like fanfic is here to stay, regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

So for those of us who live in the darkness and never heard of fanfic until this thread, how about a link to a good example?


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Arkali said:


> If it's the same formula and they're representing it as their own, that would be plagiarism, I suppose. Errrm. Anyone want a cherry coke?


Coca-Cola's formula is a trade secret, so it's only protection is Coca-Cola's ability to keep it secret. But in any case, no one needs to copy the exact formula, the taste can be duplicated. But few people will say "This store brand tastes exactly like Coca-Cola, so I will buy the store brand instead." Brand loyalty is powerful, Pepsi keeps touting that they beat Coke in blind taste tests, but people still remain loyal to Coke.


----------



## flanneryohello (May 11, 2010)

I don't see writing fan fiction as laziness or lack of creativity. I've published five original novels, at least ten short stories, and have written many more unpublished original works of all lengths--and, on rare occasions, I have written fan fiction.

I see it as a completely different kind of exercise than writing original fiction, yet no less valid. If someone is hired to be on the writing staff of a television show that has established characters and a few seasons of storylines behind them, is that writer "lazy" for crafting new stories using existing characters? Or is he simply demonstrating a different type of writing skill?

There is a very important skill set a writer must cultivate to write original fiction. You need to create characters that readers will care about. They must have depth and be recognizable as "real" human beings.

There is a whole different skill set involved in writing a story about established characters. I find that it provides a fantastic challenge to place known characters in original situations, while still keeping them "in character" (and your audience will definitely provide feedback about whether you've achieved that goal). It stretches different craft muscles, basically. In crafting an original story, I can change whatever material facts I want about my characters to get the desired result. Not true in a piece of "in-character" fan fiction. I need to analyze a character and use what I know about their history to create a believable response to the events of the story. I need to write dialogue that's recognizably their "voice". It's a psychological exercise as well as a writing exercise. It's fun.

But it's not laziness. Laziness would be not writing at all, or copying someone else's work.

I think it's important to recognize that people write for all different kinds of reasons, and not everyone has the same goals. Believe it or not, there are voracious, prolific writers out there who have no aspirations to sell their work. They do not strive to publish. They simply want to tell stories, share them with an interested audience, and be a part of a community who values their contribution. Fan fiction is a tremendous outlet for those writers. Judging them for having some harmless fun seems incredibly...I dunno...strange.


----------



## K. A. Jordan (Aug 5, 2010)

http://www.fanfiction.net/TV/

_Fan fiction is a tremendous outlet for those writers. Judging them for having some harmless fun seems incredibly...I dunno...strange._

I agree - there is no way to stop it - so why get all up in arms about it? That would be like some TV crusader trying to stop people from writing erotica.

That's a waste of time and mental energy.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

I have a good friend who's a great writer (never published, but I keep encouraging her to submit her original stuff).  She's written quite a number of enjoyable fanfics in her day.  I personally have never written a fanfic, though when I was younger, I had the urge to rewrite the ending of a couple novels I enjoyed.  You know, it's kind of fun to imagine what would have happened if Scarlett had grown up a little bit and managed to hang on to Rhett in the end.  And this is from someone who loves the end of GWTW and wouldn't see it changed for anything.  But it is fun to imagine.

A lot of painters imitate other painters' styles when they first start painting before they feel confident in their own styles.  Jackson Pollack wasn't always Jack the Dripper and Salvador Dali didn't start out being a Surrealist.  Writers are the same, I think, or am I the only writer with five dusty manuscripts under my bed that will never see the light of day because they're practice novels?  

Of course, fanfic, even if you're not profiting from it, is technically copyright infringement.  However, if I was established enough to have people writing fanfic of my work, I would be flattered as long as they weren't profiting from it in some way.  However, I wouldn't want to read it--I think that it would be a very uncomfortable experience to read about my characters in someone else's sandbox.

I have to modify this, as the Cassandra Clare link finally loaded and I read it.  While fanfic itself is a harmless pastime, profiting from it is not.  What a sketchy story.  The funny thing is, the fanfics I like the best are the parodies, such as her Very Secret Diaries of Lord of the Rings (which it looks like is no longer available to be read.)  I remember reading the Very Secret Diaries on Livejournal back in 2001 and being highly amused--in fact, I forwarded the link to my friend I mention above, and that's what got her started writing fanfiction.  I had no idea Clare was making money from it on Cafepress merchandise at the time.  Sketchy!

Can I have that cherry coke now?  It sounds really good.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

D.A. Boulter said:


> I'm not arguing your point with respect to right/wrong. It is copyright infringement and could be trademark infringement as well. No two ways about it. But it ain't plagiarism. And yes, it is that simple. An analogue might be: I want to have you charged with 'assault and battery' because you made physical threats and swung at me, though you did not touch me as you stopped your fist before it hit me. Well, it's definitely assault, but without you touching me it ain't battery. You would be in the wrong and it's unlikely you'd get support from others, but even though you assaulted me, you still did not commit battery and any charge of battery would be thrown out of court. Fanfic, in the same way, is copyright infringement (and possibly trademark infringement), but it isn't plagiarism unless the author represents it as his/her own and original.
> 
> Your example above with respect to Coca-Cola fits in exactly with my argument. I take the coca-cola bears and do a video with them and a bottle of Coca-Cola, but also have them doing something reprehensible. I declare that Coca-Cola created the bears and owns the trademark for the Coca-Cola logo. They'd sue me for trademark infringement, but not for plagiarism. If they tried for plagiarism, it would be thrown out of court.


Okay, I'll wear that. Arguing with smart*rse drags you up to his level. Heh-heh.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> I may have been being a bit oversensitive, Julie, but you see people in this thread who are openly calling anyone who writes fanfic "thieves". I don't like to get into fights when I can avoid it.


I'm sorry if I've hit a nerve, JR. I didn't know there were any fanfic writers in this thread. But that wouldn't stop me expressing myself precisely. Nothing personal, just business; intellectual property rights _are_ my business, literally the bread on my table.

However, we should be clear that I did not call _you_ a thief. I don't know what the circumstances are. I'm not interested in individual cases -- except to reassure the OP that she is not guilty of plagiarism -- until they concern my own work.

Please note that I am talking about clearly defined property rights, which are transgressed by those who write fanfic. That it is apparently commonly done doesn't in law or morality excuse it. Since you don't want to get into an argument and I don't have the time, please consider that an opinion which which you are invited to have your disagreement taken and noted as read.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

This post is off at a tangent to the plagiarism discussion, folks.



MikeAngel said:


> I sometimes write historical fiction and am persuaded more or less to include many facts and episodes, and yes, characters from known historical situations.


Yes, I too occasionally write historically exact novels, down to the using the real dialogue of real people, a major research hassle. But that isn't fanfic. Generally other writers are only too happy to cooperate. In one case, THE ZAHAROFF COMMISSION, where, though I did lots of research, my major source was the only book of the lot that was truly reliable, Donald McCormick's PEDLAR OF DEATH: THE LIFE OF BASIL ZAHAROFF, I was worried I overstepped the line, but when I apologized to Mr McCormick for profiting so largely from his work, he brushed it off as a compliment, read my book and give me a hugely influential plug for the dust jacket: "Your work of fiction is once again bang on target," and wrote to me (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that my fictional rendition illuminated Zaharoff for him as a man as 30 years of research had not. (The "again" is a reference to my REVERSE NEGATIVE, a novel that exposed the spy Sir Anthony Blunt in HM the Queens Household. an even bolder -- heh-heh -- exercise in mixing fact and fiction.)

But that is simply mixing a large dose of journalism into fiction. No copyright material is involved, at least in the dialogue.

I still have an uncomfortable feeling though in my bones that if I had run into a jerk instead of the generous and wise Donald McCormick, my book could have been ruined by a war on the op-ed pages about claims of using his conclusions, of which I was surely guilty -- as I said, his was the one reliable book about my chief character, so I had to use his conclusions or drop my book. The smart thing would have been to ask him up front, but I didn't know how the novel would shape -- there was never an outline: the idea was flashed to my editor and the advance immediately agreed late at night in a Greek restaurant at the top the Edgeware Road, and the next day I just started writing on p1 and let it develop from there.

It is because of the ZAHAROFF experience that I let JR off an argument he clearly doesn't want to have.


----------



## SailorMerry (Dec 18, 2010)

Woah. A lot of people here don't seem to understand how fanfiction is distributed. It's not published and sold in the traditional sense (unless it's licensed stuff, like Star Wars and Star Trek books, or based on public domain material, like Pride and Prejudice). Most of it is posted on sites like fanfiction.net or livejournal communities. It's posted for other fans to read, and in most cases, there is no legal infringement. Every now and then, there is an author that crosses the line (see my earlier post regarding Cassandra Clare/Clair), but most people in the community follow a strict moral code. Disclaimers are standard (and required on some sites). Any plagiarism results in immediate banning, whether another fan author or anyone else outside the community was victimized (and speaking as someone who's had their fanfiction plagiarized before, this is a big deal). To call fanfiction itself plagiarism would be a lie. A plagiarizer assumes someone else's work as their one. Fan-authors recognize the original author and clarify that their own work is a tribute.


----------



## Carolyn Kephart (Feb 23, 2009)

Terrence OBrien said:


> From what I have read here, it sounds like fanfic is here to stay, regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
> 
> So for those of us who live in the darkness and never heard of fanfic until this thread, how about a link to a good example?


I just now randomly Googled 'Tolkien fanfic' and came up with this site straightway:

http://www.tolkienfanfiction.com/

Next in line was this one (warning: the white-on-black format is excruciating): http://www.lotrfanfiction.com

The sites go ever on and on...

CK


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

People seem to forget that copyright and trademarks as they currently exist is a new invention.

For most of the history of civilisation people freely copied, adapted, added to, deleted from ... basically any creation. Someone writes a play and other playwright changes it. It's performed and changed again. 

The version of copyright we have now is a warped and sick thing, mostly driven by Disney and the efforts they took to prevent Mickey Mouse et al from falling into the public domain.

It has long been recognised that all creations of any person eventually belong to the people of the world. We recognise that it is bad for our culture if these beautiful things are not let free.

The way Disney wants it nothing will ever leave copyright. Had this been the case at their beginning ... they would have no beginning.

Unfortunately, fan fiction, which is a natural creative act that by far precedes the legal system choking it down, is under attack by men with briefcases.

For all you who want to say it is illegal, theft, copyright violation, etc ... yes, at the moment it is, for this brief flash of time. Look outside the legal framework imposed and realise the law is lacking. You cannot stifle creative acts and it is ultimately pointless to try.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

QuantumIguana said:


> Coca-Cola's formula is a trade secret, so it's only protection is Coca-Cola's ability to keep it secret. But in any case, no one needs to copy the exact formula, the taste can be duplicated. But few people will say "This store brand tastes exactly like Coca-Cola, so I will buy the store brand instead." Brand loyalty is powerful, Pepsi keeps touting that they beat Coke in blind taste tests, but people still remain loyal to Coke.


Ummm. My response was pretty tongue-in-cheek.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

ScaryMerry said:


> It's posted for other fans to read, and in most cases, there is no legal infringement.


Look, I don't have a thing against fanfic. I don't write it and generally don't read it, but I have no problem with it. At the same time, the MOMENT you write it and make it available to the public, it is infringement unless you either have permission from the copyright holder or the work which yours is a derivative of is in the public domain. Full stop. Whether or not you make money from it has zero to do with whether or not it's infringement.

asses Purple a cherry coke, with extra cherries:


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Andre Jute said:


> This post is off at a tangent to the plagiarism discussion, folks.
> 
> Yes, I too occasionally write historically exact novels, down to the using the real dialogue of real people, a major research hassle. But that isn't fanfic. Generally other writers are only too happy to cooperate. In one case, THE ZAHAROFF COMMISSION, where, though I did lots of research, my major source was the only book of the lot that was truly reliable, Donald McCormick's PEDLAR OF DEATH: THE LIFE OF BASIL ZAHAROFF, I was worried I overstepped the line, but when I apologized to Mr McCormick for profiting so largely from his work, he brushed it off as a compliment, read my book and give me a hugely influential plug for the dust jacket: "Your work of fiction is once again bang on target," and wrote to me (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that my fictional rendition illuminated Zaharoff for him as a man as 30 years of research had not. (The "again" is a reference to my REVERSE NEGATIVE, a novel that exposed the spy Sir Anthony Blunt in HM the Queens Household. an even bolder -- heh-heh -- exercise in mixing fact and fiction.)
> 
> ...


I am not a 'he' and you are not "letting me off", thank you kindly.

I refuse to be forced into an argument. People are quite free to draw their own conclusions.


----------



## lib2b (Apr 6, 2010)

The Organization for Transformative Works explains the most common argument by those who write fanfic about why they believe it is fair use: OTW FAQ.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

lib2b said:


> The Organization for Transformative Works explains the most common argument by those who write fanfic about why they believe it is fair use: OTW FAQ.


Here is the Organization for Transformative Works' innovative (to say the least!) and entirely self-serving definition of fair use, given in its full meretricious glory:

****
What exactly is fair use?
Fair use is the right to make some use of copyrighted material without getting permission or paying. It is a basic limit on copyright law that protects free expression. "Fair use" is an American phrase, although all copyright laws have some limits that keep copyright from being private censorship.

Fair use favors uses that (1) are noncommercial and not sold for a profit; (2) are transformative, adding new meaning and messages to the original; (3) are limited, not copying the entirety of the original; and (4) do not substitute for the original work. None of these factors is absolutely necessary for fair use, but they all help, and we believe that fanworks like those in the archive easily qualify as fair uses based on all these factors.
*****

Holey Maloney, definitly hole-ier than a gruyere. They get every single aspect of fair use wrong, they get every single aspect wrong in a way that favors themselves -- can that be an accident? Let's take this item by item, and show how the OTw lies.

"Fair use is the right to make some use of copyrighted material without getting permission or paying."
This is a lie. There is no right to make "some" use of copyrighted material. There is a right to make use of a very limited amount of copyright material if you are both willing and capable of adding several times that amount of intelligent discussion. That is neither the intention nor the practive of fanficcers.

"It is a basic limit on copyright law that protects free expression."
This is a lie. Fair use isn't about free expression, in the sense of exerting your "creativity" on perverting someone else's work. It is about the free speech, expressed as criticism, necessary to prevent a democracy being taken over by a tyrant; there is also a gracenote for academics, once thought too poor to pay.

""Fair use" is an American phrase,"
This is just the usual arrogant parochialism of isolationist. It is also untrue.

"although all copyright laws have some limits that keep copyright from being private censorship."
Hey, a nugget of truth, or near enough. There are lots of copyright laws that do not have fair use provisions, but they're in places most Americans have never heard of and couldn't find on a map even if told the continent. Let's see if we can find another even half-true statement.

"Fair use favors uses that"
Already in the introduction the specifics the OTW lies: fair use doctrine does not favour or promote any use, it limits uses by forbidding anything outside very narrow boundaries.

"(1) are noncommercial and not sold for a profit;" 
Fair use does NOT favour noncommercial use, or not for profit. It permits critics and academics who need to do so in their professions to use small examples. Reviews are normally published in journals sold for money. Academics sell the books they write, and are paid for teaching.

(2) "are transformative, adding new meaning and messages to the original;"
This is a complete invention, an outright lie. Fair use is about the precise reproduction of a small piece of someone else's copyright material for the purpose of talking about it, using it as an example, _not_ for messing around with it. What the law on fair use means by adding new meaning is original intelligent _discussion_ of the fraction quoted, not clumsy attempts to rewrite it. The way the law is applied the entirely new and original (not derivative!) material must also amount to several times the length of the snippet taken from someone else's copyright if the protection of "fair use" ia sought. Fanfic does not have any discussion, never mind discussion several times as long as the stolen material.

(3) "are limited, not copying the entirety of the original;" 
This is so great a distortion that it amounts to another lie, seeming to permit copying up to 99.999999%. Fair use is about copying a _very small part _of an original, and certainly not taking a whole world and all the characters from the original, as the fanficcers do. The very small part is defined as "not a substantial part of the whole". Fanfic by definition steals the major part of the work, the setting and the characters.

(4) "do not substitute for the original work." 
Fair use is about small snippets. They _cannot_ substitute for the original work. But the intention of fanfic is precisely to offer an alternative to the original! Yet another lie.

"None of these factors is absolutely necessary for fair use, but they all help,"
This translates into English as "Steal what you like." None of those factors as explained by the OTW collation of thieves bears the slightest resemblance to fair use.

"we believe that fanworks like those in the archive easily qualify as fair uses based on all these factors."
They would, wouldn't they? They probably loaded the dice, as above, after discovering that every single piece of fanfic in their archive grossly and criminally breaches the law on fair use.

Even the global warmies don't have the barefaced cheek of these people to tell such lies for the glorification of their thefts.

Fair use is entirely unsuitable as a cloak for your thefts, my dears of the Organization for Transformative Works. It is about small snippets, precisely reproduced, and discussed in an original manner by intelligent people, which is precisely what you don't do, and aren't.

***

Any fanficcer who is sued for theft of copyright and trademarks after acting on this OTW advice has a very good case for suing every officer and every other member of OTW for damages for supplying this kind of malicious misinformation. Even the name Organization for Transformative Works is an incitement to theft; less arrogant people would have called their trade union for stealing from their betters the Organization of Transformative Works.


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2011)

lib2b said:


> The Organization for Transformative Works explains the most common argument by those who write fanfic about why they believe it is fair use: OTW FAQ.


I'm afraid I have to agree with Andre. Fair use is the least understood part of copyright law. It is actually much more narrow than most people want to believe. Generally, when people claim "Fair Use" they are defining it based on how they WANT it to be, not how it actually is. Only the owner of copyright material has a legal right to create deriviative work from it or grant the right to create deriviative work.

That said, I think Andre goes too far to call all fan fiction writers thieves. Most authors don't care so long as the fan fiction doesn't cross the line into raunchy or insulting, and most fan fiction writers would stop posting it if the author was actually upset about it. But if the author does object, then the fan fiction writer needs to stop posting the stories...period. At the moment when the author says "Please stop using my world to write your fiction" then if the writer keeps doing it they do then cross the line from "fan fiction writer" to "Literary thief." Sort of like if I tell a guy to stop calling me or sending me flowers and if he keeps doing it he crosses the line from "suitor" to "stalker".


----------



## Glenn Bullion (Sep 28, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Sort of like if I tell a guy to stop calling me or sending me flowers and if he keeps doing it he crosses the line from "suitor" to "stalker".


Hmm I guess that's why the cops keep showing up at my door.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"The version of copyright we have now is a warped and sick thing, mostly driven by Disney and the efforts they took to prevent Mickey Mouse et al from falling into the public domain."_

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 US Constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

September 17, 1787


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"The version of copyright we have now is a warped and sick thing, mostly driven by Disney and the efforts they took to prevent Mickey Mouse et al from falling into the public domain."_
> 
> Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 US Constitution:
> 
> ...


The key to that is "limited times". In 1790, copyright was for 14 years with an option to extend for another 14 years. in 1831, this was raised to 28 years with an option to extend for an additional 14 years. In 1909, this was was kept at 28 years, with an option to extend for 28 years. In 1975, this was raised to 75 years or life+50. The Copyright Term Extension Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier. This is getting well beyond any reasonable definition of "limited times." Copyright is analogous to patents, and the entire point of a patent would be lost if patents were made to be of indefinate length, being extended over and over.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

The point of shorter patent durations is the social benefit of spreading better technology all through the economy. The faster a drug becomes generic, the greater the benefit. That is balanced against the incentive to create the drug. The benefit of allowing public use of technology and medical advances is far greater than the benefit of allowing people to market Harry Potter.

What's the public benefit of allowing people to write and sell Harry potter stories? So in writing, the balance between public good and encouraging creation is different. It tilts much more towards encouraging creation.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

How long copyrights can be and still constitute a limited duration is a different topic from whether or not fan fiction is fair use. Both patents and copyright have essentially the same purpose, to encourage creative works and technologies by granting exclusive use for a limited period of time. Whether fan fiction falls under fair use is still a grey area.


----------



## SailorMerry (Dec 18, 2010)

My mind is boggled by this thread. Fanfiction authors do not think like this at all. Speaking as a former fan-author myself, the process of fanfiction is this:

- *idea* Ooh! This would make for a good [fill in the blank] story!
- Writes story.
- Posts story online.
- Other fans of that fandom read and comment.
- If for some reason the owner of the fandom objects, the material is taken down and much apologies are made by the fan-author.

That's how it works. Fanfiction writers neither think of nor care about all this legal stuff. In my experience, most are teenagers writing it for the fun of it. Y'all are taking this waaaay too seriously. Yes, in some rare cases, fan-authors have crossed the line, but most care about the original creator of their fandom beyond anything else. If someone writes fanfiction based upon your work and you don't like it, tell them to take it down, and the vast majority of the time, they will. Otherwise, just let it be. If anything, be glad that their are kids/teens out there that know how to write complete sentences, rather than "omg c u l8r".

If fanfiction bothers you that much, then think of it as literary fanart. If you have problems with fanart too, then get a life. No offense meant, but seriously.

"My goal as a writer is not to achieve fame and fortune, but to have entire fanfiction archives devoted to my novels." -Unknown


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> The point of shorter patent durations is the social benefit of spreading better technology all through the economy. The faster a drug becomes generic, the greater the benefit. That is balanced against the incentive to create the drug. The benefit of allowing public use of technology and medical advances is far greater than the benefit of allowing people to market Harry Potter.
> 
> What's the public benefit of allowing people to write and sell Harry potter stories? So in writing, the balance between public good and encouraging creation is different. It tilts much more towards encouraging creation.


I still support copyright, although for much lower limits than currently exist. I see no benefit to the world of the descendants of Tolkien still controlling his work. I see no benefit to the world for Mickey Mouse not falling into the public domain.

Why I mentioned copyright and how it is a sick twisted thing recently warped from its original intent is because the discussion about fan fiction is directly associated with the legal forces involved. We're in a period of total ownership, total control backed by people with large lumps of money who will sue at the slightest provocation. Want to make a cartoon mouse? Better not put the word "Mouse" in its name and get successful with it because Disney will find something to sue over.

I point out this legal sickness that is copyright because many responses on here are saying it's theft, plagiarism, etc but they are using current definitions under the existing law. If someone changed the law tomorrow so people could freely adapt any creative work so long as they did not use it commercially, would these people suddenly change their tune to reflect the current legislation?

Go back 200 years and is fan fiction still theft? When Brothers Grimm adapted their stories from existing stories were they thieves? When Disney used Snow White was he guilty of theft?

But back to the law -- the reason people get so insane over fan fiction is because the law is a big dumb instrument in this regard. The law says total control and copyright owners must show control over their work and must challenge any unauthorised copies because failure to do so can mean they lose trademarks, etc.

What we really need worldwide is a law saying that anyone can freely adapt anything and distribute it so long as there is no commercial intent.

So I can write my book and someone can write a free fan fiction sequel and hooray for that.


----------



## ymck (Jan 31, 2011)

So, I am a long time lurker on these boards, I am also a fan of fan fiction.  I wanted to mention a couple things that might be enlightening to people unfamiliar with fan fiction.  

First, legal issues...  I will talk about "creators" rather than "authors" because other than Rowling, Meyers, and Tolkein, the fan fiction communities for novels are quite small, it's mostly TV shows and movies.  As far as I am aware, and I have looked because this matter interests me, with one notable exception, any time a creator has requested fans not write fan fiction the fan community has listened and stopped.  That being said, the exact legal status of fan fiction is open to interpretation as the case law on the matter is inconclusive.  The one case that would most closely resemble fan fiction is Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin. In that case the court vacated the injunction preventing the publication of "The Wind Done Gone", a retelling of "Gone With the Wind" from the point of view of a slave on Scarlett's plantation.  The matter was later settled out of court.  It is interesting to note that the court refused to prevent the commercial publication of the novel.  Even more interesting because the court recognized that large portions of "The Wind Done Gone" were directly lifted from "Gone with the Wind" word for word.  Who knows what might happen if a creator took a fan fiction author to court?  The creator could take the fan fiction author for everything they own or,  all of their decedents might ever own.  Or the court could rule that it is fair use.  At this point we really don't know.  Mostly likely the court wouldn't prevent publication or distribution but would require damage be paid to the creators. 

Second is the amount of fan fiction that's out there.  As an two examples, fanfiction.net has about a million works, archive of our own has collected just under 150,000 in the past six months or so.  There are also 100 or so live journal communities, 300,000 linked "fanfic" works on delicious, numerous fandom specific archives, personal websites and on and on.  As an comparison Amazon advertises they have 810,000 kindle titles.  It is a large community with very differing interests.  Some read and write fan fiction to work out personal issues with body image, abuse, growing up, homophobia, or some just fantasize about their favorite characters doing sexy stuff.  

Third is the impact of fan fiction.  I would say the modern m/m romance genere is owe a lot to fan fiction and wouldn't exist without it.  You could also draw a pretty direct line between Buffy fan fiction of the late 90's and the paranormal romance genre.  I think the more interesting case is the TV Show Supernatural.  Supernatural fan fiction is just behind Harry Potter in popularity and most of it is very... sexual in nature. In interviews the creators and actors have shown they are aware of fan fiction, and the homoerotic nature of those works.  They have even included it's existence in the show by creating a plot-line where an author writes stories about the main characters which inspire fan fiction.  They have the main characters meet these fan fiction authors and crazy fans as well.  It was actually very funny.  Lately I have noticed the show including more and more elements designed to entice the fan community.  They very skillfully include imagery, plot lines, dialogue, and humor directed at this part of their fan base.  They look at fan fiction as a marketing opportunity to build a fanatic fan base. 

Personally, some of my favorite works are fan fiction.  I probably spend half my reading time reading fan fiction.  It's great fun and something I hope stays around.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"I see no benefit to the world for Mickey Mouse not falling into the public domain."_

What is the benefit to the world of Mickey Mouse falling into public domain?


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _"I see no benefit to the world for Mickey Mouse not falling into the public domain."_
> 
> What is the benefit to the world of Mickey Mouse falling into public domain?


Anyone can do anything with it then. From having Snow White free for the world we got Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. That was wonderful.

Set Mickey et al free and all kinds of wondrous creative things may result.

Also, it would prompt Disney to start creating some more new characters. Also good.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

So, what's the benefit of that? People are free to create all they want. They don't need Mickey Mouse to create. Mickey is neither a necessary nor sufficuent condition for creating. Who here needed Mickey Mouse to write a book?


----------



## mathewferguson (Oct 24, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> So, what's the benefit of that? People are free to create all they want. They don't need Mickey Mouse to create. Mickey is neither a necessary nor sufficuent condition for creating. Who here needed Mickey Mouse to write a book?


What is the benefit of setting Mickey Mouse free? Because perhaps in 2014 the highest grossing film might be Mickey Mouse as made by someone we know nothing about right now. It might be a shining jewel of creativity that will pass into human culture as the pinnacle of animation. Someone might write a book using Mickey Mouse but in a new way and it will be f*cking brilliant.

You cannot apparently see the benefit of setting free creations into the public domain, despite a long history of positive developments directly resulting from this process. Do you think we shouldn't have a public domain at all?

By wanting these creations set loose, I am not saying that they are required for creativity and new materials. I frankly have no idea why you are being so obtuse.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I'm afraid I have to agree with Andre. Fair use is the least understood part of copyright law. It is actually much more narrow than most people want to believe. Generally, when people claim "Fair Use" they are defining it based on how they WANT it to be, not how it actually is. Only the owner of copyright material has a legal right to create deriviative work from it or grant the right to create deriviative work.
> 
> That said, I think Andre goes too far to call all fan fiction writers thieves. Most authors don't care so long as the fan fiction doesn't cross the line into raunchy or insulting, and most fan fiction writers would stop posting it if the author was actually upset about it. But if the author does object, then the fan fiction writer needs to stop posting the stories...period. At the moment when the author says "Please stop using my world to write your fiction" then if the writer keeps doing it they do then cross the line from "fan fiction writer" to "Literary thief." Sort of like if I tell a guy to stop calling me or sending me flowers and if he keeps doing it he crosses the line from "suitor" to "stalker".


I most certainly did not "call all fan fiction writers thieves". The _law_ defines them as thieves, not me. And it isn't "all" either. The law defines only those who don't have the permission of the copyright owners as thieves. You can decide for yourself whether that is almost all, the vast majority or merely most fanficcers, but it clearly isn't "all"

Note that whether the author cares or not is irrelevant under the law. Without specific, explicit permission obtained in advance, writing fan fiction is theft because it transgresses the law on copyright and trademarks. Arkali has made this point most succinctly, that it is the law which defines theft, not him, not you, not me, only the law laid down by the legislature.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_"You cannot apparently see the benefit of setting free creations into the public domain, despite a long history of positive developments directly resulting from this process. Do you think we shouldn't have a public domain at all?"_

The value of public domain depends on the creation. Drugs certainly are a public good, and the faster we can get them into generic, the better. The same is true of anti-lock brake systems, artificial heart valves, and inertial navigation systems. Those all have a measurable benefit to society. There certainly has been development as one technology jumped from another. Those also depend on exploiting the profit motivation of creators, and that's why they have patent protection. The terms of that protection are a balance between the public good and motivation necessary for innovators to create them.

However, I'm content to leave Mickey under copyright forever. I see no benefit from making him public. Mickey Mouse is not necessary for creativity. We can observe his copyright status has not inhibited others from creating armies of novel cartoon characters.

Want to create a cartoion character? Pick up a pencil. Mickey isn't necessary to do that. James Cameron just managed to make that blockbuster animated movie without Mickey in either a starring or supporting role.


----------



## ymck (Jan 31, 2011)

Andre Jute said:


> I most certainly did not "call all fan fiction writers thieves". The _law_ defines them as thieves, not me. And it isn't "all" either. The law defines only those who don't have the permission of the copyright owners as thieves. You can decide for yourself whether that is almost all, the vast majority or merely most fanficcers, but it clearly isn't "all"
> 
> Note that whether the author cares or not is irrelevant under the law. Without specific, explicit permission obtained in advance, writing fan fiction is theft because it transgresses the law on copyright and trademarks. Arkali has made this point most succinctly, that it is the law which defines theft, not him, not you, not me, only the law laid down by the legislature.


Sorry about this but you ran into a pet peeve of mine. Actually, if we want to be specific about it, theft is a criminal act where one takes another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of possession or use of the property. Unauthorized use of a copyrighted work isn't theft, it's the unauthorized use of copyrighted work, legally speaking. Also unauthorized use of a copyrighted work, generally speaking, isn't a crime. While there are some criminal statues for copyright violations, writing non-commercial fan fiction falls way outside those definitions. Trademark law is a little different. In order to maintain a trademark it must be used and the owner vigorously defend it or it will fall into the public domain. As an example Cisco lost the iPhone trademark to Apple through disuse/neglect, also this is why Disney is sure to come out with some Mickey Mouse related work at least once every 5 years. Comic book companies do the same thing.


----------



## Carolyn Kephart (Feb 23, 2009)

mathewferguson said:


> Someone might write a book using Mickey Mouse but in a new way and it will be f*cking brilliant.


Don't scare me. 

But yeah. I'd _love_ to see my stuff fanfictionalized.

CK


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

ymck said:


> Sorry about this but you ran into a pet peeve of mine. Actually, if we want to be specific about it, theft is a criminal act where one takes another's property with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of possession or use of the property. Unauthorized use of a copyrighted work isn't theft, it's the unauthorized use of copyrighted work, legally speaking. Also unauthorized use of a copyrighted work, generally speaking, isn't a crime. While there are some criminal statues for copyright violations, writing non-commercial fan fiction falls way outside those definitions. Trademark law is a little different. In order to maintain a trademark it must be used and the owner vigorously defend it or it will fall into the public domain. As an example Cisco lost the iPhone trademark to Apple through disuse/neglect, also this is why Disney is sure to come out with some Mickey Mouse related work at least once every 5 years. Comic book companies do the same thing.


This is wishful thinking. Taking someone else's property is theft. Copyright is property. Fan fic writers take copyright property and use it, same as taking a car and using it. Absent the owner's permission first obtained, it is theft. Copyright while it exists requires no refreshing action so your remarks on trademarks are misleading and devoid of relevance.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Andre Jute said:


> Note that whether the author cares or not is irrelevant under the law. Without specific, explicit permission obtained in advance, writing fan fiction is theft because it transgresses the law on copyright and trademarks. Arkali has made this point most succinctly, that it is the law which defines theft, not him, not you, not me, only the law laid down by the legislature.


Thanks... but... errrm. Arki's a she  Now to catch up on the comments 

Edit: Hrrrm. I agree, BUT - if the author doesn't care, then they aren't going to pursue copyright infringement. Unless the property owner presents a case, the law isn't going to get worked up over it, either. However, without permission from the author, you could find yourself slapped with a law suit or a cease-and-desist "out of the blue", so to speak - you've already violated the copyright, they don't have to tell you knock it off before they take action.


----------



## ymck (Jan 31, 2011)

Andre Jute said:


> Without specific, explicit permission obtained in advance, writing fan fiction is theft because it transgresses the law on copyright and trademarks.


Sorry there, the trademark information was due to this bit I am quoting, where you reference trademark law.



Andre Jute said:


> This is wishful thinking. Taking someone else's property is theft. Copyright is property. Fan fic writers take copyright property and use it, same as taking a car and using it. Absent the owner's permission first obtained, it is theft. Copyright while it exists requires no refreshing action so your remarks on trademarks are misleading and devoid of relevance.


No, it's actually "the law". If we are discussing the law, rather than making moral judgements, the law has a very specific definition of "theft". Theft is a criminal act, punishable under criminal law, enforced by police and the like. Fan fiction isn't a crime. If an copyright holder decided to sue a fan fiction author it would be in civil not criminal court.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2011)

ymck said:


> So, I am a long time lurker on these boards, I am also a fan of fan fiction. I wanted to mention a couple things that might be enlightening to people unfamiliar with fan fiction.
> 
> First, legal issues... I will talk about "creators" rather than "authors" because other than Rowling, Meyers, and Tolkein, the fan fiction communities for novels are quite small, it's mostly TV shows and movies. As far as I am aware, and I have looked because this matter interests me, with one notable exception, any time a creator has requested fans not write fan fiction the fan community has listened and stopped. That being said, the exact legal status of fan fiction is open to interpretation as the case law on the matter is inconclusive. The one case that would most closely resemble fan fiction is Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin. In that case the court vacated the injunction preventing the publication of "The Wind Done Gone", a retelling of "Gone With the Wind" from the point of view of a slave on Scarlett's plantation. The matter was later settled out of court. It is interesting to note that the court refused to prevent the commercial publication of the novel. Even more interesting because the court recognized that large portions of "The Wind Done Gone" were directly lifted from "Gone with the Wind" word for word.


You are misinterpreting the time line and intent of the case. The book was initially stopped from publication. The initial injunction cited the fact that the book lifted entire sections of text from the original. An appeals court overturned the injunction based on the fact that the book was a _parody_, which is clearly defined as fair use under copyright law. However, that court also noted that the book used too much of the original source material and said that though the publication itself was fair use, it did cause financial harm to the rights holder and they could move forward to sue for damages. At which point Houghton offered a substantial settlement. The Suntrust case defined the parameters of how far a parody can go and still be protected. It had nothing to do with fan fiction.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2011)

ymck said:


> Second is the amount of fan fiction that's out there.


This really doesn't have any importance to the conversation. Quantity of people engaged in an activity doesn't mean anything legally. Millions of people drink and drive. I don't think any rational person would use that as an argument to legalize driving under the influence.



ymck said:


> Third is the impact of fan fiction. I would say the modern m/m romance genere is owe a lot to fan fiction and wouldn't exist without it. You could also draw a pretty direct line between Buffy fan fiction of the late 90's and the paranormal romance genre.


Well, there are those of us that would prefer the paranormal romance genre GO AWAY so maybe this is a bad arguement!


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Quantity of people engaged in an activity doesn't mean anything legally. Millions of people drink and drive. I don't think any rational person would use that as an argument to legalize driving under the influence.


Well-put. I've been lurking on this thread to see the legalese put forth, and while the discourse has been fascinating, I do feel a little confused.

(Is anyone else bothered by the title of this thread? I want to take an ax to the misspelling of 'plagiarism' every time it comes up on my screen.)


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

_" Unauthorized use of a copyrighted work isn't theft, it's the unauthorized use of copyrighted work, legally speaking."_

Excellent point. The fan fiction we are discussing here is not defined as theft under the law. Copyright violation is a civil matter. Theft is a criminal matter. Nobody is prosecuted in criminal court for theft of Mickey Mouse. They are sued for copyright infringement in civil court.

One can make a case that under some moral or ethical standard it is theft, and a rhetorical case can be made that it amounts to theft. But a legal case cannot be made under US law.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Well, there are those of us that would prefer the paranormal romance genre GO AWAY so maybe this is a bad arguement!


Speak for yourself  Seriously, though, I don't know how long PNR has been around, but I've been reading it for a couple of decades, at least. I kind of wonder if too much credit is being given to fanfic, as far as how it affects the market - ie. decisions are made as to how many books of this genre and that will be published.



Alice Y. Yeh said:


> Well-put. I've been lurking on this thread to see the legalese put forth, and while the discourse has been fascinating, I do feel a little confused.
> 
> (Is anyone else bothered by the title of this thread? I want to take an ax to the misspelling of 'plagiarism' every time it comes up on my screen.)


This has been a fantastic discussion  And, yes, the plagiarism thing has bugged me since the first time I saw it, I just haven't said anything in order to avoid accusations of being a grammar nazi


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Speak for yourself  Seriously, though, I don't know how long PNR has been around, but I've been reading it for a couple of decades, at least. I kind of wonder if too much credit is being given to fanfic, as far as how it affects the market - ie. decisions are made as to how many books of this genre and that will be published.
> 
> This has been a fantastic discussion  And, yes, the plagiarism thing has bugged me since the first time I saw it, I just haven't said anything in order to avoid accusations of being a grammar nazi


Glad I'm not alone.

I think that part of the appeal of fanfiction (for readers) is the anonymity. People will draw conclusions about you based upon the books on your shelves, but it is unlikely they will be looking through the contents of your web browser history -- if they are, you have a different problem entirely. In any case, I think this sort of environment allows people to choose subject matter of interest more freely, which is why I can see how fanfiction is related to the rise of PNR. They aren't high-brow, literati-pleasing publications, but people enjoy these stories as a softer version of tawdry bodice-rippers -- thus the explosion of a genre that has a tendency to hover somewhere between supermarket paperback and sensationalized literature. But I digress. The point is that fanfiction fostered the interest, and somebody somewhere found a way to make it a socially acceptable read.


----------



## ymck (Jan 31, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> You are misinterpreting the time line and intent of the case. The book was initially stopped from publication. The initial injunction cited the fact that the book lifted entire sections of text from the original. An appeals court overturned the injunction based on the fact that the book was a _parody_, which is clearly defined as fair use under copyright law. However, that court also noted that the book used too much of the original source material and said that though the publication itself was fair use, it did cause financial harm to the rights holder and they could move forward to sue for damages. At which point Houghton offered a substantial settlement. The Suntrust case defined the parameters of how far a parody can go and still be protected. It had nothing to do with fan fiction.


So you are saying that fan fiction could not be considered parody? I would disagree. Also the amount of donation made to Morehouse College, the only damages that were paid, is not a matter of public record so we really don't know how sizable it was. Neither was really my point. My point was there is zero case law that directly addresses "fan fiction" but that The Suntrust case addresses a situation that appears very similar with two exceptions. 1) there was a significant amount of direct copying (in this case I would actually call it plagiarism as the original author was not credited or sited). In fan fiction direct excerpting is not acceptable. 2) it was a commercial work. Fan fiction to date has been strictly non-commercial.

On a side note, the zero case law is interesting. Given the length of time (the first Star Trek fan fiction was published in late 60's early 70's.) and the amount of fan fiction out there, I would figure that some dumb fan wouldn't listen to a creator saying "no" and try take them to court, get slapped down (or not) and we would have a clear answer. So far that's hasn't happened, either the dumb fan backs down or the creator realizes it's a waste of time and money to pursue the case. I am pretty sure that at some point a dumb fan will put up a kindle book of their fan fiction and how that shakes out will be very interesting. If the creator is Rowlings or Meyers there will be a smoking crater where the dumb fan used to be as attack lawyers rip them to pieces. However if the fandom is from a property the rights holder either doesn't care, is poor, is old, is dead, or the rights are unclear, the situation could turn out quite differently, which would be very sad.



Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> This really doesn't have any importance to the conversation. Quantity of people engaged in an activity doesn't mean anything legally. Millions of people drink and drive. I don't think any rational person would use that as an argument to legalize driving under the influence.


You are absolutely correct! I didn't mean to imply that the quantity of fan fiction had any relation to it's legality. My intent was simply to bring up the amount of fan fiction and it's influence, after addressing some of the legal issues. When I first started reading fan fiction, 5 or so years ago, I was very surprised at the number of stories. Also it seems that over those 5 years the rate of new stories has increased. There was a bit of a lull after the last Harry Potter book, but people found new fandoms to enjoy and there is still new Harry Potter fan fiction being written today.



Arkali said:


> Speak for yourself  Seriously, though, I don't know how long PNR has been around, but I've been reading it for a couple of decades, at least. I kind of wonder if too much credit is being given to fanfic, as far as how it affects the market - ie. decisions are made as to how many books of this genre and that will be published.


If there is a relationship between fan fiction and PNR, and you can use fan fiction as an indicator of PNR popularity, PNR should still growing. Of course, those are two very big "IF's". I think the relationship between PNR, M/M, YA and fanfic is less direct. There are a large group of people who have been reading and enjoying a certain type of story. That type of story wasn't represented in the commercial market place. So in response... YA got darker. Romance got more biting and started including a couple very specific types of gay relationship.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Thanks... but... errrm. Arki's a she  Now to catch up on the comments


Argh! I keep falling into that pit. Sorry. I wonder who will be offended if in future I write he/she/it. I can just see the League for the Defense of Cockroach Rights coming down on me like of s--- er, slurry.



Arkali said:


> Edit: Hrrrm. I agree, BUT - if the author doesn't care, then they aren't going to pursue copyright infringement. Unless the property owner presents a case, the law isn't going to get worked up over it, either. However, without permission from the author, you could find yourself slapped with a law suit or a cease-and-desist "out of the blue", so to speak - you've already violated the copyright, they don't have to tell you knock it off before they take action.


You're in fact taking a harder line than I was contemplating. My bother with the fanfic apologists is in the first instance the same as Julie's, that they misuse words in their weaseling to justify their thefts.


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2011)

ymck said:


> So you are saying that fan fiction could not be considered parody?


What I am saying is that fan fiction does not *equal* parody. Theoretically, a fan fiction piece *could* be a parody. And if it was parody, it would be covered as parody under fair use. But all fan fiction cannot claim the same fair use protection as parody just because some MIGHT be parody. Any court case involving parody would only address fan fiction that WAS parody, not serve as a blanket permission for ALL parody. Claiming that a case involving parody protects fan fiction because fan fiction might be parody is like arguing that an order from the Pope directed at Catholics should be followed by all Christians since all Catholics are Christian even though all Christians are not Catholic.

And there IS case law.  
Anderson vs Stallone is another example.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Alice Y. Yeh said:


> (Is anyone else bothered by the title of this thread? I want to take an ax to the misspelling of 'plagiarism' every time it comes up on my screen.)


I've been correcting it automatically every time I see it. Then I put it back for fear of "kyrin" & company lecturing me again on "respect" for my fellow-indies. Notice the absence of a smilie. I admire your bravery, Alice.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> _" Unauthorized use of a copyrighted work isn't theft, it's the unauthorized use of copyrighted work, legally speaking."_
> 
> Excellent point. The fan fiction we are discussing here is not defined as theft under the law. Copyright violation is a civil matter. Theft is a criminal matter. Nobody is prosecuted in criminal court for theft of Mickey Mouse. They are sued for copyright infringement in civil court.
> 
> One can make a case that under some moral or ethical standard it is theft, and a rhetorical case can be made that it amounts to theft. But a legal case cannot be made under US law.


Terrence, are you familiar with the concept of criminal libel in British libel law? Perhaps the law on copyright needs to be changed to include a similar provision.

Until then, I'll just rest my definition of fan fiction as theft on the misappropriation of someone else's property, in this case copyright.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

Adopt British libel standards? After several states passed laws making it nearly impossible to enforce a British libel judgement, Congress passed the "Speech Act" to protect everyone from "Libel Tourism" coming out of the UK. There is also a significant movement in the UK to reform the UK libel laws. 

The Speech Act doesn't effect the FanFic being discussed here since we are not dealing with libel, but it does give some insight into diverging views on libel. So, given the current direction and momentum of US law, I don't think we will see a movement to extend British criminal libel theory to US copyright law.

In any case, as I said earlier, while we can't claim FanFic represents theft under US law, we are certainly free to make the case on an ethical or moral basis.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Andre Jute said:


> Argh! I keep falling into that pit. Sorry. I wonder who will be offended if in future I write he/she/it. I can just see the League for the Defense of Cockroach Rights coming down on me like of s--- er, slurry.
> 
> You're in fact taking a harder line than I was contemplating. My bother with the fanfic apologists is in the first instance the same as Julie's, that they misuse words in their weaseling to justify their thefts.


Heee. Not offended. Just a tip, though, some people have set their gender. If you look under their little avatar pic to the left of the post there should be a little pink female symbol or a blue male symbol. Should at least keep you out of hot water with the roaches 

Well, see, I don't have a problem with fanfic unless or until the original author has a problem with it, so I I consider the term "theft" to be a bit harsh. To each their own, I suppose. I mainly disagree with those who feel that authors who don't allow fanfic are shooting themselves in the foot, or greedy, hide-bound, or whatever. I think it's cool if an author allows fanfic but I TOTALLY get why they might not and don't blame them a bit.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

Andre Jute said:


> I've been correcting it automatically every time I see it. Then I put it back for fear of "kyrin" & company lecturing me again on "respect" for my fellow-indies. Notice the absence of a smilie. I admire your bravery, Alice.


That seems a bit extreme...I didn't see my comment as personal attack against another indie; I saw it as a passing remark on something mildly irritating. To each his own, I suppose.


----------



## Andre Jute (Dec 18, 2010)

Alice Y. Yeh said:


> That seems a bit extreme...I didn't see my comment as personal attack against another indie; I saw it as a passing remark on something mildly irritating. To each his own, I suppose.


off coors eye uphole there write too spel anny wurdz anny whey there laiks


----------

