On Derivative Works

[mark_asphodel]

 Fanfiction is by nature a derivative exercise.  

That said, both the overall "fandom" of those who write and the specific fandom communities have rules.  Some of these are modeled on professional literary and scholarly guidelines for behavior, while some are peculiar to fandom.

A) A person takes a story about Innes from the FE section of FFNet, rewrites it (somewhat) to be about Marth(!), gives it a similar title, and posts it on FFNet under their own name.  This person runs afoul of plagiarism standards however you want to define them.    

B) A person takes a lengthy fanfiction, makes some bizarre changes and insertions with promises of more ambitious changes to come, and posts it in the same fandom on FFNet under their own name.  This person might possibly be engaging in some bizarro performance art, but it sure looks like out and out plagiarism.

C) A person reads a story, likes it, and writes a very similar story involving their own favorite characters.  Theft?  Well, it made the author of the first story uncomfortable and they expressed their discomfort.  It is their right to do so.  Does this act of flattery-by-imitation put them in the same class as Thieves A and B above?  Does it mean that all their new works need to be greeted with suspicion, as all new works of Thief B will be?  

D) A bunch of people simultaneously post bizarre crack stories featuring similar elements of plot, theme, and characterization.  They're all in on the joke, but what does a newcomer make of it?  Is this sort of thing common in the fandom?  Can everyone join in the fun?

E) A semi-regular to a contest comm posts a 'fic that is damned close in structure and content to a meta piece that one of the other contest regulars published quite some time ago.  These two writers do not really talk to one another outside of the contest comm, but the meta-writer's posts are unlocked and free for anyone to come across.

In my opinion?  A and B are clear-cut cases of theft and have been exposed and brick-batted accordingly.  Future works by them do need to be greeted with suspicion.  C is far more problematic and I would personally answer No to both my own questions.  I think this is a sincere case of not knowing the ropes and does not need to be handled with virtual baseball bats to the head.  D is of course the Crackwood fiesta we all had a while back.  

As for E... as the meta-writer in question, I appreciate that someone alerted me to the borrow (the 'fic seemed familiar to me at the time, but I didn't realize I might have been the source material).  I haven't contacted the writer in question and I don't plan to unless I see them doing something of that kind again.  There was a long gap in time between the meta and the 'fic, and they might have read my piece and forgotten it... or not read it at all and it's a coincidence.  I personally try to credit people when a specific idea inspires me, but I'm not a zealot about it.  Maybe I should be.  Maybe not.

My point?  The ropes of fandom are sometimes closer to invisible trip wires.  Tread carefully.

Comments

[sailorvfan10.livejournal.com]

See, if I'm inspired by a piece of meta, or someone else's fic, or something like that, I always say who/what inspired me. I think it's common courtesy, and then others can read the meta or whatever too!

Now I am curious as to what fic you're talking about.

Can everyone join in the fun?
THE MORE THE MERRIER I ALWAYS SAY

[sailorvfan10.livejournal.com]

Also what the hell, my HTML isn't working anymore o_O

[raphiael]

It's definitely tricky for C and beyond. C especially largely depends on the attitude of the writer. In the recent case, it was definitely an unintentional thing on the writer's part and hasn't happened since, so that, IMO, is not a big deal at all. However, if someone were consistently writing different-but-similar stories? That's not quite plagiarism, but I'd be really uncomfortable with it.

Also, how in blazes does one substitute Marth for Innes? Maybe Ephraim, or even Eliwood, but Innes?

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

However, if someone were consistently writing different-but-similar stories?

Yes, that would be a red flag as well, I agree. But there it's fine to adopt a 'wait and see' approach and not treat every new story they publish as toxic, you know?

Also, how in blazes does one substitute Marth for Innes?.

Not terribly well. I can't imagine the thought processes there.

I can't think of any 'fic in which it would possibly work.

[raphiael]

Absolutely agreed.
Even with the recent fic-ripping guy, there were reviews on his other things asking "what was this ripped from?" and the like, and even that doesn't seem right to me (even though it ended up being ripped anyway). Things should absolutely be on a case-by-case basis.

Tried to imagine a young, somewhat naive Innes - still nothing like Marth. What even.

[samuraiter.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I can see the discomfort factor in all of these cases. (Except Crackwood. And that is the perfect name for it!) Nothing about E is out-and-out wrong, but that strikes me as a case of "if original poster is uncomfortable, derivative poster might want to rethink".

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

Nothing about E is out-and-out wrong, but that strikes me as a case of "if original poster is uncomfortable, derivative poster might want to rethink".

Still, resolving that situation would involve confronting the person to determine whether they even saw the meta in question. It could be a case of parallel thinking. My meta argument in this case was not terribly original... the structural similarities were the really eerie thing.

And I just don't want to deal with that kind of confrontation.

[samuraiter.livejournal.com]

;-) Bruce Lee: "The best way to win is not to fight at all."

[writerawakened.livejournal.com]

You're 100% right--there is most definitely a gray area when it comes to this issue. For me, personally, how I judge it always comes down to mens rea--was there a conscious, malicious intent to plagiarize and do wrong? In cases A and B, it's pretty obvious the plagiarism was conscious and intended to appropriate someone else's work. In the third case, it's the mistake of someone who doesn't know better--there wasn't any intent to encroach on someone's personal writings there and the person had no bad intentions, so there's no problem.

In case D, I don't think the awesome "Manlywood" craze fits in with the rest, namely because it plays off the idea of culutral and internet mimesis--in this case, it wasn't a single creative work of writing that inspired it, but a bunch of unsolicited requests and comments. And after it got going, IMO, I think there was an unspoken agreement between all parties that the stories weren't aping each others' works so much as drawing inspiration from a common source and adapting it in different ways.

And in case E, again, I think it comes down to whether the author in question consciously imitated the other story, and whether he or she was aware of its encroachment on the other person's creative bounds. But I think there's also a bit of "how close is it?" involved when evaluating a work, and that's definitely a thin line. How much inspiration is too much? Although I agree with you and the others that if the author took clear, conscious inspiration from a certain fic or book or whatever and styled their own fanfic in that manner, it's good etiquette to credit that person.

Just my two cents.

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

IMO, I think there was an unspoken agreement between all parties that the stories weren't aping each others' works so much as drawing inspiration from a common source and adapting it in different ways.

This is true-- but as the parties engaged in said unspoken agreement, we don't know how this was perceived by those not in the "clique."

This all springboards off the issue of how fandom treats new writers. They don't know about these unspoken agreements, or the boundaries, or any of it. They will make mistakes, and coming down in a punitive manner for mistakes made in good faith gives credence to the various accusations of elitism-- or the perception of it, anyway. And perception = reality on the Internetz.

[sarajayechan.livejournal.com]

A and B just fail. Not only is it theft, but it's LAZINESS. Basically these people want to write fic, but can't be bothered to come up with their own ideas. That's just dumb.

C and E are dual-sided situations IMO. I don't the idea that people have to ask special permission to be inspired by someone else's work, it implies that we're all pretentious and selfish snowflakes. On the other hand, taking from someone else's hard work and not bothering to give them credit just strikes me as rude. Fan #1 may not be the only one in the world to come up with an idea, but if Fan #2 is clearly working based on it they should at least give Fan #1 a shout-out.

[hooves.livejournal.com]

Waaaaaaaaaait so someone from fe_contest wrote something really close/similar in structure to a meta piece you did? Sorry to hear it. It's hard to say if it was intentional or not. It could be-- but it could also not be. It really depends on the structure. Two people who see a character the same way might naturally go the same direction with an idea.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with Sara. If Fan #2 is clearly using someone else's work/whatever as "inspiration", a shout-out will suffice.

[r-amythest.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's something I stumbled upon while skimming through Mark's early posts, considering that it was a piece I found intriguing for its meta content. I waffled for some time on whether this means I should discredit its meta commentary as far as voting for it goes and ultimately decided to give the writer the benefit of the doubt.

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

Sorry to hear it.

I don't necessarily feel bad about it-- the meta's there for people to read. I've seen my ideas end up on TV Tropes and FE Wiki too, and I sure wasn't the one posting them there. It's not the feeling of being ripped off, not in the least. But it is a weird and somewhat uncomfortable feeling.

Two people who see a character the same way might naturally go the same direction with an idea.

I think I'll just PM you regarding this when the vote's over.

[myaru.livejournal.com]

I have experienced C, and while it made me uncomfortable, I decided not to say anything after running the situation by some outside parties. The work was close, yes, but the author also made her own contributions, even if she handled the theme clumsily. She also gave me backhanded credit without even having to ask, so that's a very gray area.

This should always be the policy for C and E in my opinion - if you feel someone's fic is too close to your own work for comfort, ask for other opinions first, and then contact the author if it bothers you enough. Don't start a witch hunt. I saw one of those too, and watched it drive a young writer out of the fandom in question. Even if her work was heavily inspired by the people doing the witch-hunting, that reaction was uncalled for.

Never mind that I have done the same thing - used someone else's ideas - completely by accident. Sometimes it's good to give an author the benefit of the doubt.

[r-amythest.livejournal.com]

Regarding C, I agree with your responses to the questions poised. C is not like A and B. However, I think this inquiry is pitched in a very particular way, that is, is it still plagiarism? The fact that you open this post with "On Derivative Works" made me think that perhaps you have thoughts on the definition of plagiarism of things other than the words themselves as it pertains to fanfiction.

D is incomparable to the rest of these cases. I believe it's analogous to writing for a prompt (a round of fe_contest?) or writing to a prevalent social issue. As for the newcomer aspect: say we've dug up the Greek myths for the first time. (Don't split hairs on translation in this example!) We note that it involves the same circle of gods and many of the same themes time and time again. But we would probably sooner ascribe this to cultural trends than plagiarism.

I think it's especially noteworthy of D that while we chose many of the same plots, themes, and characterization spoofs, we had vastly different structures, which is where I think content-plagiarism tends to show up the most. (I'm remembering a few manga plagiarism scandals where the artist was roundly shamed for stealing... page layouts and the perspectives of the images therein.)

Regarding E, this caused me quite a lot of doubt because I had thought highly of the piece because of the meta. Eventually I decided to give the writer the benefit of the doubt, although... there is some substantial irony in this fact, which I can elaborate for you in private later if you'd like.

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

The fact that you open this post with "On Derivative Works" made me think that perhaps you have thoughts on the definition of plagiarism of things other than the words themselves as it pertains to fanfiction.

Fandom is by nature composed of derivative works. I get the impression you're of the same "generation" as I am (I entered online fandom in '98), and if that's the case you would likely remember a great deal of the navel-gazing regarding whether or not fiction itself was an acceptable (or legal, or moral) endeavor, not to mention the entire debate over "derivative" and "transformative works"... and the value of each.

I do have thoughts on content-borrowing and meta-borrowing, though they're perhaps not terribly coherent at present.

D is incomparable to the rest of these cases

From the perspective of an insider or an outsider? I agree 100% with Writer Awakened's assessment of Crackwood '11 above, but part of the issue IMO is new writers learning what is and is not acceptable in a particular fandom. They don't know jack about "cultural and internet mimesis" and nobody's giving them an instruction manual.

I think you handled the EmilySamara case excellently, but other writers I have known might have responded to her "tribute" with a witch-hunt-- when the issue isn't appropriation in bad faith but simply not knowing the boundaries.

How does all this get processed by other writers who are learning the ropes? I don't know. At this point, maybe none of us remember.

we had vastly different structures, which is where I think content-plagiarism tends to show up the most.

Excellent point.

which I can elaborate for you in private later if you'd like.

OK. Please do so.

[r-amythest.livejournal.com]

Three years is a long time in online fandom... so I'd say I belong to a somewhat different generation. There is the fact as well that I was in a conspicuously different sort of circle for my first few years....

I have, however, read write-ups of the Cassie Claire scandal and I believe that mess showcased quite a lot of thoughts about where fandom stands as far as originality and conventional plagiarism are concerned.

Regarding D, I don't think that's so much an insider/outsider thing as much as a general maturity thing. An outsider like Writer Awakened who has learned something of sociology and semiotics and whatnot might understand this idea of "cultural and internet mimesis" (or: fanon and memes), but a 13-year-old outsider might not garner the same impression, nor appreciate how different the Crackwood stories are.

Personally, I can remember making some embarrassing remarks I made early in my fandom days when I treated fanon as canon....

I'm glad you approved of my response to EmilySamara, since your recurrent mentions of her case were starting to make me wonder.

[hooves.livejournal.com]

From the perspective of an insider or an outsider? I agree 100% with Writer Awakened's assessment of Crackwood '11 above, but part of the issue IMO is new writers learning what is and is not acceptable in a particular fandom.

I did forget to comment on this. I think it looked really, really weird. Though from PMs and comments I got from other people, they thought it was a prompt from somewhere that they couldn't see. So I don't think most people thought we were stealing ideas from one another or anything. BUT I can say it DID confuse quite a few people.

[xirysa.livejournal.com]

A and B are blatant examples of plagiarism and the plagiarist's own laziness/inability/whatever to come up with their own premises. You've read my snark--my reaction for something like plagiarism is pretty much that, but on a much grander scale.

I find my opinion slowly changing about C, though, and of course that deals a lot with my current "revelation" of sorts--and I use the term very loosely. Before I was of the same mindset as A and B--so you've been inspired by another piece, fine and dandy. I've been inspired by pieces. BUT. You write said story, and the end result is astonishingly similar to the the inspirational source. In addition to this, there's no note or anything to suggest that the piece was inspired by another author's work. Before, I would've considered this to be plagiarism without a second though.

Now, though, I find my opinion changing. I will admit that what happened with r_amythest and EmilySamara is one of the reasons I snarked her Matthew/Serra piece so harshly. But I did end up sending her a considerably more positive review after thinking on my actions--I got her reply this morning, and even though it was a little bit defensive (as any author probably would be about their work) she was very receptive to it. (I'd PM'd her earlier about a racial stereotyping comment on her profile, so I can also understand if her defensiveness was because of that.)

Essentially, I'd say that right now I'm very ambivalent about my opinions toward option C; I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about it.

D is very much a subjective thing, I think. It really depends on exactly who's involved. I know that personally I find the number of "OC-in-Tellius!" stories to be very trying at best, but that core group of authors who read and review each others' works are actually very supportive of each other. Who's not to say that they may look at the recent Crackwood Fest and think the same thing?

(Though personally, I always make an effort to make a note of exactly what I'm writing for if the the piece in question is more of a "group" thing--FE Contest, FE Fest, FE Exchange, Crackwood, etc.)

And E? Well. Kind of going off my opinions about D for this--I would have made a note, at the very least, about how so-and-so's meta about such-and-such was the inspiration for Generic Story #38, you know? (Not to say that the story in question was generic, but still.) And I guess in a way it ties into my thoughts about C, so I guess this is also a point I'm rather ambivalent about at the moment.

[sailorvfan10.livejournal.com]

I always make an effort to make a note of exactly what I'm writing for if the the piece in question is more of a "group" thing--FE Contest, FE Fest, FE Exchange, Crackwood, etc.
This! I do this as well, mostly so I remember what I wrote it for when I look back on it the next day, and so others know what it is too, especially if it's not my 'normal' work.

I would have made a note, at the very least, about how so-and-so's meta about such-and-such was the inspiration for Generic Story #38
I do that too, just because I often forget where my inspiration comes from half of the time anyway, and then also if people wonder, "Hey, where did I see this before?" they can see that it was based off of a piece of meta or something and go, "Oh, I see, this was inspired by XYZ! That explains the similarities!"

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

but that core group of authors who read and review each others' works are actually very supportive of each other.

So do many of the Gary Stu Tactician people. It's hard to sympathize with them as an outsider to that... mentality... but they do care about one another's work.

[xirysa.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of that mentality has to do with their own preferences and maturity; "our" group is filled with writers who are pretty much known for writing situations of twisted relationships, political intrigue, conflict, and other darker subjects that don't seem to go with the "lighter" atmosphere of the games. (Though that lightness is questionable in and of itself.) We may look at them and roll our eyes at how "superficial" their stories are, but they may read our work and think, "Well. Why the hell would anyone write anything that depressing?" you know?

So as long as we support our group and they support theirs without being overtly (or obviously) judgmental, I think it's good. Hence the subjectiveness of it all.

[mark-asphodel.livejournal.com]

but they may read our work and think, "Well. Why the hell would anyone write anything that depressing?" you know?

Oh, I'm sure that's a common reaction to the things I inflict on fandom.

But as far as self-inserts go... I don't get that impulse, regardless of fandom. Mary Sues, and speshul powaz, and angst, and improbable plotlines designed to make buckets of angst, and Mary Sues with self-insert qualities? Been there, done that. Only stopped doing that once I hit Internet fandom and realized that there was a name for the crap I was writing.

But outright self-insertion in a canon universe? Do not get.

[xirysa.livejournal.com]

But I like the things you inflict upon fandom.

Yeah, Mary Sue self-inserts? I can't understand it. The only one I ever really wrote was the thing for Crackwood, and I look at it and can't believe I did it. From a humorous standpoint it's really amusing, but to use it to create/drive actual plot doused in buckets of Sue angst and Single Tears of Crystal Angst? I really see no appeal.

[xirysa.livejournal.com]

"Oh, I see, this was inspired by XYZ! That explains the similarities!"

Mmhmm. I mean, it's also giving credit to your inspiration. A lot people will mention in their stories, "Inspired by This Song by This Generic Band!"--why not do it for another story or a discussion elsewhere?