![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
On Derivative Works
Mar. 8th, 2011 07:10 am 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.
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.
Tags:
