Plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is theft. Please read.
From Fan History Wiki
 |
See Preserving history/info for info on why articles are protected. |
Plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is theft. Please read.
I feel silly even having to say this but it needs to be said for the odd person wandering through who is thinking of writing the next epic tale. Plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is theft. Please read.
by Michela Ecks lhale@niu.edu version 1.2
Permission is granted to freely distribute this document so long as the document and credit remains intact.
Let me start this out by saying that I think plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is theft. Plagiarism is not right. Plagiarism is immoral and unethical. Plagiarism in the fannish community is even more deplorable for several reasons: The first is that fan fiction exists only because the powers that be allow it to exist. Our fannish activities can stop at any time if they do not want us to do them. Secondly, fan fiction is about writing. It's about community. It's about belonging. Some of us belong by sending feedback, putting up a website, writing fan fiction. Communities are small. If you steal from someone in this fandom, the person in the other fandom will know and you'll hear about it. Plagiarizing isn't being community-minded. It's being incredibly selfish and putting yourself above the community. It's also about giving the community your best that you can offer. When you plagiarize, you are not giving the community the best that you can offer.
There have been several comments in the Cassandra Claire incident that I will now address in regards to plagiarism. They are: that plagiarism is okay because it doesn't hurt the original author; that plagiarism is okay if you disclaim it; that fan fiction is inherently plagiaristic, so plagiarism is okay; that popularity, fame and creativity can negate the act of plagiarism; that plagiarism is allowed; and that sites should not have the right to pull down material they deem is plagiaristic.
Plagiarism is not okay because it doesn't hurt the original author. Plagiarism can hurt the author. Plagiarism can also hurt the fannish community. Most people do not want to be plagiarized, and those you're plagiarizing will be hurt. Copyright law is pretty specific in regards to plagiarism, and it states that you cannot plagiarize and that plagiarism is NOT protected under fair use. Plagiarism does not need to hurt the author for it to be wrong. You can come to my place of residence. You can steal my computer. You can use my computer while I am at the library. You haven't physically hurt me. My life won't end. I might be upset, irrational and depressed. I may feel violated, especially if years down the line I learn you did it. It's still wrong, harm or no harm.
The argument that plagiarism doesn't hurt the original author doesn't bear up to academic scrutiny. The last time I took an English class, we were told we were not allowed to plagiarize. This was told to me in both my creative writing and research-oriented English classes. Nowhere, when being told this, was the adjoiner added "unless you're not going to hurt the author." I'm not sure how to address this further than to say that there are many things I want to do that wouldn't really hurt people . . . that are nonetheless illegal, unethical and immoral. Possible feelings of the author shouldn't really enter into this. The author shouldn't really factor into the debate about the behavior's ethical and legal implications, other than knowing if the person had the author's permission to usurp that passage.
Plagiarism is not okay if you disclaim it. I'm affiliated with Bringers, an organization dedicated to the education of and the helping of fans. A while back, Bringers was going through major reorganization. They were dedicated to fixing up the site, re-evaluating their stance and redefining issues. One of the issues brought to the table was the use of disclaimers on the site. You know the ones: "No infringement intended." This was deemed not a good thing. Why wasn't it viewed as a good thing? Because the material was infringement, and it was deliberately so. Infringement was intended. Infringement was deliberate. They knew it; I knew it. We also knew it was hypocritical to deny the infringement as not intended when it was. The disclaimers were changed to something similar to "These images were used without permission. The hosting of these images does not signify support of or affiliations with Warner Bros. This site is not for profit." It's a much better disclaimer. They are going to list where all images they have are taken from and the copyright information just to be on the safe side, because it is always better to err on the side of caution.
There have been incidents where people have used disclaimers . . . I'm thinking of an incident with Chelsea Quinn Yarbro, where a fan fiction writer sought permission to write a Chelsea Quinn Yarbro derivative. Chelsea, predictably, said no. The fan proceeded to publish the story anyway with a disclaimer saying she didn't have (was denied) permission to publish the story. Guess who came knocking down here door? Chelsea Quinn Yarbro. It cost the author and the 'zine publisher a lot of time, money and frustration.
In regards to plagiarism in fan fiction, it shouldn't happen. People shouldn't be plagiarizing from books and other fan fiction authors. They shouldn't excuse their plagiarism with a disclaimer. It doesn't forgive the act, and most disclaimers fail. Saying you were inspired by Story X by an author whose name you've forgotten, and lifting the passage does not forgive the plagiarism. And really, with both pro and fan authors, how hard is it to reach out and ask them if you can incorporate their material into your own? There are many fannish writers who would be flattered, and many pro authors who would answer you: Tamora Pierce, Ben Bova, Alan Dean Foster, Lawrence Watt Evans, David Drake, Diane Duane. These are just a few of the many authors who have e-mail addresses and who will answer your questions. Ask for permission rather than disclaiming, because disclaiming doesn't negate the act; it just acknowledges that you committed it.
Fan fiction is not inherently plagiaristic. Plagiarizing is not okay in fan fiction. I don't even know where to begin here. I've been hearing many people defending plagiarism because they think that fan fiction is inherently plagiaristic. To me, fan fiction is not the retooling of other people's work by doing a search and replace to change names and eye colors. Fan fiction is original fiction written by fans of something, be it a book, television show, movie or video game. Stories are derived from -- that is they use characters, setting, people -- from the source material. They are not rewritten material.
Fan fiction is a form of fiction written by fans. Is fan fiction inherently plagiaristic? Unless you're going to argue that all fiction is inherently plagiaristic . . . I just don't understand where people are coming from. Are there similar issues? Yes. Fan fiction can often be a copyright violation. That type of violation, though, isn't plagiarism. It's the usurping of the rights of copyright owners to control all derivative works based on their material. Plagiarism and rights to derivative works are two different things. Derivative works possess originality. Plagiarism does not. I really can't think of anything more to say on this subject.
Popularity and the amount of plagiarism doesn't negate the act of plagiarism. It isn't an excuse to plagiarize. There are many very famous people who do very stupid things. Think Eminem, Robert Downey Jr., Scottie Pippen, Cal Ripken Jr. The list of stupid celebs goes on and on and on. These celebs all have their day in court. The police don't say "Sorry Pip man, you're famous and I know the law says no carrying of concealed weapons, but hey, you're famous so let's just leave this one between you and me, eh?" It does not work that way. If the police acted that way, those police might find themselves up before Personal Affairs, ethics board, the police chief. They would find those police negligent. If you do the crime and you're found guilty, you do the time no matter how famous you are. Fame doesn't negate the act. The person shouldn't be let off the hook because they have a name or face people recognize.
Plagiarism does not equate with creativity. No matter what someone tells me, I will not buy into this argument that plagiarism is creative. Plagiarism by definition is the lifting of and theft of other people's creative property. It's the taking of other people's creative efforts and sticking your name on them. That is what plagiarism -- in an environment where it's fiction that's being stolen -- is. Let me repeat that: plagiarism is the stealing of other people's creative efforts.
Where does originality of the author who plagiarized come in? It doesn't. The parts the author plagiarized are not creative or original. That credit should be given to the original author. On God Awful Fan Fiction's message board, a poster mentioned a story where the author took a scene line for line a from Babylon 5 and plopped it down in the middle of an X-Files story. The section was not credited. The author wasn't creative. J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of Babylon 5 was. The author recognized this else, they wouldn't have stolen the section.
Is an author creative after they've been caught stealing? The answer is maybe . . . leaning towards no. The thing is, once you've been caught plagiarizing, all your work becomes suspect. Cassandra Claire was caught plagiarizing by the staff at FanFiction.Net and people sing her praises saying how creative she is. I'm left to sit and stew in my own juices. I sit and go "No, she isn't creative. She stole from other creative people." I also become suspicious. I will not be able to read anything by Cassandra Claire without asking myself if I'm really reading her own work, or if I'm reading something she's changed, something she's stolen . . . something she is passing off as original fan fiction that isn't original at all. Cassandra lacked the creativity, indeed the finesse, to rework and reword her story so that you couldn't identify it from the original. She lacked the creativity to totally remake and remold an idea of someone else's into an original Cassandra Claire. What she did wasn't original. It wasn't creative. Plagiarism isn't creative.
Getting permission after the fact doesn't negate the fact that you're a plagiarist. Sorry boys and girls, you ask before you take. A lot of authors will give permission before you post your epic with three pages stolen from a novel by a currently living author. Some won't. That is the way the way of life. Getting permission AFTER the fact means that you still stole someone else's hard work and slapped your name on it. If you're leaving it up after you got caught and haven't made any changes to indicate who you stole from and which passages until you get permission, that is just as despicable -- if not more despicable -- than stealing in the first place. Theft is wrong. Plagiarism is wrong. Permission later doesn't negate that you are a plagiarist, especially when you fail to have permission to use other plagiarized bits and pieces.
Fan sites are run by fans. They are owned by fans. They are operated by fans. They are paid for by fans. Fan sites have every right to pull down material from their sites and servers that they do not want posted. They have the right to yank the material they deem offensive without telling you. It's their prerogative. They don't need a terms of service. They don't need to give you warning. They don't need to tell you that you are being investigated for plagiarism, leading to the possible dismissal of your material from their sites. They are not legally obligated to. They don't have to. Complaining and bitching about the unfairness of all this and saying it is wrong of them to do it isn't right. They don't need to be fair. They don't need to tell you why and explain themselves.
As a matter of courtesy, it is nice of them to have a terms of service which explains their policies regarding dismal of and deletion of accounts. As a matter of courtesy, you should in return read the document and follow those rules. If you want them to be courteous, you have to be willing to give it back in return. They don't need to be fair. They don't need to give you warning. Picture websites like houses: You are invited into the house. You are expected to follow the rules. If you don't, you will be asked to leave. If you come to my place of residence and drink all my Diet Coke, I will get very annoyed, and I will demand, being the cheap creature I am, that you go out to the store and buy me more. If you trash my house, I'll call the police. It's my place of residence, and you follow my rules while in it. If you have a problem with those rules, you leave. The same philosophy applies to websites. If the house rules are no plagiarism, you don't plagiarize. It's that simple.
And it all boils down to this: no matter how much you want to rationalize it, plagiarism is theft. Plagiarism is stealing. Plagiarism is wrong. Stealing from a plagiarist is wrong, too. Permission after the fact means someone smiled on you, but you're still a plagiarist.
