Good Bye & Good Luck

[Michela Ecks]

Hey,

I've decided to retreat from the Harry Potter fandom, specifically this
mailing list if you're recieving this.  To me plagarism is always wrong and
tolerance of it offensive no matter the rational.  I would ask that if list
mods desub me because I'm about to go out to visit family for the day.

This is mirrored at http://writersu.s5.com/steal.html for your convience.

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.

                       Plagarism is wrong. Plagarism is theft. Please read.
                                    by Michela Ecks (Laura Hale)
                                 mecks at prodigy.net or lhale at niu.edu
                                    or michela_ecks at hotmail.com
     Permission is granted to freely distribute this document so long as the
document and credit remains intact.

On the night of June 22, 2001, Cassandra Claire's edopus "Draco Sinister"
and her other stories were removed from fanfiction.net  because one story
had a substantial passage that was lifted from a book by Pamela Dean.  There
were insinutations that she had  incorporated large chunks of dialogue from
Buffy: The Vampire Slayer, Black Adder and Red Dwarf.  These were, too my
knowledge, never fully investigated because the Pamela Dean evidence was
enough to prove that Cassandra Claire had  plagarized.  She was black
listed.

Writers University fulls supports and endorses this.  Writers University
fully supports and endorses any and all fan sites that
aggreesively seek to prevent, stop or punish known plagarists.

I want to endorse this rationally and on my own at Writers University
because I'm, to a degree, being raked over the coals for this  incident.

Let me start this out by saying that I think plagarism is wrong.  Plagarism
is theft.  Plagarism is not right.  Plagarism is immoral
and unethical.  Plagarism 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 web site, writing fan fiction.  Communities
are small.  If you steal from some one in this fandom, the person in the
other  fandom will know and you'll hear about it.  Plagarizing 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 plagarize, 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 plagarism.  They are that plagarism is okay
because it doen't hurt the original author, that plagrism is okay if you
disclaim it, that fan fiction is inherently plagaristic so plagarism is
okay, that popularity, famousness and creativity can negate the act of
plagarism, that plagarism is allowed, and that sites should not have the
right to pull down material they deem is plagaristic.

Plagarism is not okay because it doesn't hurt the original author.
Plagarism can hurt the author.  Plagarism can also hurt the
fannish community.  Most people do not want to be plagarized and those
you're plagarizing will be hurt.  Copyright law is pretty specific in
regards to plagarism and it states that you cannot plagarize and that
plagarism is NOT protected under fair use.  Plagarism 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 learned you did it.  It's still wrong, harm or no harm.  This
argument doesn't bear up to academic scrutinity.  The last time I took an
English class, we were told we were not allowed to plagarize.  This was told
to me in both my creative writing and research oriented English classes.  No
where, 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 none the less 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.

Plagarism 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 redefiing 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
infringetory and it was deliberately so.  Infringement was intended.
Infringement was deliberate.  They knew it; I knew it.  We also knew it was
hypocrtical to deny the infringing 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 affilations with Warner Brothers.  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 error 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 Yarbaro derrivative.  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 plagarism in fan fiction, it shouldn't happen.  People
shouldn't be plagarizing from books and other fan fiction authors.  They
shouldn't excuse their plagarism with a disclaimer.  It doesn't forgive the
act and most disclaimers fail.  Saying you were inspired by a story by story
X by an author whose name you've forgotten and lifting the passage does not
forgive the plagarism.  And really, with authors both pro and fan, how hard
is it to reach out and ask them if you can incorporate their material as
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 plagaristic.  Plagarizing is not okay in fan
fiction.  I don't even know where to begin here.  I've been hearing many
people defending plagarism because they think that fan fiction is inherently
plagaritic.  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 some thing be it a book, television show, movie or video
game.  Stories are derived from, that is they use
characters, setting, people, from the source, other material.  They are not
material rewritten.  Fan fiction is a form of fiction.  Is fiction
inherently plagaristic?  Fan fiction is written by fans.  Unless you're
going to argue that fiction is inherently plagaristic...  I just don't
understand where people are coming from.   Are there similar issues?  Yes.
Fan fiction can often be a copyright
violation.  The type of violation though isn't plagarism.  It's the usurping
of the the rights of copyright owners to control all
derivative works based on their material.  Plagarism and rights to
derivative works are two different things.  Derivative works
possess originallity.  Plagarism does not.  I really can't think of anything
more to say on this subject.

Popularity and the amount of plagarism doesn't negate the act of plagarism.
It isn't an excuse to plagarize.  There are many very famous people who do
very stupid things.  Think Eminem, Charles Downey Junior, 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 Affaires, 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 manner 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.

Plagarism does not equate with creativity.  No matter what some one tells
me, I will not buy into this argument that plagarism is creative.  Plagarism
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 plagarism, in an evironment where it's
fiction that's being stolen, is.  Let me repeat that: plagarism is the
stealing of other people's creative efforts.  Where does originallity of the
author who plagarized come in?  It doesn't.  The parts the author plagarized
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 line for line a scene 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.  jms, 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 plagarizing, all your
work becomes circumspect.  Cassandra Claire was caught plagarizing 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
circumspect.  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 finnesse, to rework and reword her story so that
you couldn't identify it from the original.  She lacked the creativty to
totally remake and remold an idea of someone else's into an original
Cassandra Claire.  What she didn't wasn't original.  It wasn't creative.
Plagarism isn't creative.

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 with out telling
you.  It's their perogative.  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 plagarism leading to the possible dismissle 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 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 courtesy, 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 web sites 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 on it.  If
you have a problem with them, you leave.  The same philosphy applies to web
sites.  If the house rules are no plagarism, you don't plagarize.  It's that
simple.

And it all boils down to, no matter how much you want to rationalize it,
plagarism is theft.  Plagarism is stealing.  Plagarism is
wrong.

                                                                  Last
modified June 24, 2001 10:15am


Michela Ecks - Spastic Hale Girl - :o)
http://writersu.s5.com/ micecks on aim