Now, now, dirty girls, the wanking in question is Fandom_Wank . I've spent far too much time reading the backlog of wanking that happened before I knew there was a place dedicated to mostly to having lolz at the sound and fury that is life in a fandom. Some of it is just silliness, but the wankas have done their share of chronicling the rise and fall of BNFs (Big Name Fans). For my little corner of the 'net, it was Leeser. F_W helped us stay wanky while bringing down the biggest BNF in all the ML land. But they warned us that our little world was nothing. They'd seen some massive wanks.

And, boy, have they. They say that vampire fandom equals wank, but it's the Harry Potter people who have a magical wank machine in the basement. Their wanks are endless and self-fertilizing.

I spent the last two days reading on a related forum, Bad Penny, about the epic misadventures of msscribe, a Harry Potter BNF who rose through the inner circle through an elaborate system of sockpuppets (fake accounts she manipulated to earn herself acclaim and get her closer to the original BNFs of the fandom). It. is. epic. Since she was so liberal in her use of her real name, I'm have tempted to call her up in my professional capacity to ask her about her evil genius. I want to ask her why, what was the endgame, what was she getting out of it, how did she think of so many wild sockpuppet names, etc.

Then I moved on (well, chronologically, it was back) to the wanks of Cassandra Claire, whose BNF-ness eclipsed our measly Leeser worshipers. She's a tolerable fanfic writer and at points hilarious, but I'm not going to link to her work because she committed what I consider the most egregious sin in all of fiction and that includes the inherently problematic fanfic: she plagiarized.

Her Draco stories, famous and hugely popular, contained - by her own admission - huge chunks of dialogue from Buffy, Red Dwarf, Black Adder and other sources. This is lazy and makes for a) bad writing and b) out of character work. But the real problem is that she copied both ideas and whole sections of writing, not just quotables, from Pamela Dean's "The Hidden Land" books. Once the accusation was leveled and the board at www.fanfiction.net reviewed it, she was dutifully banned. You'd think she'd hang her head in shame and yank the fic.

Nope, she rallied members to her cause on HP lists and sites. And the fandom hopped to. Shame on them. Let the fandom without sin cast the first stone (a-hem, the scarlet letters are aaaaallll over ML, so I don't have much wiggle room), but Cassie Claire as a representative of the fandom is the Whore of Babylon in my eyes for a litany of misdeeds. But the plagiarism is worst of all. Worst. Writing is like ripping out your insides and throwing them onto the page. It's the most deeply personal, most mine thing I have ever done and, though I know that post on the internet is just asking for intellectual property theft and that fanfic by its nature is a bit of thievery, I would go ape shit if I found my work, my ideas in someone else's scrawl.

That BNF (and now, tragically, a published author) has moved on and I'm late to the flogging party. But along the way, there were fandom heroes and one woman stood out for me: Michela Ecks. She wrote an amazing essay on why plagiarism is wrong and was dutifully cast out by the HP fandom (even though she said her peace and asked to be removed before they banninated her).

That essay has been mostly lost to the internet ether, but I did find one surviving post with it intact and I want to commemorate her bravery for speaking up when it wasn't popular and her general wisdom on the matter (NB: her statements about asking authors for permission doesn't jive with my knowledge on the matter. According to an interview I did with "Blood Ties" author Tanya Huff, who started as a fanfic writer herself, she cannot give permission for fanfic. Legal reasons require she oppose it and I remember a time when Fox tried to crack down on Buffy fic, etc. Legally, I'm not sure Michela is right on that count. Ethically, yes; legally, not so sure...).

Every fanfic author who doesn't have the common sense not to take what isn't theirs, every author who has ever been vaguely confused on the matter, should read this. In fact, everyone, read:

"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 (Laura Hale)
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 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. 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 plagaristic so plagiarism is okay, that popularity, famousness 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 plagaristic.

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 learned you did it. It's still wrong, harm or no harm. This argument 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. 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.

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 infringetory 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 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 affiliations 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 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 a story by story X by an author whose name you've forgotten and lifting the passage does not forgive the plagiarism. 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. 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 plagaristic. 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 plagiarism. It's the usurping of the 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 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 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 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.

Plagiarism does not equate with creativity. No matter what some one 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 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 plagiarizing, all your work becomes circumspect. 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 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 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 didn't 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 some one 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. Plagairism is wrong. Permission later doesn't negate that you are a plagairist especially when you fail to have permission to use other plagiariszed 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 with out 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 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 philosophy applies to web sites. If the house rules are no plagiarism, you don't plagiarize. It's that simple.

And it all boils down to, no matter how much you want to rationalize it, plagiarism is theft. Plagiarism is stealing. Plagiarism is wrong. Stealing from plagaristist is wrong too. Permission after the fact means some one smiled on you but you're still a plagiarist.