Re-publishing long S&H stories as original novels?

[gideonbd77]

You may have heard about a certain Twilight-fanfic-turned-novel called 50 Shades of Grey and all the brouhaha about it. If you haven't, the non-tl;dr version of the situation is that a fanfic writer in the Twilight fandom posted a many-chaptered AU story featuring Edward/Bella called Masters of the Universe, but then pulled it, changed the names of

Comments

[zandras_court]

I think the sense of this being "unethical" comes from the unwritten culture of fandom that we agree we are playing in someone else's sandbox, but since we are aren't making money at it, we don't want to be sued ourselves for what we know is copyright infringement. If someone starts to profit, then it can taint the rest of what we do. That fear (and jealousy, lets be honest) leads to cries from the base that somehow we are better than that. This isn't exactly new. The scandal-only-in-fandom over Cassandra Claire comes to mind. But none of that stopped her books from being published.

Sometimes reworks are great and sometimes they are not, but whether they *should* be made has never been an ethical point for Hollywood or publishing houses. No one cries about the ethics of "Death comes to Pemberly" or "Clueless"? Everyone has a different muse. Does the ethics of using that inspiration change because the works are in the public domain? Do we owe real-life muses too? Adele's ex tried to sue her because he felt he was owed some of her take because he "inspired" her songs. He was laughed out of court, and rightly so.

We don't know yet what the full creative impact of internet fandom will be yet. Because of fandoms and blogs, writers have a way to hone their skills like never before. Unknown writers can have a following before ever even being published. Characters are no longer just on a page or the screen, they get new life in our imaginations. Personally, I like the freedom that comes from sharing our stories and getting to read others without the entanglement of money. That's what makes fandom great.

50 Shades of Gray didn't violate any law or ethic of society, but it did violate the code of fandom, and that's why it bothers us.

[zandras_court]

OK, that was supposed to be it's own comment, but my iPad client made it a reply. Oops.

[kimberlyfdr]

Speaking of Cassandra Clare, CBS news just had an article about her new series and they mention the plagiarism.

Before "City of Bones," Clare was an author of fan fiction, for which writers make up new stories about popular literary characters and settings. Writing under the name Cassandra Claire, she published Harry Potter fan fiction on FanFiction.net in 2000-01. But after allegations that she had borrowed improperly from fantasy writer Pamela Dean, the website removed her work.

I think this is the first time I've seen it mentioned in mainstream media. ONTD is having fun with that one.

[zandras_court]

Isn't it nice when the mainstream catches up to us? ::eyeroll::

I'm glad someone did their homework though.

[gideonbd77]

For me, this is why plagiarism even in fandom is a huge no-no. If you get caught, it's the sort of thing that follows you into your pro career and probably all the way to its end. Sure, she may have written great HP stories, but non-fandom people don't know those stories, so she'll be remembered as 'that former fanfic writer who ripped off other writers'.

[librathree]

"Borrowed improperly from Pamela Dean"? She outright plagiarized about a dozen authors. I saw the evidence when it came out. Contemptible b*tch.