Go J.D. Salinger!

Snagged from Gurnery Journey, a blog focused on art written by the wonderful creator of Dinotopia.

Want to write a derivative work?  Seriously, think twice.  Do your own stuff.  Someone writing under the pseudonym J.D. California wrote a sequel to "Catcher in the Rye," perhaps not knowing that J.D. Salinger not only is alive and kicking, but litigious.  So now there's a lawsuit.  Even if J.D. Salinger wasn't so inclined, really, do you want to hazard the chance of something like this happening to you?

I wonder if pseudo-California has ever heard of the term fanfic.

Maybe you're lucky enough that you feel your heart and soul is inspired by a work that happens to be in the public domain.  Good.  And yet, wouldn't it be better to rename the characters, twist the setting in a direction that resonates with your plot (or do some research and deepen the setting in a way the original author didn't explore) and let the characters grow with the challenges you place before them ... in short, writing an original work inspired by the book?  You'll have something that's completely your own, and by the time you finish revising and restructuring and hammering out the details of your world, I doubt anyone will recognize what you've done.  Plus, people may notice the tone or themes or characterization and nicely note that the work "is reminiscent of the works of J.D. Salinger, but with a present-day edge informed by the politics of 21st century Sweden."

I wish Mr. Salinger well.  

Now I'm curious to see how the whole Potato Day (Stephanie Meyer fanfic Fail that I won't link to so that it reduces traffic) thing is doing.  Hmm ... looks like she altered her page to be in Español.  Does she think this will save her?  I thought she would fade away after being met with lawyerly threats, but it seems she persists.  I think she wants to get sued for $100,000 and spend time in jail.  Weee!  She's got to be one of those people who believe that if nothing bad has happened yet, it won't.  Wow.  The fail, it burns!

Can Web Publishing Get Nastier?

Apparently so.  Check out this post on the wonderful At Last! Writer Beware Blogs.  You know how we all (or at least I) skim the standard fine print when registering with a new site?  That's because most of that stuff is the usual don't hold responsible if you poke your eye out with a straw while reading, don't swear or post offensive stuff on the site, the owners can boot you off at their discretion without explanation, etc.  Well, apparently on WEbook, the fine print is a whole 'nother ball game.  Don't even chance it.  Give this site a pass or risk having every right WEbook can think of grabbed forever in exchange for pennies (which they don't have to pay until they accumulate up to $50, which C.S. has painful experience in finding out how corporations can find ways to pull the plug just before you reach that magical $50 mark if they want to, which they probably do.)

Another Copyright Issue

Patty on the OryCon listserv shared the link to this new controversy. A popular romance writer has been including passages from other works, most non-fiction and part of her research, in her books.

There is an excellent article in Newsweek by one of the authors used in the romance book. And the ladies at the Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books blog, who made the discovery, have a whole running series on their blog. They have posted a response by one of the researchers of the article quoted, which is a different take on the controversy, very classy and upbeat. Kudos to him and the author of the article. But the publisher response to the controversy is still a bit disturbing to me. And here's why.

One of the first discussions we have in a college English class is on plagiarism. And the main point of that discussion is if it isn't your words and your thoughts, quote and cite. The idea of not having to cite source material in a historical novel is ludicrous to me. Not that I'd expect footnotes, but at least a nod toward the source material that served research material is polite to those authors and gives them their due credit. But lifting whole passages from source material--that, to me, and by the very definition we used in college (and that would get you an immediate expulsion from the class and placed on probation) is plagiarism.

Maybe I'm too sensitive about it. It has been drilled into my head by seven years of repetition in each class at the beginning of a semester and then repeating it myself when I was teaching. And now, as a writer focusing more and more on historical stories, I have learned how to integrate research into my prose in my own words and language.

What this author has done is a bad forming of paraphrasing, and under the definition I've worked with on plagiarism, paraphrasing without citing source material is still plagiarism. Paraphrasing, just like quoted passages, must be acknowledged. It isn't the author's original idea. It is another author's. Serving as inspiration is one thing. Serving as parts of a new text is something else entirely.

I guess I'll always flinch when it comes to the concept of plagiarism. Too many years held under a severe punishment if it ever happened. And to me, it's a question of ethics. I want my stories to be all my words, not another author's. As for citing my resources, gladly, happily, and enthusiastically. I love to share my inspiration and the brilliance of others. One of my favorite things about writing historical fiction is the chance to read non-fiction sources and share them with others.

BTW, just got an awesome book on Victorian home life called Inside the Victorian Home by Judith Flanders. I love researching!

PS, Kami, you've read one of the author's books. Does Savage Moon ring any bells?

UPDATE: Looks like the publisher is taking this more seriously than they first acknowledged. But what I find even more amazing is the amount of discussion this is generating between blogs with readers and writers. And I love how the black-footed ferret is getting some well-deserved help because of it all. I didn't realize you could adopt a wild ferret. Guess what TC is getting for St. Valentine's Day.

Copied, Right?

If you are all like me, then copyright is a murky swamp full of legalese and snakes. And mosquitoes. And possibly leeches.

So anytime I see an article about copyright, I jump. Typically, the articles are all about the poor author and how someone tried to run off with the original content. Last week, however, I found this article on J.K. Rowling and how she should lose her copyright lawsuit against the Harry Potter Lexicon's intent on publishing their version of an encyclopedia of the Potterverse.

I think I agree with the logic behind the argument of creation versus content. The folks at the Lexicon aren't creating new material; they are organizing the material trawled from Rowling's books. The argument on consumerism is a viable one, too.

However, as an author, I can't help but cringe a little at the thought of someone Not Me going through one of my 'verses and building a book out of it. What if they get it wrong? What if they misinterpret what is there?

Then again, the thought of someone else keeping detailed records of my 'verses has a happy feeling to it. I know many authors (MZB, Elizabeth Peters) who have kept assistance, and I can't help but think part of their job was indexing.

Don't get me wrong, I love indexing. I was made for indexing. But that is as much of a job as the actual writing and one that would get me into trouble if I succumbed to it.

But an encyclopedia made by someone else after the fact? Online content versus hard copy (i.e. paid for) content? This is interesting copyright territory, and I'm not surprised to find Rowling's the one at the helm of the debate. And it isn't the same as the silly fanfic author who self-published a fanfic piece and put it on Amazon to sell (how many kinds of stupid is that?).

So where does creation end and organizing begin? How do I reckon consumerism versus the ownership of working my own material myself? Do I side with Rowling or the Lexicon or both?

The are so many scary issues going on with online content and copyright. This one, at least, I could wrap my brain around.

Creation: writing new material
Organizing: working existing material into indexed form
Consumerism: necessary evil
Ownership: write one myself to add to the competition
Side with: Rowling in spirit, Lexicon in law