"It is better to ask forgiveness than permission"

[scarfman]

About a month ago in the Websnark blog demiurgent posted an essay proposing a project whereby several collaborators would recreate a popular serial fiction franchise "with the serial numbers filed off" (character names changed, etc.), for the purpose of taking the story in a different direction than the widely criticized one in which the author has taken it. In the comments a lot of his readers said he was out of line, and even hypocritical, for proposing such a thing but he denied the charges and stood his ground. I fell on his side of the argument though my own remarks were made rather on the basis of my support of fanfiction generally because I'm not particularly a fan of that franchise. The argument trickled on for weeks ... and I kept expecting the other side to ask me how I'd feel if someone wrote fanfiction with my characters, but no one did. Here's what I would have answered.

I don't think you'd believe I'm qualified to answer that question, because I don't think you'd believe I create my own characters. I've observed several times on my own websites that I avoid creating characters as hard as I can. Amongst the reprints on my first fanfiction site of the journal comics I drew before there was an internet, there's a couple of original characters. But only a sprinkling of those comics were produced before I began Arthur, King of Time and Space and stopped producing anything but fanfiction for the fanfiction site. I don't think there's enough material to inspire another writer to develop it further, and if there's works out there proving me wrong I'd love to read them.

Now, I did once receive a request at the AKOTAS message board from a reader who wished to develop my fanfiction universe in a project of his/her own, including the reproduction of the "triangle" caricature style I use in the cartoons on that site (and use sometimes at AKOTAS).

I replied that I haven't any problem with the borrowing of my borrowed characters, with due credit for such ideas as are mine. But I wrote that part of the reason I use the triangles is so that such work can be immediately identified as my work, by such readers as might care, and that I'd prefer his/her project use, perhaps, a style identifiable as derived from mine but not mine itself.

The reader hasn't, to my knowledge, followed up with his/her project, which is disappointing to me since I'd like to have seen what was done with it. (Especially since s/he seemed eager to develop the idea that the Doctor Who Time Lords and the Stargate Atlantis Ancients were the same people, which idea my works suggest but I never could figure out where to go with it).

Now, you may say, "What a hypocrite! That person wanted nothing more than to do with your works what you do with the works yours claim to be saluting, and you quashed it!"

But my response is: Nope, that's not what I did. Having been asked, I expressed my preference, and that's all I did. If your argument is that I was asked for permission and withheld it by writing of "preference" rather than explicitly of permission, well maybe; but that wasn't my intention and I still gave explicit permission for use of my ideas if not of my art style. (If you'd like to see for yourself, the discussion thread is here.)

In any case, as I imagine is apparent at this point in this comment, whether I'd given perimission or 'd even been asked or not, I'd be as fascinated or more to see someone produce derivative works of my works as I am when new visions of Doctor Who or King Arthur come to my attention.

Meanwhile it turns out that the story direction taken by the author of the franchise that was the subject of the Websnark essay took that direction on the basis of advice given her by Charles M. Schulz. That being the case, I have to say if I were her I'd stick to my guns too.

Edit: I suppose I ought to add that I believe, even if I disliked the direction in which an author of derivative work took my characters, I would still be fascinated; and, while I wouldn't hesitate to express my opinion in such forums as I deemed appropriate, none of them would be an argument with said author's right to do as was done.

Edit: more here.

Comments

[athelind.livejournal.com]

I don't think you'd believe I'm qualified to answer that question, because I don't think you'd believe I create my own characters.

Pffft. The AKOTAS cast are all very distinctive versions of the Arthurian characters. This Arthur is very definitely YOUR Arthur. I can see aspects of other Arthurs in him, in particular the genial guy from Camelot, who just wants to be liked and loves his wife and his best friend despite everything -- but he's very definitely YOUR Arthur.

If Lance reminds me of anyone, it's Hodge, from Criminal Minds -- and I believe you've said you don't WATCH that show.

Guenivere... well, Gwen is very comfortable being DeForest Kelly.

[(Anonymous)]

I think the whole problem comes down to incorrect terminology : the false concept of "intellectual property".

It is easy enough to show, philosophically, that the objects of the intellect cannot be held as property, because they are neither alienable nor divisible. An author certainly does have moral rights in his creations, but it is not possible to buy and sell ideas as it is things which can physically be transferred.

Governments, recognizing the public utility which arises from the progress of the arts, create special provisions for authors, in the form of limited monopolies which allow them to be paid for their work. Authors, and more to the point publishing companies, stand to make more money the less limited those monopolies are, and so seek to increase their scope.

Transferring the concepts of physical property rights, so dear to most people, to the abstract world of ideas helps them make more palatable to the public an arbitrary extension of government restrictions on commerce and personal activity. Without this idea, nobody would say "those characters belong to so-and-so, and it's morally wrong to adapt them for another use", and nobody would support a law making "attempted copyright infringement" an imprisonable offence.