Intellectual Property and Originality in literature
In 1954, William Golding composed the groundbreaking novel entitled The Lord of Flies. The composition illustrates the progression of events that lead a group of English boys, who become stranded on an Island during World War II, on a journey through the human descent into savagery when civilization is removed from culture. At the closure of the novel, there is but one character left that has kept some piece of his sanity, Ralph:
"Ralph crashed down through the dense crowds of trees – the branches and sharp twigs slam into the sides of his skin, grazing merciless scratches over his arms and legs, drawing tiny specks of blood that oozed through his fair skin and melted down onto the ground. He was exhausted, his lungs were screaming for a breath of air, and his feet were severely scratched, but he didn't stop. He couldn't. Behind him, another bush burst into flames. Ralph gasped, desperate to break free of the shackles of smoke, and stumbled through the forsaken jungle, blind and weak and frightened."
Ralph runs from Jack Merridew and his impending death through dense brush and soggy earth until, by chance, he manages to break through to the sandy beach where he collapses from exhaustion. Unnoticed, a naval officer peers down at Ralph, and when he learns what has happened asks himself, how could this group of boys, and English boys at that—have lost all reverence for the rules of civilization in so short a time and a significant message now left behind:
"For a moment he (Ralph) had a fleeting picture of the strange glamour that had once invested the beaches. But the island was scorched up like dead wood—Simon was dead—and Jack had... The tears began to flow and sobs shook him. He gave himself up to them now for the first time on the island; great, shuddering spasms of grief that seemed to wrench his whole body." (Golding 290)
The two passages above, however similar, do not share authors. While the second passage was in fact taken from Golding’s writing – chapter twelve, “Cry of the Hunters” – the first passage’s text is actually taken from chapter one, “The First day of Death” from the Lord of the Flies fan fiction novel Inhuman – its author, Arapat.
Fan fiction
Fan fiction is a recreation or retelling of an original work that creates a new work of literature. Inhuman creates a new adaption of the classic novel and while it may not possess newly derived characters or settings it does have a semblance of novelty. In her adaptation, Arapat introduces an alternative and original ending to Lord of the Flies, one where Ralph has no savior and is captured, tortured, and made slave by Jack. Arapat discusses in her introduction how she develops her storyline based on twists in correlation with underlying themes she felt Golding hinted at but did not develop, when she read the original novel, one being "Jacks obsession with Ralph" (Arapat, 6 November 2010).
Copyright Law
Fan fiction brings up a tricky situation with copyright and intellectual property. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, intellectual property refers to all creations of the mind: “inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce” (WIPO, 2010). Fan fiction in itself is a violation of copyright because what many authors and creators do not realize is that copyright law grants the copyright holder the exclusive right to create derivative works based on an original one. Therefore, all works of fan fiction are a legal matter regardless of their status of originality.
Worldwide, copyright laws are designed to protect original works; however, ‘original’ in copyright has an open meaning. In “Creative Determinism and the right to Intellectual Property,” Rita Risser describes copyright’s definition of an original work as simply meaning, “a work that originated with the individual in question, and that it has not been copied from another,” (Risser 358, 2010). Risser explains, “Original in copyright does not mean novel. Nor does copy mean exact likeness,” (Risser 358).
This suggests that two works can be practically identical in content, but not copied from the other. Copyright law states that “the plaintiff does not have a right that no other expressions may look like his or her own, he or she only has the right that others may not make unauthorized copies of his or her expressions,” (Risser 358). These regulations of copyright law give reason to believe that it is acceptable to create derivative works when no plagiarism is involved in its creation. In examination of Inhuman, Arapat did in fact break the copyright law of The Lord of the Flies by making a derivative work. Conversely, her work also meets the requirements of being original in correlation with the conditions set in the same copyrights.
Public Domain
When copyrighted works enter public domain, the legality battle becomes something more complex. While it is now legally acceptable to create new works derived from the original, one must ask is it ethically acceptable as well? In “When Does a Book Become Public Domain,” Christy Rakoczy discusses that there are many advantages for the public when works become public domain (Rakoczy, 2010). This “enables individuals to take works and change them, innovating classics and so forth”. Re-tellings are common in the works of authors like Shakespeare and Jane Austen, and often spark new interests and many become more popular than the original.
Plagiarism
In “It’s ‘Mixing, Not Plagiarism” Nicholas Kulish discusses how a 17 year-old author, Helene Hegemann, wrote and published the book, Axolotl Roadkill, in which at least one full page was plagiarized from the less popular book, Strobo (Kulish, 11 February 2010). Hegemann claims that “mixing information” is part of what her generation is about and that “there is no such thing as originality anyway, just authenticity,” (Kulish). The book itself was selected as a finalist for the Leipzig Book Fair. The judges were aware of the plagiarism charges before they made the selection but still selected the book; one jury member said, “I believe it’s part of the concept of the book,” (Kulish). Kulish discusses that even with the uproar over the authenticity of Hegemann’s book, sales did not appear to diminish but grew and influenced sales of Strobo.
In examining the concept that originality does not exist, Hegemann is inferring that originality is out of grasp because all concepts have been developed in previous works. If originality in fact does not exist, the question then becomes how to use others ideas without plagiarizing them. An important concept to grasp is the difference between borrowing ideas for inspiration and plagiarism. While Hegemann may make an argument about originality, it is clear that she lifted the words from another writer thus committing plagiarism. At the same time, the jury members’ decision to select Hegemann’s book influences the idea that she was right in her actions regardless of her intentions.
While many works are influenced by other sources, this does not cause a void of originality. Research uncovers that originality is not characterized by novelty, but by the creation of works that originate with the individual in question. Works can be similar and even a progression of others’ creative ideas and be considered original. In literature, fan fiction may be a violation of copyright, but the ideas expressed within the derivative works originate within the writer in question and therefore meet the definition of originality in association with the same copyright laws. Plagiarism shows a lack of understanding, but the innovation of others ideas shows an understanding of the concepts they utilize. Originality is a philosophical idea and many people hold different opinions on what signifies originality, but what should be inferred by every idea is the concept that inspiration goes further than replication.