Inspiration versus plagairism

[edward9]

When exactly does Paolini cross from inspired by to plagiarism. Dragon Lance is clearly inspired by Tolkien: elves, dwarves, half elves, kender (hobbits), goblins/hobgoblins (orcs), palantir, swords, sorcery, magic towers... but I submit it was original work (probably transcribing some one's D&D session) and not plagiarism. When is the line crossed and when does Paolini cross it?

Comments

[mara_dienne459]

I think the line was crossed the moment Paolini came out and said "It's Star Wars, but with dragons, and oh, I took a little bit from here, here, here, and there as homages, so it's okay if I copy it word for word". If he hadn't come out and said that, it would all be talk about how he did take from these sources, but we couldn't necessarily fault him for it. Looking at a variety of books (and I own a lot, from video game adaptations to obscure novels probably nobody else has ever heard of), the story is often The Hero's Journey. Thematically, structurally, all the stories are different, but they do follow a certain pattern of "hero is introduced, hero has to accomplish a task, hero makes friends/enemies, hero gets a lover, hero defeats big evil and uh-oh, there's a bigger evil to deal with (if there's sequels or a series), hero eventually wins and settles down with lover/unknown child/by themselves".

Only one book I ever read had the hero actually die in the middle of the story, leaving his wife and then eventually his son to take over in his name. It was definitely an interesting take, even though the son turned out to be evil, overarching bad guy (and, if I'm remember this right, because it's been a long time, the son was only acting in the capacity he'd been taught by the four-foot-tall elves he'd been left with, like his father before him, and all he wanted to do was escape the shadow of his father but did it in the entirely wrong way), and his mother needed to make an appearance to shut him down.

The challenge is to take something already well known and make it a wholly original idea. It's something I can honestly say that I struggle with as a writer. I have all these lovely ideas for stories that I want to tell, but they involve ideas and races that are a dime a dozen in novels that already exist. It's taking those ideas and races and writing them in a totally different way (along with using your own voice as an author and not someone else's) and to make the characters come alive in such a way that nobody looks at it and goes "This is exactly like that book".

Paolini didn't do that. I tell Mara all the time that I can forgive the first book. First attempt, he started it when he was young, etc. But in the intervening years, he could have gone back and rewrote it. Before his parents self-published it, or even when Knopf picked it up. He didn't. And the subsequent books just got worse because he stopped talking with his own voice and started trying to be someone else. After that, I think he lost sight of where he was going and just pulled from anywhere he could, even down to word-for-word copying someone else's work. It's like he stopped caring. He just wanted it over and didn't care how he did it.

[edward9]

I like the idea that it is plagiarism because Paolini said he deliberately borrowed from other works which implies if he had not openly stated this it would not be or could not be proven at any rate. It speaks to intent and while I had never considered that as a factor I think it is valid. The lack of originality along with the stated intent to borrow from other works does place it in a separate category form a poor writer writing what they know (meaning other people's work). I suppose the latter would write something more original if they could and their lack of imagination and experience produced a derivative work. Paolini states he deliberately borrowed which places a higher burden on an author to produce something original since the wrote with the intention of using others work. You point about his subsequent works further supports your claim Thank you for your interesting analysis.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you're putting too much pressure on yourself. You don't have to create something completely original. That's basically impossible anyway as through human history it's a given that any concept has already been thought of by someone else either if it's been written or exists only in someone's head. Every day on r/writing someone complains their idea is already been used, but what they don't understand is that's just a trope. Just an idea. What makes ideas and stories stand out from one another is the combination of them and the details. You can make almost any two stories sound like one another if you summarise them in the simplest way.

So you have things you want to write? Go ahead and do them! :) Use those dime a dozen races with a spin on them that makes them different enough to feel fresh without giving yourself the trouble of trying to create something completely new - that someone else has probably already thought of anyway.

[(Anonymous)]

Tropes and ideas can't be copyrighted. So that means the concept of dragon riders, elves, dwarves, a war against a tyrant, magic using true names, and killing the final villain by making him off himself don't belong to anyone. Though used famously by certain authors anyone could have come up with the same ideas without knowing. This kind of thing happens all the time. However…

Plagiarism is when actual content, in this case writing is actually copied. When the scene is beat for beat the same and even the prose and dialogue is. Paolini copied two scenes from Eddings - Eragon and Brom trying to cross a bridge and at the end with Galby's death. The way these were written goes beyond inspiration. They were directly copied, i.e, plagarised. Had those scenes been written differently then they would just have been influenced by Eddings.

-anontu

[edward9]

This second paragraph says it clearly and concisely and I agree. thanks for posting. Your point about prose and dialogue is exactly why I found Angela's character to be stolen straight from read. Although only a few quotes are stolen word for word (enough by itself) but the prose and content of the dialogue also are even when Paolini has provided the actual words.

[epistler]

It's okay to use ideas that have been done before, and not just because ideas can't be copyrighted. But if you decide to take an idea from someone else's book or movie or whatever, you have to make that idea your own. For example, as Swankivy put it, say you watch A Nightmare on Elm Street and like the idea of a monster who attacks people in their dreams. A creative person would take this idea and run with it, using their own unique take on the basic concept. A plagiarist like Paolini just changes the monster's name to "Eddy" and changes the colour of his sweater.

You can tell Paolini hasn't put his own spin on the stuff he stole, because for one thing it's all instantly recogniseable. You can tell right away where he lifted it from, because he hasn't done anything new or creative with it. The other telltale sign is that a lot of it just plain doesn't fit precisely because it's not from Alaglag - it's from Lord of the Rings or David Eddings or Star Wars.

Where he crossed the line from "creatively and morally bankrupt" into outright breaking the law, however, was when he lifted an entire scene from The Ruby Knight by David Eddings almost word for word (the bridge crossing scene). Because while you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright the text/words used to express them. If the Eddings estate had wanted to sue him for copyright infringement, they absolutely could have.

[edward9]

Nice conclusion, I can add nothing. I would like to explore the idea in the second paragraph some both being instantly recognizable and not putting his own spin on it. The first seems to give rise to the corollary if it is unrecognizable it is a lesser offense so recognizable is a greater offense. I think the popularity of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings add to the offense because they are so well known. Being so popular the plagiarism will be recognized. I do think the same sort of borrowing from an obscure source can fall under the heading of homage or reintroducing an obscure idea with the cravat it is not copied word for word. I am borrowing a line from Zelazny's excellent Lord of Light word for word as an homage. I feel this does not cross the line into plagiarism because nothing in the book the characters or the situation is in anyway similar to Lord Of Light. Nor is the line "Cultivate patience and smoke cigarettes" something only someone in Zelazny's world would say and it fits into the story unlike the Dr. Who line in Brisngr. I don't know Doctor Who but that line was interesting and seemed important and I pondered it for significance. I was disappointed and felt cheated to find it was dropped in randomly with nothing to do with the story. My line while recognizable to Lord of Light fans fits the character and the setting and is not out of place to those who have never heard of Zelazny. By comparison a line like "use the force Luke" however it is used is obviously taken from Star wars and is scene and setting specific. Unless used by a character who has seen Star Wars who is deliberately making a Star Wars reference I don't see any way that line could not be plagiarism short as it is. I think for a line to be an homage it must make sense in the setting without the source being known. Paolini uses a line about "is it scrumptious..." which is stolen from Gollum. While this could be an homage the scene is so awkward written and out of place I believe it falls into the plagiarism category.

I agree if you start out with the premise "I'm going to write a space opera like Star Wars" you better put your own spin on things. This is why Space Balls is not plagiarism despite remarkable similarities. If I may digress slightly (What? It is my post so I may. Hooray!) I came on this site in part to learn to write better. A while ago you posted a list of fantasy tropes and scored Eragon on them. The idea was the higher the score probably the worse the fantasy. Now almost by definition fantasy must use tropes or it isn't fantasy. I ran my first novel (now in the trash where all first novels belong) through that list or a similar one back when I wrote it and scored something like 1/75. I was going to use that first novel as a comparison for how bad Paolini's first novel was compared to another first novel but as I was doing so I figured that may be just be an idea to original to die so I am writing the book from scratch (the secret to improving Eragon once you have a deal with a professional publishing company Paolini). Do you know which of the side headings on this site that test got placed? I would like to run the new version through it.

Anyways, in the original novel I had a young female fighter who was a Slayer (three guesses where that came from) and for the moment the term continues to be used. These slayers are not limited to females, to one a generation and do not kill vampires. It is short for giant slayer and is open to anyone dumb enough to fight giants. This is enough to pass the original idea test I think and the rest of the setting is unique. Furthermore, had this been published before Buffy (Ohnoes! I gave the source away) no one would question the title Slayers for this group so it passes my homage test meaning it works unobtrusively without knowledge of the source. I realized though even if I had chosen this term independently of a certain television show, and I do like it likely for the same reason it was chosen for them, the term is permanently linked in the public's mind and using it will only pull the reader out of the world I am trying to create. A similar example would be using the phrase "petal to the metal" which has obvious meaning, in a stone age setting.

I think this hones in on the two great sins of plagiarism for the reader. The first is it pulls them out of the world the book is creating. The use of tropes archtypes and familiar settings is fine and many of my favorite works rely on all three. however, I feel I have found a original approach for my fantasy novel and using tropes is not only unnecessary (we will see if this is true when I finish writing it) but actually detract from the originality of the story. Plagiarism is a lack of originality on the part of the author and in fantasy there is very little else the author has to offer. A reader would be better served with a well written history book for a large Iron Age battle than with unoriginal fantasy for instance. Science fiction and fantasy that is not original in someway is worthless to the genre.

Concerning the first paragraph. Swankivy's site was the last one I read before discovering this one. She did a great job didn't she? (So do you guys.) Concerning her and your definition of plagiarism, I have long said "Tolkein ripped off the Hebrew Bible heavily enough to incur some serious copyright infringement claims," but under the example you gave he is guilty of direct plagiarism. Yet, I like Tolkein's work and he did put an original spin on most of his stolen ideas. So I can forgive him the sin of plagiarism because he fulfilled an author's primary requirement, he told an entertaining story in an original manner. This Paolini failed and his plagiarism is unforgivable.

[cmdrnemo]

Okay, are we doing this? It looks like we are doing this. This is going to be a long one. Sorry. Put some Netflix on in the background or something.

Plagiarism is not merely a literary term, it is used in academic and legal settings and therefor comes with rigid rules on what it is and is not. Artistic rules are generally meant to be played with and and pushed against by those who understand them. Rules like copyright are meant to prevent those games. They often fail. But, the goal is to pin things down hard enough to stop any wriggling about.

To check for plagiarism, vs say parody, reference, homage, allegory, etc. etc...

There are four (by four I mean 5) factors used to judge the situation.
In order of importance they are:
1. The Purpose and Character of Use.
This is the question of why are you copying this? For example education will need examples of subject material so they are required to copy certain things. How could you possibly teach a course on Shakespeare without examples of his work? Reviews and analysis of a work need to copy portions of the work to use as examples and to make points.

Non profit purposes weight in favor of fair use. For profit weighs against.
Paolini is offering no opinions on the copied work, he is simply using it to reduce his own efforts. His use is also very much for profit. The IC does not clear this first hurdle.

2. Nature of the Copyrighted Work.
This is the consideration of the source material itself. Most notably: are you pulling facts from a source of facts? Because one cannot copyright facts. If a work is considered an official source on a subject then any use of the source for information on the subject is most likely going to be given a pass. If the source was created for entertainment then it will have stronger protection.

In this case all the copied material comes from fantasy novels written expressly for entertainment. So the books in question fail to clear the second bar.

For comparison the Bible can be considered a source on facts about Christianity as a religion which gives it very little to no protection under copyright law. Even if it didn't have long since open source English translations.

3. Amount of Copyrighted Work Used.
This is the one that leads to people saying things like "use no more than 10% in your sporkings." What the actual idea is did you use as little of the source as possible? "When considering the amount and 'substantiality' of the portion taken, the court looks at not just the quantity of the material but its quality." -https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fair-use-the-four-factors.html
This one comes down to judgement but has more to do with the amount copied out of the whole work. For example using 1 page of a 2 page story is a more substantial amount of copied material than using 1 page out of To Sleep in A Sea of Sleepiness. That book is so boring it's sad. Not even fun to mock. Just so boring. This is also where we take into account questions like did you need this much of the source to make your work what it is? Using abridged anime for example. They don't work if they don't use huge quantities, sometimes even all, of the original imagery. Which means they can argue very strongly that they needed that much of the original in order to transform the original into what they have created.

Given that we can then ask: did Paolini need any of the material in order to create his work? The IC does not pass this bar either.

4. Effect of the Use on a Potential Market for the Work
The question here is: how much money did this copyright violate actually cost the original creator? This question is why Apple computers and Apple records kept fighting in court and why Apple computers won over and over until it had the cash to just buy Apple records outright several times over. I can't tell you if they did or not. It doesn't much matter.

This can be very important. If a photographer sues a sculptor for basing a sculpture on a photograph. But, the photographer has no ability to make such a sculpture. Then it is hard to argue the photographer has lost anything.

This is another thing that is often used to give fan works a pass. It can be, often is (and very strongly - sorry Anya), argued that fan created content does not detract from the potential income of the original creators and instead attracts attention to it. Supporting fan created content can result in a substantial income boost to the source material.

This is why Anne McCaffrey would happily write a quote for the back cover of Eragon. Paolini's work easily passes this bar. His status as a former home schooled kid is an in for the fantasy market into a traditionally religious conservative crowd that refused books like Narnia or LOTR on the grounds that magic was anti-biblical. This is potentially hundreds of thousands of new readers for these novels and openly supporting these books is the easiest way into this market.

At this point we get the sudden awkwardness of the situation. The plagiarism in these books is enough to infuriate fans. It is also enough to win a lawsuit if anyone involved chose to pursue that option. However, winning that lawsuit not as good a strategy as not suing in the first place is.

Recently a fifth factor has come into play.

5. Transformative Use
Does this work change the nature and form of the source material? This is what lets people get away with things like abridged anime. They may exclusively use stolen artwork, but most will transform the work into an entirely new product while also parodying the original. With many the changes are so substantial that the creators would be unlikely to win a lawsuit if they should try.

For his copied material does Paolini transform the nature of the stolen work? No. Not at all. Not only is the text copied with only minor tweaks, the context, results, and market audience are all virtually the same. His purpose is clearly not transformative. It is instead used to reduce the effort needed for his own product. So, in my never humble opinion his work fails to hurdle this fifth bar.

A few sources because I don't want to slam this much out here pretending to be all factual without at least a little bit of cardboard to hold it up.
https://www.lib.umn.edu/copyright/fairuse
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. Don't go quoting me if you get sued. It is not going to help you.

By this point it should be fairly clear why Tolkien and Paolini are in the positions they are in. Also why quoting from one source is plagiarism but quoting from many sources is research.

[(Anonymous)]

Wow. Thanks for that reply. I had never considered other than in the vaguest way the legal definition of plagiarism. I think you have amply demonstrated Paolini's work is plagiarism by any definition. This was quite interesting to read. Thank you.