When an entire fan-works culture is based upon borrowing the creations of others, as the basis for one's own, how far should you go in giving credit? Or in gaining permission? It merits considerable thought.

A current discussion at the PPMB has one fan artist being criticized, in varying degrees, for unknowingly using fan art by Liliane Grenier as the basis for his own piece.

Some thought it a courtesy to at least acknowledge the fan-works source. Others saw anything short of gaining that artist's permission to be inadequate. The current artist has chosen to make a general apology to other fans and has taken down his piece, at least for the time being.

I have to wonder at this. Many in Dariadom apparently know Ms. Grenier (who doesn't seem to have been active or reachable recently). Many more respect her fan artworks, and -- I would say -- with good reason.

Yet none of the works using "Daria" characters, verbally or visually, have involved obtaining the permission of Glenn Eichler and the other writers and animators on the original series. All borrow from their creations freely.

The consensus, in this and all other fandoms, is that this becomes a benign tribute to the originals, and that their consent is neither feasible nor, frankly, even necessary.

Why, I've wondered, does no one suggest that those creators be contacted for their more general moral or symbolic consent? Could part of this have to do with their being more distant and having worked for a corporation (here, Viacom) in creating the original series? Is it easier to be concerned about Ms. Grenier's permission because she's a fellow fan?

Apart from matters of personal knowledge and affinity, we have legalities. Not all fan works, by any means, even note in passing the copyright and trademark rights of MTV, and that the fan creator didn't seek its permission. That credit may be awkward to add, it may end up being a mere legal incantation, but it's an act of courtesy, isn't it? (We added such a note to this Blog recently.)

"Daria" fan works in general exist in "fair use" gray areas of copyright and trademark laws. And by the benign indifference of MTV, which doesn't want to make a public-relations nightmare, or doesn't see it worth their lawyers' time, to insist that they be removed from the Net.

(If MTV wanted to do so, all fan sites could be shut down at its request tomorrow, under the highly unbalanced Digital Millennium Copyright Act. We should never forget that.)

We who create fan works would do better in not insisting on other fans doing more, in matters of gaining consent, than we're willing to do ourselves.

If giving passing respect and mention to Eichler & Co. is sufficient for borrowing their creations, a similar credit ought to be enough to give for our borrowing from other fans' works. Anything more than that, if possible, would be a personal courtesy, and not morally required.

That may not be what we'd prefer to see, but it would be more consistent. Fandoms sit on a large pile of derivative works that have no explicit legal sanction. Deriving in turn from those same works just builds that pyramid higher, and doesn't really change its nature.

Your thoughts are welcome, either in the comments area or -- if you want to send longer ones along for posting -- by e-mail.