Interwebs lawyers = ROTFLOL
TAUNTAUN SLEEPING BAG!!
Evangelion 2.0 teaser trailers are up.
I couldn't care two hoots about the Twilight series (saw the movie on the plane, it induced a lot of eye-rolling/malicious laughter/face-palming), but fandom_lawyers has linked to something interesting. Apparently some paranormal website (not a publishing house from what I can tell) is planning to publish -- get this -- a tribute sequel to the Twilight saga. Although the Mormon lady who wrote it was planning to continue the series past the mutant vampire foetus fourth book that got shut down when her incomplete draft was somehow leaked online leading her to take an indefinite break from writing about sparkly vampires. The tribute sequel is apparently written by some gothic webmistress of a fanfic writer, and this is what her publisher has to say about the book:
"When fictional characters become such an intricate part of the popular psyche, as is the case with the Twilight Saga, legal boundaries become blurred, and copyright laws become increasingly difficult to define. This is especially the case when actual cities like Forks and Volterra are used as the novel's settings. Such settings are not copyrightable, as they are considered public domain. Similarly, the Quileute Nation is also not copyrightable, and neither are vampire or werewolf legends. Copyright laws protect writers from unauthorized reproductions of their work, but such reproductions only include verbatim copying. Characters are only copyrightable if their creator draws them or hires an artist to draw them. Stephenie Meyer herself borrowed a great deal from previous works dealing with these mythologies."
Let's take these points one by one, shall we?
1. "When fictional characters become such an intricate part of the popular psyche ... copyright laws become increasingly difficult to define."
Copyright laws are not difficult to define. Legislation very clearly sets out what works can and cannot be copyrighted, and novels are obviously works subject to copyright. Sure, Meyer can't claim copyright over Forks or vampire and werewolf legends, but she can and obviously does claim copyright over some of her ideas and how they are expressed, and her ideas include her characters. Just because a character is popular doesn't mean it has less copyright protection. Mickey Mouse is a famous character that's been in the popular psyche for decades and you can bet your bottom dollar that he's copyrighted, namely, people can't use him unless Disney gives them a right to do so. Ditto for Spiderman, ditto for Buffy Summers, ditto for Harry Potter, etc. etc. What IS difficult to define -- and keeping strictly to US law here -- is what constitutes fair use of those characters. It's not even 'increasingly difficult' to define, it's always been somewhat difficult to define.
2. "Copyright laws protect writers from unauthorized reproductions of their work, but such reproductions only include verbatim copying."
I'm guessing they're getting this from the recent decision in the Harry Potter Lexicon case which held that yes, the Lexicon as proposed by RDR Books and Vander Ark was not fair use as it used too much of Rowling's work verbatim. (Did you know the Lexicon got published after being rewritten to take into account the court's concerns? :P) That aside, that statement = FAIL. Yes, under the third element of fair use in United States law you can use a portion of a work and be excused under fair use, but it has been recognised in caselaw that even if you only use a small fraction of a work, if that fraction is the "heart" of the work then that small fraction is substantial and your derivative work will be considered infringement. Taking Meyer's entire cast of characters and world of sparkly vampires so obviously fits into this criteria it's not funny. And that's before you consider that substantiality is only one of four criteria you have to meet to get the fair use excuse. The fourth one -- effect on the work's value -- would get a lot of weight in this situation since this is technically a fifth book in the Twilight saga and therefore very likely a direct substitute for Meyer's own planned-currently-on-hiatus book. Substitution has already been addressed by US courts and they don't like it.
3. "Characters are only copyrightable if their creator draws them or hires an artist to draw them."
FAIL. Harry Potter existed as words on a page before someone illustrated him for the book covers and Radcliffe was cast to play him, and he damn well was copyrighted before those pictorial versions were created. Whoever was drafting this statement knows NOTHING about intellectual property law.
4. "Stephenie Meyer herself borrowed a great deal from previous works dealing with these mythologies."
And J.K. Rowling borrowed a lot of mythology to write Harry Potter. Ditto with Neil Gaiman and The Sandman series. The difference between these two and this would be Twilight tribute author is that they used and reinvented what they were borrowing to create something new.
....yes, I just did a legal analysis at 10:30 at night after a full day at work and evening masters of law class STOP STARING AT ME. Of course, this could all just be some very silly, elaborate April Fools joke -- a lot of the reference links in the original fandom_lawyers post seem to have gone -- in which case I just did all that for nothing but an intellectual exercise.
EDIT: Did some Googling to find out of some action had been taken to result in all the reference links going nowhere, and here's a possible explanation. All I can say is, that was an unsurprisingly short-lived piece of stupidity.
Evangelion 2.0 teaser trailers are up.
I couldn't care two hoots about the Twilight series (saw the movie on the plane, it induced a lot of eye-rolling/malicious laughter/face-palming), but fandom_lawyers has linked to something interesting. Apparently some paranormal website (not a publishing house from what I can tell) is planning to publish -- get this -- a tribute sequel to the Twilight saga. Although the Mormon lady who wrote it was planning to continue the series past the mutant vampire foetus fourth book that got shut down when her incomplete draft was somehow leaked online leading her to take an indefinite break from writing about sparkly vampires. The tribute sequel is apparently written by some gothic webmistress of a fanfic writer, and this is what her publisher has to say about the book:
"When fictional characters become such an intricate part of the popular psyche, as is the case with the Twilight Saga, legal boundaries become blurred, and copyright laws become increasingly difficult to define. This is especially the case when actual cities like Forks and Volterra are used as the novel's settings. Such settings are not copyrightable, as they are considered public domain. Similarly, the Quileute Nation is also not copyrightable, and neither are vampire or werewolf legends. Copyright laws protect writers from unauthorized reproductions of their work, but such reproductions only include verbatim copying. Characters are only copyrightable if their creator draws them or hires an artist to draw them. Stephenie Meyer herself borrowed a great deal from previous works dealing with these mythologies."
Let's take these points one by one, shall we?
1. "When fictional characters become such an intricate part of the popular psyche ... copyright laws become increasingly difficult to define."
Copyright laws are not difficult to define. Legislation very clearly sets out what works can and cannot be copyrighted, and novels are obviously works subject to copyright. Sure, Meyer can't claim copyright over Forks or vampire and werewolf legends, but she can and obviously does claim copyright over some of her ideas and how they are expressed, and her ideas include her characters. Just because a character is popular doesn't mean it has less copyright protection. Mickey Mouse is a famous character that's been in the popular psyche for decades and you can bet your bottom dollar that he's copyrighted, namely, people can't use him unless Disney gives them a right to do so. Ditto for Spiderman, ditto for Buffy Summers, ditto for Harry Potter, etc. etc. What IS difficult to define -- and keeping strictly to US law here -- is what constitutes fair use of those characters. It's not even 'increasingly difficult' to define, it's always been somewhat difficult to define.
2. "Copyright laws protect writers from unauthorized reproductions of their work, but such reproductions only include verbatim copying."
I'm guessing they're getting this from the recent decision in the Harry Potter Lexicon case which held that yes, the Lexicon as proposed by RDR Books and Vander Ark was not fair use as it used too much of Rowling's work verbatim. (Did you know the Lexicon got published after being rewritten to take into account the court's concerns? :P) That aside, that statement = FAIL. Yes, under the third element of fair use in United States law you can use a portion of a work and be excused under fair use, but it has been recognised in caselaw that even if you only use a small fraction of a work, if that fraction is the "heart" of the work then that small fraction is substantial and your derivative work will be considered infringement. Taking Meyer's entire cast of characters and world of sparkly vampires so obviously fits into this criteria it's not funny. And that's before you consider that substantiality is only one of four criteria you have to meet to get the fair use excuse. The fourth one -- effect on the work's value -- would get a lot of weight in this situation since this is technically a fifth book in the Twilight saga and therefore very likely a direct substitute for Meyer's own planned-currently-on-hiatus book. Substitution has already been addressed by US courts and they don't like it.
3. "Characters are only copyrightable if their creator draws them or hires an artist to draw them."
FAIL. Harry Potter existed as words on a page before someone illustrated him for the book covers and Radcliffe was cast to play him, and he damn well was copyrighted before those pictorial versions were created. Whoever was drafting this statement knows NOTHING about intellectual property law.
4. "Stephenie Meyer herself borrowed a great deal from previous works dealing with these mythologies."
And J.K. Rowling borrowed a lot of mythology to write Harry Potter. Ditto with Neil Gaiman and The Sandman series. The difference between these two and this would be Twilight tribute author is that they used and reinvented what they were borrowing to create something new.
....yes, I just did a legal analysis at 10:30 at night after a full day at work and evening masters of law class STOP STARING AT ME. Of course, this could all just be some very silly, elaborate April Fools joke -- a lot of the reference links in the original fandom_lawyers post seem to have gone -- in which case I just did all that for nothing but an intellectual exercise.
EDIT: Did some Googling to find out of some action had been taken to result in all the reference links going nowhere, and here's a possible explanation. All I can say is, that was an unsurprisingly short-lived piece of stupidity.