*glomps* I love these sorts of discussions *is also a nerd*
I have found myself having this discussion with lots of people in RL when I talk about slash and explain my dissertation topic - I tend to go down the transformative works route too (with a lean more to queer theory and the idea of homosocial desire and gender trouble than feminism) and I LOVE your response *g*. Of course the transformative works argument brings you into the fair use exemption for copyright purposes, so it's certainly not a bad one to use!
I agree with some of the comments about chan and in the HP fandom, because the target audience for canon is children, the ability to access material which has adult themes should be age locked. Although not strictly a copyright issue, this is something which could be policed on a number of grounds, including copyright, by arguing such fic impacts on the original work to the extent children looking for HP stuff and stumbling along non age restricted NC-17 fic. JKR may support fanfic but she is openly critical of sexually explicit fanfic and as an author of a series targeting a children's market, she kind of has to be.
I think the 'not for profit' aspect of fanfic is key (vidders have different issues with the copyright attached to films, so I am purely looking at fic here). Provided there is no profit being made from fanfic it could be very easy to craft a transformative works based response - working within the confines of a homonormative canon to explore issues of body image and gender trouble which are absent in canon, for example - exploring possibilities in the subtext and commenting on it through the medium of fic writing and using that fic as a form of social or political commentary.
I think the issue of copyright and fanfic is more of a US issue although it does apply in other jurisdictions, as fanfic can be seen as a derivative work. In the UK I think the usual disclaimers and not for profit approach should typically leave you covered. Interestingly authors have to be careful reading fanfiction if they are still writing a series, for fear of arguments that they may have taken someone elses idea. I would be shocked if an argument like that could succeed but to mitigate the risk, the author may choose to simply not read fanfic for that reason.
Anti-fandom authors...ugh. Yeah, that sucks. Anne Rice is the one I am most familiar with but you can also get this with stars playing the characters too (*nods at Star Trek and K/S slash*), although the creators are less damning. To see Ralph Fiennes reading Voldemort/Harry and to have Tom Felton talk about handcuffing Dan and Drapple is just too awesome - we are lucky with the way some of the stars of the films (particularly TF) interact with the fans too.
As an aside but related (loosely) to the topic of anti-fandom authors, one of the things we do have a lot of in HP is secondary canon, not to mention the bothersome epilogue...I have a lot of discussions with friends about how irritating it can be as a fan to read something into subtext and then to have secondary canon tell you that actually such and such is married and had two children and...meh. I don't count any of that as canon and ignore it, in blissful ignorance. It is the classic 'Roland Barthes - Death of the Author' analysis - whether an interpretation/analysis is flawed by the author saying 'nope, that's not right, because this is what actually happened to these characters'.
Contrast JKR with Joss Whedon here - Whedonverse is great for all things fannish because Joss supports the right of the fans to decide, to have creative license (and encourages the reading and writing of fanfic). Hence ending Buffy in such a way, and not expressly concluding the Spike/Buffy or the Angel/Buffy relationships one way or another - arguing that after all of their investment in the series he felt the fans had earned the right to choose what happened to those couples. Likewise he gave a nod to slashers by saying he could definitely see a Spike/Angel history.
Okay...I'm off my soapbox now! Thanks for posting, very interesting x
I have found myself having this discussion with lots of people in RL when I talk about slash and explain my dissertation topic - I tend to go down the transformative works route too (with a lean more to queer theory and the idea of homosocial desire and gender trouble than feminism) and I LOVE your response *g*. Of course the transformative works argument brings you into the fair use exemption for copyright purposes, so it's certainly not a bad one to use!
I agree with some of the comments about chan and in the HP fandom, because the target audience for canon is children, the ability to access material which has adult themes should be age locked. Although not strictly a copyright issue, this is something which could be policed on a number of grounds, including copyright, by arguing such fic impacts on the original work to the extent children looking for HP stuff and stumbling along non age restricted NC-17 fic. JKR may support fanfic but she is openly critical of sexually explicit fanfic and as an author of a series targeting a children's market, she kind of has to be.
I think the 'not for profit' aspect of fanfic is key (vidders have different issues with the copyright attached to films, so I am purely looking at fic here). Provided there is no profit being made from fanfic it could be very easy to craft a transformative works based response - working within the confines of a homonormative canon to explore issues of body image and gender trouble which are absent in canon, for example - exploring possibilities in the subtext and commenting on it through the medium of fic writing and using that fic as a form of social or political commentary.
I think the issue of copyright and fanfic is more of a US issue although it does apply in other jurisdictions, as fanfic can be seen as a derivative work. In the UK I think the usual disclaimers and not for profit approach should typically leave you covered. Interestingly authors have to be careful reading fanfiction if they are still writing a series, for fear of arguments that they may have taken someone elses idea. I would be shocked if an argument like that could succeed but to mitigate the risk, the author may choose to simply not read fanfic for that reason.
Anti-fandom authors...ugh. Yeah, that sucks. Anne Rice is the one I am most familiar with but you can also get this with stars playing the characters too (*nods at Star Trek and K/S slash*), although the creators are less damning. To see Ralph Fiennes reading Voldemort/Harry and to have Tom Felton talk about handcuffing Dan and Drapple is just too awesome - we are lucky with the way some of the stars of the films (particularly TF) interact with the fans too.
As an aside but related (loosely) to the topic of anti-fandom authors, one of the things we do have a lot of in HP is secondary canon, not to mention the bothersome epilogue...I have a lot of discussions with friends about how irritating it can be as a fan to read something into subtext and then to have secondary canon tell you that actually such and such is married and had two children and...meh. I don't count any of that as canon and ignore it, in blissful ignorance. It is the classic 'Roland Barthes - Death of the Author' analysis - whether an interpretation/analysis is flawed by the author saying 'nope, that's not right, because this is what actually happened to these characters'.
Contrast JKR with Joss Whedon here - Whedonverse is great for all things fannish because Joss supports the right of the fans to decide, to have creative license (and encourages the reading and writing of fanfic). Hence ending Buffy in such a way, and not expressly concluding the Spike/Buffy or the Angel/Buffy relationships one way or another - arguing that after all of their investment in the series he felt the fans had earned the right to choose what happened to those couples. Likewise he gave a nod to slashers by saying he could definitely see a Spike/Angel history.
Okay...I'm off my soapbox now! Thanks for posting, very interesting x
Reply
Leave a comment