My position on so-called "fan fiction" is pretty well known. I'm against it, for a variety of reasons that I've stated previously more than once. I won't repeat 'em here
( Read more... )
Personally, I love the stance Charlie Stross has on fan fiction:
"I do not mind you writing fanfic using my characters and sharing it with your friends unless you do so in a manner that f**s with my ability to earn a living. . . . I am not a precious sparkly unicorn who is obsessed with the purity of his characters - rather, I am a glittery and avaricious dragon who is jealous of his steaming pile of gold. If you do not steal the dragon's gold, the dragon will leave you alone. Offer to bring the dragon more gold and the dragon will be your friend.As well, JK Rowling, of course, who said that as long young people are encouraged to write, she's happy, though, of course, as long as they don't try to make money off it
( ... )
I'm not so sure about the illegality of fanfics. Fanfics use the "world" an author created, which is a concept, an idea. However, copyright law is not supposed to apply to ideas, only to the words themselves. Unusual names however, you might be able to defend infringement on the copyright and as trademarks.
As for Marion Zimmer Bradley, her failure might have been to be actively reading the facfics. In copyright law, you have to prove that the "copy" is indeed a copy and not only someone arriving at the same result in a completely separate process. ie: if you write something and it never leaves your computer, you can't sue someone who used the exact same words as they would not have been able to copy your work in the first place.
They use the worlds and of characters, generally. Either way, this makes them a derivative of the original product. At Chilling Effects, their section on fan fiction has this:
" The owner also can stop someone from (5) creating "derivative works". A derivative work is a new work based on someone else's intellectual property. A sequel to a movie, Rocky IX for example, is a derivative work."
There's an argument that fan fiction is "transformative" and therefore can fall under a fair use exemption, but I myself am fairly dubious about this.
BTW, the selection of Rocky in the above quote is not coincidence. Sylvester Stallone successfully sued someone who wrote a proposed Rocky sequel without permission. The court found sufficiently developed characters in and of themselves are afforded copyright protection.
I tend to agree with Diana on most of her points, and while I've read one or two pieces of fanfic, it's never really held my attention. I'd rather have the originating author weave the stories for his/her characters.
At the end of the day it all comes down to respect. Which seems to get lost in the great big internet void. Some authors like fanfic - great. Enjoy turning their stuff into fanfic. Other authors don't like fanfic - respect it and don't do it.
It's really quite simple and it's just too bad that not everyone believes/understands that respect is important. It doesn't matter if you're dealing with your grandma or your favorite author/singer/etc or the waitress at your neighborhood diner, simple respect for others goes a long way.
The reasons you list are good enough for me on the subject of Fan Fiction, but I'm writing this to ask about "fair use" and The Armageddon Rag - I suspect the long list of songs "used with permission" in the front is the source of your education here?
(And, slightly off-topic, but slightly not, if someone wanted to create a Nazgul tribute album, how would they go about doing so? Where would a song like "Elf Rock" - mentioned, but with no lyrics - fall in the "Fan Fic/Filk" good versus evil dichotomy?)
Just for clarification, your objection is purely legal? I didn't get the sense that you thought there was anything wrong with using someone else's characters on an intellectual level. But with copyright law as it currently stands, there's no way to let someone else use your characters without giving up some amount of rights to them.
As I tried to suggest in the "children" portion of my post, there is a deep emotional connection between a writer and his characters. Reading other people's versions of them, and seeing them saying and doing things they would never say or do, would disturb me. How MUCH it would disturb me would depend on exactly what they were saying and doing, and how wrong it was.
Characters as the author's childrendivtbMay 8 2010, 04:11:22 UTC
I'm interested in this one point. I can see why you would be disturbed by other people's versions of your characters (and, personally, I wouldn't want to read them). But are you saying that one reason people shouldn't write fan fiction of your work is because you find that kind of fiction offensive?
On the legal aspect -- if I remember correctly, trademarks expire if undefended. Not copyright. Indeed Peter and Paul and Nancy could be left thoroughly alone and still you could unleash a +1 Vorpal Lawyer at Ripoff Publishing and win soundly. (The mandatory disclaimer: IANAL but took intellectual property 101 as part of my studies. Ages ago.)
Please understand I'm not pointing this out to be contrary. I thought the flaw (if I'm not mistaken!) needlessly weakened the overall argument.
Comments 398
"I do not mind you writing fanfic using my characters and sharing it with your friends unless you do so in a manner that f**s with my ability to earn a living. . . . I am not a precious sparkly unicorn who is obsessed with the purity of his characters - rather, I am a glittery and avaricious dragon who is jealous of his steaming pile of gold. If you do not steal the dragon's gold, the dragon will leave you alone. Offer to bring the dragon more gold and the dragon will be your friend.As well, JK Rowling, of course, who said that as long young people are encouraged to write, she's happy, though, of course, as long as they don't try to make money off it ( ... )
Reply
As for Marion Zimmer Bradley, her failure might have been to be actively reading the facfics. In copyright law, you have to prove that the "copy" is indeed a copy and not only someone arriving at the same result in a completely separate process. ie: if you write something and it never leaves your computer, you can't sue someone who used the exact same words as they would not have been able to copy your work in the first place.
Reply
" The owner also can stop someone from (5) creating "derivative works". A derivative work is a new work based on someone else's intellectual property. A sequel to a movie, Rocky IX for example, is a derivative work."
There's an argument that fan fiction is "transformative" and therefore can fall under a fair use exemption, but I myself am fairly dubious about this.
BTW, the selection of Rocky in the above quote is not coincidence. Sylvester Stallone successfully sued someone who wrote a proposed Rocky sequel without permission. The court found sufficiently developed characters in and of themselves are afforded copyright protection.
Reply
At the end of the day it all comes down to respect. Which seems to get lost in the great big internet void.
Some authors like fanfic - great. Enjoy turning their stuff into fanfic.
Other authors don't like fanfic - respect it and don't do it.
It's really quite simple and it's just too bad that not everyone believes/understands that respect is important. It doesn't matter if you're dealing with your grandma or your favorite author/singer/etc or the waitress at your neighborhood diner, simple respect for others goes a long way.
Reply
(And, slightly off-topic, but slightly not, if someone wanted to create a Nazgul tribute album, how would they go about doing so? Where would a song like "Elf Rock" - mentioned, but with no lyrics - fall in the "Fan Fic/Filk" good versus evil dichotomy?)
Reply
Reply
Reply
As I tried to suggest in the "children" portion of my post, there is a deep emotional connection between a writer and his characters. Reading other people's versions of them, and seeing them saying and doing things they would never say or do, would disturb me. How MUCH it would disturb me would depend on exactly what they were saying and doing, and how wrong it was.
Reply
Reply
On the legal aspect -- if I remember correctly, trademarks expire if undefended. Not copyright. Indeed Peter and Paul and Nancy could be left thoroughly alone and still you could unleash a +1 Vorpal Lawyer at Ripoff Publishing and win soundly. (The mandatory disclaimer: IANAL but took intellectual property 101 as part of my studies. Ages ago.)
Please understand I'm not pointing this out to be contrary. I thought the flaw (if I'm not mistaken!) needlessly weakened the overall argument.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
There's probably many authors who have no problem with it. Maybe they should stick to writing in those worlds.
Reply
Leave a comment