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... )
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.
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
Reply
Leave a comment