(Untitled)

[pnh]

I'll give Keith DeCandido credit for one thing: he understands that writing doesn't become "professional" just because a professional does it. I assume that he also understands the implication: "pro" and "fan" are terms for things that we do, not things that we are

Comments

[kradical]

Thank you for your first paragraph, since far too many people who've entered the discussion on my LJ have conveniently ignored it. (My favorite is what gschnitzer said: "when Kobe Bryant goes down to the local rec center to play some pick-up games with some buddies, it doesn't automatically become a professional NBA game simply because Kobe Bryant is a professional basketball player--no matter how well he plays that day--or no matter how many professional players he has tagging along with him to play.")

Regarding my first silly thing, I never said, "that SFWA ought not to have done this when no works of professionally-written media tie-in fiction have ever made the final ballot." Not once. What I did say, and which I maintain, is that it's silly that this makes the final ballot when tie-ins have never been able to sniff the prelim ballot. But then, the only way that will change is through the same type of grass-rootsing (I just made that word up) that got "WEaT" on the ballot in the first place. But I never said "ought" -- I was bemoaning the

[pnh]

I'm entirely in favor of "protection of copyright," and of the kind of civil society in which one can count on fair play for individuals and enterprises alike. I think most of SFWA would sign off on such a sentiment. It doesn't follow that, absent evidence of anyone claiming to be wronged by "World Enough and Time," SFWA is obliged to police the business arrangements of the film's creators. Evidently enough SFWAns liked the script well enough to put it on the final ballot. Absent a bloody shirt, and particularly considering the revelation that the letter of the rules was met, it would seem Capobianco did the right thing.

I certainly agree that it would be best if the "professional" caveat were to be struck from the rules. It doesn't serve any obviously useful purpose.

[kradical]

Good points, both.

[affinity8]

The Nebula recognizes creative achievement regardless of who owns the copyright. I don't see how a script's creative achievement depends on who owns the copyright any more than a tie-in novel's creative achievement depends on who owns the copyright.

Perhaps the rules could be amended so that the only person who can be nominated is the author who owns the copyright. But that's not the case now.

Also, it's not as if the copyright owner in this case has complained, has he/she/it?

Exactly!

[theotherbaldwin]

Thank you.

[drplokta]

It is up to an individual copyright holder to decide how to protect their copyrights, not you or SFWA, whether the copyright holder is a large corporation or a single individual. This is the same misapprehension as caused the Burt takedown notice controversy a few months ago. The very most that SFWA, or anyone else, should do (unless they have been explicitly requested to assist the copyright holder in enforcement of their copyrights) is to inform the copyright holder of any apparent breach of their copyrights of which they may be unaware -- which is clearly not the case in this instance.