Month: April 2005

One of the interesting things that has come out of the fanfiction debate here are the startling misconceptions some people have about how copyright applies to intellectual property.  Here’s a sampling of views about copyright expressed here over the last few days by fanfiction authors and fans…

a) If the copyright to a book, movie, or TV series  is owned by a corporation rather than an individual, it’s  "a shared world" and therefore belongs to everybody.

No
single person DOES own those characters, or that world, and different
writers may portray characters differently. These are shared worlds
with input that ranges from producer to screen writer to director to
actors, or writer to artist to inker to series editor. We’re *not*
dealing with the vision of a single author or creator.

Here’s another expression of the same view:

It’s hard for me to have any respect for corporations that have no problem with plagiarism as long as it makes them money. Companies and publishers don’t really give a shit as long as they’re
making money, and it’s despicable that they usually get more protection
(and money) than the original creator. Personally, when it comes to the copyright mess, I don’t give a fuck
about the laws–I care more about what the original creator’s opinion.
Feel free to care about the will of the corporations and publishers,
too, but really, it’s not their property.

b) If the characters/stories/worlds were created by writers/artists as work-for-hire (either for comics, TV or movies), copyright protections do not apply.

These are DC characters we’re talking about here. The actual
creators of the characters? Have absolutely no rights to them. Want to
talk about disrespect? Let’s talk about a company that takes the
copyright from the creators and makes money off of it. The authors have
already been stripped of their rights by DC. In the end, who cares about copyright?

c)  Copyright only protects the writers from others making money off their work. Otherwise, people can do whatever they like with the authors characters, stories, etc.:

The thing is you can’t possess ideas. Copyright law protects your right
to make money off your ideas for a certain length of time. It does not
protect your idea from being taken, developped further, twisted,
caricatured, or simply taken into another direction if no monetary
purpose is linked to that.

d) Since the original work (book, movie, TV episode) isn’t altered, copyright isn’t violated.

since fanfic writers never pretend to have created the characters in
question, nor do they profit from sharing their stories, what exactly
are they stealing? How can something be thought of as stolen if it
never left the owner’s possession to begin with?

e) Copyright is pointless because all creative work is derivative.

Authors steal from each other all the time. Some are embarrassed
about it. Most of us get over that and recognize that — if we are
LUCKY — we’ll have one or two really original ideas in our entire
lives, and that even THOSE will have built upon other people’s worki.
Most of what we write will be taken from something or someone else. 

So, in short — don’t be ridiculous. And that goes triple for the
publishers, MPAA, and all the other people out there becoming
anal-retentive on these topics.

If you’re a writer, regardless of how you feel about fanfiction, these misconceptions about copyright are pretty scary… especially when you consider these are people who might some day vote on changes to copyright law in the future. For instance:

And all those slash stories and other "warping" of the characters is
simply AU (Alternate Universe stories). I don’t like them all, but I
defend their right to exist. I wish the trademark laws can be changed
to take the legal stigma off fan fic.

Or, as another poster put it:

Since the rules of copyright keep changing, I don’t think it is wrong
or futile to contemplate changing them further, in a direction
different than the one they have been taking recently. And using
familiar characters who are already part of the public consciousness
does not strike me as wrong per se, especially in a not-for-profit
situation.

Gee, I wonder what different direction that would be? Providing even fewer protections for artists? Why do you suppose there is so little respect for protecting an artist’s right to control how his work is published, broadcast, used or altered?

There was a big feature in today’s Los Angeles Times Calender section about Walter Mosley —  his Easy Rawlins mystery LITTLE SCARLET has been chosen as the first book in  LA’s ambitious "One Book, One City"  program.

For the entire month of April, Angelenos will be encouraged to read the "Little
Scarlet" book, stepping into Easy Rawlins’ shoes, which will take them back to
1965 Los Angeles to sort through the debris of the Watts riots.

All
manner of city-sponsored events are scheduled — from library discussions and
drop-in signings to a town meeting session and a bus tour of Easy Rawlins’ L.A.
The roster is so extensive (even Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton
wants to meet with him) that Mosley, who now makes his home in New York, will be
moving into an apartment in town for a sizable portion of the month so he can
participate.

Out of ALL the books written about LA by Los Angelenos, they chose a mystery novel (and a fine one at that) as a reflection of our city. You’d think this would send a strong message to Steve Wasserman, editor of the LA Times Book Review, about how important mystery novels are to LA readers and how, in many ways, they are an integral part of the our local literary  culture and heritage. 

You wouldn’t know from reading the LA Times Book Review, of course, where mysteries and thrillers are given scant attention at best…grudgingly.  A local newspaper is supposed to reflect the interests, culture, and issues of the community it serves…as well as inform, entertain, and provoke.  The numbingly dull Book Review is written for some mythical populace of transplanted East Coast snobs who believe the books on LA Times bestseller list (which is regularly dominated by mysteries and thrillers) reflect the reading tastes of illiterate  heathens who need to be educated.

I’m pleased that "One Book, One City" has inaugerated their program by not only choosing to honor a mystery writer… but the latest book in a long-running series. 

Every day there’s a new, sickening revelation in the Michael Jackson case…not about the singer, but about the repugnant parents and guardians of the boys he’s alleged to have sexually abused.  It’s not like the parentsy didn’t know what was going on… in fact, it appears from their testimony that they gladly traded their children for money, jewelry, trips and the opportunity to be near a celebrity. Take the testimony recounted in today’s LA Times story for example. Here are some excerpts:

The mother of a 13-year-old boy who accused Michael Jackson of molesting him in
1993 described how a sobbing and trembling Jackson talked her into allowing her
son to share his bed dozens of times, at home and on vacations to Monaco,
Florida, Las Vegas and New York.

The mother said she refused to let her son sleep with Jackson during earlier
visits to the singer’s Neverland ranch, but permitted him to stay in Jackson’s
room that night. The next day, Jackson took the family to a show and gave the
mother a Cartier bracelet, she said.

For the next several months, Jackson
and the boy were frequent companions, the mother said. The pop star traveled to
the family’s Santa Monica home and slept with the boy about 30 times, she said.
He would leave when the boy went to school and return after school, she said.
She also said she let him sleep with Jackson during unaccompanied visits to
Neverland in the Santa Ynez Valley.

Jackson also continued to shower the
mother with gifts, she said, including more jewelry and a $7,000 gift
certificate to the Fred Segal boutique. He also gave her his credit card to use
on shopping trips, she said.

On Monday, the mother testified that she initially didn’t think there was
anything wrong with her son sleeping with Jackson. She ended up losing custody
of the boy and has not spoken to him in 11 years, she said.

Santa Barbara
County Dist. Atty. Tom Sneddon asked whether she regretted the decision she made
to let her son start sleeping with Jackson. The woman blinked several times,
appearing to fight back tears, before answering: "Very much so."

And she wonders why her son hasn’t talked to her in 11 years… gee, could it be because she pimped him out to an alleged child molester in return for a credit card? What does she miss more, her son or the trips to Monaco?

If Jackson is found guilty, the prosecutors should go after the greedy, disgusting parents of his victim’s…