There’s an interesting article in Reason Magazine about fanfic. The only problem with it is that the writer Cathy Young completely misrepresents my views on the topic.
The vehemently anti-fanfic writer Lee Goldberg, who blogs at
leegoldberg.com, is the author of several authorized novels based on
the TV shows Monk and Diagnosis Murder—a contradiction he defends on the grounds that he does it only for the money.
So I wrote a letter to the editor:
A number of people have sent me Cathy Young’s thoughtful and
interesting article
about fanfiction. I have written extensively on my blog about
fanfiction, particularly my view that the practice of publishing it in
print and on the Internet infringes on the original author’s creative
rights (not to mention the trademark and copyright issues). I’ve argued
that fanfiction writers should get the permission of the author or
rights holder before distributing their work. If the original author or
rights holder has no problem with fanfiction based on their work,
then I don’t either. I have also said that licensed tie-in fiction,
which I have written, differs significantly on ethical and legal
grounds from
fanfiction because it is done with the consent, participation and
supervision of the original author or rights holder. At no point have I
*ever* expressed the views that she incorrectly (and I have to assume
deliberately) attributed to me. It’s a shame, because her article would
have been far more informative, and fair, if she’d bothered to
accurately reflect my actual opinions on the subject.I look forward to seeing a correction in the next issue of REASON.
Do you think they will have the journalistic integrity to run a correction? Or should I assume that they have the same standards for accuracy as Cathy Young?
UPDATE 2-8-07: Cathy Young has responded to my email and still misses the point. I’m not surprised. She argues that because I said I wouldn’t have written the MONK books unless I was hired to do so proves her argument that I believe the only difference between fanfic and tie-in work is that I’m getting paid for it. I replied:
I want to thank you for your lengthy follow-up to my email. While I
stand by everything you’ve quoted this time (accurately, I should say),
I still take issue with your statement above. I have never said that I
write them only for the money. While it’s true that I’ve said I
wouldn’t have written the MONK or DM novels unless I was hired to do
so, I don’t think getting paid is what separates fanfiction (the theft
of an authors’ work without his or her permissions) from licensed
tie-ins or other derivative works that respect the original authors
creative and legal rights. It’s not PAY that is the defining element —
it’s PERMISSION. Fanficcers routinely and blithely disrespect an
author’s creative and legal rights on the grounds that they aren’t
getting paid for their work.
She also makes the same old, weak excuses for not seeking permission before publishing fanfiction. Like other fanficcers, she takes no responsibility for violating the creative and legal rights of authors and rights holders — instead, she believes the burden should be placed on authors or rights holders to issue a blanket approval or disapproval of fanfiction (not that fanficcers would honor such a statement anyway). Sadly, her bitter disrespect for creative rights, trademark and copyright are all-too-common among the fanfiction community.
UPDATE 2-8-07: My brother Tod enters the fray.
It was an interesting article and Lee was just a tiny portion of it…which makes her following screed
a rather odd ancillary argument as it would appear she’s more angered
that Lee dislikes fan fiction (and more angered about Lee in general,
as a human and as a hack) than apologetic that she misrepresented his
well-known views, which is fine. People the world over hate Lee, but in
the space of her story in Reason the inclusion of Lee at all was odd,
but is now grossly apparent: She thinks he’s a dick and wanted the
world to know, just in case there was ever any question.
You probably won’t get a correction. I don’t know why you continue to argue with these people. They will continue to misconstrue your views(on purpose more than likely) so they can continue to justify they’re theft of other people’s characters. Your position has been clearly explained more than once.
I doubt you’ll get a correction. Very few newspapers issue them any more anyway.
Look at the bright side. You’re now on the same level as politians in both parties. Congrats!
Mark
Well they’re Libertarians so I would think they’d like to get it right.
Reason is a magazine but there is no basis in saying newspapers issue no corrections. They’re not on the front page, but issued nonetheless regularly.
I’d like to think you’ll get a fair shake in the matter of the quote, but my inherently cynical nature keeps telling me otherwise. I hate being so conflicted!
I would like to think that Reason will offer you a retraction or at least print your rebuttal. Reason is the organ of American Libertarians, and one of their cornerstones is the sacrosanct nature of property, along with freedom of contract and the rights of persons. It is actually intellectual property you have diligently defended against its violation by fan fiction writers. I suspect Ms Young is seriously confused about her own social philosophy, or she wouldn’t have fallen into such error.
Man, that was a bit of an unprofessional jab on her part, wasn’t it?
And…
While I can understand why a website wouldn’t allow comments, because of how sticky things can get in them sometimes, and while I understand that Reason is a web-based version of a print magazine… so that might affect their reasoning… It seems odd having a website dedicated to Free Minds and Free Markets, that doesn’t allow easy commenting on their articles. I find that conflicted, and perhaps a little bit hypocritical…
After all, if they DID allow comments, whether or not you get a retraction or apology wouldn’t be such an issue. There are plenty of people reading you that would be willing to make the correction themselves via comments.
I read an essay by Miss Young awhile back (it was her column in REASON magazine, yes)in which she shared that she was a fanfic writer at one point. She might still be a reader, I’m not sure.
Sure. And here it is: http://www.cathyyoung.net/mc/fiction.html
The link to it didn’t work at Reason. Young definitely has a dog in the fight.
What are the credentials of Reason Magazine and why did they not contact you for a quote?
Ms. Young responds here:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118582.html
I think she ably demonstrates that her description of his writings in the article was quite accurate.
Thanks for the link, LJM. A longer version of my reply can be found here on my own blog:
http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2007/02/lee-goldbergs-war-on-fanfic_07.html
As for my “having a dog in this fight,” I state upfront in my column that I write fanfiction.
“It seems odd having a website dedicated to Free Minds and Free Markets, that doesn’t allow easy commenting on their articles.”
We do allow commenting on our articles — not directly on the same page as the articles, but in comment threads on our staff blog. If you’d like to react to Young’s column, you can do so here:
http://reason.com/blog/show/118397.html
Or you can join the discussion at the URL provided by LJM.
Done.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118582.html#637706
This Took About Three Days Longer Than I Anticipated
There’s a full blown fucktard kerfuffle going on over at Reason in response to Lee’s response to Cathy Young’s articulate and interesting (if misrepresentative of my dumb older brother’s reasons for writing tie-ins) article on fan fiction. What made Lee
It does seem a bit disingenuous of an editor to assign an article to a person who has such an obvious conflict. Unless, of course, there wasn’t even a pretense of any objectivity.
Since the writer in question appears to have limited regard for the copyrights of authors, I wonder if she would object to other publications (websites, etc.) publishing her article without payment or attribution?
Mr. Montgomery:
Regarding the alleged conflict of interest, perhaps you have heard of opinion articles? My column was an expression of OPINION, not an “objective” news story.
By the way, disingenuous analogies will not really help your case. I have absolutely no problem with any website reproducing my articles without pay. The only time I ever objected to that was when I found some of my columns that criticized anti-male radical feminism reposted on a far-right website that contained misogynistic and homophobic material. I told them to take those columns down because I didn’t want anyone to think I was associated with such a site.
Now, “without attribution” is a wholly different matter, and it doesn’t really apply, does it? Because as far as I know, EVERY fan fiction story is prefaced with the disclaimer that the writer does not own the characters and a statement of who does own them.
What’s more, a fanfic is not a copy. For instance, if someone wrote an article based entirely on my original investigative research, I would have absolutely no power to keep them from posting it.
As for copyright law, I can say that as a writer, I have been directly hurt by what I regard as its overenforcement. A lot of my old articles disappeared from the Web after the Supreme Court ruled that newspapers and magazines could not include published articles in electronic databases unless the writer had specifically given his or her consent for such use. Thanks a lot, copyright zealots.
Lee Goldberg responds to REASON
Author Lee Goldberg asserts his comments were mischaracterized by author Cathy Young in her recent article on fanfic for Reason magazine.
Ive argued that fanfiction writers should get the permission of the author or rights holder before distrib…
Lee… Why Cathy Young seems to be so baffled by this mystifies me. Your point is completely accurate. Bryce
Lee: please, do stop twisting my words. I never said that you argued that the *only* difference between fanfic and tie-ins is that you get paid. In fact, in my blogpost, I actually said that I should have been more specific in my article and made it clear that you defend your work on tie-in novels *partly* on those grounds. I even offered an apology if my wording in the column gave the misleading impression that you think it’s the *only* difference between fanfic and tie-ins.
The fact is, you did on at least two occasions say exactly what you claim I incorrectly attributed to you: that you write tie-in novels based on TV series only because you get paid for them, that you would not have any interest in writing them if you could make a living with original fiction, and that this makes you superior to people who write fan fiction for artistic self-expression. (I assume that includes people who write fan fiction in fandoms in which the creators and owners of the characters have explicitly sanctioned fanfic.) That you continue to deny it in the face of your own words does not reallly change it.
Yes, I know I said I would stop arguing with you about what you did and didn’t say in the thread on the Reason blog, but I frankly didn’t expect to come here and find you blatantly misrepresenting what *I* said. Though, given your track record with Naomi Novik, I really shouldn’t be surprised, should I?
You also conveniently fail to mention my statement of my personal belief that if a writer has expressed a wish that no fan fiction based on his or her work be publicly posted, that wish should be respected. (Just as you consistently fail to mention that fanfiction.net abides by such wishes.)
By the way, I gave an answer to a question that you say no fanfic writer has ever answered. So how about replying to my arguments, instead of slamming them as “the same old, weak excuses”?
As for your brother’s contribution to the fray: actually, when I wrote my column, my knowledge of your person was limited to a couple of threads at fandom_wank sent to me by a friend, and two or three of your blogposts. Believe me, I had no intention of blogging about you until you accused me of mispresenting your words, which is also what prompted me to peruse your fanfic-related posts at length (not the way I’d ever choose to spend the better part of a day). When I was writing my column, I had no opinion on whether you’re a dick. I do now.
Cathy, it’s impossible that you didn’t think Lee was a dick if you’d read the threads on Fandom Wank. When I read the threads, I thought he was a dick. So come on, come clean, embrace your hate. You’ll feel free. You’ll wake up tomorrow lighter, happier and eager to face down any challenge that might be presented to you, be that in the real world, the fan world, or the world where writing from the heart is morally more invigorating than writing for publication (even if that writing from the heart concerns, you know, Harry and Ron whacking off together on a train bound for Hogwarts, which, while hot, is messy).
Messy indeed. I was hoping for the ‘tard treatment though, Tod. If ever a situation called for it…
Speaking of analogies that do not help your case:
>”if someone wrote an article based entirely on my original investigative research, I would have absolutely no power to keep them from posting it.”
Granted it would depend on exactly what constituted your “investigative research”, but it’s likely that the reason you would have no power to stop them would be because they did not infringe on your copyright; facts are not copyrightable.
A similar counterpoint could be made with regard to your “photograph of a garden” analogy because, although photographs are copyrightable, the copyright rests with the photographer, not the owner of the subject of the photograph. Again, no copyright is infringed upon.
>”You also conveniently fail to mention my statement of my personal belief that if a writer has expressed a wish that no fan fiction based on his or her work be publicly posted, that wish should be respected.”
a) that’s completely ass-backward. And b) because it’s ass-backward, it’s irrelevant, so why should Lee have mentioned it?
It’s not about anyone’s personal belief or wish, it’s about the law. Even phrasing it in the most charitable way possible, “borrowing” someone else’s property without their permission is against the law. The burden is not on the property owner to tell everyone else that it’s not OK to borrow his or her property, the burden is on the borrower to seek and be granted permission from the owner.
So your personal belief–if the owner has stated that he doesn’t want anyone to borrow his property, that the owner’s “wish” should be respected–means exactly squat.
It’s this exact principle that’s behind the Supreme Court ruling you decry; the newspaper must seek and be granted permission from you first. They are not allowed to assume your consent absent a statement to the contrary.
And as an aside, what’s preventing you from giving your consent now, and thus allowing the articles to be reposted?
Nice to meet you, Tod. Actually, I only skimmed those f_w threads, and in all honesty, the only thing that stuck in my mind was Lee’s declaration that he would much prefer not to write those “Monk” novels but a man’s gotta make a living. As for “hate” — I’m angry at anyone, it’s at myself for getting into this silly food fight.
A few quick points before I bow out.
(1) I’m hardly anti-publication. I’ve got two published books (nonfiction) and about to start a third. Some friends who have read my fan fiction, including one who was an editor for a major publisher before launching her own small press, keep pushing me to write and publish original fiction. Maybe some day, but at the moment I’ve yet to come up with an idea for an original story that I’d enjoy writing as much as I enjoy writing my fanfic. Feel free to laugh.
(2) I’m hardly a mindless cheerleader for fanfic. Actually, I think it’s quite worrying that some teenagers’ recreational reading consists entirely of fanfic, often written by other teens and not only bad but subliterate. I said so in my column.
(3) Why do fanfic haters always feel obliged to make cracks about “Kirk shtupping Spock” or Harry and Ron wanking together? It’s getting old, guys. Give it a rest. Let’s have some equal time for Spike shtupping Buffy.
Speaking of wank, I’ve had quite enough of it for one day. Cheers.
What I still cannot understand is how Ms. Young finds authorized tie-in novels so analogous to fanfic that writing them while slamming fanfic is “a contradiction.”
How is a MONK novel Lee writes any more like fanfic than a MONK TV episode Lee writes? In both cases, Lee is writing characters that he didn’t create. Is every episode of every TV series that is not written by the series creator fanfic? Are the LETHAL WEAPON sequels not written by Shane Black?
Is it because it’s a book, not the original series? So are the Babylon 5 novels plotted by the series creator, but written by other writers, analogous to fanfic?
Ms. Young appears to distinguish corporate-licensed works from creator-licensed works. Is every book or other work analogous to fanfic if the creator did not personally license it? Is every episode of THE WEST WING after Sorkin left the show fanfic, because the creator was not involved in them?
Is the analogy because Lee likes the MONK and DIAGNOSIS MURDER characters? Is a work in an existing universe fanfic unless the author hates the material?
Just to answer the question Maestro posed to me: A few publications to which I was a regular contributor sent me permission forms in order to keep my articles online. One of them apparently misplaced the form when I faxed it back to them and took them offline anyway, and by the time I discovered it, I had missed the deadline to give my consent. Publications to which I had been only an occasional contributor never bothered to contact me in the first place (and I don’t blame them for not sending permission forms to hundreds of freelancers). If you’re suggesting that it was my job to go through the hassle of contacting them, requesting a permission form, filling it out and sending it back — all for no extra money — that’s a funny way of protecting my rights.
It seems to me that there’s more agreement here than people are acknowledging. If Lee and Cathy both think that a)people shouldn’t write fan fiction without permission and b)bad writing is not a good thing, then they’re pretty much on the same side. There’s some disagreement over side-issues and emphasis, but that doesn’t mean you’re disagreeing on the central issues. Maybe we could all be friends instead of fighting?
So she agrees that people shouldn’t write fanfiction when the author objects. But she also (apparently) believes that in the absence of a declaration of objection, fanfic writers should assume permission. That strikes me as being illogical.
On the other hand, I think she clearly has a crush on Lee. Why else would she keep writing about him, and keep responding to these comments when she keeps saying she’s not going to? I can already see, this coupling is gong to be a fruitful source for some very hot real person slash fiction.
I’m willing to bet that Cathy has left comments on your blog as LadyGoth or something equally inane. Any woman who writes fan fic and makes fan art at age 50 needs to get a fucking life that doesn’t involve her cats and her love of Lucy Lawless.
Cathy wrote: “the only thing that stuck in my mind was Lee’s declaration that he would much prefer not to write those “Monk” novels but a man’s gotta make a living.”
You really can’t help yourself, can you? I never said that. And you know it…so why do you keep attempting to twist my words anyway?
I love writing the MONK novels. What I said is that, because I am a professional writer, I would have not have written them unless I was asked to because MONK doesn’t belong to me. You desperately want to create the impression that I write these books reluctantly and shamefully just to pay my bills. Not only have I never said it, I’ve never even implied it…because nothing could be further from truth.
What I didsay is that as much as I enjoy writing MONK, I would much rather be writing entirely original work but I don’t have that luxury. You have deliberately misconstrued that remark in a transparent attempt to create a false impression of my motives. The fact that you continue to do so mystifies me. Surely there are things I have actually said that you can disagree with equal passion.
Lee
Cathy wrote: “I never said that you argued that the *only* difference between fanfic and tie-ins is that you get paid.”
Um, that’s not true. Here’s what you wrote in your REASON column:
“The vehemently anti-fanfic writer Lee Goldberg, who blogs at leegoldberg.com, is the author of several authorized novels based on the TV shows Monk and Diagnosis Murder—a contradiction he defends on the grounds that he does it only for the money.”
What am I missing?
Cathy wrote: “In fact, in my blogpost, I actually said that I should have been more specific in my article and made it clear that you defend your work on tie-in novels *partly* on those grounds. ”
That still isn’t accurate…and I suspect you are well aware of it. I never said I am only doing it for the money. I said I am doing it with the permission, consent and involvement of the author and the rights holders… they came to me and asked me to write a novel using their characters. That, Cathy, is what distinguishes my work from fanfic. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? It’s you, and other fanficcers, who fixate on the money, as if that is the only issue of merit. Just because you aren’tgetting paid for your fanfic doesn’t change the fact that it’s violating the creative and legal rights of the authors you casually steal from.
Lee
I don’t think that Cathy has a leg to stand on and considering I had no clue who she was, she should thank you for all the publicity that you have afforded her.
“Just because you aren’tgetting paid for your fanfic doesn’t change the fact that it’s violating the creative and legal rights of the authors you casually steal from.”
Bravo. That’s what I said over there. They didn’t get it either.
In relation to the “permission” aspect of Mr Goldberg’s arguments, I am baffled as to why any author would have an issue with having the onus on them to protect their own copyright. Um, that’s the way it is and always has been with every civil right in the history of law.
Regarding TV shows: These days, it is common knowledge that if your TV show is going to a great success, some fans are going to want to write, and distribute, fanfiction. At least for a while (while there’s a buzz).
No matter what you do, you are not going to convince the average Jo that this is hurting ANYONE.
Therefore, you CAN’T enforce a rule which prohibits these people from writing fanfiction.
Copyright law was never about that anyway! It has ALWAYS about giving author’s a legal remedy, to pursue through the courts, for what they believed to be violation.
The onus has ALWAYS been on the copyright holder to issue a notice, to take up proceedings, to give or not to give permission.
Now, a blanket statement saying yes or no (with limitations) is one option. A public relations person, EASILY AVAILABLE to the public, issuing licenses on a case-by-case (or site-by-site) basis is also another option.
What’s wrong anti-fanficcers? Afraid of finding a realistic solution to your problem so you can’t bitch about it anymore? Just want the law to come down like the hand of Prometheus and BAN FANFICTION PERIOD? Because that just won’t happen. There has to be a middle ground.
Accept it – and start trying to think of how you would like to see the rules of fanfiction phenomenon ACTUALLY work, rather than just bitching endlessly about it.
Lee, I’d like to offer some help on why you’re being misquoted. What you say here:
“Fanficcers routinely and blithely disrespect an author’s creative and legal rights on the grounds that they aren’t getting paid for their work.”
To me, the above statement appears to lump together views on ‘fanficcers’ who DON’T have permission with ‘fanficcers’ who DO have permission.
Furthermore, YOU’VE misquote the other side. It actually seems to be on the grounds that.. they aren’t hurting anyone, not that “they aren’t getting paid.”
Whether or not you share her opinions, Cathy Young is at least pleasant and thoughtful in her writing style. I wish people would refrain from making nasty personal remarks about her. It is silly and disagreeable, and not a good advertisement for the opposing position.
She’s anything but pleasant in her style attacking me so I disagree. Maybe she’s only nice to women? Micah’s bifurcation is unqualified. The permitted fanficcers and in a distinct minority, except in the work itself. It’s all the same in that regard.
Consider this lovely analogy:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118582.html#638982
“Your writing skills are roughly comparable to the average “fanficcer” — okay, discounting the junior high school set — but you need to feel superior to someone. It’s the same reason the “white trash” in the old South were often so vehemently racist: sure they were trash, but hot damn it, at least they weren’t n***ers!”
Appropriating someone’s property is normally considered theft. Micah’s argument that it is permissible so long as the owner takes no legal remedies is a bit dubious, I think. The theft begins the moment any fan fiction writer makes any public use of literary property owned by someone else.
Want to know why she picked that particular original passage of mine?
As I suspected: http://www.reason.com/news/show/117896.html
What bothers me the most is why Cathy couldn’t’ve just acknowledged the fact that Lee’s opinion differed from her own, accepted his explanations for the statements that she found unclear or that she misinterpreted, and apologized.
Why was there a need for her to continue arguing?
When somebody says you’ve misrepresented their ideas, you take them at face value, respect their point of view, and apologize for the mistake.
At least, I thought that was the polite thing to do.
Well, on the up side I’m now “vehement” as well.
When I was a small kid, my mom said it’s polite to ask before you take it. I guess that simple courtesy is beyond Cathy Young and many — if not most — of her fanfic buddies.
>”If you’re suggesting that it was my job to go through the hassle of contacting them, requesting a permission form, filling it out and sending it back — all for no extra money — that’s a funny way of protecting my rights.”
While I appreciate that you took the time to post an answer to my question, I’m having trouble reconciling your objection with your previous suggestion that it’s the rights holder’s job to go through the hassle of contacting fanficers and deny permission — all for no extra money — in order for the rights holder to protect his or her rights (read: have his or her wish respected).
http://misssnark.blogspot.com/2007_02_11_misssnark_archive.html#117123203751177743
I’m working on Cathy Young FanFic.
“Oh,Lee, I can’t wait to taste your literary acumen,” gurgled Cathy fluidly while clutching Goldberg’s MONK.
“Cough up some cash, wench,” barked Lee dogmatically. “The only dyke I’m interested in is Dick Van.”
Cathy,overcome with adrenaline and alliteration popped two adverbs and an adjective while furiously poking her participle.
“Don’t treat ma as if I’m some pre-published cyber cooze,” she whimpered loudly while screaming soto voice, “your brother has more respect for me, and he’s disrespectful of everyone.”
—
do you think i can get permission from The Creator to post this crap on the internet?
Oy. You know, every time this argument comes around, I wince and tell myself it’s not worth jumping in, I’ll regret it, the water is full of shrieking eels…
…and yet, here I am. Okay. Lee, you keep talking about those creative and legal rights fanwriters violate, whether or not they turn a profit, but, well, isn’t the essential nature of copyright the right *to* profit? It’s not the right to control the use or perception of your fictional creations, world without end, amen, or it wouldn’t have an expiration date. Copyright is an assurance that other people won’t profit from something you made, unless you give permission.
They’re not making or distributing verbatim *copies* of an original work, which is straight-up piracy, and clearly covered by the law. They’re producing original works with existing characters or settings, some in copyright, some not, some sanctioned by creators, some not. I guess I don’t see how Jane Austen fanfic is acceptable but Narnia fanfic is abhorrent, only because Jane’s out of copyright and C.S. Lewis isn’t. It’s not as though either one can give permission, what with being dead and all.
If a creator really can’t stand the idea of other people writing their characters, and says so, I know of very few fans who’ll carry on regardless– you don’t see much Anne Rice fanfiction around. And straight-up piracy is certainly illegal. But fanwriters don’t profit from their work in any tangible way recognized by the U.S. court system. Praise, attention, and experience are certainly vauable things, and may be gained from fan writing, but they’re tough to quantify when suing for damages.
From Richard Wheeler, “Appropriating someone’s property is normally considered theft.”
Oh, no, not that hoary old argument again.
Copyright infringment is not theft, just in the same way that “dog” is not spelled C-A-T. Copyright infringement is, well, copyright infringment.
Fan Fiction Rumble
People have been arguing about fan fiction all week. Every once in awhile, I publish interviews and news about fan fiction writers. I love these little handmade, obsessive communities that spring up around popular stories.You can keep track of th…
“Micah’s argument that it is permissible so long as the owner takes no legal remedies is a bit dubious, I think.”
Hmm, more than dubious – it’s actually completely incorrect.
Lucky it wasn’t my argument.
My argument is that if you want to protect what you believe to be your copyrightable interests, that’s what you have to do. The common approach here seems to be that maybe if you insult fanficcers enough and get stuck into all who don’t take the anti-fanfic stance, fanfiction will one day stop.
It’s just not going to work.
Lee, I’d like to know your opinion on doujinshis, that is, fan-made comic books/mangas.
I am a westerner currently living in Japan, where the fan made comic market is a readily accepted part of life. I don’t see how this differs from ‘fanfiction’, except that it has drawings with the words (and it’s not in English, but I’m sure non-English speaking countries probably write ‘fanfiction’ too).
Doujinshis are as much in copywrite violation – taking characters that don’t belong to artists, putting them in different situations, but in Japan this is accepted and you can actually just go out and buy them. Like ‘fanfiction’, they range from the highly sexual, the action/adventure, comedic, parodies…
Because this form of entertainment is encouraged by creators in Japan, how does this extend to English and non-English people writing fan fiction about it? If Nomura-sama has no problem with someone drawing a comic about Tifa getting sexually assulated by a squid, would this extend to someone writing about say, Cloud going on a picnic?
I believe that doujinshi have become the equivalent of spec scripts in Japan: aspiring manga creators use them to try to get noticed; established manga creators soliciting assistants will ask applicants to send their doujinshi; some of the best-known creators (e.g., CLAMP) started out doing them of other creators’ work; and established creators themselves will do doujinshi.
The doujinshi market is obviously officially tolerated, even though it is blatent copyright violation. But the downside must be the doujinshi that depict characters in situations that would be highly offensive to their creators.
Also, unlike spec scripts, doujinshi are sold for money. I don’t think there’s anything like that in America that would be tolerated by copyright owners.
For how one group of Japanese creators views English-language fan efforts concernint their characters, see the English-language section of http://www.clamp-net.com/information/index.html
Hello.
I read with interest your comments regarding fanfiction and the difference between fans writing their own stories and those commissioned by the owners of the rights to the material.
I’m sorry to be so forward, but I wondered what you thought of the very popular fantasy writer Neil Gaiman’s latest collection of short stories “Fragile Things”. One of his stories is written from Susan Pevensie’s point of view (The eldest sister from C.S. Lewis’s “The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe”). He uses the original author’s world and his characters, but puts his own spin on events that happened after the book. Given that he cannot possibly have asked for the author’s permission to write it, does that then make him a fanfiction writer?
Best wishes,
Quiz
I’ll step in for lee. I suspect either the C.S. lewis book has fallen into public domain or, if it hasn’t, that gaiman got permission from the C.S. Lewis’s estate. A careful reading of Lee’s arguments indicates that his problem with fanfiction has more to do with the creative rights/copyright violation issues than with the act of writing fanfiction itself.
Anonymous wrote: “I suspect either the C.S. lewis book has fallen into public domain…”
It hasn’t. C S Lewis died in 1963 and therefore his books don’t become public domain until 1 January 2038. And that’s under current law, who knows, by the time Disney has finished it might be 1 January 5038.
Disney doesn’t have the rights to the books…WaldenMedia does. Disney merely distributed the films. And your reply doesn’t address whether Gaiman got permission from WaldenMedia or the Lewis estate. My guess is you don’t know.
Way to miss the point, anonymouse.
I wasn’t making any comment on who owns the copyright. I don’t know and I don’t care.
I loathe Lewis’s works and haven’t seen the film, which I didn’t know was made by Disney. It wouldn’t bother me if all the monkeys in fandom wrote the porniest porn that ever porned featuring all the animals and children in Lewis’s worlds. In fact, I rather think that would be an improvement, particularly for “That Hideous Strength”, a book that makes me retch.
As I don’t own Gaiman’s book (another writer I believe isn’t half as clever as he thinks he is) I can’t tell you what copyrights he’s acknowledged.
But that wasn’t the part of the question I was answering. The reference to Disney is because it’s their desperate insistence that they hang on to the rights over Mickey Mouse that keeps the copyright laws extending.
The point I was making was that what with Disney et al., copyright will end up investing in the creator’s grand children, great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren until the lawyers are looking for the distant relations of Chaucer or Bede because they’re entitled to a cut of their sales.
What’s wrong with that? Why shouldn’t Disney be able to extend the copyright on Mickey Mouse for as long as they can? The character belongs to them…not you.
I must confess PM that I don’t see your point, either. What’s the harm if Disney’s great-great-grandchildren control the characters their great-great-grandfather created? I don’t see the harm if Mickey Mouse doesn’t fall into public domain now, or in the next 75 years. Or if Sue Grafton and her heirs get to hold on to Kinsey Millhone into the next century.
It’s the creator’s legacy. Let PM Rommel create one of her own. If she can?
The fact that you (Mr. Goldberg, Mr. York, anon) are baffled by the idea that the Public Domain is a good thing that exists for a reason and needs to be preserved perfectly illustrates why so many of us get very upset about Disney’s campaign for infinite expansion of copyright. If we don’t try to defend it, the greedy will try to take it away, and their apologists will stand around saying “what’s the big deal?”.
The big deal is that they are claiming ownership of our common cultural heritage, and that doesn’t belong to any one person or corporation. Copyright is a social contract – and they are trying to renege on the deal. Walt Disney is dead and buried – he’s made his profits and his grandchildren have reaped ample rewards. He’s gotten his share – now we’d like ours. Especially since DisneyCo.’s campaign doesn’t just affect Mickey Mouse – it affects the entire body of literature that’s been published in the last century.
Lost Erizo wrote: “The big deal is that they are claiming ownership of our common cultural heritage, and that doesn’t belong to any one person or corporation.”
I don’t believe in an “infinite expansion of copyright,” but that said, I don’t believe that James Bond, Mickey Mouse, or Captain Kirk belong to you or me… or should belong to you or me. They belong to the Ian Fleming estate, the Walt Disney Estate, and Viacom. Those individuals and corporations aren’t trying to “own our common cultural heritage,” only the characters they created and only for a reasonable amount of time. You and I may quibble about what that “reasonable amount of time” should be, but you’re being hyperbolic when you suggest that authors and rights holders are trying to hijack American culture.
Lost Erizo wrote: “He’s gotten his share — now we’d like ours.”
I don’t understand this mindset. You didn’t create the characters, you merely read the books or watched the movies they were in. What gives you the right to reap any profits from the characters or to demand any ownership?
Right, this is not some sort of collectivism where one creates and everyone reaps the profits. Your “share” came and ended when you read and enjoyed the created product. Because that’s what it is: a product for commerce.
“As I don’t own Gaiman’s book (another writer I believe isn’t half as clever as he thinks he is) I can’t tell you what copyrights he’s acknowledged.”
So in other words you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. Why am I not surprised? It’s this total lack of knowledge or real-world experience that characterizes much of the yammering from the fanfiction writers in this debate.
There’s a big difference between a “common culture” character like Robin Hood and one that was specifically created by a particular writer or group of writers (like, for example, Harry Potter).
I’m hard-pressed to understand how someone can make an argument that anyone other than JK Rowling and her heirs deserve to control Harry Potter — no matter how beloved or popular he might be, and no matter how invested in him his fans might become.
If people want their own Harry Potters to do with as these please, they should just create them.
PM wrote: “I wasn’t making any comment on who owns the copyright. I don’t know and I don’t care.”
That sums up the pro-fanfic position quite nicely.
Mr. Goldberg wrote:
“What gives you the right to reap any profits from the characters or to demand any ownership?”
I never said I have the right to reap any profits on the public domain. Nor does anyone else, including the original creator. When I refer to “our share” I wasn’t referring to earnings – I was refering to our part of the bargain that is copyright ie. that the protected material eventually become freely available to the public.
Walt Disney didn’t invent talking animals. He didn’t invent steam boats. He didn’t invent silly dancing. He certainly didn’t write “Turkey in the Straw.” He did take them all and create something unique and original with “Steamboat Willie” – and he reaped enormous profits from everything he based off of it. But the social contract that is copyright says that you only get to profit from original ideas for a limited time, and then they go back to the public domain. Walt Disney couldn’t have created his entertaining characters without first borrowing ideas and tropes from our common culture. When Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse he did it with the understanding that he would have the rights to the characters for no more than 56 years – DisneyCo has been trying to change that deal after the fact ever since (and they’ve suceeded – they’ve held on for 79 and counting). Unfortunately, a lot of other literature has also been held back from the public domain as a result of those extensions.
What is the difference between Mickey Mouse and Robin Hood? How about a more recent example, since Robin is so old that we don’t know who his original creator is. How about Jay Gatsby? Fitzgerald may have created him, but he belongs to the public domain now. How is he different from Mickey Mouse (well, besides sheer popularity)? He’s only three years older, after all.
” I don’t believe that James Bond, Mickey Mouse, or Captain Kirk belong to you or me… or should belong to you or me. They belong to the Ian Fleming estate, the Walt Disney Estate, and Viacom. ”
Actually, they don’t. The copyrights on those characters belong to those entities, but the characters themselves do not – an important distinction that you habitually blur. No one can own an idea. Copyright is a limited term monopoly – not ownership.
The idea of Mickey Mouse “going back” to the public domain, as you write, is ludicrous.
Say what you will about the justifications for limited copyright, it is undeniable that Walt Disney created that character wholly and deserves to reap whatever financial windfall it might generate.
I remain unconvinced that he somehow belongs to you. And I also remain curious as to what you want to do with him. WHY do you want to get your hands on those characters so much?
Mr. Montgomery,
I don’t know why you find it so ludicrous – until they started expanding copyright coverage ad infinitum it happend to all literature evenutally. Copyrights are a recent convention, after all. It probably won’t happen to Mickey Mouse even after the copyright protection lapses – after all, Mickey is a Trademark. But Mickey Mouse specifcally isn’t the issue – DisneyCo. has more influence and money to throw into lobbying, but their copyrights are not the only things that have been held back from the public domain each time copyrights have been extended. Virtually everything published since 1923 has been as well (including a lot of publicly funded research, lest you forget that copyrights don’t only apply to fiction).
I don’t know why you keep saying that I somehow think that these characters belong to me – I don’t think they belong to anyone. One can’t own an idea. The copyrights belong to someone currently, but that is a temporary situation (unless DisneyCo. manages to get yet another extension).
Your posts continue to reinforce my original comment – that you and your fellow apologists see no value in the existence of the Public Domain. You seem to think that culture and ideas can somehow belong to someone and be bought and sold – and that’s just sad.
“No one can own an idea.”
This statement is always uttered by those who have none. Or at least no original ones.
Having read reams of fanfiction, and written some myself, I can honestly say that all original creators are completely safe from fanficcers.
All we ever do is make you look better (more talented, more creative, and capable of creating more lasting characters) by comparison.
Fanfiction defenders sound most pathetic when they cry that authors are ‘threatened’ by their talented fanwork. In most cases, that’s a laughable comment, but in all cases, it’s an insulting one.
Go make something original, something all yours. Sell it and find that people love it. And then see if you’re still on the side that validates and upholds the rights of any old person with a keyboard and a half-functioning brain to write stories about your worlds, your people.
Bet ya won’t. But then again, bet ya can’t.
Erizo, you keep talking about “culture” and “ideas” but such abstractions are not what I’m concerned about. I’m interested in concrete examples of specific creations; e.g., Mickey Mouse or Jay Gatsby, to use a couple of examples that were cited previously.
I’m not sure that such fruits of one’s creativity should ever enter the public domain. Nor am I convinced of any great benefit accruing from them doing so.
We’re not talking about someone trying to copyright the notion of “liberty” or “the struggle for individuality.” We’re talking about Paramount owning James T. Kirk. Why shouldn’t they be able to own him forever? They created him, not you or I. Why should the right to own and control their creation ever end?
And I’m still curious what you plan to do with these characters (not ideas, not concepts, but characters) once they are in the public domain.
As has been said, the “expression” of these characters aren’t examples of “One can’t own an idea.”
David, I think “molest them” is a good guess based on some of the examples we’ve seen. Well, I haven’t it’s well-documented by others.
Ms. Emily,
I assume you were addressing me since you quoted my post. It’s not unreasonable that you would jump to it, given the origin of this thread, but I never mentioned fanfic and it’s not really what I was talking about. Issues about copyright do not apply only to fiction, but to all writing. My views about fanfic are well known to the readers of this blog, but they aren’t really relevant – I entered this thread in response to Mr. Goldberg’s dismissal of the importance of maintaining the public domain.
You can’t own an idea unless you never communicate it so it stays locked up in your own brain. If you don’t believe me, try thinking about what kind of mind control that would entail and follow it up with some reading on actual copyright law – especially the parts on so called “moral rights” (or the lack thereof) and fair use. In the US at least, the law on the subject is pretty clear – there is a big difference between owning an idea and owning the copyright to that idea. It’s something that I think that writers of all sorts would want to be aware of if for no other reason than knowing what their actual rights are, especially if their livelihood depends on it.
I hope that my views wouldn’t change if someone were to use my creative work – I dislike the idea that I would allow such an emotional bias to interfere with logic and my grasp on reality. I certainly think that legal principles like intellectual property which affect the larger society should be based on more than my or your personal feelings.
Mr. Montgomery,
I don’t know what you call a character unless it is an idea – it’s certainly not a person.
I really wish you would be more precise in your language since it would create less confusion – Paramount does not own Captain Kirk, they own the copyright on the character. Nor did they create the character – Gene Roddenberry, William Shatner and a bevy of TV writers created the character. The fact that most of them did it as work for hire and have no legal claim on the copyright doesn’t change the fact that they were the ones who did the work – something that I would think you, as an advocate of the “rights” of the creator, would like to keep in mind. Paramount is a faceless corporate entity – it “creates” nothing – merely pays for it.
Nor did those writers create the character out of nothing – Captain Kirk is a product of our culture – a fairly typical military man with midwestern background and values, set in a future universe that is clearly meant to be an idealized derivative of ours – with an added dash of a young Bill Shatner’s charisma. (Anyone remember the joke about God, an artist and making your own dirt? I couldn’t do it justice from memory.) They used the products of our culture to create the character – raw materials if you will. Copyright protection was intended to encourage new creative works by allowing authors to profit from their work – not give an author’s heirs perpetual control. Allowing someone who has created nothing to derive profits from and control over a work simply because they inherited the copyright does nothing to encourage new innovation. Society should not be required to protect their profits indefinitely, especially since society derives no benefit from that protection.
What is the benefit of having works go into the public domain? I’ll use Jay Gatsby as an example, since the character is now part of the public domain. The obvious answer in the context of this thread is because that the character is no longer covered by copyright, people are free to use the character in derivative works without the approval or interference of the author’s heirs (there’s no question these days of having the actual author’s input given the current length of copyrights). I realize you don’t see that as a benefit, but many others do or recent novels like _March_ and _The Wide Sargasso Sea_ wouldn’t have achieved such wide recent critical acclaim. More importantly, the other aspect of copyright, which we don’t usually talk about since it’s not usually relevant to fanfic, comes in to play. Now it can be adapted, put on as a play, a movie, whatever. It can be copied and distributed freely, allowing access to a wider variety of people. That’s probably not such a big benefit when it comes to something like “The Great Gatsby” since as an American Classic it’s already so widely available through free libraries and now Project Gutenberg, but it is a benefit for less popular works which otherwise might become for all intents and purposes inaccessable. I know personally of several cases where colleagues were forced to use alternative sources for teaching because they could not secure permission to copy an out of print work for teaching materials – at least not in sufficient time to be used before the course was over.
But copyrights don’t just cover characters – they also cover music, art, and anything written down – not just fiction.
Once a work has entered the public domain, scholars can use it without specific permission. You might argue that this is not normally an issue since it would fall under fair use, but often it is. This is especially true with shorter works like poetry and song lyrics where it may be necessary to reproduce a larger proportion of the original work in order to reasonably discuss it. I’ve heard of several cases where scholars were denied permission to use a work because the author’s heirs didn’t approve of what a scholar had to say about grandad’s work, or were simply greedy.
There is also an enormous amount of primary research and scholarship that is tied up in copyrighted journals. It’s rare in science for a truly old resources to be useful or necessary, but it does happen and I imagine it’s much more common in the arts and social sciences. Still, in my last publication I used a source from a journal published in 1936. Because I had the resources of the best private academic library in the country at my disposal I was able to get my hands on it and determine if it was useful within minutes – the entire journal contents were available electronically. However, that library pays about $20K a year for complete access to that journal – money that they are not spending on other, more recent journals – and they’ve had to cancel subscriptions to many in the last few years. Smaller libraries have been even harder hit. Even with excellent access there were some more recent papers I couldn’t get my hands on because not one single library in the area carried the journal I needed and as a grad student I couldn’t afford to plunk down $30 for a reprint that I wasn’t even sure would be relevant. Keep in mind that the paper I couldn’t get my hands on was the product of research funded by a government grant – your tax dollars at work. Also keep in mind that the “creators” in those cases never saw a dime – in most cases they actually paid page charges to get their work published immediately after signing their copyrights over to the journal.
If I’d been at a university with less extensive resources (such as the one where I did my undergraduate work), it’s entirely possible that I wouldn’t have been able to get access to that 1936 article in under a month, if at all, and then only after paying for interlibrary loan (which was not always free at that institution). If the article was in the public domain, I or any librarian would be free to scan it and make the pdf available to anyone who needs it via the internet – but I am prohibited from doing that.
I’ve already abused our host’s patience with the length of this post, so I won’t go on with more examples, but I think you can see the point I’m trying to make.
I remain unconvinced by your argument, erizo, but you have expressed yourself well.
“Allowing someone who has created nothing to derive profits from and control over a work simply because they inherited the copyright does nothing to encourage new innovation”
How can you believe that and also support fanfiction? That’s people who have created nothing deriving control over a work simply because they’re read it or watched it. Allow people to do that does nothing to encourage authors to innovate if they know they hard work will be stolen.
Lost Erizo wrote: “I entered this thread in response to Mr. Goldberg’s dismissal of the importance of maintaining the public domain.”
That’s miss-stating my views. I believe in public domain. I also believe in copyright. Where we may differ is on how many years the copyright to someone’s work should last…and for how many generations the author’s heirs should rightfully control and benefit from the author’s work.
Lost Erizo wrote: “Copyright protection was intended to encourage new creative works by allowing authors to profit from their work – not give an author’s heirs perpetual control. Allowing someone who has created nothing to derive profits from and control over a work simply because they inherited the copyright does nothing to encourage new innovation.”
Of course it does — it gives writers the financial incentive to create new works, in the same way entrepreneurs are encouraged to create new products (for which they obtain a patents and trademarks). Should we take the Ford Motor Company away from Henry Ford’s heirs because they didn’t create the Model T? Should we tell Ray Kroc’s heirs that they Mcdonald’s needs to become public domain because he’s dead? Granted, these examples are clumsy because I am talking about public corporations now…but I think you get my point. Why should a book, movie or song enjoy any less protection (or the heirs any less control or profit from that creation) than what an inventor or manufacturer enjoys with, say, an iPod, an Oreo Cookie, or a Ford Mustang?
That said, I agree with you, copyright shouldn’t last forever…but as long as a creative work is copyrighted, I believe fanfiction violates it…and certainly violates the author’s creative rights.
Lost Erizo wrote: “Society should not be required to protect their profits indefinitely, especially since society derives no benefit from that protection.”
Of course it does. Who would bother to create new products, services, or works of art if they couldn’t profit from it and control its exploitation in the marketplace? Society benefits from protecting the hard work and investments of time, money, and sweat that entrepreneurs, inventors and artists make creating the products and art that we enjoy.
Hi Erizo,
‘They used the products of our culture to create the character – raw materials if you will.’
You’re quite right. But the thing is, copyright doesn’t have any domain over culture. To use your Captain Kirk example:
‘Captain Kirk is a product of our culture – a fairly typical military man with midwestern background and values, set in a future universe that is clearly meant to be an idealized derivative of ours – with an added dash of a young Bill Shatner’s charisma.’
How does that copyright is inimical to creativity? The ideas ‘military man’, ‘midwestern’ ‘idealized’ and ‘charisma’ are all open to everyone, and you don’t need to write fanfiction to use them. You could write an idealized midwestern futuristic soldier the very day Star Trek first aired, and copyright could do nothing about it, because you were using the same sources that were open to all. A Star Trek fan could be inspired by their show and write something clearly influenced by it but not directly lifting characters, and no one could argue. And quite right too.
But if a fan’s story has to be about Captain Kirk and nobody else, then surely that means that there’s something unique about the character, which is only there because of the individual work put in by the people who created him? Which is not just ‘raw materials of our culture’, but the work of private citizens.
You make many good arguments, but I don’t think that one works. If anything, it proves that creativity is perfectly possible without fanfiction, hence copyright and creativity can live happily side by side.
I’m not arguing for infinitely expandable copyright, but the argument that writers are always influenced by culture or other writers strikes me as illogical. Influence isn’t the same as direct lifting of characters – and if someone insists that they NEED it to be about a particular character, then there’s something more than influence at play. At which point, the ‘all writers are influenced’ argument becomes irrelevant.
Anonymous wrote:
“How can you believe that and also support fanfiction? That’s people who have created nothing deriving control over a work simply because they’re read it or watched it. Allow people to do that does nothing to encourage authors to innovate if they know they hard work will be stolen.”
You’ve made a number of assumptions there that don’t hold up. You’ve assumed that fan writers create nothing – if that were true, copyright holders would have nothing to get het up about. You assume that writing derivatives in some way affects the original work – I see little or no evidence of that. Fan writers don’t control the original work – the copyright holder does. The difference is fan writers can’t make a profit off of their work – the copyright holder can, so the incentive still holds up. My opinions on fanfic have been expressed ad nauseam in other threads – I encourage you to read them, but I’m not going to restate them all again here unless there are new arguments to be made.
Mr. Goldberg,
I appear to have overstated your position on copyright lengths, however you have repeatedly defended those who wish to extend them beyond all reason so I stand by my statement that you are an apologist for those who want to extend copyrights ad infinitum.
Re: public corporations. Actually I think your analogy is quite apt. The Ford Motor Company has not been making money off of the Model-T all this time. Any claim they had for control of the design of that vehicle has long since lapsed. What they did was to take the money that they earned from it to build a company that makes new designs. If F. Scott Fitzgerald’s heirs want to take the money they’ve earned from _The Great Gatsby_ and use it as an income while they write a sequel, or something totally new, they are perfectly welcome to do so – but they don’t get to continue earning money from Gatsby once the limits are up. A book already receives much more protection than Ford’s patents do – corporate copyrights are 120 years while patents are 14 to 20 years, and require registration and maintenance fees.
“I believe fanfiction violates it…and certainly violates the author’s creative rights.”
I have never said that fanfiction is not a copyright violation under the current structure of the law. What I have said is that the current legal structure is inconsistent with the underlying justification for copyrights and that non-profit work (such as, but not limited to, fanfiction) should have a different status.
I have no idea what you mean by “creative rights.” If they are analogous to the French concepts of droit d’auteur or droits moraux, it’s very clear that the law in the United States specifically says that you don’t have any.
I said:
“Society should not be required to protect their profits indefinitely, especially since society derives no benefit from that protection.”
And you replied:
“Of course it does. Who would bother to create new products, services, or works of art if they couldn’t profit from it and control its exploitation in the marketplace?”
Precisely – creating NEW products and services, not protecting old ones long after the person one is trying to encourage is dead and buried. Copyrights are an incentive system – and incentives should last only for the minimum time necessary to achieve their purpose. Otherwise they are wasteful and inefficient. You’ve forgotten that the opposite argument has just as much weight – why should anyone create something new as long as they can continue to exploit old innovations? Of course people continue to do so despite that inefficiency – people are contrary creatures. But would you accept an argument that just because some people are obviously willing to create new literature with no expectation of getting paid that we should do away with the incentive system altogether? I suspect not.
Eyup,
“You could write an idealized midwestern futuristic soldier the very day Star Trek first aired, and copyright could do nothing about it, because you were using the same sources that were open to all.”
Yes – I would be using the same sources that are open to all, and once Rodenberry (or his heirs) have had the opportunity to profit from his innovation, Star Trek should also become a source that is open to all. That’s what the public domain is. Are you trying to tell me that Rodenberry managed to create Star Trek without using anything that was the work of private citizens?
“You make many good arguments, but I don’t think that one works. If anything, it proves that creativity is perfectly possible without fanfiction, hence copyright and creativity can live happily side by side.”
I have never said that copyrights should not exist – I have said that fanfiction, as a non-profit enterprise, is not inconsistent with the underlying justification for copyright. And frankly, fanfiction has nothing to do with why I think that the 120 year copyright is far too long and someone needs to stand up for the public domain.
Neither have I ever said that copyrights are inimical to creativity – I think it’s a perfectly adequate incentive system. But that’s all it is. It’s not ownership of ideas, nor should it create any rights beyond allowing people to profit from their work. I think people should be paid for work, but to use a much more clumsy analogy than the one Mr. Goldberg used, when I get paid for a day’s work, I still have to go to work the next day if I want to get paid more. I agreed to work for a particular wage – I don’t get to go back to my employer after the fact and demand more for the previous day’s work (as DisneyCo. is trying to do).
“I’m not arguing for infinitely expandable copyright, but the argument that writers are always influenced by culture or other writers strikes me as illogical. Influence isn’t the same as direct lifting of characters…”
I never said anything about influence or lifting characters – again, I was not talking about fan fiction. If you remember, I was responding to Mr. Montgomery’s question: “They created him, not you or I. Why should the right to own and control their creation ever end?” What I said is that a writer uses products of the common culture in order to write and so once they’ve had an opportunity to profit from their work, they owe that work back to the common culture. Their heirs don’t get to claim it in perpetuity or even beyond a reasonable time limit.
I wonder what drives screeds like this? It’s obvious they want something that belongs to someone else.
To the point:
“I don’t know what you call a character unless it is an idea – it’s certainly not a person.”
It’s created “expression,” and protected by law.
‘The Ford Motor Company has not been making money off of the Model-T all this time. Any claim they had for control of the design of that vehicle has long since lapsed. What they did was to take the money that they earned from it to build a company that makes new designs.’
Couldn’t you argue that, say, ‘Mickey Mouse’ is the equivalent of a brand, and any new stories or films Disney creates involving that character count as ‘new designs’?
Just a theoretical position…
Ey-up,
“Couldn’t you argue that, say, ‘Mickey Mouse’ is the equivalent of a brand, and any new stories or films Disney creates involving that character count as ‘new designs’?”
Why yes you could. And there’s an entire branch of Intellectual “Property” protection which controls just that type of thing. The difference is it is not automatic, applies only to specific items, is more difficult to establish and needs to be defended and maintained. It’s called a Trademark.
And when you maintain a Trademark for a long time you only affect the Trademarked material – not every other piece of literature, music or art that has been made in the same period.
This I know. I was wondering what your position would be on a company trademarking a character that they were continually using. I don’t know the law on this issue, but in theory?
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘every other piece of literature … in the same period’ – I don’t think anyone was suggesting corporations had the right to own the copyright on anything anyone ever wrote.
Ey-up,
“I’m not sure what you mean by ‘every other piece of literature … in the same period’ ”
Simply this – every time that copyright has been extended at the behest of lobbying on the part of corporations like DisneyCo. it has not just extended the copyright on Mickey Mouse – it has extended the copyright on every other piece of literature, art and music. If they want to defend keeping Mickey Mouse out of the public domain via Trademark then they are welcome to do it. But the campaigns to extend copyright don’t just affect Mickey.
So you don’t mind characters being kept out of the public domain by use of trademark law, just copyright? Doesn’t it have the same effect, at least regarding trademarked characters?
Ey-up,
No it doesn’t have the same effect. For one thing it has very limited scope – only the Trademarked item is protected, not everything it’s ever been used in or with. Second, you can’t just trademark anything willy-nilly. It has to be uniquely representative of your company. And third, it has to be continually defended, used and registered – they have to take steps prove that it is still representative of their company and has not become generic. It puts the onus on them, not the public.
I don’t know what other elements are connected, but Daffy, Goofy, Minnie are all trademarked characters. Any unauthorized use including dilution is not legal. Period. What you want to do with them is suspect based on the sort of crap fanficcers write. They trend toward perversity. I would compel some of the wiser women like ey-up to make some sort of an impression on these young, and older women, who can’t understand or accept the law in this matter.
This is illustrated by a fanfiction writer, a young lady, who sold a three book series to Harper Teen after writing fanfiction for years, and still proudly does so.
“It’s a shame you made crime pay,” I said.
You ain’t compelling me to do nothing, Mark. And don’t bring gender into this; I’ve seen too many unpleasant remarks about women from you not to be find your praise of me as a ‘wiser woman’ unwelcome. Including, I might add, remarks directed at me and my ‘woman’s logic’ when I happened to disagree with you.
Fan fiction is a complicated question that benefits from healthy debate; treating women as if they were lesser intellects purely on the grounds of their gender is a monstrous fallacy that allies you with one of the stupidest and most wicked prejudices ever to plague humanity. If I have to choose between fan fiction and sexism, I’m picking fan fiction every time.
So you’re just gender biased or blind to the fact women are the ones writing this stuff. Fine. But that doesn’t explain it does it? Why are they so attracted to this sort of play? It’s a legitimate question.
I haven’t peeked in here in a while, but I see things are getting out-of-hand. I have deleted some abusive messages (not towards me, by the way) and the replies they provoked. Commenting on the discussion is fine, calling one another assholes isn’t.
It’s a legitimate question. It’s just not the one you asked.
You didn’t ask why women were attracted to this sort of play, you referred to women as being unable to ‘understand or accept the law’. That’s implying women are either too unintelligent or too unreasonable to accept plain facts, which tallies with other remarks I’ve seen you make.
There are demonstrably intelligent and reasonable women on both sides of this debate. If, in the face of that, you still cling to notions that women are irrational, then clearly this is because you’re personally attached to the idea. There’s gender bias here, but not from me.
In view of which, why should anyone bother discussing anything about women with you? You’re not going to listen to anything that doesn’t confirm your own prejudices.
Based on what you’ve said here and previously, I think your real question is ‘Given that fan fiction is mostly written by women, and that fan fiction is bad, doesn’t that prove my point that women are inferior?’ Disingenous questions, intended to confirm a pernicious prejudice unconnected with the subject under discussion, don’t merit an answer.
I didn’t write that last post to debate with you, I did it to call you on a sexist implication and make it plain that I’m not supporting that implication, whether or not you choose to support any ideas I may argue.
The reasons why fan fiction is primarily a female discourse are potentially an interesting subject for discussion. But not with you, or with anyone stupid enough to consider a person’s reproductive system before their brain.
Yeah, you’re using fallacious logic here. That’s generically fallacious. The fact of the matter is they do ignore the law and they, for the mostpart happen to be women. If there are men doing this I condemn them equally. But I rarely find one.
Injecting an implication is false arumentation and based on your perception alone. This is backed up nicely by that syllogism you just wrote. That’s your fiction not my idea or concept. And I resent it. Women aren’t all created equal among themselves any more than men are. If you are saying they are, that’s part of the problem.
“If I have to choose between fan fiction and sexism, I’m picking fan fiction every time.”
False dilemma. It doesn’t take much to draw your assertion that I’m stupid though according to this insult.”But not with you, or with anyone stupid enough…”
Or you either who can’t tell the difference.
I’ll probably kick myself later for responding to a prompt from Mr. York, but oh well.
There is no single reason which fully explains any sociological phenomenon, but off the top of my head:
— Women are, on average, more verbal than men, and therefore more likely to engage a source through writing (fiction or other) than other fan activities.
— Women in the past were discouraged from “putting themselves forward” and that still colors their perception of their own work. They are probably more likely than men to treat fan activities as a hobby rather than as a potential market, and therefore less protective of how their work is distributed and more likely to post it online.
— Much fanfiction is aimed at character exploration and filling in perceived holes in the canon. Since most genre TV and movies are marketed at young men, presumably the majority are already getting what they want from the cannon (obviously this only applies to media fandoms).
— The recent perception of fan writing as a female activity is more likely to drive men away from the activity than women are likely to be driven away from any perceived “male” activity. This jives with my personal impression that I knew more male fan writers in the past than seem to be active now.
— My personal impression is that on-line fan communities are more female dominated now than they were in the past. This may have more to do with the particular community structure of popular journal sites like Vox and LiveJournal than anything to do with fandom itself. These online communities are an end unto themselves, unlike the individual websites and Usenet lists of the past that were more of an outgrowth of off-line fandom.
I’m sure there are others – these are just the possibilities that occurred to me over breakfast and are no doubt colored by my own biases. None of these has anything to do with greater or lesser creative talents or ethical and legal standards of either sex. There are certainly men who write fan fiction (I see one well known fan author who’s webpage is actually linked from Mr. Goldberg’s sidebar). And there are lots of other fan activities – video exchanges, fan art, filks, manips, fanvids, cosplay, RPGs – some of which are equally in violation of copyrights and trademarks. They’re not things I’ve ever participated in myself so I have no personal impression, but I would be very interested to know what the sex ratio of the participants in those activities are. I suspect that they skew very much less towards women (especially the more visually oriented activities).
Ey-up, if you’re interested in this topic – I haven’t read it myself yet so I can’t vouch for the quality, but _Cyberspaces of Their Own: Female Fandoms Online_ by Rhiannon Bury would seem to be relevant. It’s available from Amazon.
Thanks, Lost Erizo, I’ll look out for it. I hope you don’t end up kicking yourself (though it seems possible), but I was interested to read your ideas myself anyway. Have a good one… 🙂
I think men are much less likely to invest effort in something that can bear no fruit, while women frequently over busy themselves just to be busy at something. There is always the exception. This is a fantasy hobby and they don’t seem to get that it’s quasi-legal. Morever, for reasons I fail to comprehend, don’t care. When one considers what it takes to get published, wasted effort is wasted effort.
Mr. York,
The fact that you ascribe a single explanation to the behavior of an entire class of people based entirely on the sex-ratio of the participants is enough to reinforce my previously held opinion that you are a bigot. But for the benefit of other readers, these are the assumptions you’ve made that don’t hold water:
“When one considers what it takes to get published, wasted effort is wasted effort.”
You’ve assumed that a significant minority (I won’t even say majority) of fan writers are putting any effort into getting published. That’s something quite different than putting effort into writing. One can’t “waste” effort one is not making.
“I think men are much less likely to invest effort in something that can bear no fruit, while women frequently over busy themselves just to be busy at something.”
You’ve actually made two assumptions here. First, that women are more likely to engage in hobbies than men, something I see no evidence of. The sheer number of men engaged in such activities as amateur sport, fishing, gaming, watching pro-sport, carving, painting, gardening etc. indicates that that is a hollow argument. While women may, on average, chose different hobbies than men, you’ve given no evidence of a significant difference in their frequency or utility.
The second is that hobbies serve no purpose – “bear no fruit” to use your phrase. The fact that their purpose is not necessarily profit doesn’t lessen their importance or utility. I won’t use myself as an example since that would merely feed your prejudices, but I had a friend in grad school who was a quilter. Quilting had absolutely nothing to do with his career goals (he’s a biologist like me) or any other profit-making enterprise. These were not any amateurish patchworks either – they were works of art that you would be unlikely to see for sale at a craft store for less than a couple hundred. You know what he did with them? He gave them away. The point of doing them was not to sell them – it was to relax and do something that was as far removed from his job as possible. He had no interest in making the “effort” to sell them because he’d already reaped the benefit from the hobby. The mental boost that he got from his hobbies improved his mental health and let him do his job, and live, better. (He was also into gardening and home improvement, but that’s another story).
“they don’t seem to get that it’s quasi-legal.”
There is evidence that fans (of both sexes) are unclear on the full extent of copyright law – mostly, IMHO, because of the circulation of bad information, not because they are incapable of understanding. There’s also evidence from the discussions in this blog that indicates that there are a lot of professional writers who are unclear about copyrights as well – they seem to think that they have more rights than they actually do. But there’s no evidence that women are any more likely to be wrong about those facts than men. The number of men engaged in copyright violations in relation to other fan activities (some of which are mentioned in my previous post) would tend to indicate that that they are not. But you have no evidence in either case.
“One can’t “waste” effort one is not making.
Fair enough. You don’t want to be a writer only to pretend to be one with the work of one who is. I find you ethically challenged.
“The number of men engaged in copyright violations in relation to other fan activities (some of which are mentioned in my previous post) would tend to indicate that that they are not. But you have no evidence in either case.”
This isn’t evidence either and the fact you avoid yourself as an example is telling data selection. I’m a biologist myself, one who doesn’t self-select cherrypicked data to support a bias. Over generalizing, a logical fallacy, the few men who participate in this “hobby” to a false equality with the majority of women who do is also telling. But the data show it’s disingenuous.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I’m no bigot, but I have no get out of jail cards based on gender either. Apparently you do. That’s typical of the guilty.
‘”One can’t “waste” effort one is not making.” Fair enough. You don’t want to be a writer only to pretend to be one with the work of one who is. ‘
Once again, Mr. York, you demonstrate your inability to remember simple facts – ones that have been repeated often here. I neither write nor have ever claimed to write nor have ever wanted to write fiction of any sort. Neither do you, as far as I can tell from your blog. Please stop crediting me with motivations I don’t possess.
I wrote:
‘”The number of men engaged in copyright violations in relation to other fan activities (some of which are mentioned in my previous post) would tend to indicate that that they are not. But you have no evidence in either case.”‘
And you responded:
“This isn’t evidence either and the fact you avoid yourself as an example is telling data selection.”
Do you really want to know what my hobbies are? Reading science fiction and mysteries, painting (badly), amateur photography, baking, hiking, biking and following a couple of blogs on politics, writing and my favorite TV shows. None of them have anything to do with my day job nor do they make me any money – that is not their purpose. They are meant to give me mental and physical stimulation that’s different than what I do at work. Happy? Does this increase your sample size of…what, exactly? Frankly, I have no idea what you’re planning on doing with that information. The point of telling you about my friend from grad school wasn’t to provide data about anything – it was to give an example that would demonstrate that hobbies aren’t all about making money, nor should they be. The only point in avoiding myself as an example is that you seem to have this idea that women are the only ones with such hobbies – and my friend was one of the many men who do.
“I’m a biologist myself, one who doesn’t self-select cherrypicked data to support a bias. Over generalizing, a logical fallacy, the few men who participate in this “hobby” to a false equality with the majority of women who do is also telling. But the data show it’s disingenuous.”
What data? I haven’t cherry picked anything because you haven’t shown any. You have one data point – a sex ratio. Which you then used to tell a just-so story that confirms your own biases. And you expect us all to accept it with no support whatsoever? I didn’t pretend to provide any data – I proposed equally likely alternative hypotheses of things that I thought might be contributing factors – and ones which also didn’t make sexist assumptions. If we actually expect to prove anything, we’d need to test them. Got any actual data lying around? Doing sociological surveys in your spare time? I didn’t think so.
And please, read what I actually wrote – I didn’t say nor did I imply that the number of men writing fanfiction was significant – we’ve all acknowledged that the field is predominantly female. It wouldn’t matter if there were no men writing it at all. The issue I was addressing was whether men or women fans are more or less likely to understand or violate copyrights – and you can’t calculate that without including all the other copyright violations committed by fans. It’s hardly fair to judge women as a class for copyright violations in the pursuit of an activity that men may simply not be interested in without also holding men to account for their own violations in the pursuit of activities that they _are_ interested in. Talk about cherry picking data. It doesn’t say anything in particular about the honesty, integrity, intelligence or creativity of women in general that some write fanfic – all it tells us is that it is an activity that some of them enjoy. In order to explain why it’s predominantly women you’ll need more than one data point.
What other copyright violations are committed by “fans?”
“I neither write nor have ever claimed to write nor have ever wanted to write fiction of any sort. Neither do you, as far as I can tell from your blog.”
I do in fact. I’m in the SS contest at Gather.com and a chapter is linked on my blog so you got that obvious fact wrong. You write fanfiction as a hobby I take it. That’s the point of contention, not that you write for commercial publication original fiction.
Dear Mr. York,
Let me parse this into little words so that you can understand – I do not write fiction of any sort. I have never claimed to write fiction of any sort. Not commercially published fiction. Not fanfiction. None. As I have repeatedly told you and everyone else on this blog, in every thread that I’ve participated in, I do not write fanfiction. I have listed my hobbies for your perusal and you’ll notice that writing fiction isn’t one of them. Is that clear enough for you to understand?
“I do in fact. I’m in the SS contest at Gather.com and a chapter is linked on my blog so you got that obvious fact wrong. ”
Apologies – so you have written something. Congratulations. Your blogspot page lists no such link – at least not on the front page and not in the recent entries, so it’s not all that obvious. I’m frankly not interested enough in you to have bothered exploring further. It doesn’t change the fact that you continue to credit me with activities and motivations that I have repeatedly told you do not apply. Please stop doing it.
“What other copyright violations are committed by “fans?””
Are you being deliberately obtuse? If you had bothered to read the entries you responded to, or even now bothered to scroll up the page, you would know that I had previously listed video exchanges, fan art, filks, manips, fanvids, cosplay, and RPGs as a few of the relevant activities. I’m sure there are more. They aren’t things I’ve ever taken a personal interest in nor made a study of but anyone who has had any interaction with fandoms will be familiar with their existence.
“so you have written something” Yes I have. Five books to be exact most as nonfiction until a year ago.
If that’s the case I stand corrected, but why you argue in favor of it is even more puzzling. My links are all on the right side of my blog, newspaper clips nonfiction samples, and one fiction. It’s plain as day.
I have no idea what that other fan crap is, but I doubt it’s as big as this. I recommend studying copyright law if you’re that interested, because your defenses are the same weak offerings the fanficcers always trot out. It’s falty reasoning whether you want it to be kosher or not. It isn’t.
Fanficcers willfully violate copyright laws and the majority are women. It doesn’t make any difference how many men quilt or garden or what their understanding of infringement is, because for the mostpart they aren’t the ones doing it. It is what it is on the face of it.
Aaaand we’re back to you can’t prove your point so you’re going to stick with your prejudices. And you wonder why I think you’re a bigot.
I comment about fanfic because as someone who enjoys literature and who has participated in fandoms for more than a decade, it’s a subject that interests me. And I shouldn’t have to point it out, but you are no more of an authority on copyright law than I am. Neither of us went to law school. I have read and continue to read about copyright law – I try to educate myself on any subject I make the effort to comment on. If there is something wrong with my reasoning you’ve had ample opportunity to make counter arguments. Instead you’ve chosen to make unsupported assertions (many of which were either intentionally or unintentionally full of factual errors), spout off with your repulsive prejudices, and mock or insult the participants in the debate. I can’t say I have a lot of respect for that or much care what your opinion of me is.
Re: your blog
Sorry, I should have specified “so you have written some _fiction_.” I wasn’t including non-fiction. I _am_ guilty of writing that. I did eventually find it – just under the links to articles on the CSU Budget and the Artic Refuge. I wouldn’t exactly call that obvious.
“who has participated in fandoms for more than a decade, it’s a subject that interests me.”
I proudly don’t know what this means. You cheer and rate the writings?
Actually I’m in law school now and have completed media law courses a part of my journalism degree, so that puts me a bit above being “involved in fandom.”
Your reasoning is biased towards those invloved in said “fandom” and who write fiction based on copyrighted characters. They’re your kind of people. The evidence is your claim of “ignorance of the law,” by all participants in fanwriting. You haven’t studied at all as near as I can tell and I have no factual errors in anything I’ve said here on this matter. Keep twisting in the wind, because whether it’s me, Lee, or David Montgomery, your argument still isn’t convincing, just another fan shill. I get it.
Incidentally, Mark, this is what I meant when I said that if I had to choose between fan fiction and sexism I was picking fan fiction. Case in point: Lost Erizo and I have disagreed many times about fan fiction and you and I have often agreed, but in this debate, I’m entirely on her side.
Mr. York,
“I proudly don’t know what this means. You cheer and rate the writings?”
Why am I not surprised that you are proud of your ignorance?
Strangely enough, fandom is exactly what the word implies – a community of fans united by a common interest – in my case usually fans of a book, movie, TV show, comic or other genre. Community interactions are usually centered around enjoyment of the original source – fanfiction is a minor offshoot of primarily media and literary fandoms. Literary fandom is not all about fanfiction. Much like football fandom is not generally all about collecting football jerseys – it’s about watching and enjoying football and enjoying the company of other football fans.
“Actually I’m in law school now and have completed media law courses a part of my journalism degree, so that puts me a bit above being “involved in fandom.””
I have to say that surprises me – most lawyers I know actually know how to construct an argument and enjoy doing so. And most people who study the law can also distinguish between different types of intellectual property, understand that the “property” in that phrase refers to the rights granted, not the item protected, understand the difference between infringement and theft, and understand that ‘ownership of’ and ‘control of’ are separate concepts – all distinctions that you either dismissed or mocked in your comments in this and other threads.
“Your reasoning is biased towards those inloved in said “fandom” and who write fiction based on copyrighted characters. They’re your kind of people.”
Of course they’re my kind of people – why do you think I like to hang out with them? Is that meant to make some sort of comment on my character? I’m not ashamed of fans or fandom.
This is an attack on my motivations – not a critique of my logic or a counter to any argument. I don’t deny that I am biased. I have always been upfront on what those biases are. But if that bias has caused me to make flawed arguments, well then they should be easy to refute. Why don’t you try?
“The evidence is your claim of “ignorance of the law,” by all participants in fanwriting.”
I didn’t claim ignorance of the law – you did. I believe that you are the one who said “they don’t seem to get that it is quasi-legal.” To which I replied that there was a lot of bad information in circulation and that women were no more likely than men to misunderstand the law. I wouldn’t make any claim about “all” participants in anything unless I had census data. I think you’ll find that although there are exceptions, the majority fan writers are perfectly aware that their activities are either technically illegal, or dependant on very shaky and largely unprecedented “fair use” arguments that they will probably never have the opportunity or financial wherewithal to attempt to defend.
‘You haven’t studied at all as near as I can tell”
Since you can’t possibly know what I have or haven’t studied any more than I could have known that you are in law school, please point out specific problems with an actual argument that indicate that I am actually wrong on a point of law. I imagine that might be difficult since I have for the most part argued about the underlying ethical justification for the law, rather than the law itself so perhaps you would do better to concentrate on that instead. But I’ll respond to any substantive criticism. If I have misinterpreted something, I would certainly like to know that – unlike you, I don’t see any positive to living in ignorance.
Well you certainly do run form the issue and bifurcate its parts in a myriad of ways to your benefit as the biased always are wont to do.
“Why don’t you try?”
They willfully break the law, bad information or not. The easily understood laws of infringement aren’t that hard to grasp yet this subset of fan women, including Cathy Young who started this thread willfully refuse. They’re guilty. No excuses allowed or necessary. If they don’t understand the basics I don’t know what part of that ignorance is justifiable.
It’s both an ethical violation and a legal one. The latter is difficult to prosecute. They know that too, and exploit it. If it was about practice writing it would stay in their desks or on their hard drives but it isn’t. They publish it and that crosses the line.
“Lost Erizo and I have disagreed many times about fan fiction and you and I have often agreed, but in this debate, I’m entirely on her side.”
That’s because sisterhood trumps all with some women. She’s like a cat chasing her tail. In her fanworld, everything is justified: the law doesn’t make it clear to them, yet the ignorance is mine. The ethics are iffy, yet it’s my fault for not getting it. I don’t and with good reason.
“Copyright concerns the right to control duplication of both exact original expression and derivative works based on previously existing exact original expression. It does not involve “ideas” per se.” C.E. Petit Esq
http://www.authorslawyer.com/weft/fanfic.shtml#3a
More to the point:
“The primary “defense” raised by most advocates of fan fiction is the Lanham Act’s “uses in commerce” requirement. These writers claim that their fan fiction is a “work of love” that is noncommercial in nature, and therefore cannot possibly infringe a mark. I’m afraid, though, that this is based on an unduly restricted (and self-serving) definition of “commerce.” If there is advertising connected with the fan fiction, such as banner ads on a website; if there is a subscription fee or other payment of any kind for access, even if ultimately at a loss; if there is a membership fee; in short, if by any conception there is money changing hands, there is arguably commerce. This, in turn, means that if fan fiction is hosted on a website through a commercial ISP, it may be in commerce.”
And there you have it. The real question still remains: What would you do with Mickey and why? And why would these fanwriters describe their creations as “works of love?”
It’s because sexism is a worse vice than copyright violation. That isn’t sisterhood trumping all; any man worthy of the name knows it as well.
Mr. York,
“Well you certainly do run form the issue and bifurcate its parts in a myriad of ways to your benefit as the biased always are wont to do.”
I have no idea why you think “bifurcation” is a bad thing. You’re the law student – it’s a perfectly legitimate legal tool that allows a judge to consider someone’s responsibility and penalty as separate issues. It’s not clear that that is in fact what I’ve been doing, but that’s beside the point. Why is it a bad thing?
“They willfully break the law, bad information or not.”
Yes they do – because the law is not infallible. It is written by people, and other people may disagree with its structure, application or principles. Until recently, a lot of states had laws that outlawed specific private sexual behaviors between consenting adults – and I don’t have time for anyone who thinks that the people who broke the sodomy laws were doing anything wrong. That which is “illegal” ideally overlaps with that which is bad or harmful, but we don’t live in an ideal world and the two are often not synonymous, especially when violating the law doesn’t demonstrably harm anyone or anything. An argument could be made that no behavior should be suppressed by law unless it causes demonstrable harm. That’s not a position I’m going to try to defend because I’m frankly not that much of an extremist – I believe in making reasonable compromises for the good of society. I simply not convinced that suppressing fanfiction does any good for society.
“It’s both an ethical violation and a legal one.”
How is it an ethical violation to refuse to back down from one’s principles?
” The ethics are iffy, yet it’s my fault for not getting it.”
No, actually. Actual confusion or even vehement disagreement would be reasonable. I find fault with you for being mocking and insulting without making any other contribution to the argument. At least when Mr. Goldberg’s brother starts mocking he’s entertaining. Your continued misogynist spewing simply demonstrates that you can’t maintain a civil discussion.
The majority of the activity falls under this aptly-named rubric: The Mary Sue
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/004188.html
The motivation here is the typical erotic fantasy based on the POV, and thus, gender of the fanwriter. It’s inescapable as to motive.
“back down from one’s principles?”
You’ve shown you have none in this regard.
“It’s because sexism is a worse vice than copyright violation.”
And yet, it’s a team debate now. Fallacy files: false dilemma. The question still remains: why is it that this large group of women want to do this, despite the murkiness of the legal system which it still rooted in an earlier era? Female-based eros is the answer. Keep in mind it’s the subject disparagement i.e. altering recognized characters in perverse ways that’s the most objectionable. Dilution less so. It isn’t real murder and torture, so that would another instance of many, of false comparisons and overgeneralizations, both fallacious. I find your collective ad homnem tiresome and futile.
Here’s a lady who and delves into the issue without fear of self-examination.
http://www.thehighhat.com/Marginalia/005/slash.html
The article by Mr. Petit referenced by Mr. York is certainly an interesting read, but it’s hardly the last word on fanfic.
I’m pretty sure I have never seen any fan writer describe their work as a “work of love,” so as far as I can tell the phrase was coined by Mr. Petit, so whatever prurient interpretation Mr. York wants to make of the phrase he should address to his reference. The Lanham Act is the statute on trademark law, not copyright. The majority of fictional characters are not registered trademarks so the Lanham Act applies only to a small fraction of existing fanfic, regardless of how Mr. York and Mr. Petit want to interpret it. The defense of the majority of fanfic could not logically be based on provisions of the Lanham Act.
That said, the infringement provision of the statute says that infringement has taken place in cases where “imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion.” 15 USC 1114(a). There are two key issues there – profit from commerce, and that it’s use will cause confusion. Both are extremely unlikely in the case of most fanfiction, because it’s not for profit and the majority is labeled with disclaimers which specify that they are unauthorized (Mr. Petit rightly calls this a shaky defense against a lawsuit, but he doesn’t deny that it supports it’s intended purpose). A later provision specifically addresses hosting by profit making enterprises such as websites and periodicals saying that remedies “shall be limited to an injunction against the presentation of such advertising matter in future issues of such newspapers, magazines, or other similar periodicals or in future transmissions” 15 USC 1114(a)(2)(c) with the caveat that this only applies when the host is “an innocent infringer” (ie. they themselves are not the purveyors, only the hosts of the infringing material). The implication is that the only commerce that is relevant to the infringement is that which directly benefits the infringer. That seems a perfectly reasonable interpretation to me and the assertion that this is too narrow a definition of “commerce” is merely Mr. Petit’s opinion. Even he admits that the statute doesn’t clearly support his position (in an earlier part of that blog entry, not quoted by Mr. York). In addition, the dilution provision specifically excludes from legal action “Noncommercial use of a mark” 15 USC 1125(b)(4)(B) which would seem to apply to some fanfiction.
As I’ve said before I’m not a legal expert, so I’m not familiar with any case law that may have extended or limited the interpretation of the statute, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. Mr. Petit _is_ an expert (he’s a lawyer with a practice in intellectual property law), but he also doesn’t cite any case law to support his supposition that third party advetizing on fansites qualifies as commerce under the statute, and as I said before he admits that it is not clear that the statute supports his position. Actually, he’s fond of bringing up court cases and pointing out how the courts made wrong decisions, apparently because they disagree with him. He also quite deliberately conflates copyright and trademark law (and admits to doing so), and chastises the courts because they don’t. The fact that he so often disagrees with the courts’ interpretation of these issues leads me to believe that his theory is probably not generally accepted.
I encourage anyone who is interested to read the text of the Lanham Act – it’s actually in fairly plain language. The full text can be found at http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/
Lost Erizo, if you were to read fan writer Cathy Young’s response to Lee’s respone to her misguided, possibly Communist, possibly the work of the Taliban article, you’d find this:
“I singled out this argument because I found it particularly bizarre — it’s the first time I have seen paid hackwork held up as morally superior to an unpaid labor of love”
Mr. Goldberg,
Ah -I stand corrected. In the rephrasing it’s much more recognizable as the old cliche. Same meaning, different flavor. I still have no intention of interpreting it in order to feed Mr. York’s conspiracy theories about women.
Tod, don’t you think encouraging Mr. York to show his rear-end on this blog by appearing to support his suggestion that fanfiction as a “labor of love” is actually proof of sexual deviance is just cruel ? — He clearly has no clue how he actually looks.
It’s a little like the jock boys encouraging the special ed kid to go hit on the cheerleader by telling him he’s cool.
If Tod didn’t agree I’m sure he’d say so. He’s hit on a theme. That “quip” wasn’t neccessarily meant to indicate “prurient interest” per se, but it could given the preponderance of evidence that’s what the infringing use is. “Love” apparently is the payoff though and not money. Let’s not forget advertising and promoting one’s writing, since it has paid off for a select few, so that is commerce too as, Petit said.
LR you claims no expertise in law yet analyze, to your benefit, the law as leaving the door open to fanficcers. You do so in the face of an expert. Appeal to authority hieracrchy would not defer to you. It’s only open because they want to open it. Closing it is a much more complicated thing.
“which would seem to apply”
“Seem” is a weak verb for weak assertions; a weasel word. It’s the type of thing I edit out of my books. In the end, Petit calls fanfiction “a cross between dilution and disparagement.” I think that’s accurate and an area that will be open for a judge to interpret. A judge reading this would label you a “zealous advocate.” That role has limitations and often is squelched.
Mr. York,
“LR you claims no expertise in law yet analyze, to your benefit, the law as leaving the door open to fanficcers. You do so in the face of an expert. Appeal to authority hieracrchy would not defer to you. It’s only open because they want to open it. Closing it is a much more complicated thing.”
No, Mr. York, I don’t have to blindly accept an argument from authority because I am a thinking human being, not an automaton following a program. I do the people reading this blog the courtesy of assuming that they are intelligent enough take into account that I am not an expert in the law and evaluate for themselves whether my criticisms of Mr. Petit are persuasive. Mr. Petit is not a judge and he doesn’t represent the courts – he is an experienced lawyer who wrote one informed opinion for his blog. It’s not a court decision. Mr. Petit is one lawyer – others would no doubt have differing opinons and theories. Our court system is built on an adversarial process – presumably if Mr. Petit were to argue this legal theory in front of a judge then another lawyer, also an expert, would make an opposing argument.
“”Seem” is a weak verb for weak assertions; a weasel word.”
I used it deliberately. I think that clause applies to fanfiction, but I am not sure how it has been interpreted by the courts in the past.
I’m sorry if my language use offends – I’ve gotten too accustomed to scientific writing and my writing style has suffered for it. You might, however, want to edit your posts before casting aspersions on other people’s writing.
“Petit calls fanfiction “a cross between dilution and disparagement.””
His theory may apply in cases of trademark infringement – everyone can evaluate for themselves if my problems with his theory are valid. But trademarks apply to a relatively small amount of fanfiction. The far majority is covered by copyright, not trademark. Copyrights cannot be diluted or disparaged.
Well, they can be infringed if that is the case. I contend that is what is going on “in addition” to trademark disparagement. I’d be thrilled to read any scientific opinion you would write. I doubt I’ll find any though because whatever there may be is hidden behind a veil of shame of your fandom super hero persona. Get together and write an op-ed with Cathy Young. You’re perfectly/matched.
I don’t have any idea what Mark is talking about, generally and particularly, I just saw LE’s assertion and remembered seeing it in Cathy Young’s story. I’m mostly just stunned that you guys are all still discussing this.
Are you kidding, Tod? This discussion is an evergreen. It’ll be here long after we are. 🙂
Mr. York,
“Well, they can be infringed if that is the case. I contend that is what is going on “in addition” to trademark disparagement.”
And…did you have a point to make? That copyright infringement is possible was never in question. Whether fanfiction qualifies, and if a defense under the commerce provisions of the Lanham Act is relevant, was. It can’t be “in addition” to trademark infringement if the work in question is not a trademark.
“I’d be thrilled to read any scientific opinion you would write. I doubt I’ll find any though because whatever there may be is hidden behind a veil of shame of your fandom super hero persona.”
I’m sorry my use of a pseudonym offends you. But even if your behavior here had given me any reason to believe that you would respect my privacy were I to give you my real name, you can’t make any such guarantees about the other denizens of the internet.
Besides, how exactly is reading about population genetics in marine invertebrates going to help you to evaluate what I’ve said about fandom and intellectual property? Is it relevant? Or was your comment supposed to imply that I’m lying about my background? What exactly would be my advantage in doing that since I’ve primarily revealed that this is not my area of expertise?
“Get together and write an op-ed with Cathy Young. You’re perfectly/matched.”
Actually, Ms. Young and I disagree on a lot of points – it’s one of the reasons I didn’t join this discussion earlier.
You do realize you’ve retreated to playground taunts, right?
Mr. Goldberg,
I understand the feeling – unfortunately it was entirely predictable. See above re: wanting to kick myself.
The “labor of love” quote as a payoff for writing fanfiction generally and specifically. Petit used it since it’s a canard fanficcers use, and low and behold so did Cathy Young, so your quote backed it up nicely. Yes, this is a colossal waste of time and arguing with me here in the dungeon won’t change a thing. The thread was dead until ey-up and LR here fired it back up again. David showed up and was quickly dispatched by the circular profanfic logic and wisely left.
I’m the one kicking myself for engaging a cultist. She needs debriefing by experts in that area.
“It can’t be “in addition” to trademark infringement if the work in question is not a trademark.”
Here, you needed to be able to bifurcate: there can be two separate cases e.g. different pieces of fiction, one of infringement, and one on trademark dilution/disparagement. In law “it depends” is often the qualifying answer.
Mr. York,
“Here, you needed to be able to bifurcate: there can be two separate cases e.g. different pieces of fiction, one of infringement, and one on trademark dilution/disparagement. In law “it depends” is often the qualifying answer.”
I thought you were a law student, or did you mean bifurcate in the generic sense of the term? Bifurcation doesn’t create separate cases or suits, nor does it apply to cases that are already separate – it merely allows a judge to consider different aspects of the same case separately.
I never questioned that some fanfiction might qualify as trademark infringement or that some fanfiction might qualify as copyright infringement. Mr. Petit, whom you seem to admire, asserted that the commerce provisions of the Lanham Act comprised the primary defense of fan works because they are not for-profit. It’s illogical that their _primary_ defense would come from the Lanham Act since trademarks apply to a relatively miniscule amount of their work. It’s also unclear that Mr. Petit’s assertion, that third party advertisements by web hosts on fansites negates the non-commercial use defense in those cases where trademarks do apply, is valid. Neither he nor you offered any evidence or precedent to support that bald assertion.
Take it up with Petit. A judge will decide if there’s relavant “evidence” or not when the time comes. Just keep giving them more fodder for the fire that is sure to come. There will be cases that are separate and there may well be cases that contain both aspects. What you are doing is denying anything against fanfiction exists. That won’t make it true, but the larger issue is why this sort of deviancy exists in the first place? I posit fame worship and a desire to be near it. Polls have shown most yong women want to be personal asssistants to celebrities. This is a permutation of that. How a scientist falls into this pit is beyond me. Don’t respond. This is my last entry.
Mr. York, if you don’t want to respond that is your business and normally I am perfectly willing to leave it alone when someone decides to bow out of a discussion for any reason. Therefore, I won’t respond to the majority of what you said. But you don’t get to mischaracterize my position and then tell me not to respond. I have never said that there are no valid arguments against fanfiction. I can say with complete confidence, however, that you have not presented any convincing ones.
Ciao.
Very well then, after all this we still don’t know what your position is. That qualifies as “confused” just like Petit said. Evade dodge and weave, argument by division. I said, I never said, it isn’t this or that etc. Whatever.
Mark York wrote, “I have no idea what that other fan crap is, but I doubt it’s as big as this.”
My suspicion is that parts of it are much larger. Fanfiction is a small corner of the fan community; even now I’d guess that even most active fans have never read a fanfic and most of them probably never will.
So, some definitions
“video exchanges”
When I was much younger and before downloading video images became possible, before DVDs, fans used to record TV shows off air, and copy them to their friends in other countries at cost. Obviously this is copyright infringement, and my experience was that it was indulged in equally by male and female fans.
Did it lose the studios money? It probably didn’t in the long run because fans will buy videos when they come out – the copy they have been given is likely to be a 4th generation copy.
I reckon that video exchange was, until the advent of online torrents, the single biggest area of fannish interaction.
“fan art”
Using images from shows (books, comics, whatever) to produce more art. Some of these are very good, and as art is usually an original interpretation, I don’t think it’s a copyright infringement. There can be a trademark issue if the fan artist used a trademarked image or logo, but in my experience that would be rare.
If there is any serious money to be made in fanworks, it’s in art; original works used to go at US conventions for $300 and $400, but not in the UK. For some reason, UK fans wouldn’t usually buy art.
I have no idea of the relative participation of the genders in fan art, from my experience I suspect it’s mostly women.
“filks”
Fan created folk music. I don’t see how mentioning a name in a song is a violation of copyright, and some use copyrighted music mostly (I gather) both words and music are original.
Gender participation in filk appears to be 50/50 from my very limited experience. (I can’t stand filk and stay well away from it.)
“manips”
Pictures, usually photographs or fan art, which have been altered using digital manipulation programs. I’m not sure of the legal status of manips, I have a feeling there’s been recent case law. Again my feeling is that this is 50/50 and that it’s fairly common – more so than fanfic.
“fanvids”
Take the original pictures of a show, manipulate them using video editing software and then put a tune to the resulting pictures. Put the result onto DVD. I tend to think gender participation in this is 50/50, but the results put out by the different genders are quite distinct.
“cosplay”
Making and wearing costumes. Can involve fannish work (where the costume is a copy or adaptation of what’s on the film/show/whatever) but need not – a lot of costumes you see at conventions are original work.
Quite a few shows (Star Trek as just one example) sold patterns for the costumes used in the show clearly intending that fans should use them to make their own versions. Some fans cannot sew, so they sometimes get them made by people who can, who usually charge for the materials and labour.
Cosplay, in my limited experience, is largely male. This seems less odd when you consider that re-enactment groups like the Sealed Knot and the Roman groups are 90+% male.
“RPGs”
Role playing games (and board games) are often sold by the copyright holder to the fans. A long-ago spin off from tabletop wargaming which is 99% male participation, RPGs are still a largely male area in my experience.
Where the game has been written by the game-master, or adapted from a generic set of rules, it can involve considerable copyright violation, but best of luck to anyone who wants to try catching anyone at it.
Mr. York,
I gave up trying to have a substantive argument with you a long time ago. At this point I’m pretty much just trying to keep you from putting words in my mouth.
Cheers.
No you’ve put many words in your own mouth but alas they didn’t amount to much. You ran from every question. The record is clear on that. Cheers and good luck on the marine invertebrate studies. It’s much more interesting that fantasy fiction.
I’d just like to bring this up, because it struck me as… well, it struck me, period. This being from Mr. Goldberg’s original post (which I found under the “fanfic” keyword), of course:
“I want to thank [Ms.Young] for [her] lengthy follow-up to my email. While I stand by everything [she’s] quoted this time (accurately, I should say), I still take issue with [her] statement above. I have never said that I write them only for the money. While it’s true that I’ve said I wouldn’t have written the MONK or DM novels unless I was hired to do so, I don’t think getting paid is what separates fanfiction (the theft of an authors’ work without his or her permissions) from licensed tie-ins or other derivative works that respect the original authors creative and legal rights. It’s not PAY that is the defining element — it’s PERMISSION.”
The reason this strikes me is that it occurs to me why you hate “fanfiction” so much – you’re using a working definition of the term that is more limited and less general than how many people use it.
The problem, in hindsight, is not surprising, given that the term itself is almost a neologism. The term “fan fiction” has only existed from the early 20th century – and it has only existed in the definition of being derivitive works since the 1960’s (in the Golden Age of science fiction during 1920’s-40’s or so, it merely referred to independantly-published amateur works, in contrast to professionally-published works by “pro” authors who usually got paid for their writing; a usage that surely led to the current usage of the term in an odd sort of evolution, given that the Star Trek fanzine publications of the 60’s were what popularized the term “fan fiction” in reference to derivitive works).
However, the fact of the matter is, the definition you use is not necessarily the most common one, which is probably why you’ve found yourself a lot of “enemies” in the fan fiction community online. The most commonly-cited definition is merely “fiction written by the fans of something”, with the people who knwo their proper terminology sometimes utilizing the phrase “derivitive work”. By the most loose (and apparently extremely common) interpretation, thus, ANY derivitive work written by someone who enjoyed the original but wasn’t one of the original authors counts as “fan fiction”, especially if it’s often not considered “canon” by the fans or creators of the original story (as is commonly the case with say, the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” novels, where many are original stories set in the universe, most of them were not written by the show’s writers, and none of their stories were pre-approved or even edited by the creator of the series or even his main coproducers). This would be why you’re commonly accused of “hypocrisy” for writing “what amounts to paid fanfic” – by loose definition, by THEIR definition (which isn’t an invalid one, just a different one from yours), they are right, especially since you say you enjoy writing the books. Of course, others believe it’s not “fanfic” unless you’re doing it for free, but obviously the ones I just described do not take that view. Personally, I’m on the fence; I think of “non-canon” official tie-in novels as being “explicitly authorized fan fiction”, because I do realize it’s a different animal from that you find online, in the legal sense, but since they’re not recognized as part of the original, they aren’t “canon”, and yet they’re not mere rumor so they thus must be “fan” fiction by default. There is no shame in it, by my definition, since what you do is legal regardless of what it’s called, and the average quality is inevitably going to be better than the average quality of non-licensed fan fiction online by virtue of having been edited and (presumably) spell-checked (nothing against fan fiction writers in general – some of my friends still write and read it, and I’ll confess to occasionally reading it as well – but the majority I’ve seen on fanfiction.net – which is the biggest and most popular fan fiction site in the world to the best of my knowledge- were very, very young and inexperienced and not taking it seriously, and did not care much about spelling or grammar). I have actually read a couple of very entertaining tie-in novels before (if you’re at all into “Buffy”, you ought to give “Go Ask Malice: A Slayer’s Diary” a try, as it’s a great little book, especially in how well it gets Faith’s character right, even going so far as to tie the “little things” from seemingly throwaway lines of dialogue from the show in and giving logical explanations for things like her “5 by 5” phrase).
In any case, I think I “get” your definition, finally; you believe that it is not “fan fiction” unless is is ONLY unauthorized, correct? I’m afraid though that I still do not quite understand your characterization of fan fiction as a whole as “theft”, given that some authors, such as JK Rowling, Joss Whedon, and countless others, have given their blessing to fan fiction writers (even Anne McCaffrey now allows some fan fiction, so long as it’s on a single, particular forum, where she has veto power over every fiction posting). If I tell my friends they can use my bike any time I’m not already using it, and they do, that’s not “theft”; it’s called “borrowing”. It’s only “theft” if the original owner doesn’t want to let you take it. A great example of this is Isaac Asimov; during his lifetime, there were a great many authors (including quite a few pros) that began to write their robot stories as if their robots followed Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics; Asimov is well-known for having stated that as far as he was concerned, only the explicit wording of the Three Laws were copyright to him, and merely borrowing the concept was fine with him (he apparently actually enjoyed the concept being so widely adopted), so long as you “left the quoting of the Three Laws to him” (or, now that he’s dead, presumably his estate).
If you haven’t authorized derivitive works with a blanket statement, I could understand how it would be “theft” – to YOU, if it’s of YOUR work. I fail to see how it’s still “theft” if somebody writes an alternate universe story using Harry Potter, however, given that JK Rowling has given permission for all kinds of fan fiction (with the exception of erotica that uses her underage characters). So long as it’s not word-for-word the original story (which is of course a type of copying few authors would ever permit 😛 ), I really, really fail to see in such a case how it could be “theft”.
“Fanficcers routinely and blithely disrespect an author’s creative and legal rights on the grounds that they aren’t getting paid for their work.”
Not most of the ones I know. Most of the ones I’ve seen make that kind of argument were self-absorbed 13-year-olds, which certainly not all fan fiction writers, even if they’re usually the most prolific on the more general, non-edited sites. However, of note is the fact that even non-prescreened sites like fanfiction.net outlaw fan fiction that uses material from authors who do not wish for there to be fan fiction based on their work. Fanfiction.net even keeps a list (in their TOS, I believe, as well as being displayed before you upload a story) of authors whose work cannot be utilized for fan fiction. Any writer caught uploading such works to fanfiction.net will have their story removed and find themselves with a temporary or possibly permanent ban from posting on the site.
“She also makes the same old, weak excuses for not seeking permission before publishing fanfiction. Like other fanficcers, she takes no responsibility for violating the creative and legal rights of authors and rights holders — instead, she believes the burden should be placed on authors or rights holders to issue a blanket approval or disapproval of fanfiction (not that fanficcers would honor such a statement anyway).”
Now, I can understand why you feel annoyed at her for trying to put the onus on creators to announce what they will or will not allow ahead of time. On the other hand, though, I like when a writer says upfront whether or not they’ll allow derivitive works, and under what conditions. Encouraging it isn’t a bad idea, I think. I know that when it comes to my own stories, I’m stating right up front the exact conditions I’ll allow it, because I want to make sure myself and any fans I may get in the future are going to all be on the same page.
Also, it simply isn’t true that “fanficcers” (which, as I’m sure you know as a professional writer, implies that you’re generalizing it to “all or most” writers of fan fiction) would not respect an author’s wishes. The majority of fan fiction writers on the majority of websites would suck it up and stop publishing it (though not necessarily stop writing it; but then, it’s the publication and distribution that you REALLY have a problem with, yes? And I don’t believe anyone has ever bothered to sue for copyright infringement on something that was never published, because what would be the point?). There are a probably (statistically speaking) a handful that wouldn’t, but there’s always a few bad apples; it doesn’t mean the whole barrel full’s rotten just because you find one or two with a worm in it.
In closing, and going back to what initially spurred me to comment here, I’d appreciate it if you would recognize that most people use a different definition of “fan fiction” than you do, and avoid using the word “theft” to characterize a genre of writing that, even when one restricts it to “non-licensed” derivitive works, is most often still “authorized”, even if only indirectly (e.g. JK Rowling’s or Joss Whedon’s statements regarding fan fiction). The most diehard fan fiction supporters (and I’m thinking, the ones who snap at you most often) are usually the ones who wouldn’t dare write fan fiction based on something where the original author didn’t want fan fiction based on it.
Coincidentally, in many interpretations of the term, it covers stories based on public domain works – derivitive works on public domain works are, of course, completely legal even when not “authorized”.
“it’s the publication and distribution that you REALLY have a problem with, yes?”
That’s the Big Kahuna in infringement, libel or trademark issues. It has to be published. Unfortunately, this rambling discourse only illustrates you can’t make up your own definitions and call others wrong in theirs. Unsubstantiated opinion carries no legal weight. The only derivitive work is that authorized by the copyright holder. You’re never going to get around this Inconvenient Truth.
So, Mr. York, what do you think about the world of fandom? I ask this in regards to the post above that showed that fanfiction is actually a very small fish in a very large pond of fanmade media. A very horrifying, putrid pond.
I have a question I’d appreciate your answering. Jo Rowling is an author who has a very relaxed stance towards fanfic. What is the difference between a writer, other than Rowling herself writing within the Potter-verse, and yourself? If you’ve made the distinction elsewhere, a link will do, but I’m genuinely curious.
Please disregard my earlier question, I found your post dated September 20, 2006 where you explain the distinction you draw between your tie-ins and fanfiction. Of the arguments you make there, the one I find most convincing “I have only written tie-ins based on TV shows that I also wrote and/or produced”, which makes you one of the creator writers in the first place.
However, could you elaborate the moral difference between work that has been solicited by the creator of a fiction, and work which he or she has allowed? In both instances the original creator is in control, and it boils down to a preference of the writer. As I see it there is no difference between the writer who writes because he has been asked, and the writer who writes because he has permission. One is being paid, but both are presumably writing because they loved the original work and have permission to play with it.
I agree that in instances where the creator writer has disallowed fanfiction, a fanwriter is wrong to write/publish fanfiction. But you seem to hold people writing fan works that have been allowed in the same contempt. Why is this?
Having looked at several of your entries on fanfiction, I have a couple of more questions. In one entry, you ridicule a fan complaining of plagiarism. I concede the point you make, but do you not think that word-for-word plagiarism is worse people you have allowed to play with your creations are playing with your creations? I think it’s ridiculous that people are campaigning to for fanfiction to have copyright, but I also think that criticising people for trying to stop any kind of plagiarism is a little pointless. If the creator of the copyrighted material feels as violated by fanfiction as she does by plagiarism, the fanfiction should not be published, but where fanfiction has been allowed, why does it follow that plagiarism should be?
Finally, I have one last question. The law regarding fanfiction is a grey area, and I think it is actually impossible to clarify. It will never be a crime, only a tort, and so always depend on the feelings of the copyright holder. I understand that you’ve had your fingers burnt by fanfiction before, but why do you care about fanfiction written about characters you didn’t create? If in your arguments against fanfiction you only picked examples from fandoms where the copyright holder is against fanfiction, I’d think you were showing solidarity with your professional fellows, but why do you frequently throw in digs at fandoms where the original writer doesn’t care?
If it wasn’t for fan fiction, I would not have gotten pro published.
Reading over what has already been written on the subject, this statement might seem ridiculous. An impossibility. It’s been said you need to be an established writer in order to be asked to write a media tie-in. In my case, this wasn’t true.
Back in the early 90’s I wrote a bunch of Quantum Leap fan fiction. This was a fun pursuit, a way to network with other fans in a uniquely creative way.
When the novel series for the show was announced, I felt confident enough to submit an outline.
My editor at Berkley was open to submissions from fan writers. There were at least two others besides myself who made the cut.
The novel series ended up a combined effort of both established writers like Melanie Rawn and new authors like myself.
It was a wonderful learning experience, which is why I think fan fiction can open doors, if the author has the talent and drive to make it happen.