"fan fiction "......

[Sil_liS]

Fanfiction is proof that people will write and distribute stories even without the prospect of monetary compensation.

I don't get the attitude of the article in the OP:

But what happens if, in the free-for-all of online publication, a spin-off book starts to eclipse the original from which it derives? Does the author bring in the lawyers? Or will it be too late to stop the bastard offspring from zooming all over cyberspace?

The point of copyright was to encourage creative people to create. Why would anyone lament the creation of a better story just because it is based on what someone wrote [insert variable amount of time] years ago?

[HarryT]

Because the fan fiction writer is a leech, a parasite, a blood-sucker, feeding from the creativity of someone else. If somebody wants to be an author, let them create their own worlds, not steal somebody else's.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because the fan fiction writer is a leech, a parasite, a blood-sucker, feeding from the creativity of someone else. If somebody wants to be an author, let them create their own worlds, not steal somebody else's.

Seems like an hysterical over-reaction

Fan fiction as a genre is entirely open about the fact that it is not original, that it builds on the work of others. I'd be more concerned about things like plagiarism and the fact that established authors can get any old garbage published (try reading Michael Crichton's Micro as an example of both).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Seems like an hysterical over-reaction

No; that's the reason we have copyright law, which prohibits someone from simply taking someone else's book and writing a sequel to it. And that's precisely what these fan fiction authors are doing, in blatent disregard for the law.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because the fan fiction writer is a leech, a parasite, a blood-sucker, feeding from the creativity of someone else. If somebody wants to be an author, let them create their own worlds, not steal somebody else's.

A lot of emotive words here. You are not living up to your own standard that you try to impose to others that is the standard not to use emotive words.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because the fan fiction writer is a leech, a parasite, a blood-sucker, feeding from the creativity of someone else. If somebody wants to be an author, let them create their own worlds, not steal somebody else's.

Nonsense. The fanfic writer, far from being a leech, is the most devoted customer of the original material. When you eliminate a parasite, you're in a better position, healthier and stronger. A tapeworm takes but gives nothing back, you will be healthier when it is gone. But drive out the fanfic writer and reader, and you're worse off, because you're driving off your most devoted customers. I haven't read fan fiction in quite some time. If someone wants to drive out the fanfic writers, it's petty, but they are free to do so.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I completely understand your viewpoint, but the only thing that really matters is what a court would think, and I suspect that you may have difficulty in persuading a judge of your view.

So since there is no court decision why do you call people "leeches" and "blod suckers" and so on? Since you do not know the courts view and that is the only thing that matters I do not get were you get your opinions from here.

[HarryT]

Which part do you disagree with, Tommy? That fan fiction is a derived work, or that derived works are illegal?

[BeccaPrice]

When an author agrees with HarryT about fanfic, most fan ficcers respect that and don't write (or at least publish) in that universe. A lot of authors see the fan fic as the homage it is, and don't mind... but are careful themselves not to read any of the fan fic least they inadvertantly steal an idea from the fic. (Wasn't there an issue with Marion Zimmer Bradley about that?)

[QuantumIguana]

If fanfic writers are "leeches, parasites and blood-suckers" then they are still leeches, parasites and blood-suckers even if the original creator doesn't object to people writing fanfic, because even if they have permission, they are still fanfic writers. If they are hired to right a derivative work, such as writing a Star Trek novel, is that uncreative? The legal status doesn't make it more or less uncreative.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

(Wasn't there an issue with Marion Zimmer Bradley about that?)

The issue certainly arose with Michael St...ski (I can't spell it!), the creator of the SF series "Babylon 5", when a fan claimed that he'd taken an idea for an episode from a posting made on a Usenet newsgroup, I recall.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No; that's the reason we have copyright law, which prohibits someone from simply taking someone else's book and writing a sequel to it. And that's precisely what these fan fiction authors are doing, in blatent disregard for the law.

I think if you had said that fan fiction was a breach of copyright law (in your opinion) I'd not have said anything. It was the reference to leeches, parasites and bloodsuckers that I was describing as an hysterical over-reaction, and I stand by that.

BTW, it's "blatant".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

BTW, it's "blatant".

Thanks - for some reason my Firefox spell-checker has decided to stop working since the most recent upgrade. Must get it sorted out.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thanks - for some reason my Firefox spell-checker has decided to stop working since the most recent upgrade. Must get it sorted out.

I think your obvious passion for the subject under discussion momentarily distracted you from your normally impeccable spelling

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

I think your obvious passion for the subject under discussion momentarily distracted you from your normally impeccable spelling

I'm a reasonably good speller, but I'm a lousy typist, which is why I normally rely on Firefox's spell-checker to put me right .