"fan fiction "......

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by DrNefario

But surely the skills involved in writing it are the same: taking someone else's setting and characters and writing a story around them. It's the same as working on an existing TV show or comic or writing spinoffs, it seems to me. It's just that fanfic is rather less constrained.

Oh, the issue/difference isn't the skills; it is, as Harry pointed out, the (at best) nebulous ethical and legal issue of *publicly* working with somebody else's creation. People working in comics, TV shows, or shared-world projects are *invited*, they are unilaterally allocating to themselves the right to explore/exploit somebody else's creation. Permission matters.

Fanfic is a broad arena; it encompasses both innocence and darkness. But at its heart lies a murky ethical border. What is perfectly acceptable when practiced in private for one's own amusement or that of a few personal friends becomes tricky when practiced in public before strangers.
Especially when the material finds its way to the masses through the internet. That is outright publishing of unlicensed, derivative material. (By the letter of the law, fanfiction is all of it ilegal.)

The motivation might be pure, but it isn't always so.
The author might be flattered by the "homage", but some are offended, and not always without reason.
Some fanfic might simply extend or back-fill the material exploited, while other takes it places it doesn't belong.
The reason so much fanfic is raw is because for many it is their first attempt at creation--they have the inspiration, the avocation, but not the tools. As private writing exercises there is nothing to object to. But out in public...?
Dangerous. You never know how people might respond to even the most innocent of Homages.

Me, personally?
I think that folks playing in the fanfic arena would best serve *themselves* and the subject of their inspiration by using the inspiration they derive and channeling it to express their own ideas with their own characters, their own millieus, their own narratives. Many of those explorations or enhancements of existing products could easily be repurposed, redirected, refined into something new and personal. They could be moved from fanfic to pastiche; or moved across genres, cultures, settings.

In that respect, Ms "E.L. James" got it right.
Whatever the differences or similarities between her inspiration and her work, she made it her own and let it stand on its own. You don't have to like or approve of her efforts (or the road she followed to get there) to admit that in the end she brought something new and significant into the world.

That is no small thing.

[cfrizz]

It's a fine line, but then again, sometimes without fanfic, people would have no clue about the original author.

So long as no money is being made from using other peoples creations, it's just harmless fun from which others can get lots of pleasure from, and possibly discover a new (to them) author they are willing to pay money to discover the reason for the fan fic it was written after.

Some have made a big deal out of it and it has come back to bite them in the butt with the backlash.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Even more unfortunately, almost all of it infringes copyright, in that it is a "derived work" created without the permission of the copyright holder of the original work.

So are reviews. They use the original creator's settings, characters, and sometimes direct quotes to send a message to readers. And they can and often do have a negative impact on sales; fanfic almost never does.

Reviews can discuss the import of minor characters, the possible meaning of a crucial scene from a non-protagonist viewpoint, or what happens after the story ends. If they're written as nonfic, they're considered non-infringing. If they're written as fiction, many people assume them to be infringing.

Some people assume that some level of depth is required for this argument to be reasonable, but that's not true. Someone who blogs about "I just saw [movie] and [Actor A] was incredibly hot! Let me tell you how much I loved his trenchcoat, his hat, his pointy boots, his glowing green eyes... wow, he was hot!" is reviewing the movie. Someone who gives *the same message* by describing a missing scene in which [Actor A]'s character gets dressed and makes sure he looks his best before going off to [slay vampires/rescue his sister/get court-martialed] is also participating in exegesis of the original.

The legality of fanfic is a fuzzy area. Some is possibly infringement. However, a great deal is parody--legal in the US under fair use laws--or a form of critique or review of the original. Or, like in the case of "Goodnight Room," so entirely transformative that no halfway sensible person could claim this is infringing on the original.

There has not, AFAIK, ever been a lawsuit involving not-for-profit fanfiction, and the precedents about for-profit versions (which are universally not labeled "fanfic" by their promoters) are mixed.

[DebbyS]

I got into fanfiction reading and writing back around 1993. Almost as soon as I got an internet connection, I went looking for more information on my then-favorite TV show and found a lot of other fans of about my age. Turns out they were all over the world (though mostly in the US). We chatted about the show, passed around behind-the-scenes info, visited the studio several times (groups of us), praised and complained about the show, and eventually in there somewherestarted writing fanfic.

Some of it was very good (surprising the authors), and, even with editorial help, some was... not -- BUT! The main reason everyone wrote was because they loved of the show. The paid, official writers were constrained by the network and turnaround time, and, just as bad, they sometimes seemed not to have the same love of the material that we did (and many still do). Writing for the show was just a job for the official writers. But they got paid, and sometimes it didn't seem to matter what kind of cr@p they were being paid to write. Fanfic writers don't get paid, and I salute them because it takes a whole lot of courage to struggle to write something and then put it on the internet for everybody to see. That's love, and that's what fanfic writers have for their subject.

Also, addressing copyright, all the fanfic authors I know of very quickly started each story giving due credit to all the original rights holders as well as the actors and notice of any episodes that might be mentioned in the stories.

[QuantumIguana]

It is a gray area. Some cases are cited, but they tend not to be about fan fiction. One often-cited case was someone who wrote a script for a Rocky movie. But it wasn't fanfic, he was attempting to get it made into a movie.

An author can take on fanfic writers of course. But do you really want to risk alienating your best customers?

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

So are reviews. They use the original creator's settings, characters, and sometimes direct quotes to send a message to readers. And they can and often do have a negative impact on sales; fanfic almost never does.........................................

Hary's right, in my opinion - if you look at it objectively, the "fans" are basically stealing the original conception or idea, and characters or derivatives, and more often than not, the settings and storylines . In other words, the author's work, which is invariably legally protected.

Reviews are totally different in that they are used in a fair use sense, as part of a perfectly legal and acceptable discussion of the work concerned, as are any positive or negative effects.

The author may dislike/like a reviewer's write-up, but that is the nature of one person's opinion about another's work.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

Harry's right, in my opinion - if you look at it objectively, the "fans" are basically stealing the original conception or idea, and characters or derivatives, and more often than not, the settings and storylines. In other words, the author's work, which is invariably legally protected.

Reviews are totally different in that they are used in a fair use sense, as part of a perfectly legal and acceptable discussion of the work concerned, as are any positive or negative effects.

The author may dislike/like a reviewer's write-up, but that is the nature of one person's opinion about another's work.

What's the difference between a character study & critique written as a "review," and one written as "fiction?" What makes the fiction more infringing? Neither directly copies the original (other than a few words or maybe phrases); both attempt to show the reader's reaction to and perspective on the original.

If the fiction began with, "I will describe my reaction to this [book/movie/tv show] by describing a hypothetical situation involving the characters, and showing how I think they might react to that hypothetical situation," would that be less infringing?

That, of course, doesn't address parody, which is also legal fair use. A great deal of slash fiction falls under the legal definition of "parody" even though it's not intended to be funny.

[xg4bx]

personally if i was going to spend my time sorting through authors and works, i'd rather spend it discovering good new authors and new worlds, not "tribute" stories.

[carpetmojo]

[QUOTE=Elfwreck;2134092]What's the difference between a character study & critique written as a "review," and one written as "fiction?" What makes the fiction more infringing? Neither directly copies the original (other than a few words or maybe phrases); both attempt to show the reader's reaction to and perspective on the original............./QUOTE]

Because, simply, it is legal to do so in a review/critique - or, indeed, almost always for the puposes of academic study ie "fair use" - but it is illegal to do so in a "new" work for distribution, either for profit, admiration, or self-gratification.... unless with the explicit approval of the original author.

At least, that's how it works here, and I'm sure it does generally - otherwise you'd never have any reviews, etc... of anything !

Again, it's not very often, for example, that a newspaper sues a theatre for copyright infringement when it uses quotes from a review (good or bad !) about a play - it has been tried, and subsequently...ridiculed.

This is known in legal circles as the "Use Your Bloody Commonsense, Mate" Law, I believe........

[DrNefario]

Are you sure? That doesn't sound like the legal system I know.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

Because, simply, it is legal to do so in a review/critique - or, indeed, almost always for the puposes of academic study ie "fair use" - but it is illegal to do so in a "new" work for distribution, either for profit, admiration, or self-gratification.... unless with the explicit approval of the original author.

A review is a new work. Certainly, it's often done for profit, admiration, or self-gratification. It can impact sales of the original, and can either explore the potential meanings and critique the original in detail, or just point to it and say "this is terrific" or "this is garbage."

What makes fiction an illegal literary style for doing those things?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

A review is a new work. Certainly, it's often done for profit, admiration, or self-gratification. It can impact sales of the original, and can either explore the potential meanings and critique the original in detail, or just point to it and say "this is terrific" or "this is garbage."

What makes fiction an illegal literary style for doing those things?

The fact that criticism and review are specific cases of "fair use". Writing a new story using someone else's characters is just plain and simple copyright infringement, unless you're doing it with the copyright holder's permission, or the characters are in the public domain.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The fact that criticism and review are specific cases of "fair use". Writing a new story using someone else's characters is just plain and simple copyright infringement, unless you're doing it with the copyright holder's permission, or the characters are in the public domain.

I am saying that "writing a new story" can be, and often is, a form of criticism and review.

It can say, "look, here is this character who is barely mentioned in the original; let me explain how important he'd be to the other characters, even though his story isn't in the spotlight." Or, "there's a hole in the plot where the author failed to make a plausible jump from one scene to another; let me explain what wildly different things might've happened in that time period." Or "this story would not be so different if the main character were [gay/a WWII pilot/secretly a spy]." Or, "I love the richness of the setting and the devotion the characters have for each other; let me explain *how* devoted I believe they are, and what aspects of the setting I enjoyed most." Or, "the purple prose and unbelievable arrogance of the characters really put me off this. Here, let me show you what I mean, through exaggeration and setting change, and you can see how ridiculous these characters are."

Fanfiction is a way of commenting on the original, showcasing what we loved or poking fun at what we believe are the flaws. Often both. Whether it's infringement or not should be judged by the same criteria as a review. Obviously, if someone lifts whole chapters from a book, swaps their friends' names into the character names, and reposts that as "my imagined summer vacation," it's infringement. Likewise, a "review" that quotes an entire sonnet and says "this was great!" is infringement.

But the fact that commentary is shaped as fiction should not automatically make it infringement.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I am saying that "writing a new story" can be, and often is, a form of criticism and review.

It can say, "look, here is this character who is barely mentioned in the original; let me explain how important he'd be to the other characters, even though his story isn't in the spotlight."

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.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

It's a fine line, but then again, sometimes without fanfic, people would have no clue about the original author.

So long as no money is being made from using other peoples creations, it's just harmless fun from which others can get lots of pleasure from, and possibly discover a new (to them) author they are willing to pay money to discover the reason for the fan fic it was written after.

Some have made a big deal out of it and it has come back to bite them in the butt with the backlash.

My high functioning autistic daughter has been writing fan fiction from one of her favorite anime movies on a fan fiction website. She's only been doing it for the joy of paying homage to characters she has fallen in love with. She gets bliss and it makes her day when someone clicks "like" or favorites her or follows her story.