Quote:
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.