"fan fiction "......

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The problem I see here is that fanfic is, in copyright terms, strictly shades of gray but to the detractors and proponents it is either pure black or pure white and neither side pays much attention to the facts that don't line up with their pre-cast position.
Strictly speaking *all* fanfic *is* copyright violation. Letter of the law and all that.
That doesn't mean that nobody should practice it or enjoy it. Just that people should be aware that the practice treads through nebulous teritory, especially when publishing the content publicly.

Most fanfic writers admit it is a gray area. There hasn't been any court cases on fan fiction. There have been court cases, but they haven't actually been about fan fiction. You say "Strictly speaking *all* fanfic *is* copyright violation. Letter of the law and all that." That's not correct. Fanfic isn't a copyright violation of the original author permits fan fiction. Thus, not all fanfic is a copyright violation.

[covingtoncat73]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As a matter of interest, parody is not currently a "fair use" exemption under UK copyright law, although there are moves afoot to reform the law to include it (and also to permit such things as format conversion which are technically illegal in the UK).

Really? So no Christopher Moore's book, Fool, over there (speaking of Lear)? That book made me laugh so hard.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Much different, very much. A review is a non-fiction statement of reaction to a work of intellectual creativity. Fan fiction is a work of FICTION based on someone else's intellectual property.

Very different things. (as are parodies)

That sounds like you think it's not fanfiction if the source material is in the public domain.

Is "Wicked" a form of commentary on The Wizard of Oz? Is it not an original work?

Originally Posted by kennyc

No it's not if it's based on someone elses intellectual property. There is a very clear distinction between criticism/review and fiction.

Feel free to elaborate.

Which side of the line does BBCSH 'Guises and Disguises' wind up on? Is that a character study review, or fiction?

Fiction-vs-nonfiction is a writing style; it doesn't define the type of message that can be carried. I've written nonfiction in the style of fiction; many authors write fiction in the style of nonfiction.

Certainly an original story(or other work of art) can be written as a reaction to another work of art. I've seen this a lot in the poetry world and often in the fiction world, but when it is not original work (i.e. using someone elses intellectual property) then not only is it not crit/review, it is not even original (whether done with permission of the copyright owner or not).

It stops being "original" when someone owns the rights to the source material? But "original" fic-shaped reviews of public domain materials, which aren't anyone's intellectual property, are possible?

Are movie adaptations of books "not original work?" Are sequels "not original work?" (Those are done with the permission of the copyright holder. Often they're written by the same person. However, they are indeed based on an existing work, rather than being a new creation that stands on its own.)

Are all the Robin Hood and King Arthur stories of the last several hundred years "not original works?"

I really am baffled by the idea that inspiration removes originality.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Fanfic isn't a copyright violation of the original author permits fan fiction. Thus, not all fanfic is a copyright violation.

Just because the rights holder chooses not to prosecute doesn't invalidate the copyright. Or the violation.
Even permissive copyright holders have sued when their tolerance is exceeded (or their pocketbook impacted).

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You say "Strictly speaking *all* fanfic *is* copyright violation. Letter of the law and all that." That's not correct. Fanfic isn't a copyright violation of the original author permits fan fiction. Thus, not all fanfic is a copyright violation.

And it most certainly isn't if the work is in the public domain to begin with. There's a lot of fanfic based on PD source material, from the Bible to Shakespeare to Jane Austen to any mythology you can think of. (Go look at the Yuletide collections on AO3 if you don't believe me.)

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Just because the rights holder chooses not to prosecute doesn't invalidate the copyright. Or the violation.
Even permissive copyright holders have sued when their tolerance is exceeded (or their pocketbook impacted).

I never said nor implied that the copyright was invalidated.

Let's go through this again.

You said:

"Strictly speaking *all* fanfic *is* copyright violation. Letter of the law and all that."

There is no copyright violation when there is permission. That's not an opinion, that is fact. Since some authors give permission for fanfic, it is clearly false that all fanfic is copyright violation.

Note that I said "permission". You then said "Just because the rights holder chooses not to prosecute..." The status of fanfic when the author has given permission is not the same thing as the status when the author hasn't stated one way or another.

Of course, even when permission is granted, the original author will object if the fanfic writer exceeds the granted permissions, but the author would object to any use in excess of permissions, not just when fanfic writers exceed the granted permissions.

For those authors who haven't indicated one way or the other about fanfic, they can speak for themselves if they want.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

There is no original stuff. There can be original elements to a story, but it's all been done before.

You are taking a rather narrow view of original here. Yes, in the broadest sense, there are only a limited number of plots (I think I read somewhere there were seven... man against man, man against nature, man against self, boy meets girl, boy gets girl, boy looses girl, boy gets girl back... and those are just generic terms... you can swap genders and match them but I think those were the basic plot lines that are used in most fiction). That being said, there are tons of new ways to approach those plots and the elements that are used to make up the plot as well as what makes the characters tick, etc.

Besides, can't one argue that elements are stuff?

To put my original point in simple terms. I have watched plenty of adventures involving Captain Kirk and Spock, there is plenty of good Space Opera out there featuring characters and settings that are new to me... I would prefer to read those than read more adventures of Kirk and Spock. I am not saying others are wrong to do so, just stating my preference.

--
Bill

[DrNefario]

I'm the same. I guess I'm kind of religious about canon, especially with something that is still current. I will rarely look at official spin-offs, and almost never at fan fiction.

I don't have any strong objection to it, though. I see it as a harmless sideshow. If that's what you want, go for it. A couple of people at my writers' group do or did write fan fiction. I imagine it's a great way to get people to read your stuff, when you're an unknown writer. Maybe I should try it. (Hmm, 50 Shades of Grey's Anatomy? )

Lawsuits are incredibly unlikely. They'd cost a lot of money, for little return. A C&D is much cheaper, for the same result. That doesn't mean it's not illegal, or the C&D wouldn't work either.

When I was playing with my Star Wars figures as a kid, was I making up stories about the Star Wars characters, and sharing them with my friends? Yes, I guess so. (Although mostly not, actually. Any figures would probably have done. The power of marketing on young impressionable minds.) At the time, I couldn't really have spread them any further if I'd wanted to. The internet has kind of changed the definition of "publishing". In a sense, you are still just sharing with friends, it's just that anyone in the world can come along and take a look.

[Harper Kingsley]

The world of fandom is a strange and wonderful one. I have received more feedback on old fanfics that came out in the late 90s than I have anything else. Even now I still open up my email and see a gushing message from someone that has taken the time out of their lives to tell me "Good job. I really love this."

It's a great feeling.

And sometimes an author really needs to be told that something they've done is entertaining and just a good read. 'Cause when you're starting out it's scary and the world of publishing seems extremely daunting, but a little bit of bolstered courage can send you out there to share your original works.

Wading around in someone else's pool is a lot easier than filling your own and taking a swim. But all that practice really does help you out. It's like a "Try before you buy" deal.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

T..
#1 Is "Wicked" a form of commentary on The Wizard of Oz? Is it not an original work?



#2 Feel free to elaborate.
....

#1 Wicked is neither a review or a critique. As I already said an original creative responsive to a work stands on its own.



#2 I've already said all I need to say.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Of course, even when permission is granted, the original author will object if the fanfic writer exceeds the granted permissions, but the author would object to any use in excess of permissions, not just when fanfic writers exceed the granted permissions.

..and the authors can change their minds at any point in time.
(Rowling did just that that, remember?)
Revocable "permissions" aren't permissions, they're shrugs.

All that the authors are saying is they won't pursue the violators unless they are *really* annoyed. The violation remains. And so does the liability.

Unless the "inspirational" is released under a Creative Commons-type license, the fanfic writer proceeds at their own risk.
For most, the risk is low but it not zero.

As I said: it is dangerous territory and sooner or later somebody is going to get burned. Especially not that the Trad Publishers are hunting for the "next 50 Shades".

I'm betting on sooner rather than later.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

..and the authors can change their minds at any point in time.
(Rowling did just that that, remember?)
Revocable "permissions" aren't permissions, they're shrugs.

No. Revocable permissions are in fact permissions. They aren't even an unusual type of permission. If I give my neighbor permission to use my lawn mower, I may revoke that permission at any time. Does that mean I never gave my neighbor permission to use my lawn mower? Of course not.

All that the authors are saying is they won't pursue the violators unless they are *really* annoyed. The violation remains. And so does the liability.

First of all, that's simply not true. It is not true that all are simply saying they won't pursue "violators". Some authors do in fact give permission to people to write fanfic, under certain conditions, often that the work is not sold and that the fanfic author gives credit to the original author.

And any author did make a statement that they wouldn't pursue the "violators" would then have a difficult time in court if they did sue, unless the fanfic author was exceeding the permissions usually expected with fan fiction.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by kennyc

#1 Wicked is neither a review or a critique. As I already said an original creative responsive to a work stands on its own.

But isn't Wicked simply fan-fiction derived from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz?

[Yapyap]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

..and the authors can change their minds at any point in time.
(Rowling did just that that, remember?)
Revocable "permissions" aren't permissions, they're shrugs.

All that the authors are saying is they won't pursue the violators unless they are *really* annoyed. The violation remains. And so does the liability.

And if the authors are enthusiastically telling their fans to write? If they're going as far as asking for recs? If they're holding competitions for fanfic? If they put links to fanfic sites on their official sites and/or tell people to read something?

Is all that really just a "shrug"? Of course if someone oversteps the boundaries and for example tries to sell their stories (without changing the names - because often enough, in a fanfic story, it's just the names that are infringing; the stories are not plagiarising the original, they're brand new stories), then things may change, but when the fans do what the creator encourages them to do...?

I mean, if an author holds a fanfic competition, with prizes, do you really think this means the entrants to the competition will have to fear the creator will then turn around and sue them for entering that competition? Or that the creator is merely tolerating them, humouring them, while secretly cursing those evil fans who .. erm, are keeping the interest in the creator's universe and series going while the creator is busy writing the next book, which may take a year, during which the readers might otherwise lose interest and drift away?

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

VaporPunk: 'cause life's too short for diplomacy.

I was being diplomatic. I should have added a couple more 9s. At least.