Kevin, I can see finding it curious that they found out this person is the same person who did work for Margaret Wise Ltd. But beyond that, can you really not see the larger issue?

ILLUSTRATION: Christopher Golden and Nancy Holder have written BtVS novels. They're published, not by FOX, but by Simon and Schuster (or whatever publishing house). Simon and Schuster pays licensing fees to FOX (like MWLtd would have paid to Universal, for the game) so that Golden and Holder can work with FOX's property.

(Here comes the hypothetical part) Now, let's say that Christopher Golden decides to self publish a (hypothetical) novel on the web. Let's say it's his own story, but it's meant to appeal (hypothetically) to BtVS fans, and that without any permission, he (hypothetically) markets it as being inspired by BtVS.

He's done licensed work with their product, and now he's (hypothetically) self-publishing and selling, for his own profit, stuff he's putting forth as evoking and inspired by BtVS. And it's not even promoting the BtVS DVDs or anything else when doing it. Instead, he's trying to use their property to promote his own for-profit endeavor.

That's what this is like, except Golden both knows better, and could afford a lawyer.

It seems to me that ethically, Universal is treading muddy water, but that Susan legally tripped the wire.

The best outcome for both parties would be to settle and slap a gag order on the whole stinky business.

I think so too, Allyson. I think Universal is being a stinker, particularly since they asked the fans to push the movie, and bought into the whole "it's because of our desire to work with Joss Whedon in the future that we're giving him this chance the fans that there's a movie," hype and used it to market the movie.

I think if she took everything down and got a lawyer, she could make this go away. They don't really want to take her to court.

More studios than ever are embracing fans as a cheap way of publicity. And that's great. However, those studios need to think about it a bit more.

Or maybe the fans do, since they're the ones with the complaints afterwards.

If she's genuinely surprised to discover that yes, it is bad to market original merchandise in a way that makes it sound like it's licensed... Jesus, I don't even know what to say. That's why people pay big money for a merchandise liscense. But it sounds to me like Universal's filthy desire to make a few bucks off of a property they own (and which the fans themselves hoped would be profitable, right?) is interfering with some fan's noble desire to make a few bucks off of a property they don't own. So there must be something I'm still missing, because that'd just be dumb.

I remember in the B5 usenet groups, occasionally someone would pop in to tell JMS about some unauthorized merchandise for sale, so he could sic Warner Bros on 'em. See, because they were fans, some of them thought that it was a bad thing to steal from the people who made the thing they liked. We've come so far since then.

Or maybe the fans do, since they're the ones with the complaints afterwards.

...The studios are the ones with the legal complaints. They had absolutely no boundaries during the years it went through production to release. That would be, I suspect, a large part of the reason why there's so much bootleg Firefly stuff.

I remember in the B5 usenet groups, occasionally someone would pop in to tell JMS about some unauthorized merchandise for sale, so he could sic Warner Bros on 'em.

Uhm, I remember the opposite - I'm pretty sure JMS pulled the WB lawyers *off* fans several times. WB, at the time, hired a fan to run the official website, and also set up AcmeCity, a site which encouraged the use of pictures and images on fan web sites and explicitly allowed the creation of logos and images without fear of law suits.

Completely different ball game to selling shit, though.

Completely different ball game to selling shit, though.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. Which is why I used the words "unauthorized merchandise for sale" in my post. Which you quoted, right before you started "Uhm"ing at me about fansites as if that had anything to do with it.

If your memory needs jogging: [link] [link] [link]

If your memory needs jogging: [link] [link] [link]

...which have nothing to do with shirts, which is the issue at hand.

Completely off the present topic, but for fan-type-folk, Alan Tudyk guest stars on CSI this week. I saw a couple of clips. There's no Wash there.

Forgive my foggy brain. If Susan is in the legal wrong of it, what's the brouhaha?

I'm insanely devoted to fandom, and I like Susan personally a great deal (she is a fantastic artist), but she seems clearly in the wrong.

The marketing bill is amusing, but from an ethical standpoint (my own ethical standpoint) promoting the thing you love comes with no strings attached.

There was an amount of exploitation in Universal's own campaign that fed the beast by giving fans a sense of ownership over the flick. I have an ethics issues with that, and feel that Universal should quietly settle the matter because they look foolish.