Although, realistically speaking, isn't a broad disclaimer better -- well, as far as the legality of a disclaimer is worth anything -- rather than a narrow one?

"No hedgehogs were harmed in the making of this production" means that they might have been slaughtering badgers wholesale, but "no animals..." is nice and complete.

Then again, my disclaimers tend to run to "If I owned the intellectual property herein, I would have millions of dollars and not be uploading from a 56K connection."

All about the contrary-to-fact, yo.

Broad is probably better, yes- but for Tolkien, you tend to disclaim to him, and not worry about, say, Peter Jackson. That's what I based it on.

With books, the authors generally own their copyrights -- Rowling or Tolkein should do it in those cases. It's more complicated with TV and movies, where the intellectual property usually belongs to the corporation.

The characters and universe of Dreamwalk Blue are the property of J.K. Rowling, Bloomsbury Publishing, Scholastic, Inc. and AOL/Time Warner, Inc. This writing does not intend to infringe upon copyright or trademark.

The characters and universe of Iteration are the property of George Lucas, Lucasfilm, Ltd and Saban Entertainment. This writing does not intend to infringe upon copyright or trademark.

The characters and universe of more like LA are the property of Joss Whedon, Warner Brothers Network, 20th Century Fox, Mutant Enemy, Sandollar, Kuzui, and Greenwolf Productions. This writing does not intend to infringe upon copyright or trademark.

Does that sound right?

I love Google.

That looks fine, RL. Kisses for Google!

I thought the article was better than most.

And I might get flak for this, but...

The Road Home

by Meredith Lynne (inspired by Smallville)

from the article seems like something of an advertisement. If she doesn't want her fiction easily accesible by the masses, why put it up in an article that can be read by said masses?

This, of course, is assuming she meant for it to be on there.

But damn, that seems so hypocritical.

Argh. Author of the article persists in getting things wrong -- although I think I'll have to give him a pass, considering members of fandom sometimes get the same things wrong.

It wasn't actually that bad, I don't think, beyond the obsession with porn. So very tired of the assumption that it's All Porn. (I mean, I like porn, don't get me wrong, but my tastes run much more strongly genward and there really is quite a lot of it out there too...)

This, of course, is assuming she meant for it to be on there.

I don't know -- I don't think the author of the piece would need to contact an author before mentioning something she's written. I've had my pseud and/or sites thrown into articles about fanfic without my knowledge or permission.

It wasn't actually that bad, I don't think, beyond the obsession with porn.

See, that's the thing -- even when it's a good article that doesn't make us out to be really big losers with too much time on our hands, there's still a troublesome conflation.

It's tantamount to saying all movies are porn just because some movies happen to be porn. Not, of course, that I think there's anything wrong with porn. Porn is great! I simply think it's ridiculous to refer to all movies as porn when all it takes to debunk that statement would be to convince the article's author to walk out of the adult movie section of the rental place. To, you know, where all the other movies are.

I'm with Katie here. I think it's reasonably fair article, errors and all, with minimal condescension compared to most other articles on fanfiction. I just wish the emphasis wasn't quite *entirely* on erotic fanficion, because I'm personally more inclined to gen and frankly rather fed up with the 'if there's no sex in the story, what's the point?' contingent.

Still, a decent article.

a troublesome conflation

It's annoying, but it doesn't really surprise me. Entire fandoms are kept alive basically by the force of a pairing -- not necessarily explicit, pornographic sexuality, but usually a sexual relationship. (And, conversely, I can't think of any dead shows which are 'kept alive' by, say, a plethora of adventure stories, or vignettes.*) Especially where slash is concerned, although some het pairings have this quality too, one finds a lot of 'new' fans who got into the fandom based on the sex and/or romance stories, and may never have seen episodes at all, or not till after the consumption of a lot of romantic fanfic.

* I'm told there are manga fandoms that work this way, although that also may relate to the gender divide between TV fandoms and manga fandoms. I don't know enough about boy-dominated fandoms, except the general boy-orientation of Starfury maneuvering discussions back in the B5 days. In which no sex was even discussed, because everyone involved should be wearing a space suit anyway.

And look at the course of our conversations on these fannish boards. We talk about porn a lot, and about pairings. Not all of the major stories we discuss are about sex, and not all of the plot bunnies thrown around are about sex, but a great many of them are. Partly because a lot of non-sex fanfic ideas can be discussed as canon-speculation, and is assimilated into the flow of show-talk; sex, due to network restrictions, will never explicitly be show-talk. Partly I think that sex is something that gets notice when it's brought up.

We never did have contests for who would mention "apron" most often, but we did have porn-offs.

So it's a beginner's mistake the writer is making, conflating fanfic with porn (or allowing the conflation to be inferred). But, you know, I sometimes have a hard time coming up with 'classic', famous fanfic titles that don't have sex in them. Not all of them are about sex, but the vast majority do involve sex.