Buckle up, kids! Daddy's puttin' the hammer down.

Spike ,'Touched'


Fan Fiction: Writers, Readers, and Enablers  

This thread is for fanfic recs, links, and discussion, but not for actual posting of fanfic.


Michele T. - May 13, 2004 10:03:07 am PDT #8080 of 10000
with a gleam in my eye, and an almost airtight alibi

Which, I expect, is what your IP friend will say.

Nope. She demurred from making any larger judgment, but when other people compared it to a standard political fundraiser, where people are given food or performances or whatever as a thanks for their contribution, she didn't object, either.


Consuela - May 13, 2004 10:40:15 am PDT #8081 of 10000
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix

In a standard political fundraiser people have the right to own, manipulate, and transfer ownership of the stuff they are giving away.


Michele T. - May 13, 2004 11:05:42 am PDT #8082 of 10000
with a gleam in my eye, and an almost airtight alibi

There's no transfer of ownership of the fic, though. It's being posted.


Dana - May 13, 2004 12:03:41 pm PDT #8083 of 10000
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.

I don't think that's a direct analogy, though (if I understand the issues correctly). If a political fundraiser gave away copies someone had burned of Britney's new album, it'd still be a violation of copyright. No one's claiming they own it, but you're still not allowed to do it.

I do think fic is more of a gray area, as it always is, and everyone's got their own particular moral line. Personally, I'm not stressed about it, but then again, I'm not participating. Nor am I a lawyer, so what do I know?

(I'm reminded of a conversation I saw on a Nikita board, where the person who was selling burned CDs of series composer Sean Callery's original music claimed that it couldn't possibly be illegal, because otherwise why would CD burners exist?)


Michele T. - May 13, 2004 12:07:03 pm PDT #8084 of 10000
with a gleam in my eye, and an almost airtight alibi

That's not a good analogy, though, because in that case you're creating direct duplicates of copyrighted material, and giving it to people for their individual use. Neither of those apply here, at least to the fic.


§ ita § - May 13, 2004 12:09:40 pm PDT #8085 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I'd have thought that if you couldn't sell it for your own profit, giving it away in such an exchange scenario would also be on the darker side of grey.


Dana - May 13, 2004 12:10:26 pm PDT #8086 of 10000
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.

Hmm. So a closer analogy would be a remix using parts of the song?


Michele T. - May 13, 2004 12:15:02 pm PDT #8087 of 10000
with a gleam in my eye, and an almost airtight alibi

Closer, but as Rivka has noted, there's still a good argument to be made that paragraphs from a Harry Potter novel are more protected than the idea of "the Potterverse" in which you might tell stories. You're still using someone else's actual physical production in a remix.

Also, if we are going to use it as an analogy, you have to stipulate that the remix is available for free download to all REGARDLESS of whether they paid the remixer to do the work. It's not a true exchange scenario.


Consuela - May 13, 2004 12:22:28 pm PDT #8088 of 10000
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix

I tend to agree with Rivka there's a lot of grey area. No court has spoken on this direct issue yet.

However, in this particular instance, the recipients of the funds don't appear to know that the funds are transferred in exchange for production of derivative work without the copyright-holder's approval. I think this is problematic, and could cause problems for the recipients.

And yes we can quibble about "exchange". I think that's what it is. t shrugs


Nutty - May 13, 2004 12:23:04 pm PDT #8089 of 10000
"Mister Spock is on his fanny, sir. Reports heavy damage."

Well, I know that rap has tied itself in knots over the issue of sampling music without paying the original composers. Mostly, it was yammer-lawsuit-settle, and the rap artist paid the [probably disco] composer a fee, and damages. The rap artist (and his production company) is making a profit, but even if he isn't, the lawsuit is still legitimate, right?

The problem is the lack of actual cases going to court in fannish copyright law -- it's all up in the air, formally speaking. But the only way to define the limit of the law is to prance around trying to break it, and the people who do break it get to pay money.

And really, does anybody want to pay 21th Century Fox, e.g., money? I mean, more than we already do when we buy the CD/DVD/tie-in book?