A Question About Authors And Fanfics

[Guest Yhitzak]

Maybe we should discuss the difference between an idea (such as mythology) and a copywrited work. Yeah, it's true that no one can own an idea such as witchcraft or demonology, but it is equally true that no one but L. Frank Baum invented the world of Oz, the characters that appear in the story, and the specific manner in which the problem was developed and solved. Same as with any other written work. Regardless of how long a copywrite is in place, an author is *still* given credit. Does the word 'royalties' mean anything to anyone?

Of course Anne Rice, L. Frank Baum, J.K. Rowling, and every other author of fiction have taken their plot devices from pre-existing conditions or ideas. But to equate inspiration with fan-fiction is really irresponsible because we're not just using these authors as inspiration; we're using their worlds and inserting our own ideas into them in a really obvious way.

Again, going back to the original question:

If an author disapproves of fanfiction based on his or her original work and requests that fans not post them on the internet and that archives remove all existing fanfiction based on their work, do we have to comply with the author's wishes?

we are talking [primarily] about people who own the copywrites to their works. So fuck this whole Disney is the Devil thing and have a little bit of respect. And, really, we're also talking about a list of authors that's approximately fifteen names long. If you can't get over that and find some *other* fandom to write in, you have other issues than just being a pissy fan-ficcer.

And a quick word about the necessity of copywrites: it isn't just about money, it's about enforcing integrity. No one wants to have their words stolen and most people don't have the intelligence or sense of honor required to know or care that stealing (regardless of what it is or how it's done) is wrong. It isn't *just* money that fuels peoples' desire to steal; it's also about notoriety and power.

[redsliver]

Maybe we should discuss the difference between an idea (such as mythology) and a copywrited work. Yeah, it's true that no one can own an idea such as witchcraft or demonology, but it is equally true that no one but L. Frank Baum invented the world of Oz, the characters that appear in the story, and the specific manner in which the problem was developed and solved. Same as with any other written work. Regardless of how long a copywrite is in place, an author is *still* given credit. Does the word 'royalties' mean anything to anyone?

Fuck how can someone own an idea like a boy goes to magic school and fights a dark lord? Its an idea, I have no hesitation in giving credit to someone for doing it first or doing it best but to own something like that is utterly ridiculous. And royalties and credit are completely different animals. While a copyright is in place the owner of the copyright (which may or may not be the creator of the work) gets royalties. If the copyright expires (which will never happen again) no such compensation is required as the piece of art is in the public domain.

Again, going back to the original question:  we are talking [primarily] about people who own the copywrites to their works. So fuck this whole Disney is the Devil thing and have a little bit of respect. And, really, we're also talking about a list of authors that's approximately fifteen names long. If you can't get over that and find some *other* fandom to write in, you have other issues than just being a pissy fan-ficcer.

I'm sorry I have no respect for the perverted law that "protects" authors and artists. Its bent and twisted from its original purposes and is all about the greed and control more than it is about protecting the integrity of any piece of art.

And a quick word about the necessity of copywrites: it isn't just about money, it's about enforcing integrity. No one wants to have their words stolen and most people don't have the intelligence or sense of honor required to know or care that stealing (regardless of what it is or how it's done) is wrong. It isn't *just* money that fuels peoples' desire to steal; it's also about notoriety and power.

If it wasn't just about money they'd still only be seven to fourteen years long. Having a copyright outlive an author can be about nothing other than greed.

[Guest Alien Pirate Pixagi]

To prove that Mod duties are warping my mind, I shall play peace maker here.

I'm going to say both RedSliver and Yhitzak are right in some way, wrong in others.

Truth: Copyright laws are put in place to protect the artist/writer/whatever.

Truth: The fact that copyright outlives the artist/writer is borne from greed.

Here's the issue with fan works as a whole. Authors seem to be approaching the situation the same way the music industry approaches illegal downloading, which is retarded. If someone would rather read fan fiction rather then read the work it's based off of, then rather then suing the fan fic writer, they need to be taking that person and paying them for writing classes, 'cause obviously they're doing something you're not.

When it comes to the integrity of their work... well... huh? How the hell does my writing Harry/Draco slash effect the integrity of the Harry Potter books? WTF, mate?

However, there IS something to be said on wanting control of how your characters are portrayed, especially in the event that they have a very sentimental meaning for the creator.

When it comes to my art, I'd HATE to find derivative works. Why? My art is PERSONAL, and if someone makes a derivative work (or plagiarizes it...) it makes me feel like they've stolen my baby and crapped on my heart. The same goes for my more heartfelt stories. I pulled those from the depths of my heart to get stuff out in the open.

That, and I don't like when people fuck with my shit.

However, in the case of Disney, it's greed. Greed and Control. I'd still like to know who the fuck decided they own Beauty and the Beast...