Do copyrights violate basic human rights?

[spectrum]

@yosemite

Having been a veteran of these sort of discussions in the past, I’ll save everyone a little time and trot out the Shakespeare example—Shakespeare used old stories and “borrowed” from other authors for his work. Because that was acceptable back then, and it’s acceptable now, when the work is in the public domain. (“Clueless” and “Bridget Jones’ Diary” being remakes of Jane Austen’s work, for instance.)

I think that’s a different situation. That’s taking a story, or really the themes of a story, and rewriting the entire thing into a different setting. The story is fundamentally changed, and it’s very much NOT the universe created by Jane Austen. That’s a legitimate reimagining of a similar tale. It’s not like there are many stories out there which are totally dissimilar to all other stories in the world.

I’d not raise an objection to someone taking the themes of my story and writing their own, the themes are hardly original to me. And even if their version was set in a setting very similar to mine, that’s not so much a big deal. It’s when they take my exact characters, names and all, my worlds, names and all, my nations and wars, names and all – my precise elements which I have been building and revising for close to ten years – and just use them as is that I object. Those are mine. You want to tell your own story that has a similar feel to mine, that has a similar theme to mine, that has characters who draw from the same archetypes as mine, go for it. You can be the Go-Bots to my Transformers. But stay the hell away from that which I have specifically created and designed.

And frankly, when it comes to Internet Fan Fiction, I don’t so much care. I doubt anyone’s ever not bought a book because some lame slash or fan fiction on the Net. It’s still quite lame (though when I was 12 I did write part of a Star Wars fan fic, but I never finished it).

[spectrum]

@mks57

You have no inherent right to have the state enforce your absolutist views about “intellectual property”.

I have more inherent right to the ownership of that which I toil and struggle to create than the theiving scum have to replicate and distribute my work with no compensation to me.

Property rights, and especially copyrights, are part of a social contract. Try reading the copyright clause of the Constitution. Copyrights exist because it is generally believed that, on balance, they are beneficial to society. They can be amended or revoked if they fail that test.

How does society benefit if it harms its writers, artists and musicians by allowing thieving trash to replicate and distribute our works without compensating us?

[yosemite]

@spectrum

I think that’s a different situation. That’s taking a story, or really the themes of a story, and rewriting the entire thing into a different setting.

Exactly. I think a lot of us do this. In the strictest sense, we are “borrowing” from others (and some use that as an excuse to say that since we “borrow,” nothing we do is really “ours”). But I think you are exactly right—we all re-work, re-hash, re-develop, enhance existing themes. That doesn’t mean that the unique, specific work we did isn’t ours. (At least it is more ours than anyone else’s. And certainly Mr. Never-Done-Jack shouldn’t have any claim or “rights” to it, should he? He’s done exactly NOTHING to contribute to its existence.)

It’s when they take my exact characters, names and all, my worlds, names and all, my nations and wars, names and all – my precise elements which I have been building and revising for close to ten years – and just use them as is that I object. Those are mine. You want to tell your own story that has a similar feel to mine, that has a similar theme to mine, that has characters who draw from the same archetypes as mine, go for it.

Exactly! That’s what my fan-fic writing friends did. They took their original Star Wars-based fan fiction story, changed the names, changed other Star Wars-specific elements, and made it their own universe. Perfectly acceptable. They were able to do this because the basic storyline was interesting, and not dependant upon Star Wars. They had a strong enough story, and were strong enough writers, so they pulled it off. I see their works for sale on Amazon.com now. Certainly their creativity was not hampered because the original work was fan fiction. They could write beyond that.

But if someone cannot do that? Will not? That’s a problem and a shortcoming in them. They should not blame anyone else for that lack of ability. They either need to suck it up and improve their skills, or reevaluate why it is so damn important that their story be in someone else’s specific universe.

I doubt anyone’s ever not bought a book because some lame slash or fan fiction on the Net.

I believe that a lot of original copyright owners feel this way, or feel that it’s not worth fighting. Fan fiction is tolerated (and in some cases, encouraged) in part because the fan fic writers can’t take that story, get a publisher, and sell it on Amazon.com. It’s not “mainstreamed” like the original copyrighted works are.

It’s still quite lame (though when I was 12 I did write part of a Star Wars fan fic, but I never finished it).

Some of it is pretty lame, but it’s also a perfect place for newbie writers to find a creative outlet, and some of them do go on to write professionally. The experience (and critiques) they got from the fan fiction subculture really helped them. In fact, one of my friends, a retired TV writer, does fan fiction for enjoyment. She’s quite a good writer but fan fic allows her to write without the pressure. She’s also working on a project (or at least last I heard) that is written in the “universe” of one of the big name Science Fiction/Fantasy writers. (This particular author sometimes teams up with other writers to write novels in the particular “universe.”) My friend doesn’t know if her work will ever get published, but she’s doing it anyway. For the fun of it.

[Evil_Captor]

@spectrum

Completely different. Doing so doesn’t degrade the marketability of my work. Writing their own derivative stories which may conflict with the real story that I’m slowly unrolling could.

As I noted, the Japanese experiment is that letting fan art blossom INCREASES the marketability of their work. They are not being greedy to the point of stupidity, unlike Disney and Paramount and a few others I could name.

[Evil_Captor]

Spectrum’s problem is that he does not believe that a book is communication. He thinks it is a self-contained universe created by him. Spectrum, whenever someone reads your work, they project their own dreams and ideas into it. Perhaps not as much as you do, but a lot. Publishing a book is not so much like giving birth but like putting a drop of ink into a bottle of water. It changes the water, the water changes it.

[Evil_Captor]

@yosemite

Exactly. I think a lot of us do this. In the strictest sense, we are “borrowing” from others (and some use that as an excuse to say that since we “borrow,” nothing we do is really “ours”). But I think you are exactly right—we all re-work, re-hash, re-develop, enhance existing themes. That doesn’t mean that the unique, specific work we did isn’t ours. (At least it is more ours than anyone else’s. And certainly Mr. Never-Done-Jack shouldn’t have any claim or “rights” to it, should he? He’s done exactly NOTHING to contribute to its existence.)

You seem to have very different viewpoints on fanfic vs. artwork. If someone reworks, rehashes and redevelops an existing theme in terms of artwork, you seem not to like that at all. Is your opinion changing?

[spectrum]

@Evil Captor

As I noted, the Japanese experiment is that letting fan art blossom INCREASES the marketability of their work. They are not being greedy to the point of stupidity, unlike Disney and Paramount and a few others I could name.

America is not Japan. Thank God. This is just one of the many things I don’t like about Japanese culture.

Other people selling “sequels” to my book would inhibit my ability to release and market the only true sequel to my book. After I die? I don’t care. Have at it. But for as long as I live, only I should be allowed to determine what is and is not a legitimate part of my book’s universe.

[Hellestal]

First, I want to state clearly that the article linked to in the OP is just nonsense, showing an reckless ignorance of the economic workings of artistic creation. But the attacks on the concept of fanfiction in this thread have been overbroad at best.

@spectrum

It’s when they take my exact characters, names and all, my worlds, names and all, my nations and wars, names and all – my precise elements which I have been building and revising for close to ten years – and just use them as is that I object. Those are mine. You want to tell your own story that has a similar feel to mine, that has a similar theme to mine, that has characters who draw from the same archetypes as mine, go for it. You can be the Go-Bots to my Transformers. But stay the hell away from that which I have specifically created and designed.

Shakespeare didn’t do this back in the day, and Tom Stoppard doesn’t do this now. Taking an existing “universe,” names and all, and reworking it is a perfectly valid artistic endeavor.

And while fanfic should not go so far as to undermine the profitibility of authorship so long as the copyright should last, I do not believe that it is always hurtful, especially under certain controlled circumstances. Your dismissal of the Japanese experience is a bit hasty, in my opinion, because the underlying economic conditions are so similar despite the cultural differences. A healthy encouragement of fanfic could, as Evil Captor has indicated, increase the marketability of original works.

[spectrum]

@Evil Captor

Spectrum’s problem is that he does not believe that a book is communication. He thinks it is a self-contained universe created by him.

It is a self-contained work. Anything in my book is part of the universe. Anything not in my book is NOT, and unless I add it in a sequel, it can never be part of the universe, for I am the only arbiter of what is and is not part of the universe I create.

Spectrum, whenever someone reads your work, they project their own dreams and ideas into it.

Bully for them. What they project in is still NOT a part of the universe. If they want to pretend like it is when they read it, that’s one thing. But for them to rape my universe by writing and selling their own perverted, worthless version of it wherein they have added foreign and unwanted elements to my story would be unacceptable.

If my book takes place in a star system with four planets, and they decide that there are really five, well, too damn bad. There are only four, and they can just sit down and shut up.

[spectrum]

@Stricker van Gogh

First, I want to state clearly that the article linked to in the OP is just nonsense, showing an reckless ignorance of the economic workings of artistic creation. But the attacks on the concept of fanfiction in this thread have been overbroad at best.Shakespeare didn’t do this back in the day, and Tom Stoppard doesn’t do this now. Taking an existing “universe,” names and all, and reworking it is a perfectly valid artistic endeavor.

Not when I’m in the middle of working that universe and putting it together. If I’ve got four books, part of the appeal of which hinges on a hook which won’t be explained until the fourth book, then fan fics which deal with certain aspects of the universe could end up spoiling my entire effort.

And the pathetic losers and children writing fanfics for consumption by other pathetic losers and children on the Internet is not what I’m railing against. It’s the ability for those losers to sell stuff and make money on MY universe. No. They have no right and no place doing that, particularly when in doing so they could disrupt the proper rolling out of the story I’m working on.

I will not have someone parasiting their non-talents on my mutliyear efforts. Let them go create their own damn universe, their own damn characters, if they’re so talented and smart. Why must they ruin mine?

A healthy encouragement of fanfic could, as Evil Captor has indicated, increase the marketability of original works.

Unless they step on the toes of something I’m trying to do. Then I might as well not even publish the later books. Why write them if the whole thing is ruined by a bunch of worthless parasites on the Net?

[Hellestal]

@spectrum

Not when I’m in the middle of working that universe and putting it together. If I’ve got four books, part of the appeal of which hinges on a hook which won’t be explained until the fourth book, then fan fics which deal with certain aspects of the universe could end up spoiling my entire effort.

I think you overestimate their power. Now I’m not advocating any system that would decrease the profitibility of the work over the life of its copyright (so long as the copyright length is reasonable), but I’m not convinced that small-scale financial transactions of fanfic do anything but stimulate interest in the original work. A rival publisher mass-producing an alternate vision? Yes, of course, that would have a big effect and shouldn’t be allowed. But fans trading their derivative works at cons? I don’t have the training to do a formal analysis of this, but it just doesn’t seem to me like it would do any damage.

@spectrum

I will not have someone parasiting their non-talents on my mutliyear efforts. Let them go create their own damn universe, their own damn characters, if they’re so talented and smart. Why must they ruin mine?

Popular stories, like it or not, become part of our culture. Culture is fun to play with, and indeed such play should be encouraged (again, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the incentive to create new work). That you see their works as spoiling your world doesn’t mean that they actually are spoiling anything at all. Your vision should ultimately stand on its own merits, just as theirs will.

[spectrum]

@Stricker van Gogh

I think you overestimate their power.

I think you’re underestimating some things, including potential legalities. Let’s say I’m writing a story where group of people X and connection Y with group of people Z, but that’s a hidden mystery that’s not revealed until a later book. Like any mystery, there’s both evidence and disinformation there on this topic in the earlier books.

Now, let’s say I allow fan fiction. And one of those fan fiction parasites writes a story in my universe, about peoples X and Z, and decides to be “creative” and link them in way Y, just as I was set to reveal in the next book. Now, I’m in trouble. Because I’ve legally allowed fan fiction to exist, even be sold at conventions, I could be sued for “stealing” my own plot from a fan fiction author. In fact, every fan fiction work would become a landmine waiting to blow up in my face, and particularly problematic if I acknowledge and allow fan fic.

Ever wonder why Trapper and Hawkeye never operated on each other in MAS*H? Because they did so often in fan fiction, including fan fics that had been sent to the producers, that there was no legally safe way to write an episode that included such an operation without stepping on the “creation” of a fan fiction parasite.

Now I’m not advocating any system that would decrease the profitibility of the work over the life of its copyright (so long as the copyright length is reasonable), but I’m not convinced that small-scale financial transactions of fanfic do anything but stimulate interest in the original work. A rival publisher mass-producing an alternate vision? Yes, of course, that would have a big effect and shouldn’t be allowed.

What qualifies as “mass production”? What qualifies as a publisher? Some doofus putting their version of my story (say, the one that catches onto my big reveal for the next book) on a website could be a “small” production only read by a dozen or so folks, or it could be read a million times, there’s no limit on a website. And how do you legally justify allowing people to sell 100 copies of their story at a convention, but not mass producing and selling 1000 of them over their website? Or just offering it up to everyone for free? Once you allow ANY violation like that, you’re opening up a floodgate.

Your vision should ultimately stand on its own merits, just as theirs will.

Their “vision” can never stand on its own, it is a parasite grafted only to mine, and has no intrinsic value in and of itself.

[Hellestal]

@spectrum

I think you’re underestimating some things, including potential legalities.

I’m certainly simplifying the legal issues to try to hit a more basic point. Copyright law is certainly complex (often more complex than it needs to be), but that doesn’t mean that a compromise in the middle is impossible.

@spectrum

Their “vision” can never stand on its own, it is a parasite grafted only to mine, and has no intrinsic value in and of itself.

Shakespeare was more than a bit borrowsome. Do you actually believe that his works have “no intrinsic value of their own”?

[spectrum]

The only compromise in the middle I’m willing to make is that they can write all the derivative crap and fan fiction garbage they want… just as soon as I die.

[spectrum]

@Stricker van Gogh

Do you actually believe that his works have “no intrinsic value of their own”?

While Shakespeare’s mastery of the English language is immeasurable, and his prose absolutely wonderful, I find most of his plots to be threadbare and boring.

[Evil_Captor]

@spectrum

Unless they step on the toes of something I’m trying to do. Then I might as well not even publish the later books. Why write them if the whole thing is ruined by a bunch of worthless parasites on the Net?

It’s quite common for trad SF publishers to get people to write books in the universes of authors who are dead. Such sequels are rarely as popular as the real thing. If your book hits a market that is ready for it, they’re not gonna want anything written by a Spectrum wannabe, however talented. They’re gonna want the work of Spectrum. Fanfic just isn’t the threat you seem to think it is.

[spectrum]

Fan fiction is potential LEGALITY threat.

Those who think we should change the law to make it legal for people to create their own stories in my universe and sell them are a FINANCIAL threat. As are the trash who think they should be able to copy and distrbute creative works without compensation to the copyright owners.

[yosemite]

@Evil Captor

You seem to have very different viewpoints on fanfic vs. artwork. If someone reworks, rehashes and redevelops an existing theme in terms of artwork, you seem not to like that at all. Is your opinion changing?

I’ve always been sympathetic towards fanfic. This is nothing new. And, as I said above, there’s fanfic (which is never going to be “mainstream”—i.e. selling paperbacks on Amazon.com), which I don’t think is such a big deal as long as the copyright holder doesn’t mind. And most don’t mind, because it is smaller scale, doesn’t hurt them, and is, frankly, kind of flattering. But when all is said and done, it’s up to them to decide whether or not they mind fan fic. Their choice. I’m glad they’re entitled to that choice, and I think they ought to always be entitled to that choice.

Believe it or not, I’ve actually had a smidgen of experience on the other end of this—a couple of times I’ve seen other artists “copy” a drawing I did (it was close enough so I could definitely tell it was drawn from one of mine), and that was okay with me, because they were just doing it for fun, and they weren’t claiming it was theirs, like it came from their imagination. If they were to sell prints of their drawing, however, then I’d take exception to that. But just to show it as a fun little thing? So far I haven’t seen it done to me in a way that bothered me.

I also have said in previous copyright threads that I don’t mind if someone takes, for instance, one of my photographs, and tweaks it in Photoshop to the point where I can’t tell for sure that their “springboard” was my photo or someone else’s photo of the same subject. Copy away, I say. But if they barely do anything to it so it’s really obvious that they were ripping me off, and they think I shouldn’t have a problem with that—well, they need to think again.

[LeeshaJoy]

@spectrum

I think you’re underestimating some things, including potential legalities. Let’s say I’m writing a story where group of people X and connection Y with group of people Z, but that’s a hidden mystery that’s not revealed until a later book. Like any mystery, there’s both evidence and disinformation there on this topic in the earlier books.

Now, let’s say I allow fan fiction. And one of those fan fiction parasites writes a story in my universe, about peoples X and Z, and decides to be “creative” and link them in way Y, just as I was set to reveal in the next book. Now, I’m in trouble. Because I’ve legally allowed fan fiction to exist, even be sold at conventions, I could be sued for “stealing” my own plot from a fan fiction author. In fact, every fan fiction work would become a landmine waiting to blow up in my face, and particularly problematic if I acknowledge and allow fan fic.

But wouldn’t this cut both ways? Wouldn’t the same allowance that let Mr. Parasite write stuff based on your work also let you write stuff based on Mr. Parasite’s work? What am I missing here?

[Ms2001]

D’oh, looks like email notification hasn’t been working.

@spectrum

A book is not “information.”

Anything that can be traded as a file over the internet is information.

Except that I DON’T WANT you sullying my universe with your uncreative, derivitive bullshit.

And I DON’T WANT you calling it uncreative, derivative bullshit, calling me a parasite, or trying to tell me what I can or can’t write. Apparently that doesn’t matter to you, so why should your capitalized wants matter to me?

You writing a book about MY characters could hinder MY ability to write and market the true second book in MY series. How is that at all correct? You’ll have in effect ripped my universe, the product of over a decade of work, away from me. That’s nonsense.

You’re right, it’s nonsense. Nothing has been taken from you except something you don’t really own to begin with.

I would sooner never have my work published than to have it raped by some no-talent ass clown who’s so worthless he has to leach off of the hard work of others to be able to write.

Then don’t publish it. I don’t care for greedy prima donna artists any more than you care for greedy leeching no-talent pirates.

And [the concept of ownership is] necessary for creative works because unauthorized knock offs and illegal copies dilute the market for profit for the true author of the real work.

No, it’s something authors want. That doesn’t make it necessary in any greater sense. If artists lose control over who may use their work, they might have a harder time making a buck, but society won’t fall apart. People won’t be beating each other over the head with clubs to make copies of CDs and movies.

A novel is not ‘information,’ it is a work of art. You call it information in order to debase it down to the level of current events or gossip, which we of course all widely spread about.

I call it information to distinguish it from physical things. Pictures, books, movies, plays, music, software - they’re all information, because they exist independent of the medium they’re transmitted or recorded in. They can be analyzed or compressed using the same techniques as any other information.

If you have a painting on the wall, take a picture of it with your digital camera, print that picture at a photo lab, and then photocopy it onto plain paper, you have 4 separate physical objects, but they all hold the same picture, the same information. Just like the same information is present in a hardback edition, paperback edition, and large print edition of the same novel.

The importance of this distinction is that the physical object needs an owner. That book can’t be on my shelf and your shelf at the same time. If we don’t want to get into fistfights every time there’s a book to be read, someone has to be declared the owner. The information inside the book, OTOH, does not need an owner. If we each have our own copy of the book, we both have the same information, but there is no conflict.

@LeeshaJoy

But wouldn’t this cut both ways? Wouldn’t the same allowance that let Mr. Parasite write stuff based on your work also let you write stuff based on Mr. Parasite’s work?

Exactly. If you eliminate everyone’s ability to sue others for “stealing” their work, the problem goes away.