…since it doesn’t look like we’ve had one for a while.
My twist to the question is:
Is it ethical/moral/legal to create non-profit fanworks without the author’s permission? That is, should we assume that the answer is “Yes, you may” unless the author says otherwise, or “No, you may not”?
Obviously, in the real world the assumed “No, you may not” stance would be a pain to enforce and also be a PR disaster, but I’m talking on a theoretical level. And since I actually do produce fanworks, I’ll remove myself from the discussion to avoid a conflict of interest. (Unless any of you happen to be interested in why I have such a hobby.)
If it’s properly credited and such, I think it’s ethical. It seems to me that the idea that an author has that kind of exclusive control over a character is a pretty recent invention.
While this is certainly a debateable issue, it is the sort of debateable issue which will attract more pertinent commentary over in Cafe Society, which is where you will next find this thread.
I’m not sure it’s ok to write it for public dissemination, especially when it involves sexual situations. Robin Hobb’s analogy of taking a group portrait of someone else’s family and photoshopping it to depict all manner of scatalogical shenanigans seems apt to me.
However, if you wanna write out your goofy little sexual fantasies just for yourself, have fun. We’ve all been 13 before.
Unless “fanwork” has a second meaning related to porn, I’m gonna say you don’t know what you’re talking about. Fanfiction (the term I’m familiar with) is generally not pornographic.
In the real world, some authors do take a “No, you may not. Period” stance. Others say “Go ahead, I’m fine with it.” And then there’s every shade of distinction between. It’s definitely not a yes/no question. Do some research on the subject.
I can’t understand how anyone would think that it’s ethical to go ahead when an author says you can’t. I appreciate that doesn’t stop everyone, but that doesn’t change the ethics of the situation.
What difference does it make if author control is a recent invention or not? If it exists today, its heritage doesn’t matter.
Slash, a major subspecies of fanfiction, is almost always sexual. Porn is in the eye of the beholder, so I won’t call it that. But there are zillions of sexual fantasies involving the characters of others. I have no special problem with them; once you want to write a fanstory, the kind of story is besides the point. But you can’t pretend that this isn’t a big part of the Internet culture.
Does it exist today? I can go along with the notion that only J.K. Rowling (and her publisher, and so on) can make a profit from the characters in Harry Potter, and nobody else should be able to take credit for creating those characters. I’m not sure she has the exclusive power to write a story including those characters. Maybe I don’t know the law here.
I’m well aware. It’s still not remotely accurate to say fanfiction = slash.
Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear enough. What I meant is, in the absence of authorial fiat, should we assume that the answer is “Yes” or “No”?
I would never create fanworks of an author who has given an “No”. It’s just that my more honest inclinations make me wonder if the “No” answer hasn’t been given is because they don’t want to be bothered with finding us and handing us Cease and Desist orders.
(I also have to admit that there is something a little bit, oh, creepy with spending so much of my brain cells contemplating the lives of someone else’s creations. :o )
I don’t think authors should have that kind of control. The purpose of copyright as stated in the constitution is one thing and one thing only- to “promote the useful arts”, in other words, to give an economic advantage to authors for just enough time to make it fiscally worthwhile to produce art. The idea of “authors rights” never figured in to it.
Once you put a story out there, people are going to do all kinds of things to it. Some people are going to interpret it as a feminist fairy tale. Some people are going to argue that it smacks of the right wing. Some people are going to masturbate to it. Some poeple are going to imagine your characters hanging out with Star Trek characters. it’s delusional to think that you still have any “control” of a publically published work.
And banning it goes against the ideas put forth in the constitution. Few authors are going to hold back a good book because they so protective of their characters that they’d rather not be heard than face slash. But obviously fan fiction authors arn’t going to be producing their art if it’s banned. So you’ve got a situation where you are discouraging the production of art- and that’s not good for society.
Does the author registering trademarks for the characters, distinctive fictional places, etc., count as saying “no” to fanfiction? For instance, I believe Rowling has trademarks on her various characters and on Hogwarts and its various houses. This means that any fanfiction involving those characters could be considered illegal, and presumably Rowling knew this when she or her agents registered those trademarks. It seems to me that saying “I’m going to make it illegal to write fanfiction” constitutes a statement that she doesn’t want fanfiction.
Should copyrights or trademarks be interpreted this way? I’m not an expert on the laws here, but so far I’m not convinced that’s the case. Saying “I created this and only I can make money off it” isn’t the same as “you can’t write anything within this setting.”
I say, it’s fair enough to use “yes, it’s okay, unless the creator has spoken on the topic.” But it should be something you check before starting.
While Robin Hobb has a point, it should also be mentioned that there’s a difference between an unpublished photograph of real persons, and characters that have been put into public view. I don’t say that the author shouldn’t have some say about the use of his or her characters, but if you accept the “Hell, no.” reason that she’s implying, what point does a character or of figure from literature become fair game? After all, what’s the moral difference between, say, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, and my own “Fulfillment.”? Both are derivative works, depending heavily on characters and situations created by others.
Granted Tom Stoppard let more time lapse between the creation of his inspiration and his own work, but is that the only thing that makes it right?
I think it’s more like saying “I’m going to make the unauthorized use of my characters and inventions illegal”. While that includes fanfiction, I doubt that in most cases, fanfiction is the reason for trademarking. It also makes illegal other things, especially commercial use of those characters, and I’m sure that most authors have those things in mind when registering trademarks.
Even an author who likes the fanfiction about his or her charactes would register a trademark for these characters to prevent commercial use of them.
So I don’t think the existance of trademarks gives any indication of the authors opinion of fanfiction.
Actually, considering Rowling’s public statements on the subject of fanworks, it seems more likely that she was concerned about people using her characters and works for commercial purposes. From a 2001 interview:
And a 2000 web chat:
And from her web site, concerning the “Fan Site Award” for Immeritus (which hosts both fan art and fanfiction):
OK, that’s different, then. It looks like she’s made it pretty clear that she doesn’t mind (presumably non-commercial) fanfiction. When an author says so, then I don’t think there’s any moral ambiguity left. But barring such a specific statement, I think one ought to interpret trademarks and the like as meaning “no”.
Exactly. And since derivative rights are part of what authors use to get money to feed their families, it’s hardly ethical to take that away from them if they don’t want you to, is it?
Also, using another authors work is merely an admission on your part that you haven’t the talent to create your own. Why should you benefit because you aren’t talented enough to create your own world, but have to steal another’s?
So your argument boils down to, “if someone want’s to steal, that’s should be OK.”
Attacking a straw man. That’s never the issue. The issue is that by allowing others to play in your universe, it may have bad effects on the work of the author. Since the author created the properties, it’s only logical that the author should be the one to judge whether using his characters might hurt him, and have the option to prevent it.
Otherwise, it’s no different from me borrowing your car without asking, since I plan to return it later. Why should I be the one to determine if that is bad for you?
No one is stopping you from creating art. All this does is forcing you to show the talent and ability to create *your own * art. There’s nothing stopping you from writing a first-class story without using existing characters, is there?
But it’s always easier to steal characters than to create your own.
You obviously haven’t seen nearly enough fan fiction. Not all of it’s sexual, but a good percentage is. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that!)
even sven, many authors have been burned by fan fiction. Marion Zimmer Bradley, for one, used to encourage her fans to write tales based her works. However, she had to scrap a long awaited book in a series because a fan, reading the advances for the book, sued, accusing Bradley of stealing the plot from one of her fan fics. So many authors, not wanting to deal with the hassle, have simply said no, or only under certain qualifications. Mercedes Lackey, for one, will only allow fan fiction if it’s published in fan 'zines, and if one signs a release form that she has on her website.
It has nothing nothing to do with control, mostly, and everything to do with not wanting to get burned.
And even those authors who do have control issues (Anne Rice, for one, is a total bitch about it), so what? They created those characters, and they may not want to share them. Yeah, it sucks, but there’s no law that says one has to share.