![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rm![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
ellen_kushner's party for the debut of "The Man With the Knives" last night. I'm very excited that more people I know will have read it soon, as I've had things to say about it since I heard it at the NYRSF reading some time ago, but have been avoiding doing so because it's high on the list of things you need to experience in the moment. It, and the presentation of it in this form, gets at some of the stuff in my Bristol paper in a sort of sideways way. So I'm really excited about it, but am still like "fsdjkafjldgjaldfgjal! read it people, so I can talk about it!"Anyway, cool party, cool location, cool people. One of those nexus of awesome things. *Waves at the new people.*
kalichan said here.1. Stories make me brave, made me brave. They help with the getting out of bed sometimes, or the walking into a room full of strangers. Which is why I find it so fundamentally appalling when writers act in a manner, that sure seems like cowardice to me, about their writing and its reception.
2. My background in largely in public relations and marketing. Add to that my life as a performer and a storyteller and nearly everything I do at least brushes against the idea of image-making and image control. And here's the thing, you can control what people see about you; but you can't control HOW THEY SEE IT. This is true of everything from the fiction you write to the self-image you sell1.
3. I have never read Gabaldon's books, and now I probably never will. Not because she doesn't want fanfiction written about them, but because she has contempt for people engaging in dialogue about her texts. To me, this screed from her is no different than when other pro writers lash out with ad hominem attacks at professional critics or random readers offering reviews on Amazon. It's inappropriate and rude2.
4. I am a published author, and I write fanfic.
5. I don't need your approval.
1. Viscerally, totally creepy and awesome.
2. The guy who was all "kill me" -- sure, he'd lost his hand, but he seemed otherwise in tact. What gives?
3. Angel is such a fucking five-year-old sometimes.
1 Yes, this tangent speaks to my feeling about the fact that while some RPF may be squicky some of the time for some people, that it's a valid mode of cultural dialogue.
2 I'm looking at you, Anne Rice.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
This is rather long and I apologise for any garulity.
Date: 2010-05-05 02:43 pm (UTC)And while all subsequent works may be a commentary of sorts on all previous works, that's not the same as making a commentary in the form of a review or critique (where there are specific limits as to the amount of the work that can be reproduced, such as 25% of one page or image, although that may vary depending on where you are). While some stories are clearly a critique- be they pastiches, AU fics with a political or humorous bent or different only by the deliberate insertion of sexuality, alternative POVs highlighting class or race or a myriad of other defensible configurations- my question is about those that are not.
Diana Gabaldon doesn't have a strong case when she talks about slashfic of her works, because there is usually something transformative about them. On closer examination that transformative element might be shown to be so flimsy that the work does, indeed, count as piracy/ infringement of copyright- but that's bedside the point. The pertinent question, that Gabaldon seems to entirely miss, is how much of fanfic is transformative in that way? The majority? How much of the rest is actually derivative, not transformative? I don't know, because I only read the very interesting stuff that gets linked by very interesting people like rm and other clever academics.
Lastly, and this is more a moral issue than anything else, Doctorow advocates that authors relinquish their intellectual property so long as no harm is done, and so celebrate fanfic. But that's only one perspective. Who are fandom to say to Gabaldon that no she can't keep her intellectual property- that something she thinks is hers, is precious to her and she has an attachment to is not. Not so we can review or critique or educate or inform others, but so they can have a go at making their own one?
Re: This is rather long and I apologise for any garulity.
Date: 2010-05-05 07:31 pm (UTC)Fanfiction is not the free copying/sharing of the original work that "piracy" connotates. Unless ppl are scanning whole books or retyping entire pages of the work (or tv show/movie/play/etc) and sharing them with others - sometimes directly negatively affecting the creator's sales - then it's not internet piracy. Ebooks! that's an example, if someone had uploaded the e-book and put that out into the public for ppl to download, that would be piracy.
2ndly, again, most fanfiction IS not just a commentary on, but a dialogue with, the original work. If i write fanfic, it's b/c something in the original story sparked something in me. Fanfic IS my way of review. I don't write critiques or meta, in the traditional sense - i use all that to create a story which conveys my personal interpretation and thoughts on the original. AND, unlike reviews or meta, fanfic, when done right, DOES NOT reproduce much if any of the original work, but relies on the fact that the readers are already familiar with the source material. A line of dialogue may be used, not unlike a quote used in a review, but is general credited to the orignal source in some manner.
Granted, not ALL fanfic is a great work of literary genius worthy of its source material, but it's still someone's interpretation and dialogue with said material. And, like with most things, we cannot police ppl's thoughts.
I don't think anyone (not that i've seen) is saying Gabaldon, or any author/creator cannot object to her work being "ficced". Most are saying that she probably should have taken an alternate route. She could have publicly and politely stated (on her blog or somewhere else official where she knows her fans would see it) that she'd prefer ppl NOT post fanfic concerning her characters or her stories in public. The rest would have taken care of itself. Fans do not LIKE to upset the creators of work they love, and very quickly ppl would have taken those fanfics out of the public eye, locked them up, taken them down. The fandom would have policed itself for Ms. Gabaldon - fandom is pretty good as that most of the time - by alerting the fan community that fic should be locked, and Gabaldon, or other authors, wouldn't have to stumble across it or come off looking so much like douchebags by comparing fanfic to breaking into their homes to rape and murder their family.
The point of most fanfic is that this universe, this character, this silly little story has become "precious" to more than just its creator.
Re: This is rather long and I apologise for any garulity.
Date: 2010-05-05 08:33 pm (UTC)I didn't mean to imply that fanfic was necessarily piracy; I mentioned it to show the principle that just because a law is difficult to enforce, that doesn't legitimize a behavior it prohibits.
I agree that Gabaldon made some tactless (and actually probably pretty stupid) remarks in her comment and I think she deserve some chastisement for that. But I do think there is a lot of sentiment here and surrounding the debate that seems to imply that because fanfic can be seen as a dialogue between the reader and the author, fanfic writers should be able to use whatever characters as they like. That is impinging on the original authors copyright, unless there is qualification for it to be considered fair use. It is illegal to write those stories, even if you put a personal spin on it in the UK (where I am based- the US has the aforementioned emphasis on commercial benefit or harm). Even if you don't sell it. It's also illegal to tape things off the telly and keep them for longer than two weeks, It's illegal to photocopy more that 25% or a chapter from a book if you are a student (or practically at all, if other wise). But people do those things all the time, and IP holders have always turned a blind eye so long as no harm is done (often deliberately to help schools). But they still have a right to say 'no, stop'. Just like Gabaldon did in the first part of her post.
ETA (at the last possible minute) Now I think it shows a weak grasp of the situation that Gabaldon cited the Berne convention given that she works and publishes in the US. I just checked that and I'm pretty astounded. I thought you'd only cite that if you were in a European country (even given the transnational nature of the WWW). I was convinced she was British to have taken the approach that she did, and not checked all the legal precedents that Kalichan and rm have very kindly supplied.
Re: This is rather long and I apologise for any garulity.
Date: 2010-05-05 08:36 pm (UTC)Re: This is rather long and I apologise for any garulity.
Date: 2010-05-05 08:49 pm (UTC)Re: This is rather long and I apologise for any garulity.
Date: 2010-05-05 09:43 pm (UTC)But they still have a right to say 'no, stop'. Just like Gabaldon did in the first part of her post.
Absolutely, as I'm pretty sure I said (*goes to check*)... OK, no, i didn't say that explicitly, but yes, they have every right to object to it, to issue C&D orders, or to take legal action if they really see fit to. Whether or not it would actually hold up in court, I think, has yet to be tested, b/c I don't think it's ever gone that far before (unless someone can find an example of a copyright owner taking legal action against a non-profit fanfic writer). I wasn't actually trying to debate the legality of it, as that is, to my knowledge, far too much of a grey area and I'm not, by any means, well-studied in the law. I will, however, state my opinion that it is not at all immoral, and further, immoral and illegal are not the same thing (refering to her orignal post on the subject).
to imply that because fanfic can be seen as a dialogue between the reader and the author, fanfic writers should be able to use whatever characters as they like. That is impinging on the original authors copyright - but is it really? No one who reads fanfic is ever going to mistake it for 'the real thing', or believe that said fanfic writer is the orignal creator of the characters/setting. The writing and posting of fanfic in no way changes the original work.
I really had not intended on getting into a debate about this, and I think I've said (written) all I can on the topic, but these two posts sum it up pretty nicely, and say it better than I can: http://naominovik.livejournal.com/11629.html and http://pandarus.livejournal.com/336009.html?format=light (thing three on this one)
I do understand the debate from both sides, as both a fanfic writer and a creator of original stories. I understand the attachment we have to our characters, and I am protective of how I want to tell MY story (which makes me a difficult writing parnter, I'm sure, as I've recently experienced), but if others were to take my characters and the world I created for them to tell their own stories, that doesn't change or intrude upon mine. You know?
Re: This is rather long and I apologise for any garulity.
Date: 2010-05-05 11:07 pm (UTC)but is it really? so you see, this is the crux of my argument. As far as my understanding, from reading the law, attending professional training, studying copyright as part of my education then yes, yes it is, under the Berne convention and in the UK. Now that doesn't mean that it costs the writer money, or damages the writer's reputation or the reputation of the work, but it still impinges on their copyrights. And is, depending on jurisdiction, illegal. Whether I like to do it or not, whether it harms somebody or not. Because that's what the laws say, and that can be checked (Berne convention is online and so is the copyrights and patents act 1988, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm , http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm ).
Of course, I accept that the law is a matter of interpretation, and subject to revision. Should the law be changed, because of the de facto existence of the widespread production and enjoyment of not-for-profit fanfic? I think much finer minds than my own need to be consulted on that matter. Even if I was totally happy for fanfic to be created from my work (should I ever give into friends encouragement and publish anything) that would mean nothing, really, because the law must strive to protect all authors of all positions.
Is fanfic that does not qualify as fair use illegal? Technically, yes, depending on your location.
Do I think it's Immoral? No, or hardly at all, depending on your ethics and philosophy.
Do I think all fanfic is fair use? If you can prove it, it is. Otherwise, no.
Do I think non-fair use fanfic should be illegal? At a push... probably. Not because fanfic shouldn't exist, but because there are already means for creators and IP holders to make it possible for transformative and derivative works to be made, such as open rights/ creative commons schemes.
Finally: Are Fanficcers bad people? What a ridiculous question. Of course not, not for writing something they consider harmless, at any rate. Gabaldon was quite foolish to have provocatively maligned the reputation of her fans in the way she did.
Re: This is rather long and I apologise for any garulity.
Date: 2010-05-05 11:52 pm (UTC)Do I think non-fair use fanfic should be illegal? At a push... probably. - and i'm going to have to outright disagree with you there, b/c it's going to happen whether you (general 'you') like/approve of it or not, whether it be in private, or locked forums, or amongst a small, select group - it's out there and you (general and/or creator 'you') can't control it, b/c you CAN'T control ppl (you can throw all the law at it you want, but it won't stop it)
the above is true for many, many things, not just fanfic (and not all, by any means, as benign, either)