Subject: Not to me.
Author:
Posted on: 2017-12-04 00:00:00 UTC
I think what I mean is "irreverent and cheeky." Possibly impish or puckish... or elfish, even. {= ) It has been known to bug other people, but that's one of those YMMV tone things.
~Neshomeh
I heard that Anne McCaffrey had special rules about writing fanfiction in her worlds, but the link seems to be dead. All I could find were advertising rules that should be universal for all fanfiction.
I was going to do a crossover between Supernatural and "Horse from a Different Sea." I like Mpreg if it makes sense, but Alpha/Omega is just so character-breaking it might as well not be fanfiction.
I gave you the old RP rules. Here are the latest rules for fanfiction and other fanworks that I'm aware of: http://pernhome.com/aim/anne-mccaffrey/fans/fan-fiction-rules/
~Neshomeh
Liebe Arceus, that has to be the most smug, presumptuous, petty-minded thing I've ever heard. And I live with me. On a 24/7 basis. =]
Authors do have a right to control their intellectual property to some extent.
Anyway, if you think that's bad, you clearly haven't read George R.R. Martin's views on fanfiction. At least McCaffrey lightened up eventually.
~Neshomeh
Which I find hypocritical, given that he wrote Dark!Edgy!AU fanfic of Tolkien (to the point of nicking his R.R.) and medieval history, and that his personal style makes him look like the child of an Mpreg fic shipping Walt Whitman and Captain Haddock from Tintin. Let us also not forget Anne Rice, who has herself written what amounts to pornographic BDSM fanfiction of Beauty and the Beast under the name A.N. Roquelaire and published it. The missus has them. =]
I also don't agree that a given author can dictate the content of their fans' works, only that they do not monetize them. As an author, ngl, you should not be reading your fans' fic anyway because that way lies madness and potential lawsuits. Since you're not involved with it, and since you're not reading it, what harm does it do you that people make your characters do the horizontal lambada with aplomb and a worrying amount of latex hosiery?
It all brings to mind a quote about Ray Bradbury. In an interview, he was asked what he felt about Hollywood always adapting his books into absolutely atrocious movies and thus ruining them. Bradbury got up, walked over to a shelf full of his novels, and spread his arms wide.
"Look at them," he said. "They're all here. They're fine."
I think trying to forbid fanworks altogether is an exercise in futility, even when it's not an outright insult to one's fanbase. I'm also on the fence about how I feel about how much time it takes for things to pass into public domain. On the one hand, I'm okay with it still being illegal for anyone to do whatever they want with Middle-earth, because I, as a fan, am already fed up with the legal stuff. On the other hand, dead authors can't collect royalties, and I think art should belong to the people.
That said, looking at it on a smaller scale, if I, a living PPC author, were to say "Hey, I know you guys really like my agents, and I'm cool with people using them in the Badfic Game, but please don't write them in non-con scenarios, it's not what I or my work stand for," would that be petty of me? I don't think so. I wouldn't read the stuff if people wrote it anyway, but I think it would be fair to ask people who purport to be fans of me and my work to respect my wishes regarding said work, and fair to be upset if they didn't.
It's not about somehow damaging the original IP, legally (though that can be a real concern) or otherwise. It's about respecting the IP's creator. That's why we don't do missions in canons whose authors don't want fanfic of their works, even if we disagree with their reasons.
(And yeah, GRRM is absolutely a Tolkien fanboy, which is really weird. I don't think ASoIaF is derivative enough to qualify as a Middle-earth AU, though. As hS points out in his hS way, all stories are built on other stories. Homage is allowed.)
~Neshomeh
My (current) thoughts on the appropriate length of the copyright term are "14 years and 14 more if you ask"1. Term starts at some sort of publication in this scheme.
The main reason for this is that, from what I can tell, 25-28ish (some subtleties of when you start counting from might eat a few years of the term for films and the like) years from when you've published something either:
a) It's sufficiently popular/enduring/... so as to have become part of the culture (LotR very much falls here) and therefore it should be available to the whole culture to interact with free of fear of lawsuit
b) It's effectively run its course as a thing you can sell, is probably out of print or equivalent), and the only people who still are interested are archivists and the twenty remaining fans (this is somewhat exaggerated but you get the point). In this case, the remaining audience should have the right to preserve and propagate the thing since it's (near-)abandoned by the copyright holder.
c) Sleeping hits, where no one cared initially but then decades later everyone wants to buy the thing. That is, cases where almost all of the royalties would be acquired after the 28 year mark if the copyright term were longer.
I claim that case c) is extremely unlikely, and that the law should not be optimized for it. In both a) and b), the publisher/author/... have gotten their well-deserved $, and it has become time for the public's interest in having artistic works available to override the creator's interest in getting paid.
Furthermore, a shorter copyright term is an incentive for people to make more stuff because they can't just sit on their one success forever.
However, we might want to allow a non-corporate creator control over their universe and the right to live off their one big hit, so a "life of the author OR 14 + 14, whichever's longer" term could be good. Than one bit's a complicated issue.
[1]: It should be noted that I want with 14 as opposed to some other small two-digit number like 15 because that's what it used to be ages back.
- Tomash
Have I caused offence? That sounds like the sort of sentence that might mean I've offended someone. :-/
hS
I think what I mean is "irreverent and cheeky." Possibly impish or puckish... or elfish, even. {= ) It has been known to bug other people, but that's one of those YMMV tone things.
~Neshomeh
...So ASoIaF is a Tolkien AU fic.
I'm sorry, Scape, but... what? I'm trying to think of how that makes sense. And I don't think it does.
I mean... By that definition, pretty much every fantasy novel is a Tolkien AU fic.
Everything is fanfic of everything else if you AU hard enough... :)
hS
Because a) the alternative was 'no fanfic at all', b) the only thing she forbids content-wise is pornographic sites (not even material - just entire sites devoted to it), and c) don't call the Dragonlady petty. [Frownyface]
hS