Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
branchandroot: oak against sky (Default)
Intellectual property is a bastard concept to begin with, in US legal and artistic practice. In fact, it runs directly counter to one of the major tenets of current copyright law, which is that ideas cannot be copyrighted, only specific executions or expressions of an idea. Intellectual property, on the other hand, has been taken to mean that ideas , and everything following from them, are the property of their originator, the same way a bowl is the property of the person who throws it.

If your mind is now teeming with objections about how those two things are just not equivalent, good for you.

Unsurprisingly, it is intellectual property, rather than copyright law as it is currently written, that authors appeal to when trying to assert that fanfic is illegal. Some authors, in fact, go further and say that an author has a moral right to determine all future dispositions of any world/characters/story they write and publicize, especially any refractions in a negative light--whatever "negative" means to them.

This is, frankly, a load of ripe bushwah. Neither history, precedent nor written law is on the side of such an assertion. Not even the Berne Convention or the DMCA say the author has control of everything, including audience reactions, for ever and ever amen, though the former comes perilously close. The strange bedfellow that such authors do have is big business, who want to protect their profits and keep control of all ideas, expressions and, most importantly, money that the author and the public might have.

Once more, to make sure everyone caught that: rights of control over production, in the US, are about money. Not morals, money. If a case gets to court, which, incidentally, has never happened for fanfic in its current incarnation, morals don't win. Money wins. Money always wins. The complete and utter lack of that mythical beast "artistic control" evident whenever big business makes a derivative work should hammer home that fact to the authors who are whining over what a terrible defamation uncontrolled fanfic is.

If, in face of this, authors still want to put forward arguments about ethics, about how things should work, then they should be prepared for the fan-creators to start doing the same. Vigorously.

In our next segment, how things should work, by all rights.

.
branchandroot: oak against sky (Default)
The plaint of the fanfic writer: "Why can fanartists get away with selling this shit and we can't?!"

Interestingly, in the abstract rather than the immediately-frustrated sense, only some fanartists are, in fact, on the right side of the law when they sell their work at the local con. The ones drawing live-action characters of any sort are generally in the clear, because human beings don't get to copyright or trademark their physical appearances no matter how famous they are. So all those paintings of "Aragorn" and "Snape" and "Mal" are quite legal to sell.

The costumer who designed what Mortensen-as-Aragorn is wearing may be able to raise a fuss, depending on how precisely the fanartist has reproduced her work. But Mortensen himself, and the studio too, are on the wrong side of all the precedents to object.

On the other hand, those pastels of Sailor Moon are quite illegal to sell. Sailor Moon is a work of visual art from the get-go. Copying that creative work recognizably and then selling it is an inarguable breach of copyright.

And the reason why the second fanartist is still getting away with it? Probably because the concom are just as confused as the rest of us about exactly what is and isn't copyrightable or trademarkable.

.

November 2024

S M T W T F S
     12
34 56789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated Jul. 6th, 2025 06:44 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios