Libraries, Cons, McCaffrey, Rowlings, Derivative Works, Trademarks, fan fiction (was Re: [HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: GWTW Fanfic Provokes Lawsuit

[Michela Ecks]

Jim Ferer wrote:

> My point is that authors depend on a relatively small group of
> hard-core fans to keep the reputation and buzz about their work alive.
> I''m guessing that some of the authors you name have the
> zero-tolerance policy because of 1) Worry for legal entanglments such
> as those I mentioned or you mention below, 2) Fear their reputation
> will be diluted by fanfiction of varying quality, or 3) Irritation
> like that Niven felt.

I'm trying to recall some of the arguments that pro authors had with fan
fiction.  I think you could also add 4) Fans get it wrong and 5) Fan
fiction is a text based medium and has the potential to compete with
their own works.

Oh and as for five there, the equivilent of the Motion Picture
Assocation of America for books has a new head lobbyist.  A while back,
they started lobbying against libraries more specifically in regards to
e-journals.  (Library A pays $1,000 for e-journal and Library B doesn't
have it and some one there wants it so Library A does an interlibrary
loan to Library B over the computer where Library B gets the full thing
for free who may loan it Library C.)  I'm hoping that the organization
doesn't start going after normal books.  
 
> Michela:"Anne McCaffrey, Ellen Hayes, Mercedes Lackey and some other
> authors have policies about fan fiction derived from their work not
> out of a sense of ill will towards the fans.  They recognize the
> powers of fans so they give them the chance to write fan fiction."
> 
> It seems to me you contradicted yourself here, if you mean these
> authors do indeed allow fan fiction. I never thought McCaffrey felt
> ill-will towards fans; I did suggest indifference about irritating a
> hard core fan base with such a strict policy.  These fans who she
> steps on about gaming in the Pern world, for example, would be the
> first to run out and buy an official Pern-based gaming system and
> promote it if it was any good. I've been to Worldcons where a lot of
> the pros come. They know this and do everything they can to make that
> core fan base happy.

Ah my bad.  I misintepretted what you said.  World cons, I would have
loved to have gone to the one in Chicago but I didn't have a car that
day. One of my dreams one day is to have a fan fiction type con...
nothing big but with some fun panels like "Mary Sues" and "History of
Fan Fiction" and readings of fan fiction from famous fan authors...
(Which would be pretty hard to ascertain but there are some "huge" ones
in cross fandoms.  Brenda Atrim is "famous" in about five fandoms and
most everyone I know who knows of her has a deep respect for her.) A
panel on editing fan fiction, a room where people can sit down and
discuss their fan fiction... Even for 50 people, that would be cool.  I
went to a tiny con in Wisconsin for gaming that was neat despite being
well small.

And as for that, yeah I can agree.  Those fans would be the first two
run out and get their stuff.  Authors like Mercedes Lackey who aren't as
commercial have to worry about the sale of their books.  Most of the
people I've talked to said that they would be irritated by the author
saying no but would by their books anyway.  This seems to be a really
big sentiment among Anne Rice fans who have huge protest sites but they
don't say "Don't read her." just "Check her out at the library instead."
 
> Michela:"Commericial interests are important to authors because that
> is how they make their living..."
> 
> Of course they are. An author crosses the line from success to crass
> commericalism when he or she churns out "product" of lesser quality
> just because it's their best shot of making big bucks. (See
> "Hollywood.") Cartland is an example, and quite a few others.

Cartland just gives me the giggles.  She's got to be one of the most God
Awful professional authors ever.

> An
> example of the other side is Conan Doyle, who tried to stop writing
> about Sherlock Holmes at the height of his success; the fans wouldn't
> let him stop. Robert A. Heinlein didn't latch on to a series and beat
> it to death, either. There's a continuum that runs from pure artists
> to hacks. I most respect the authors who do well by doing good work.
> JKR is one of those; she's changed nothing for commercial reasons.

Tolkien who wrote Lord of the Rings had the art vs. money debate and
eventually decided money and his books aren't accused of being
commercial.  He's pretty classic.  (Though I guess that wasn't beaten to
death.)  

Heinlein is a God to me. :o) I know some women that refuse to read him
because they think he's anti-feminist.

I'm also thinking Andre Norton could almost be tossed into the mix
there...  To a degree...  Is she still alive?  The last book of hers I
read was co-written with some one.  (I'm like 90% sure she co-wrote
something with Elizabeth Moon or Anne McCaffrey.)

I think some fans who are massively against the whole Harry Potter
merchandise don't get the fact that JKR isn't responsible for that rabid
commercialism and the fact that she had too many distractions to
complete the next book to her liking and put off the date speaks volumes
for where her priorities about her writing stands...
 
> Michela:[about tolerance of Star Trek fanfic]"Yeah, God bless Gene
> [Roddenberry].  He loved fan fiction and found the whole phenomom
> amazing.  He even allowed a book by Sandra Mulbreath and Myra
> something (I know I goofed up their names) to be published.
> The book went down as one of ths slashiest books in Trek EVER.  (I
> love the cover of one edition I own.  Spock is holding Kirk.)"
> 
> Slash didn't start with Harry Potter, did it? There was an awful lot
> of in the heyday of original series fic. I saw one called "Spock
> Enslaved!" with fanart of Spock in chains (or leather, whatever).
> Somebody had taken most of our favorite first officer's clothes as
> part of the enslavement process.  Fanfic didn't hurt Trek, did it?
> Quite the opposite.  It's a lesson some authors would do well to
> learn.

Authors don't always agree with that.  Alan Dean Foster said he wouldn't
mind fan fiction being written from stuff that was on television but he
would be opposed to fan fiction derived from his books because they are
the same medium.  (Which is actually something of another argument
altogether.  My initial thought was "Yeah, he's got a point." but then I
read some legal materials on-line that suggested posting a book to the
net makes it a derivative work because the medium has changed and the
layout and feel of a book on-line is different than it is in paper. 
Even OCR stuff could be considered that.)  Because of the medium issue,
that's a big concern for authors.  Why bother to read the Harry Potter
books when you can read fan fiction that is really really good on-line? 
It harkens sort of to the Napster situation...  (And posting complete
novels to the net by authors is a complete NO NO.  Harlan Ellison is
taking people to court because of that.)

I've totally diverged from where I was going and probably boring people
to tears...
 
> Michela:[about a fanfic author's suit]"The result of this was that her
> [Marion Zimmer Bradley's] agent and  several professional groups and
> other lawyers and agents advised professional authors not to read fan
> fiction.  In fact, they advised some to not read ANY work sent to them
> by fans even for critiquing."
> 
> That *is* a shame. We all lost on that. That's why I feel that in
> justice it ought to be open season on fanfic with respect to the
> original author. IOW, JKR should be able (not that she would) to take
> anything in any Harry Potter fic without fear of being sued. Fanfic
> authors would gain by being able to write fanfic, and the pros would
> gain as well. Not by being able to take other people's ideas; authors
> would be able to benefit from the buzz created by fanfic.

Hmmm...  I know it has potential gain but... to give the author complete
ownership of derivative works, the author would need to make sure fan
fiction writers had disclaimers and to me, that almost takes away the
artistic value of fan fiction.  Plus plagirism... if it was fone to
me...  I would be upset because they stole from me (albeit I stole from
them too) and annoyed with the author thinking them a hack for not being
able to be good enough to write their own ideas.
 
> I am willing to give up any rights in my fanfic in exchange for being
> able to write it.

I'm not sure legally how illegal it is...  Fair use laws are getting
more and more lenient.  I don't see it as a problem and only a few
authors require you give up rights.
 
> I say fanfic is helping JK Rowling by keeping interest in her world
> high. This board would be a lot slower without it. I believe fanfic
> can help an author or a series. (I keep thinking of Grateful Dead fan
> concert tapes when I think of this. Those tapes never hurt the Dead.)

Hmmm...  I think it depends on the author and the fans it attracts.  For
my paper on book fan fiction, I asked people in a chat room I hang out
in WHY they don't read the Harry Potter books.  The ones who didn't read
it, by and large, cited the Harry Potter fan fiction they'd run across
on fanfiction.net (Which is a gripe of merits.  FanFiction.Net is so
homogenous with anything there and zero quality controls that almost
forces people looking for fan fiction from more obscure fandoms like "So
You Want to be a Wizard" by Diane Duane to go there for stories.)
reflecting so poorly on the works and the fans that the books must suck,
the fans be brainless and stupid, and they have no desire to be
affiliated with Harry Potter as a result.

But if any author did take a fan fiction writer to court, they'd be
responsible for proving that fan fiction hurt their market potential. 
(At least for copyright.  I'm not sure where Trademark comes in. 
Trademark you must defend or loose.  Copyright isn't the same.)
 
> I'm glad somebody has given as much thought to this as you have. I
> hope the lawyers don't end up putting a chilling effect on what is
> actually a positive force.

It's really fascinating and I did/am doing a paper on the topic for an
english class.  Hearing pro authors opinions....  and the more I learn,
the more I don't see a problem with it.  For some stuff though, it's
harder to like parts of it with fan fiction from books because books
leave less room for creativity and speculation than television IMHO at
least.

-- 
Michela Ecks - mecks at prodigy.net - Textual Poacher - Spastic Hale Girl
"Babylon 5 was last of the Babylon stations. There would never be
another. It changed the future and it changed us. It taught us that we
have to create the future or others will do it for us. It taught us
that we have to care for one other, because if we don't, who will? And
that true strength sometimes comes from the most unlikely of places.
Mostly though, I think it gave us hope that there can always be new
beginnings, even for people like us." - Susan Ivanova