Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
07-16-2011, 09:08 AM | #1 |
Wight
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Settling down in Bree for the winter.
Posts: 208
|
The Boy Who Lived Forever
Time recently wrote an article on fan fiction, "The Boy Who Lived Forever." It centers on Harry Potter, doesn't deal much with Tolkien, but passes through The Man from UNCLE and Star Trek in covering the history, law and ethics of the art. Should one borrow someone else's characters, even if the author would not approve?
Maybe worth a read. |
07-16-2011, 09:55 AM | #2 |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
Well, legally it's wrong if the author doesn't give permission, but personally authors who act like that annoy me. For the most part, I read fanfic in fandoms where the author is already dead or has given their blessing, so it's not a huge problem (aside from M-E fanfic, I read lots of Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter, and Shakespeare.) The reason it annoys me is, unless an author somehow manages to avoid any mentions or borrowings from mythology, older works, history, ect. they are writing a form of fanfic. The only difference is the time that has elapsed. Anyone redoing Romeo and Juliet, King Arthur, or a fairy tale is writing fanfic in way. The difference is, those authors can legally make money off it because of the time elapsed.
As mentioned in the article, it has only been in the past couple hundred years that copy right has become important. Nobody made a fuss about Shakespeare rewriting other authors' works for the stage, something that could get you fined if you did it today. As a writer, if I ever get published, I hope people write fanfiction for it. What better praise could there be then to know that your work spiked the imagination of other people?
__________________
Busy, Busy, Busy...hoping for more free time soon. |
07-16-2011, 02:28 PM | #3 | |
Curmudgeonly Wordwraith
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ensconced in curmudgeonly pursuits
Posts: 2,509
|
Quote:
The difference lies in the fact that Fan-fiction is not-for-profit creative writing. No one bats an eye at going to a symphony of Mozart or Bach pieces and shelling out $100 per ticket to enrich the musicians and promoters (the composers being, naturally, beyond all legal recourse), but good lord, try to find a studio version of a Bob Dylan song on YouTube (even though nearly 1/2 off all songs from his first three albums were written by Woody Guthries, Leadbelly or some other folk artist from a previous generation)! But Dylan and his record company expressly forbid such transmission of his material, even in a not-for-profit venue such as YouTube; whereas, The Beatles and Led Zeppelin (who seem to have no difficulty selling millions of CDs a year, even though they have been defunct as groups for 30-40 years), do not have such prohibitions on their music.
__________________
And your little sister's immaculate virginity wings away on the bony shoulders of a young horse named George who stole surreptitiously into her geography revision. |
|
07-16-2011, 04:02 PM | #4 | |||
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Busy, Busy, Busy...hoping for more free time soon. |
|||
07-17-2011, 01:01 AM | #5 | |
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In Eldamar beside the walls of Elven Tirion
Posts: 551
|
Quote:
It's a different case if they haven't heard of it altogether - I would suggest they go and explore the internet a bit more
__________________
"Hey! Come derry dol! Can you hear me singing?" – Tom Bombadil |
|
|
|