shadowkat: (warrior emma)
Here's a rather good and reliable article on fanfiction, fanart and copyright law, that everyone who writes fanfic or argues about the legality of fanfic should read:

Are Fanfiction and Fan Art Legal


Excerpt:



To a certain extent, creators have a copyright on their characters. If I'm writing a story about Harry Potter, for example, J.K. Rowling's copyright definitely comes into play. The case law on this is a bit murky, though. After all, in the 1954 case, Warner Bros. Pictures v. Columbia Broadcasting System, the Ninth Circuit ruled that CBS could continue to broadcast stories about Sam Spade even after Dashiell Hammett sold the rights to The Maltese Falcon and all of its characters to Warner Bros. The reasoning was that the test of whether a character is copyrighted is whether the character "constitutes the story being told." However, the fact that Warner Bros. and not Hammett was the plaintiff in this case was probably key. The court didn't want "the sale of the right to publish a copyrighted story [to] foreclose the author's use of its characters in subsequent works." That is to say, they didn't want the sale of The Maltese Falcon to result in the absurdity that any sequels Hammett himself wrote would infringe on a his original story. A later case, Anderson v. Stallone, held in part that the characters from the Rocky films were a copyrighted characters independent of the movies in which they appear.

On a practical level, Professor Tushnet notes that "the boundaries are really super fuzzy. So in general, when courts face an issue like that, they tend resolve them as matters of fair use. They just assume that there's copyrighted character and then analyze what is the fair use."

But what if the character I'm writing about is sort of Harry Potter, but sort of not Harry Potter? Well, in that case, we do have to look at your character and to what extent the character you're writing about constitutes the original story. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. American Honda Motor Co. dealt with a Honda commercial featuring a James Bond-like character making a high-speed getaway. MGM claimed that the commercial infringed on its copyright on the Bond character as depicted in the films. The court noted that the Honda commercial, like the James Bond films, stars a handsome, tuxedo-wearing British-looking man with a gorgeous woman in tow who is on the run from grotesque villains. Beyond that, several visual elements appeared to have been directly lifted from individual Bond movies. The court explained, "In sum, the extrinsic ideas that are inherent parts of the James Bond films appear to be substantially similar to those in the Honda commercial."

The 1930 case Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, with an opinion authored by the famed Second Circuit judge Learned Hand, held that no one may hold a copyright on stock characters. Rather, characters have to be "sufficiently delineated" in order to be copyrightable. (Says Hand, "If Twelfth Night were copyrighted, it is quite possible that a second comer might so closely imitate Sir Toby Belch or Malvolio as to infringe, but it would not be enough that for one of his characters he cast a riotous knight who kept wassail to the discomfort of the household, or a vain and foppish steward who became amorous of his mistress.") So a story about a pre-teen boy learning how to do magic at a boarding school won't necessarily infringe on a Harry Potter copyright. But where do we draw the line?

Professor Tushnet offered this analysis, noting that you can apply these tests to both a story's character and its setting. "It's all about the specifics," she explained. "So, the basic idea of having Starfleet, of course, is completely unprotectable. And having people who are sort of like the Chinese and people who are sort of like the Russians would again be completely unprotectable. The more you adopt from Star Trek specifically, the closer you get to infringement if it's not fair use." So it comes down to a question of what makes Harry Potter specifically Harry Potter and not just another boy wizard.



A popular misconception is that fanfiction can't be published. That this is an automatic copyright violation. That it is automatically illegal. Well, ahem, it depends. Not all fanfiction is that close to the original material. Some fanfiction, such as the Everybody's All Human Buffy fic written by writers such as Nautibitz amongst others, can actually be published, all she has to do is change the names. That's it. There's no other similarity to the original work. It's loosely based on the original material, and the only "substantially similar item" is well character names and character relationships, and relationships aren't protected under copyright law. Copyright law does not protect an original idea.

Copyright is meant to cover the actual creative work, not abstract ideas. We have patents to cover ideas and copyrights to cover creative expression. However, that protection extends beyond the literal text of a work. Where fan works are concerned, we're mainly interested in character copyrights. - another excerpt.

And a lot of stories that I've read, which by the way were published by professional publishing houses (another huge misconception is these are self-published, self-publishing gets a bad rep), were originally fanfic. You can't really tell. Unless you read fanfic online.

Here's a few examples from Good Reads:

1. Half Bad by Sally Green - a Snape/Voldemart fanfic or similar, but not infringement

2. 50 Shades of Gray - an Everybody's All Human Twilight Fanfic

3. Beautiful Bastard (formerly a Twilight fanfic)

UK links:

[Note - the UK copyright law is a wee bit more stringent than it is in the US. The DCMA and various copyright law updates were attempts to make the law more universal.]

Fair Use and Fair Dealing: UK and other Countries copyright laws-
http://www.copyrightsandwrongs.nen.gov.uk/schools-a-copyright/fair-dealing

https://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/138/copyright_and_licences/55/copyright-the_basics/4

I wasn't able to find any articles on UK law as useful as the excerpt above.

The problem with copyright law - is it is expensive to go after people to protect your stuff, so you will pick your battles.

So can you publish fanfic? If you remove the specificity to the original work - yes.
Is fanfic illegal - it depends.
shadowkat: (Calm)
This is the first assignment for The January Talking Meme. If you want to try your hand at coming up with a topic for me to ramble about as opposed to my normal ramblings - sign up HERE - there are still dates available.

The lovely [livejournal.com profile] green_maia came up with the first question: What would be the ideal copyright law, and why?

Prior to my current gig - I was the manager of rights and permissions at a now defunct library reference publishing company (The HW Wilson Company). So I have a bit of experience in this field. Back in the 1990s, before the internet took off like a bat out of hell, I was watching two listserves, one for librarians who worried that copyright law was becoming a wee bit too stringent, and one for publishers (mainly academic journal publishers, but there were others in there too) who felt that copyright law was far too lenient.

The publisher's fear was that if someone reproduced their work - they'd lose money. And if you write or publish for a living that's a big fear. Which sort of makes sense in theory, except to the degree that you are hampering the flow of information. Taken to extremes, copyright law or intellectual property law, which is broader in its scope, could prevent the whole point of art - which is communication. If someone can't access your art or writing or article, then what was the point of writing or creating it to begin with?

Add to this another wrinkle: Part of the joy of telling stories or communicating stories to others through art is seeing what they do with them. How the other person interprets, digests, or plays with your story. If you create a law that states people are not permitted to adapt, reinterpret, play with or create new stories from your work without your express permission (meaning you have to okay whatever they decide to do and get paid for it) - you sort of chop off that communication trade-off at the knees. You may get a response - but it won't necessarily be an honest or spontaneous one.

The writer/artist's fear of someone stealing what they created and/or taking all the credit for it - thus taking away their lively hood, in effect, gets in the way of the whole reason most writers/artists did it to begin with - to share their ideas and views with others. On the other hand, it is a legitimate fear. Mrs. Fields after all took a friend's cookie recipe and made lots and lots of money off of it, leaving the friend in the lurch. Or Janet Daily copied whole sections of Nora Roberts novel Sweet Revenge - for "Notorious" and made money off of it, until a reader caught it.

Another way of looking at it, is the nervous parent who sends their kid off to kindergarten for the first time. They have created this wonderful little person, who they love to pieces, but at some point they have to let the person go - interact with other little persons and big persons, and come back an entirely different person as a result (And as time moves forward, have the opportunity to create new little persons with others.) Stories are similar - you send them out in the universe, they come back different. ( And in some cases, they create new little stories.) Once you send them out there - they are no longer just yours. But what you don't want, is for some other parent to steal your child and pass them off as their own. Anymore than a writer wants someone to steal their story and pass it off as their own.

Copyright law was originally set up to simply protect the writer or artist from someone else ripping off their work. It's become rather complicated over time, but then so has art.
I think, and I know this is a bit radical so bear with me, that the ideal copyright law would protect the artist/writer from someone ripping off their work, while at the same time permitting people to play with their work, make money off derivative works, adaptations, and new interpretations - without having to obtain the copyright holder's permission or wait until the work falls into public domain. Sort of like what people do now with Shakespeare, Jane Austen, the Brontes, or Moby Dick. In short, the ability to write and publish fanfic without legal repercussions. Or for that matter to direct a movie adaptation of a play or book, without having to obtain "permission". Read more... )
shadowkat: (Ayra in shadow)
[Well I signed the petition for whatever good it will do. Broad copyright infringement laws...worry me. It will cost us millions to put into effect and could cost millions for internet providers and jobs, and cut into free speech. I'm sorry but there's a better way to protect intellectual property owners than this. Oh currently watching the State of the Union Address (that is until it flipped off, because I had scheduled Lost Girl and Justified to tape at the same time)...love this comment: "Most of the people watching are thinking nothing is going to be done in Washington this year or next year or the year after. [Pause] Can you blame them? Last year the biggest argument we had that lasted for months was how America was going to pay its bills on time." LOL! (He's not wrong). Also the applause meter is interesting.
He got thunderous applause for a lot of things, but not for that bit and not for: "No longer are going to let Wall Street abide by its own rules and go unrestrained" - the applause for that was decidedly tepid. And we wonder why people no confidence in government?]

Originally posted by [livejournal.com profile] lk737 at U.S. Petition to prevent ACTA
Kosmonaunt on Tumblr just posted this link to the U.S. Petition to stop ACTA. Here is what was said about it:

Americans, this is a link to the White House petition to End ACTA and get the Obama Administration to withdraw its support! This petition needs 25,000 signatures by February 20, 2012! Please, Please take a minute to sign this petition!! I'm sure the more signatures we get, the greater chance the Obama Administration may listen to us.

Please pass this along!!

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/end-acta-and-protect-our-right-privacy-internet/MwfSVNBK?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

Please check it out and Retweet if you're on Twitter (hashtag #ActAgainstACTA). Here is the shortened link for Twitter -- http://t.co/suHDHx8K



Thank you to everyone on my flist and twitter for talking about this and making us so aware! You guys have really filled my flist with so much information! *massive hugs*



[Yawn, not about the address, I'm just tired. As an aside about all this copyright law stuff? I am so glad I'm not in that field any longer. Confusing is an understatement. And I thought the DMCA, World Copyright Act and Internet Act of 1999 was a pain. Good times. Or the Napster Case and the Tasini cases were annoying.
Or that...the Sono Bono Act was well irritating. Apparently those were the good old days. Can't say I'm all that surprised...it was only a matter of time, before they started to do something about it. The TV/Film and Publishing industry has been
paranoid about the internet for years now. Heck, the Actors Strike and the Writer's Strikes were mainly about the internet.]
shadowkat: (brooklyn)
Last night ran into my favorite professional movie reviewer, Glenn Kenny, at our local bar, Abilene. Asked him how the movie critic biz was going, and he told me, not so great - turns out he was laid-off this week. Yet another casuality of the massive critic lay-offs happening at area newspapers and magazines over the last few weeks. Not sure you heard about it? Probably not. Which is really sad, because unlike amateur film reviewers, these guys actually have time to see a wide variety of films and have the training to critique them. They've honed this skill. Without them, we wouldn't know about those tiny foreign and indie gems such as Little Miss Sunshine, or Babett's Feast or even Remains of the Day. Whose to blame? Ah, we are. Or to be fair, the amateur writers who review films, music, television, and books on the internet. The internet, Glenn tells me has changed professional writing. His friends, freelancers, have to work twice as hard to get the same amount of money they did for their work several years ago. To make a living on the net, he advised, you have to work overtime, constantly, just to get nickels and dimes from advertisers. Yes, those advertisements you despise are paying the rent of many professional magazine and newspaper writers who can now only get work writing for online zines.

None of this surprises me, I sort of predicted it way back in the late 90's while I was on two different copyright listserves. One was for professional writers, copyright managers, and attorneys - the other for libraians and copyright specialists. The library listserve was scared that the copyright act under negotation at the time - DCMA or something or other - would kill fair use and make it difficult for people to access content without paying lots of money. The writer/attorny copyright listserve - was scared that their content would be up for grabs and people would be able to steal it without them knowing. Of the two, I found myself agreeing with the writer/attorney listserve. They were right. The internet or what I like to call the information revolution would change intellectual property law not to mention professional writing, and not necessarily for the better.

Premiere Magazine was amongst the first of the casualities. My favorite entertainment mag, which had great articles on the process of filmmaking, has now been regulated to a website. And not a great one. It's articles more or less free, with the writers making very little. The same thing is slowly happening to Entertainment Weekly. The New Yorker and Atlantic Monthly may be safe for a while. But I've watched Newsweek and Time dwindle.
Part of the problem is so much of the content of these mags is readily available online. People don't have to buy the mag to read it any more, so subscriptions have gone down, so has revenue.

Movies, tv shows, comic books - easily downloaded from the net, often before they end up in theaters or on sale. People trade them much the same way they do music. Turns out Napster was just the beginning.

I look at what fans do with other's intellectual property and often cringe. I often wonder how these people would feel if someone took their work and did to it, what they do to someone else's?

There are times, much like this week, that I find myself hating the net, missing the 90s or early 2000, when we didn't have YouTube or LiveJournal or the ability to create icons, when magazines were still readily available, and vids were impossible to download. And during those times, it occurs to me that this must have been what my parents and grandparents and great great grandparents thought during the industrial revolution. Change is often violent, always painful, and not always good.
shadowkat: (rainboweyelock)
My public service to the people on my flist who are involved in the creation of fan websites and want to potentially publish the material from those websites in book form.

Apparently JKR is suing someone who has decided to publish the things on his HP website in book form and one of the posters at fandom lawyers has decided to do an in depth legal analysis on the topic.

http://rubymiene.livejournal.com/68538.html
shadowkat: (by_maggie)
[I originally posted a short version of this as a response to [livejournal.com profile] coffeeandink lengthy analysis of a recent Harry Potter fanfic scandal regarding plagrism. For a deeper understanding of that scandal or plagirism go to that post. This one is about how fanfic, icons, vids, screen shot fall under copyright law and the extent to which, if any, they are considered copyright infringement. I updated it to include the Tasini court case, which I can't believe I forgot - it's at the end of the history section. Please note, I altered the section on Real Person Fanfic after doing a bit more research. You actually have less leeway here as opposed to more - due to libel and defamation laws - which do come into play here. Also note that my understanding of libel and defamation laws is fairly simplistic.]

Fandom and Intellectual Property Law…

Fanfic is a foggy area copyright wise, but then so is intellectual property law. People do not agree and US Copyright Law has been changed several times – there’s the 1976 Act, the amended act of 1978, and again in 1988 with the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act in 1998 (or Mickey Mouse Protection Act)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act, the World Copyright Act), The WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996, The European Copyright Directive and finally the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, – which was the most controversial and went through multiple drafts before being signed by the President on October 28,1998.
A little bit of history )


My Own Background or Why the Heck Should You Believe Me? )

Fanfic and Copyright Law )

What is the effect of TRADEMARK Law…on fan creations? )

How About Screen-Shots, Images, Icons, Vidding? Are they permissible? )
Page generated Jan. 8th, 2026 05:41 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios