Talk:Legal issues with fan fiction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Attribution
This article was broken out of the overly long fan fiction article; prior edit history for the content of this article can be found there. bd2412 T 00:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I knew I wasn't the only person considering a split, but it's nice to see someone taking initiative! :)
- Also - I recommend that even if this Talk page eventually needs to be split, we keep the attribution section here on top of this page so that people will know exactly where the History is without having to stumble upon it in a previous archived Talk page. :) Runa27 20:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Additional categories
I'm going to hunt up some categories to add this puppy to, other than the one the tag puts it in. Other than this simply being the proper thing to do with a new article, it will also have the effect of possibly attracting more editors to this now-seperated article. The first I plan to add to it will be Category: Fan fiction, which... is an obvious choice, but still. :P Runa27 20:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have also taken the liberty of adding the article to the "Issues in international law" category, which should cover most of our bases pretty nicely, though I'm also going to check and see if there's an "issues in copyright law" type subcategory, which might also be a good one to add it to. Runa27 22:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Arguments for the legality of fan fiction" section isn't
That is, it contains almost no arguments for fan fiction's legality. What it does contain is a list of various creator's reaction to fanfiction.
This blawg contains a fairly lengthy analysis of fanfiction by a lawyer who works in the field of publishing. (I believe he represented Harlan Ellison in the AOL lawsuit, for instance.) Obviously the author has a particular bias, but it's at least a thoughtful look at it, with references. --Starwed 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Misc cleanup
I split off a lot of the "legality" section into an "attitudes" section, since that's what it really was. I deleted a paragraph about fanfic of "real people" as it seemed to be just speculation:
- Several people have argued that fan fiction about real people is less risky legally than fan fiction about fictional characters. A Beatles fan fiction website has argued that when you write about a fictional character, you technically "steal" the character, but fan fiction authors can also get in trouble for writing about real people if it slanders (or "flames") the subject.
I also removed a line that stated:
- To avoid these lawsuits, many writers just add a disclaimer to their work to ensure that it is not theirs.
Since I couldn't even discern what it was intended to say. --Starwed 21:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lucasfilm?
Most major studios and production companies tolerate fan fiction, and some even encourage it to a certain extent... A noted exception is Lucasfilm, which has threatened or sued many sites precisely because of their non-commercial nature.
There are many, MANY, web sites with Lucasfilm fan fiction out there, particuarly Star Wars and Indiana Jones fan fiction, including livejournal and fanfiction.net. The only thing I've ever heard of them threatening to sue over is magazine picture scans. So I took it out. Perhaps Lucasfilm did have a problem with fan fiction at one time or a specific type of fan fiction if anyone can clarify that. 68.62.227.73 03:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Many years ago, Lucasfilm had a major cow over fanfic that included Luke/Leia 'ships. Once it was revealed that the two were siblings, the reason for their problem with this rather obvious pairing became more evident. (I'm sure there's still L/L smut [Rule 34!], but it's more underground where Lucas doesn't see it.) --Orange Mike 13:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fan fiction writers/IP holder interaction
Wondering if there might be a way to include the information in this article which is about FanLib and Showtime and how they successfully ran a fan fiction type contest. It goes towards demonstrating more positive relationships pretty free of antagonism. -99.142.34.147 (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)