Tsundere Lightning wrote:LateWhiteRabbit wrote:I'd have to disagree. I think the world is a much more boring place when everyone insists on copying other people's works so we end up with a glut of material we've all seen before. And in the case of fan material it is often material we have seen done much better before.
And the fact that fan works are relying on the name recognition of the property they are using to get noticed only proves they are mooching off someone else's success. Getting successful off interest and clout you made by stealing other people's creativity doesn't speak highly of someone's moral character.
Fanfiction is not a modern phenomenon. Homer's
Illiad and
Odyssey are essentially fanfiction, a collection of written stories based on characters from an oral tradition not original to him. The Coyote of the Choktaw is the direct ancestor of Wile E. Coyote. When done well, derivative works often improve and expand on the themes of the original work, making a more entertaining story. Hell, my big work is based on Ben Lehman's Bliss Stage.
Taleweaver wrote:
There's a fine line between fanwork and derivative work.
Exactly what Taleweaver said. There is a DIFFERENCE between fanwork and derivative work. Fanwork
directly copies and uses someone else's work largely unchanged. Derivative work is simply inspired by or influenced by another work, but does not take any characters or plot points without changing them so that they could no longer be confused with the original work.
So it is NOT fine to write a story about Harry Potter without permission from J.K. Rowling, but it is OKAY to write a story about kid that goes to a magical school as long as you don't copy Hogwarts.
Inspiration from another work is fine. Rehashing ideas is fine. There are, after all, no new ideas under the sun. The point is, if you really like Buffy, for instance, you can't make a game with her, but you could create your own modern vampire hunting girl as long as you didn't steal specific ideas like Slayers, etc.
I have no problem with derivative works - every story is a derivative work. We all stand on the shoulders of giants in that regard.
Bane Reiko wrote:Ah, yes, you make a very good point, Takeweaver. Technically speaking, if you want to get very detailed, derivative work can also be fanwork, and vice versa. It is a very complicated and fine line, as you have said. To me, experience is experience, no matter what it is, but you did a great job of detailing it a bit more in a way that eluded me. Also, as a side note, when you get down to it many tie in novel series for movies and shows, like Buffy or Star Trek, can be put under that as well. At least, I THINK they can?
No, fanwork and derivative work are two different things. It all boils down to whether or not you have permission from the copyright holder - all those tie-in movies and books for Buffy and Star Trek have permission, so they are NOT fanworks - they are
licensed properties.
Bane Reiko wrote:
For another example, Peter Pan in Scarlet is the official sequel to Peter Pan (Peter and Wendy). The author was selected by Barrie's family and the hospital that owned the rights through a contest, in which fans and non-fans alike entered short chapters and plot outlines. Geraldine McCaughrean, a fan of the novel and a novelist herself, won the contest and wrote the rather well recieved sequel. So, in essense, this blurs the line between derivitive and fansequel, as she herself wrote the story and plot, not the right holders. They thought she wrote what was best for the sequel and said go for it.
No, that in NO WAY blurs the line between derivative and fansequel. You may be a fan of the original work, but if you have official permission to write the sequel from the copyright holders, your work is part of the original copyright. It is a
licensed property.
If you have permission from the copyright holders, your work ceases to be fanwork!
Under your loose definition of fanwork, everything Walt Disney studios has done since Walt died would be classified as fanwork. Of course it is made by fans of the original works, but it is NOT fanwork because they have the copyrights!
So, to be clear. I think fanwork is a waste of time BECAUSE you do not have permission. I am perfectly fine with derivative works. That's why I find it so wasteful when people create fanwork. With a little extra effort they could make enough changes that (even though everyone would know they were largely influenced by the original work) would qualify their work as derivative and thus legal.
If you want to use certain characters, ASK permission. The copyright holders will probably say 'no', but if they give you permission, then great! You are no longer making a fanwork. If they say 'no', you have to abide by that, because fanwork is by its very nature illegal without that permission.