Lemma Soft Forums

No, I wasn't arguing with you. Reading what you wrote I had remembered that Mickey actually was based on a pre-existing character and wanted to throw it out there, that's all. (Hence why I said it's kind of besides the point.)



Yep, it's true about the names... the name "Kimba" for Leo was purposely derived from the Swahili word for lion. But there are some similarities that are too uncanny to believe Disney's claim that they had no idea Jungle Emperor existed. At first I didn't think there were many similarities between the two stories until I stumbled upon Kimba W. Lion's fansite and onto this page: http://kimbawlion.com/rant2.htm

_________________
“When I stand before God at the end of my life,
I would hope that I would not have a single bit of talent left,
and could say, 'I used everything you gave me.'”
— Erma Bombeck

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?

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.

Some people use fanworks as stepping stones, yes, but most don't. There isn't anything wrong with realizing that, hey, if people like the stuff you did as a fan, then just maybe they will like your original stuff too. (not that this is a definite, there will always be exceptions and things that blur the lines, such as CLAMP as previously stated) There are many people who started out for fun and then went off without fanworks, while others didn't rely on fanworks so much as use what they already had to get where they are, and others than use it to their advantage in the fullest extent. And, like Geraldine McCaughrean, others don't delve into it at all until after they already have success.

And TsundereLightning is right, fan and derivite works are not new, by any means. I also agree with his stance about this game now, as it was... well, it comes off to me as "hey, we're just gunna take this kthxbai" instead of "we really like this, let's use it!" (but that is just me, I could be utterly wrong. *shrug*)

And I adored your post Funnyguts, you have no idea what sound I made but I wish I recorded it.

As for The Lion King discussion... UH... yeah, there are a lot of similarities, and I personally (despite LOVING both it and Kimba) do think they at least took a lot of inspiration from it. (and apparently, Simba's name WAS Kimba at one point, but do not quote me, again I could be utterly wrong) There is a lot of copyright infringement today that most people get away with or do not even realize. (For example, you know that annoying anti-piracy protection of copyright ads at the start of DVD's that you can't skip with "You wouldn't steal ___"? Apparently someone found out the music was used against copyright, pirated. WHO KNEW? http://www.pedestrian.tv/entertainment/ ... 60075.htm/ ))

_________________

I really think copyright needs to be severely relaxed in this regard.

Here's a good argument as to why -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

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.


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.

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.

Oh, I just remembered about Tenchi Muyo manga. Forget the exact title... but at first, the manga is doujin (fan-work). But it's so popular that the IP holder give him permission to him to make an official work. Guess this is an exception that fan-work could make someone famous (and get money).

_________________
"Double the princesses, quadruple the fun!" - Haken Browning (SRW-OG Endless Frontier)

DeviantArt Account
MoeToMecha Blog (under construction)
Lolicondria Blog (under construction) <- NSFW

Legally I understand and appreciate the difference. Ethically I think it's a crock.

Big properties (and here I refer to things where the copyright is owned by an organisation rather than an individual) are a total crapshoot when it comes to quality control. There are plenty of licensed works that are worse than many fanfics - lower quality writing/art, less understanding of the original idea, more detrimental to the public opinion of the property/characters, etc. Ask a hardcore fan about the absolute mockery of their cherished ideals created by the latest reboot if you want to get an earful.

Financially, it's a questionable use of your time to invest a lot into a fanwork. Still, depending on the fandom in question it's not the case that you'll never be able to sell it... there are properties that accept scripts sent in by outsiders, and there are properties that have intentionally hired fanfic writers in order to re-energise the fanbase.

I am absolutely pro-fanfic.

_________________
Hanako Games

LRW, OH! That clears things up a bit more for me about that, I was told otherwise and was under a certain impression. By that, yes you do make a solid point against me, thanks to clearing that up!

But, like LVUER said, there are exceptions. In that case, I don't see it being a waste of time. It is, very much so, a long shot. But there are possibilities and chances, however small they are.

For another example, MLP:FIM. The creators of the show liked fan ideas and works so much that they even centered an entire character around the fanon, Derpy Hooves. She started out as an nothing more than animation accident, but the fans went crazy for her and created all this stuff around her, including her name, and personality. And now she has gone from a fanworks character to a canon one. ... would this count under fanwork becoming derivative as well? They didn't have the creator's permission, but the fans went along with it on their own anyway and it paid off in the end.

There are many more examples here! http://fanlore.org/wiki/Fans_Turned_Pro
So, in my mind, it's not an inherently bad thing. Heck, even some creators do fanworks for their OWN works, things completely out of canon. (anyone who knows Gravitation Creator Maki Murakami knows this well) But since they are the creators, maybe that belongs in it's own category... IS there a term for that?

BUT!

You think fanworks are a waste, I think they are great learning experience and practice. That's cool. *shrug* Each to their own I say! This is a different of opinion, nothing more and nothing less. (except my mistake about derivative works, THAT is just me not knowing any better, thanks again for clearing that up!) I won't beat a dead horse anymore, opinion is opinion and it's cool if you disagree with me. I just wanted to get some good examples out there for my side this time.

_________________

Disgusting.

Fair use should should currently cover legitimate parody or commentary. Well, in the US, at least. Disney doesn't have a case, unless there's something unique to trademarks that I don't know about. Disney files these sorts of cases as a form of barratry - just to harass people and force people to pay legal fees in their own defense. Just terrible.

_________________

Not that I like what Disney is doing, but I don't think nanashi used Mickey Mouse as a parody or some form of commentary. It seems like a throwaway role and unfortunately raised the ire of Disney. At a blog published by nanashi, I think I read that Disney was upset about the defamation of character for Mickey Mouse (they were upset mainly about him being beheaded). Unfortunate case, but reading articles about this showed no real surprise that Disney would take legal action. They are pretty notorious about this, so it was the worst company to anger.

Fan fics can be great with love and devotion, but clearly the wishes of the creator should be respected. I mean, c'mon, this is a board centered around creating a lot of original works. How would you feel if your original character/art was randomly copied and pasted into someone else's work without your permission? I doubt people would go the lengths that Disney would, but there is a reason why Disney has so much money. They fiercely protect their IP and by law, that is their legal right.

'How would you feel' can be a dangerous question - I bet many of us would be THRILLED to have our characters mentioned insomeone else's game if the game was fun or well-circulated, for the publicity.

That said, I agree that this usage of Mickey doesn't sound appropriate. We might be thrilled, but those of us who are would happily say yes when asked, too.

(There is one specific reference in Magical Diary somewhere that I did actually seek and receive permission for before making. I'm not saying what it is, and it's so small that I doubt anyone will ever really notice it.)

_________________
Hanako Games

Personally? I wouldn't care, in fact I would be flattered... so long as they weren't writing about ME. 0_0 that would be creepy... (and actually, quite a few original creators feel the same, or they are apathetic. But not all of them... case in point *points to topic title*) If my stuff is written about, if I got fanart, anything, I would just be grateful someone was inspired or liked it that much. Heck, even Rule34 I'd be fine with.

I also completely agree in the light that this was just sort of... mean spirited. It's not for fun or made by fans, it's just "let's lop off Mickey's head" to me.

And yes, creator wishes SHOULD be respected. Personally? If I wrote, say, a fanfiction for... Doctor Who. And someone representing the series came to me and said they didn't like it and wanted it removed? I'd take it down in an instant. If they found something wrong and simply asked me to change it? I'd do that too (though I'd probably just take it down completely, as that would be best for everyone). There are creators that have asked no works be written or drawn, and people should respect those wishes and many do. But an equal amount either like the idea or don't really care either way.

... but again, personal opinion, and we're all probably going to disagree on this as well, so I won't say much more on this bit.

_________________

Ah. I haven't played the game, so I'll take your word.

But I think the current copyright laws are just silly. Fair use should be extended to allow anyone to use portions of media in their own works as long as they don't make money from it. By the current system, I'm sure that most of the videos on Youtube that use any music or video clips are technically illegal.

_________________

That's a good point papillon and Bane Reiko, I think that really is the normal response. I'd love it if I made something that inspired some fan to create something as well Unfortunately, Disney doesn't feel the same. I really do wish they show mercy and drop this case, but that is up to the courts and Disney to decide.

I haven't played this VN, but the information I wrote was all from articles on the topic or nanashi's blog. As much as I hope for some kind of happy ending to this story, there is a reason for copyright laws. It'd be great if they were relaxed so situations as scary as these wouldn't pop up, but what can you do? The sad thing is, this was so senseless. It wasn't like Mickey Mouse was the selling point of the VN or really a fan work. I wish the creators just played it safe and asked Disney before this huge mess began. I'm 99.9 percent sure Disney would have refused, but at least this wouldn't have occurred.

Haha. Yeah, I totally agree. Most of those "expanded universe" types of things are crap in the quality department. But they have legal permission to use the the IP, so I just have to shrug. Really that is more of a case of the copyright holders not exercising proper quality control and just being in it for the money. I don't begrudge those things existing, even if I don't read them, since they are legal.

I know Marvel, even Disney (well, Disney owns Marvel now) will solicit work and examples using their characters to hire people based off of. I think the difference is the company is asking to see what you can do with their characters, and it is a private exchange between the fan and the company.

I guess I should clarify - I don't believe all fanworks are an inherent waste of time - after all, like Bane Reiko said, they can be used to get people writing or practicing - instead I have more of a problem with the way fanworks are used. When you are making an entire game or novel that is a fanwork accessible to the public at large, that hurts the original copyright holder in one of a few different ways. One, it can cause damage to the image of the IP - like porn games or slash fiction, especially in the eyes of the public who where not previously fans of the original work. Two, and this is very rare, the fanwork could be much better than the original IP, in which case it draws attention to flaws in the original IP and devalues it, even having a chance of supplanting it in popularity.

Little fanworks like quick drawings or sketches that match the original tone of the IP are generally acceptable - like someone putting up a fan picture on their DeviantArt account. Most companies are fine with that - free advertising and all that - but legal trouble would arise if you tried to sell that art or use it to promote a business or something else.


I think it depends on the nature of the fan work as well. Sure, you may love to have your characters name-checked or have people create fan art for the publicity, but what if someone put the Cute Knight in a porn game, or drew a picture of her being raped or beheaded? You'd probably quickly reverse yourself on being thrilled.

Disney and Marvel and other companies allow a lot of fan drawings and works, as long as they are appropriate in nature and not for profit. Nanashi messed up in four distinct ways -
1) He used an actual Disney recording for Mickey Mouse's voice instead of doing an impression of it himself.
2) He beheaded Mickey Mouse, thus making the tone inappropriate.
3) He failed to make any meaningful commentary or criticism with his use of Mickey Mouse, thus preventing him from being able to claim Fair Use or Parody.
4) He discussed making the game (or at least its future episodes) commercial. The fact that Episode 1 with Mickey Mouse in it was free doesn't matter at that point, because Episode 1 is being used as an advertisement to sell future episodes. So Mickey Mouse was then (inadvertently) being used to advertise a product for sale - and copyright law is then broken.

AH THAT I GET! I can understand that completely, even if I don't agree to the same extent. I can see where you are coming from in that respect, especially since I am in the MLP fandom. I have seen a lot of people leave and not watch the series because they found the boards and image sites with pornographic fanart... or read Cupcakes. Heck, I have seen people leave fandoms and series just for what the fanartist say in comments (which I find silly but eh).

It doesn't bother me personally, and I would be... annoyed but not insulted if someone did that to my works. But I know, and have seen, your point here and it is perfectly valid, and sadly true.

_________________