Fan Fiction. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_fiction, accessed on July 4, 2009.
Fanfiction.net
Fanfiction.net Terms of Use
Fanfiction.net Guidelines
Fictionalley.org
Fictionalley.org Terms of Use
Harrypotterfanfiction.com
Harrypotterfanfiction.com Site Rules
US Copyright Law, Chapter 1
Although I did not have time to use Hellekson and Busse's bibliography, I thought I would post it here for reference.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
What does all this mean?
In this blog, I attempted to provide an introduction and a brief history of the phenomenon of fan fiction, explore the associated copyright implications, identify arguments in favor of fan fiction, and point out a few notable legal cases involving fan fiction.
Fan fiction, also known as Fanfic or FF is the act of taking characters and/or settings from published books, movies, and TV and creating new works. Fan fiction is largely centered around communal fan practices that celebrate and rework stories to be shared and enjoyed amongst fans. Although fan fiction was originally disseminated in zines and other homegrown paper technologies, it is now mainly published on the internet and accounts for its growing popularity and wider distribution circles. Fan fiction is this interesting space that gives the everyday reader a space to explore, celebrate, play with, appropriate, negotiate, and provide social commentary through the use of published texts. An offshoot of fan fiction not discussed in this presentation is slash fiction, a genre that focuses on the queering of characters that were constructed as heterosexual in the original texts.
Fanfic’s most recent history stems from the science fiction community in the 1960s; however, the act of taking stories and making them one’s own has a much longer history in oral traditions, specifically folktales (Jenkins). In oral traditions, the storyteller is rewarded for adding his/her own embellishments to a story, but this is not necessarily the case with fan fiction. Currently, fan fiction is considered by many, especially authors and publishers, as a derivative work. Derivative works are clearly the right of the original author as set out in (US Copyright Law, Sections 103 and 106). So why are there so many fanfic authors writing and publishing on the internet? Why aren’t these authors being prosecuted for copyright infringement?
As Litman and others have pointed out, fanfic is good for an author/publisher’s bottom line. This genre of writing tends to create and/or sustain interest in the original author’s work, thereby securing continued profits (Litman 179, Young 15). Litman suggests that the reason many fanfic authors continue to find a venue for their work without prosecution is through the concept of “implied license” (Litman 178). Because of the positive effects on the market, fanfic writers are being granted an implied license to use the original work. Still, there are writers who prohibit use of their work in fan fiction and believe fanfic is nothing more than intellectual laziness (Young 14).
In defense of fan fiction, academics have proffered several interesting defenses for the right of fan fiction writers to use copyrighted works without threat of legal action; each moving beyond a grant of rights that originates with the original author/publisher. Some of these arguments include: fair use, critical commentary, reading as creative act (Jenkins, Litman 177). It is these mappings that Jenkins and Litman offer that I find so provocative and interesting, but I wonder how much of this is actually going on in reality and not just in the minds of academics.
My research has shown me that given the current dissemination strategies of fan fiction, the sheer number of fanfic writers, and the fact that many original authors/publishers are profiting from its creation, fanfic will continue to flourish with limited legal consequences. However, if its popularity continues to rise and if more fanfic authors end up profiting themselves from their writing, through publishing contracts of their own, then I can easily see the revocation of implied license. Because even though the theoretical approaches to fan fiction are alluring, I find Litman’s explanation of implied license to be the most logical rationale for the lack of legal reproach for fanfic writers and the sites that host these stories. Stemming from this line of thought, I was left with three remaining questions:
• Is fanfic becoming more or less of a contested space in the latter half of the decade?
• Are certain fanfic writers given more license and are less likely to be censured? If so, who and why?
• What are the future directions of fanfic?
Works Referenced
Jenkins, Henry. “Fan Fiction as Critical Commentary.” Confessions of an Aca-Fan: The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins,” http://www.henryjenkins.org/2006/09/fan_fiction_as_critical_commen.html (2006).
Litman, Jessica. “Creative Reading.” Law and Contemporary Problems 70, no. 175 (2007): 175-183.
Young, Cathy. "The Fan Fiction Phenomena." Reason 38, no. 9(2007): 14-15.
More resources forthcoming….
Fan fiction, also known as Fanfic or FF is the act of taking characters and/or settings from published books, movies, and TV and creating new works. Fan fiction is largely centered around communal fan practices that celebrate and rework stories to be shared and enjoyed amongst fans. Although fan fiction was originally disseminated in zines and other homegrown paper technologies, it is now mainly published on the internet and accounts for its growing popularity and wider distribution circles. Fan fiction is this interesting space that gives the everyday reader a space to explore, celebrate, play with, appropriate, negotiate, and provide social commentary through the use of published texts. An offshoot of fan fiction not discussed in this presentation is slash fiction, a genre that focuses on the queering of characters that were constructed as heterosexual in the original texts.
Fanfic’s most recent history stems from the science fiction community in the 1960s; however, the act of taking stories and making them one’s own has a much longer history in oral traditions, specifically folktales (Jenkins). In oral traditions, the storyteller is rewarded for adding his/her own embellishments to a story, but this is not necessarily the case with fan fiction. Currently, fan fiction is considered by many, especially authors and publishers, as a derivative work. Derivative works are clearly the right of the original author as set out in (US Copyright Law, Sections 103 and 106). So why are there so many fanfic authors writing and publishing on the internet? Why aren’t these authors being prosecuted for copyright infringement?
As Litman and others have pointed out, fanfic is good for an author/publisher’s bottom line. This genre of writing tends to create and/or sustain interest in the original author’s work, thereby securing continued profits (Litman 179, Young 15). Litman suggests that the reason many fanfic authors continue to find a venue for their work without prosecution is through the concept of “implied license” (Litman 178). Because of the positive effects on the market, fanfic writers are being granted an implied license to use the original work. Still, there are writers who prohibit use of their work in fan fiction and believe fanfic is nothing more than intellectual laziness (Young 14).
In defense of fan fiction, academics have proffered several interesting defenses for the right of fan fiction writers to use copyrighted works without threat of legal action; each moving beyond a grant of rights that originates with the original author/publisher. Some of these arguments include: fair use, critical commentary, reading as creative act (Jenkins, Litman 177). It is these mappings that Jenkins and Litman offer that I find so provocative and interesting, but I wonder how much of this is actually going on in reality and not just in the minds of academics.
My research has shown me that given the current dissemination strategies of fan fiction, the sheer number of fanfic writers, and the fact that many original authors/publishers are profiting from its creation, fanfic will continue to flourish with limited legal consequences. However, if its popularity continues to rise and if more fanfic authors end up profiting themselves from their writing, through publishing contracts of their own, then I can easily see the revocation of implied license. Because even though the theoretical approaches to fan fiction are alluring, I find Litman’s explanation of implied license to be the most logical rationale for the lack of legal reproach for fanfic writers and the sites that host these stories. Stemming from this line of thought, I was left with three remaining questions:
• Is fanfic becoming more or less of a contested space in the latter half of the decade?
• Are certain fanfic writers given more license and are less likely to be censured? If so, who and why?
• What are the future directions of fanfic?
Works Referenced
Jenkins, Henry. “Fan Fiction as Critical Commentary.” Confessions of an Aca-Fan: The Official Weblog of Henry Jenkins,” http://www.henryjenkins.org/2006/09/fan_fiction_as_critical_commen.html (2006).
Litman, Jessica. “Creative Reading.” Law and Contemporary Problems 70, no. 175 (2007): 175-183.
Young, Cathy. "The Fan Fiction Phenomena." Reason 38, no. 9(2007): 14-15.
More resources forthcoming….
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
So what's it going to take?
Well, I thought I would take a look at parodies, but then I found an article by Jessica Litman on the right of fan creations, titled "Creative Reading." Litman provides several thoughtful insights into the issue of copyright and fan creations, but I found myself wanting more exposition. At the outset Litman points out that fan fiction has been responsible for adding commercial and renewed value to existing works, like Star Trek and Star Wars. As I suggested in my previous post, criterion 4 of fair use is surely satisfied here (note: “effect on the marketplace” is often weighted heavier than the other criteria). Last Sunday I analyzed the argument of fair use for fan fiction and suggested that fair use might not be up to the task of supporting fan fiction works. Litman also questions whether fair use is sufficient to support the activities of fan creations since “in its current form, it cannot possibly answer the legitimate claims of readers, listeners, and viewers of other sorts. Fair use is much too busy protecting “The Wind Done Gone” and trying to figure out what to do with Google Book Search to be able to support the copyright interests of millions of everyday readers, listeners, and viewers” (177).
What are we to make of Litman’s statement? What exactly is she saying about fair use? Firstly, it’s a numbers game – and it seems the courts have more important and noteworthy cases to conser than taking up the case of fanfic authors as a whole, but that doesn’t mean that the copyright issues are resolved. Secondly, unprecedented copyright expansion in the last few decades has significantly eroded people’s perceptions of their rights (180). She identifies the conclusive language of section 106 of the Copyright Law that pretty much sets out to prohibit any use outside of the home, which we assume means personal use – but the advent of the internet and other digital technologies has complicated our understandings of “personal use.”
So if fair use isn’t the most appropriate limitation on exclusive rights, is there any other right of use that supports the creation of fan fiction without falling into a legal quagmire? Litman suggests that in this time of unprecedented copyright expansion, the argument regularly employed in relation to fandom is that of “implied license” (178). This implicit grant of rights is what Litman calls “fannish norms” (178), and is most often granted because of its positive effect on the industries’ bottom line. Unlike a licensing agreement that sets out the specific terms of the agreement between the specified parties, there is no formal contract with the implied license and any terms of use would need to be made publicly and openly. For example, fanfiction.net provides a list of authors who have asked that their works not be the subject of any fan fiction, but they could very well include particular terms of use instead of completely prohibiting its use. The list of writers that do not allow fan fiction includes:
• Anne Rice
• Archie comics
• Dennis L. McKiernan
• Irene Radford
• J.R. Ward
• Laurell K. Hamilton
• Nora Roberts/J.D. Robb
• P.N. Elrod
• Raymond Feist
• Robin Hobb
• Robin McKinley
• Terry Goodkind
However for Litman, “implied license” is also an insufficient mechanism to secure rights for fan creators. Litman questions the copyright owner-centric focus of current practice, and suggests that readers, listeners, and viewers should take a less peripheral position in the copyRIGHT story (177, 179). In support of this position, she points out that fans often contribute to the original work created by an author; however, she notes that these contributions are difficult if impossible to quantify. Unfortunately, Litman doesn’t offer much evidence in support of this assertion, but it is provocative and interesting to consider. What Litman accomplishes here is that she effectively brings into focus the interplay between author and the world around them – no one creates in a vacuum, and even though often a solitary act – creation is inevitably a social process that is predicated on interaction.
Furthermore, she cites that reading is itself a creative act and is, in large part, a requirement of the reader when interacting with a text. She believes this process or relationship is given short shrift in copyright negotiation, as well as in the scholarly literature (180). She acknowledges that there does need to be limits on right of use, but that our current arguments do not consider the reader, viewer, and listener. She argues that current arguments for user rights, e.g., big law is bad law or copyright is about balance, have not been effective (182). Instead of relying on these tired arguments, she suggests we need to rethink how we conceptualize copyright law and to consider a larger perspective on creativity and creation. This is clearly evidenced in her conclusion when she states, “the Progress of Science and the integrity of copyright law are likely to be furthered by encouraging readers, listeners, and viewers to experience works with imagination and creativity” (183).
Litman’s article identifies and assesses key legal issues and considerations surrounding the creation of fan fiction. She provides an articulate and provocative argument in favor of more robust user rights, while at the same time protecting copyright holders. She acknowledges that as technology continues to evolve and create and support expectations for user participation, interaction, dissemination, we would be wise to rely less on codified and stringent laws and more on mutual respect.
What are we to make of Litman’s statement? What exactly is she saying about fair use? Firstly, it’s a numbers game – and it seems the courts have more important and noteworthy cases to conser than taking up the case of fanfic authors as a whole, but that doesn’t mean that the copyright issues are resolved. Secondly, unprecedented copyright expansion in the last few decades has significantly eroded people’s perceptions of their rights (180). She identifies the conclusive language of section 106 of the Copyright Law that pretty much sets out to prohibit any use outside of the home, which we assume means personal use – but the advent of the internet and other digital technologies has complicated our understandings of “personal use.”
So if fair use isn’t the most appropriate limitation on exclusive rights, is there any other right of use that supports the creation of fan fiction without falling into a legal quagmire? Litman suggests that in this time of unprecedented copyright expansion, the argument regularly employed in relation to fandom is that of “implied license” (178). This implicit grant of rights is what Litman calls “fannish norms” (178), and is most often granted because of its positive effect on the industries’ bottom line. Unlike a licensing agreement that sets out the specific terms of the agreement between the specified parties, there is no formal contract with the implied license and any terms of use would need to be made publicly and openly. For example, fanfiction.net provides a list of authors who have asked that their works not be the subject of any fan fiction, but they could very well include particular terms of use instead of completely prohibiting its use. The list of writers that do not allow fan fiction includes:
• Anne Rice
• Archie comics
• Dennis L. McKiernan
• Irene Radford
• J.R. Ward
• Laurell K. Hamilton
• Nora Roberts/J.D. Robb
• P.N. Elrod
• Raymond Feist
• Robin Hobb
• Robin McKinley
• Terry Goodkind
However for Litman, “implied license” is also an insufficient mechanism to secure rights for fan creators. Litman questions the copyright owner-centric focus of current practice, and suggests that readers, listeners, and viewers should take a less peripheral position in the copyRIGHT story (177, 179). In support of this position, she points out that fans often contribute to the original work created by an author; however, she notes that these contributions are difficult if impossible to quantify. Unfortunately, Litman doesn’t offer much evidence in support of this assertion, but it is provocative and interesting to consider. What Litman accomplishes here is that she effectively brings into focus the interplay between author and the world around them – no one creates in a vacuum, and even though often a solitary act – creation is inevitably a social process that is predicated on interaction.
Furthermore, she cites that reading is itself a creative act and is, in large part, a requirement of the reader when interacting with a text. She believes this process or relationship is given short shrift in copyright negotiation, as well as in the scholarly literature (180). She acknowledges that there does need to be limits on right of use, but that our current arguments do not consider the reader, viewer, and listener. She argues that current arguments for user rights, e.g., big law is bad law or copyright is about balance, have not been effective (182). Instead of relying on these tired arguments, she suggests we need to rethink how we conceptualize copyright law and to consider a larger perspective on creativity and creation. This is clearly evidenced in her conclusion when she states, “the Progress of Science and the integrity of copyright law are likely to be furthered by encouraging readers, listeners, and viewers to experience works with imagination and creativity” (183).
Litman’s article identifies and assesses key legal issues and considerations surrounding the creation of fan fiction. She provides an articulate and provocative argument in favor of more robust user rights, while at the same time protecting copyright holders. She acknowledges that as technology continues to evolve and create and support expectations for user participation, interaction, dissemination, we would be wise to rely less on codified and stringent laws and more on mutual respect.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Fanfic & Fair Use....
Can Fanfic be considered anything other than a derivative work? Can fair use apply? Current copyright law does allow for criticism in the form of parodies. If we read back into Fanfic the social commentary aspect that I asked you to forget about in the previous entry, then can an argument be made that at its core Fanfic is a lawful act of creation and not subject to copyright infringement litigation?
The courts aren’t entirely clear on this issue and, like many copyright cases, are strictly on a case by case basis. As Henry Jenkins points out, “one paradoxical result [of current copyright law] is that works that are hostile to the original creators and thus can be read more explicitly as making critiques of the source material may have greater freedom from copyright enforcement than works that embrace the ideas behind the original work and simply seek to extend them in new directions.” Although I enjoy Jenkins assertion, I’m not entirely sure how successful the comment and criticism argument will hold up in court. As Stanford’s Copyright and Fair Use Overview points out, criticism includes quoting a few lines, summarizing, copying a few paragraphs or a portion for analysis or review. When I view criticism in this light, I’m not entirely sure that a defense would hold up to much scrutiny. What about the four factors of fair use? Let’s not forget about parody, but that deserves its own separate post…more on parodies later.
• Purpose
• Nature
• Amount
• Effect
PURPOSE:
Stanford’s resource asks the following questions for purpose that I think are helpful in this case:
1) Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
2) Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?
Again, Jenkins sheds some important light on this subject when he states:
Fan stories are in no simple sense just "extensions" or "continuations" or "extra episodes" of the original series. Unlike the model critical essays discussed by the various university writing centers, the insights about the work get expressed not through nonfictional argumentation but rather through the construction of new stories. Just as a literary essay uses text to respond to text, fan fiction uses fiction to respond to fiction. That said, it is not hard to find all kinds of argumentation about interpretation woven through most fan produced stories.
If we take this view Fanfic then we can easily respond “yes” to both questions. That’s not to say that there is not Fanfic out there that merely takes the characters and puts them in a different romantic situation (Jenkins).
NATURE:
Factor 2 is a little more problematic, since creative works tend to be on the wrong side of fair use; however, it is entirely possible that an argument can be made in favor of fair use, especially if it is a published work. However, in the area of Fanfic, I believe “nature” would likely receive a low rating and therefore not in support of fair use.
AMOUNT:
As I mentioned earlier, amount is a nebulous subject. For derivative works, no hard and fast rule is available to aid judgments. Furthermore, the concept “amount” is not just about numbers, but the core essence of a work. This lack of differentiation makes assessing “amount” extremely difficult, and I imagine no easier for Fanfic investigations.
EFFECT:
Here we are talking effect on the marketplace. I think this is where the strongest argument in support of Fanfic arises. If anything Fanfic can aid the market for the original authors, and I doubt that any Fanfic story actually reduced an author/publisher’s market share. In recent years, more authors have supported Fanfic for this very same reason. Those authors who continue to discourage or prohibit Fanfic stories based on their material focus less on the economics and more on the moral rights aspect of their creation. Moral rights, however, hold little power in the United States, and are far more popular in Europe. I would be interested to find out reactions from European authors/publishers regarding Fanfic.
Based solely on these four factors, we can see that copyright assessment is an incredibly complex and murky area…and parodies make it even more complicated.
Parodies are next….
The courts aren’t entirely clear on this issue and, like many copyright cases, are strictly on a case by case basis. As Henry Jenkins points out, “one paradoxical result [of current copyright law] is that works that are hostile to the original creators and thus can be read more explicitly as making critiques of the source material may have greater freedom from copyright enforcement than works that embrace the ideas behind the original work and simply seek to extend them in new directions.” Although I enjoy Jenkins assertion, I’m not entirely sure how successful the comment and criticism argument will hold up in court. As Stanford’s Copyright and Fair Use Overview points out, criticism includes quoting a few lines, summarizing, copying a few paragraphs or a portion for analysis or review. When I view criticism in this light, I’m not entirely sure that a defense would hold up to much scrutiny. What about the four factors of fair use? Let’s not forget about parody, but that deserves its own separate post…more on parodies later.
• Purpose
• Nature
• Amount
• Effect
PURPOSE:
Stanford’s resource asks the following questions for purpose that I think are helpful in this case:
1) Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?
2) Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?
Again, Jenkins sheds some important light on this subject when he states:
Fan stories are in no simple sense just "extensions" or "continuations" or "extra episodes" of the original series. Unlike the model critical essays discussed by the various university writing centers, the insights about the work get expressed not through nonfictional argumentation but rather through the construction of new stories. Just as a literary essay uses text to respond to text, fan fiction uses fiction to respond to fiction. That said, it is not hard to find all kinds of argumentation about interpretation woven through most fan produced stories.
If we take this view Fanfic then we can easily respond “yes” to both questions. That’s not to say that there is not Fanfic out there that merely takes the characters and puts them in a different romantic situation (Jenkins).
NATURE:
Factor 2 is a little more problematic, since creative works tend to be on the wrong side of fair use; however, it is entirely possible that an argument can be made in favor of fair use, especially if it is a published work. However, in the area of Fanfic, I believe “nature” would likely receive a low rating and therefore not in support of fair use.
AMOUNT:
As I mentioned earlier, amount is a nebulous subject. For derivative works, no hard and fast rule is available to aid judgments. Furthermore, the concept “amount” is not just about numbers, but the core essence of a work. This lack of differentiation makes assessing “amount” extremely difficult, and I imagine no easier for Fanfic investigations.
EFFECT:
Here we are talking effect on the marketplace. I think this is where the strongest argument in support of Fanfic arises. If anything Fanfic can aid the market for the original authors, and I doubt that any Fanfic story actually reduced an author/publisher’s market share. In recent years, more authors have supported Fanfic for this very same reason. Those authors who continue to discourage or prohibit Fanfic stories based on their material focus less on the economics and more on the moral rights aspect of their creation. Moral rights, however, hold little power in the United States, and are far more popular in Europe. I would be interested to find out reactions from European authors/publishers regarding Fanfic.
Based solely on these four factors, we can see that copyright assessment is an incredibly complex and murky area…and parodies make it even more complicated.
Parodies are next….
The deriving derivative
The copyright law sections most often used in cease and desist orders, litigation, and even social pressures are sections 103, Subject matter of copyright: compilations and derivative works, and 106, Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. Authors and publishers claim that Fanfic stories are indeed derivative works of because they often play with the original characters and settings. Section 103 of the copyright law sets out what is actually copyrighted in the derivative work and section 106(2) states that the owner of copyright has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. Not surprisingly, the copyright law is not very specific as to what constitutes a derivative work. In fact, Russell states that current law provides no standard metrics to determine a percentage of the original work (96). It would seem to me however that a lot of what is produced in Fanfic circles would be considered derivative works because they most often retain key character traits and other hallmarks of the original work. Although not part of this research blog, Fanfic may also be seen as infringing on trademark law as well.
Just this June, J.D. Salinger went to court to stop a novel from being published that has as its central character, a 60-year old Holden Caulfield. This new novel is written by a person going by the name of J.D. California. CNN posted an excerpt from the court documents on its webpage clearly stating that Salinger considered his copyright rights violated, “both his novel and the character Holden Caulfield.”
What I find most interesting about this case is its inclusion of a comment Salinger made in 1980 to fans regarding interest in more books about Caulfield:
"There's no more to Holden Caulfield. Read the book again. It's all there…Holden Caulfield is only a frozen moment in time."
I think this quote really hits on the underlying tensions between original authors and fan fiction authors that may go beyond purely economic interests and into philosophical and creative beliefs. I can only imagine the intense, deep, and personal connection an author may develop for one of their characters over time, and then to see the character changed/morphed into something that is not part of your creation or vision could be incredibly painful. I can only liken it to a parent whose child is kidnapped to be raised by someone else but you know where he/she is now living and can watch from the outside. However, Fanfic authors see their creation as celebration (especially if we think of Fanfic outside of its social criticism component of course) and see it as one fan’s desire to extend, play with, or reinvent his/her favorite story and characters as a way to have more and share more with other fans.
Just this June, J.D. Salinger went to court to stop a novel from being published that has as its central character, a 60-year old Holden Caulfield. This new novel is written by a person going by the name of J.D. California. CNN posted an excerpt from the court documents on its webpage clearly stating that Salinger considered his copyright rights violated, “both his novel and the character Holden Caulfield.”
What I find most interesting about this case is its inclusion of a comment Salinger made in 1980 to fans regarding interest in more books about Caulfield:
"There's no more to Holden Caulfield. Read the book again. It's all there…Holden Caulfield is only a frozen moment in time."
I think this quote really hits on the underlying tensions between original authors and fan fiction authors that may go beyond purely economic interests and into philosophical and creative beliefs. I can only imagine the intense, deep, and personal connection an author may develop for one of their characters over time, and then to see the character changed/morphed into something that is not part of your creation or vision could be incredibly painful. I can only liken it to a parent whose child is kidnapped to be raised by someone else but you know where he/she is now living and can watch from the outside. However, Fanfic authors see their creation as celebration (especially if we think of Fanfic outside of its social criticism component of course) and see it as one fan’s desire to extend, play with, or reinvent his/her favorite story and characters as a way to have more and share more with other fans.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The Purposeful Lens
Although Fanfic is a way to celebrate favorite works by offering new experiences, settings, characters, it is ultimately a critique about ownership. Henry Jenkins posits that fanfic is also a critical commentary on the original text. Both of these lenses provide a largely positive frame from which to evaluate fanfic. However, there are others who view the phenomena of fanfic as “intellectual laziness” and an infringement of the original author's intellectual property.
In the coming weeks, I want to explore this contested space in order to tease out the issues of ownership, critical commentary, acts of borrowing/stealing/remixing within a participatory culture and to situate within the larger discourse of intellectual property. Is fanfic becoming more or less of a contested space in the later half of the decade? How has the internet impacted this genre? Are certain fanfic writers given more license and are less likely to be censured? If so, who and why? How is IP infringement conceptualized? What is the impact of fanfic on the market? What about on an author's moral right to their work? What are the future directions of fanfic?
In the coming weeks, I want to explore this contested space in order to tease out the issues of ownership, critical commentary, acts of borrowing/stealing/remixing within a participatory culture and to situate within the larger discourse of intellectual property. Is fanfic becoming more or less of a contested space in the later half of the decade? How has the internet impacted this genre? Are certain fanfic writers given more license and are less likely to be censured? If so, who and why? How is IP infringement conceptualized? What is the impact of fanfic on the market? What about on an author's moral right to their work? What are the future directions of fanfic?
Roots and Parallels
Henry Jenkins, a professor from MIT, has written extensively on fan fiction since the early 1990s, and finds many parallels between fanfic and oral traditions, such as folktales. I find this comparison to be particularly useful in conceptualizing both the nature of fanfic, as well as the differences between oral and textual cultures. As I write, I'm reminded of a book I recently read by Neil Gaiman, titled Anansi Boys, a story about Gods, trickster spiders, embittered lions, and the quotidian mask that overlays the extraordinary. One of the central tropes is how the trickster spider stole, or rather outwitted, the lion from his place as master storyteller and forever changed how others understood the world around them. In many ways, authors of fanfic are the trickster spider creating an entirely new capacity for understanding and interpretation but, unlike the lion's stories, the original author's text remains intact and runs parallel, or perhaps sometimes perpendicular to the work of fanfic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
