Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyBrooke
Well, legally it's wrong if the author doesn't give permission, but personally authors who act like that annoy me. For the most part, I read fanfic in fandoms where the author is already dead or has given their blessing, so it's not a huge problem (aside from M-E fanfic, I read lots of Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter, and Shakespeare.) The reason it annoys me is, unless an author somehow manages to avoid any mentions or borrowings from mythology, older works, history, ect. they are writing a form of fanfic. The only difference is the time that has elapsed. Anyone redoing Romeo and Juliet, King Arthur, or a fairy tale is writing fanfic in way. The difference is, those authors can legally make money off it because of the time elapsed.
As mentioned in the article, it has only been in the past couple hundred years that copy right has become important. Nobody made a fuss about Shakespeare rewriting other authors' works for the stage, something that could get you fined if you did it today.
|
I would suggest that Snorri Sturluson, Boccaccio and Chretien de Troyes could sue Tolkien, Chaucer, Malory, Tennyson, T.H. White and and any number of authors and poets for copyright infringement had they not died centuries ago. Likewise, Malory could sue Tennyson and White, Chaucer could sue Shakespeare, etc. Unfortunately, they would all lose their suits because they had, in their turn, lifted material from earlier sources.
The difference lies in the fact that Fan-fiction is not-for-profit creative writing.
No one bats an eye at going to a symphony of Mozart or Bach pieces and shelling out $100 per ticket to enrich the musicians and promoters (the composers being, naturally, beyond all legal recourse), but good lord, try to find a studio version of a Bob Dylan song on YouTube (even though nearly 1/2 off all songs from his first three albums were written by Woody Guthries, Leadbelly or some other folk artist from a previous generation)! But Dylan and his record company expressly forbid such transmission of his material, even in a not-for-profit venue such as YouTube; whereas, The Beatles and Led Zeppelin (who seem to have no difficulty selling millions of CDs a year, even though they have been defunct as groups for 30-40 years), do not have such prohibitions on their music.