Comments on: Fans and Copyright Issues http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/09/09/fans-and-copyright-issues/ Content Theft, Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:31:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/09/09/fans-and-copyright-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-129018 Jonathan Bailey Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:50:56 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1695#comment-129018 I don't think this was a win or a loss for fan fiction per se. While I agree that the opening for reference materials, such as encyclopedias, is relatively large, there wasn't that much talk about creative fan fiction such as sequels or side plots. Those, I think, would likely be seen as derivative works and likely infringements if tested in a court simply because they were build upon previous plots.<br><br>However, the moral to writers, if you don't want a fan-written encyclopedia, create your own first. That seems to be the simplest way... I don't think this was a win or a loss for fan fiction per se. While I agree that the opening for reference materials, such as encyclopedias, is relatively large, there wasn't that much talk about creative fan fiction such as sequels or side plots. Those, I think, would likely be seen as derivative works and likely infringements if tested in a court simply because they were build upon previous plots.

However, the moral to writers, if you don't want a fan-written encyclopedia, create your own first. That seems to be the simplest way…

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/09/09/fans-and-copyright-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-128093 Jonathan Bailey Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:50:56 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1695#comment-128093 I don't think this was a win or a loss for fan fiction per se. While I agree that the opening for reference materials, such as encyclopedias, is relatively large, there wasn't that much talk about creative fan fiction such as sequels or side plots. Those, I think, would likely be seen as derivative works and likely infringements if tested in a court simply because they were build upon previous plots.<br><br>However, the moral to writers, if you don't want a fan-written encyclopedia, create your own first. That seems to be the simplest way... I don't think this was a win or a loss for fan fiction per se. While I agree that the opening for reference materials, such as encyclopedias, is relatively large, there wasn't that much talk about creative fan fiction such as sequels or side plots. Those, I think, would likely be seen as derivative works and likely infringements if tested in a court simply because they were build upon previous plots.

However, the moral to writers, if you don't want a fan-written encyclopedia, create your own first. That seems to be the simplest way…

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/09/09/fans-and-copyright-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-123235 Jonathan Bailey Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:50:56 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1695#comment-123235 I don't think this was a win or a loss for fan fiction per se. While I agree that the opening for reference materials, such as encyclopedias, is relatively large, there wasn't that much talk about creative fan fiction such as sequels or side plots. Those, I think, would likely be seen as derivative works and likely infringements if tested in a court simply because they were build upon previous plots.<br><br>However, the moral to writers, if you don't want a fan-written encyclopedia, create your own first. That seems to be the simplest way... I don't think this was a win or a loss for fan fiction per se. While I agree that the opening for reference materials, such as encyclopedias, is relatively large, there wasn't that much talk about creative fan fiction such as sequels or side plots. Those, I think, would likely be seen as derivative works and likely infringements if tested in a court simply because they were build upon previous plots.

However, the moral to writers, if you don't want a fan-written encyclopedia, create your own first. That seems to be the simplest way…

]]> By: Elf's DHhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/09/09/fans-and-copyright-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-123228 Elf's DH Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:47:51 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1695#comment-123228 I misread something from my previous comment -- the opening for fan-compiled encyclopedias in this decision is huge, in that it differentiates between plot summaries for the purpose of retelling a work and for the purpose of reference (assuming that the original language is not used). I misread something from my previous comment — the opening for fan-compiled encyclopedias in this decision is huge, in that it differentiates between plot summaries for the purpose of retelling a work and for the purpose of reference (assuming that the original language is not used).

]]> By: Elf's SHhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/09/09/fans-and-copyright-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-123227 Elf's SH Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:42:44 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1695#comment-123227 There's a good discussion of this case over at <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080909014304275">Groklaw</a>. From the interpretation there, I gather that the result could have been much worse for writers of fan fiction. The key elements that led to ruling for Rowling/Warner seem to have been the amount of actual directly copied or directly paraphrased material, and the intended commercial use. A lot of fan fiction bases its background on the original work, but its substance is entirely original to the fan-writer. Even fan-written "companion volumes" (dictionaries/encyclopedias) are left some opening -- although how one can write an encyclopedia trying to walk the line between a plot summary with and without "substantial similarity" to the original is questionable. We don't know until the next court case. There's a good discussion of this case over at Groklaw. From the interpretation there, I gather that the result could have been much worse for writers of fan fiction. The key elements that led to ruling for Rowling/Warner seem to have been the amount of actual directly copied or directly paraphrased material, and the intended commercial use. A lot of fan fiction bases its background on the original work, but its substance is entirely original to the fan-writer. Even fan-written “companion volumes” (dictionaries/encyclopedias) are left some opening — although how one can write an encyclopedia trying to walk the line between a plot summary with and without “substantial similarity” to the original is questionable. We don't know until the next court case.

]]>