<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fans and Copyright Issues</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/09/09/fans-and-copyright-issues/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/09/09/fans-and-copyright-issues/</link>
	<description>Content Theft, Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:15:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Bailey</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/09/09/fans-and-copyright-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-123235</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:50:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1695#comment-123235</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;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&#039;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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However, the moral to writers, if you don&#039;t want a fan-written encyclopedia, create your own first. That seems to be the simplest way...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#39;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&#39;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.</p>
<p>However, the moral to writers, if you don&#39;t want a fan-written encyclopedia, create your own first. That seems to be the simplest way&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elf&#39;s DH</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/09/09/fans-and-copyright-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-123228</link>
		<dc:creator>Elf&#39;s DH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:47:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1695#comment-123228</guid>
		<description>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).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I misread something from my previous comment &#8212; 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).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elf&#39;s SH</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/09/09/fans-and-copyright-issues/comment-page-1/#comment-123227</link>
		<dc:creator>Elf&#39;s SH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:42:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=1695#comment-123227</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s a good discussion of this case over at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080909014304275&quot;&gt;Groklaw&lt;/a&gt;.  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 &quot;companion volumes&quot; (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 &quot;substantial similarity&quot; to the original is questionable.  We don&#039;t know until the next court case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#39;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 &#8220;companion volumes&#8221; (dictionaries/encyclopedias) are left some opening &#8212; although how one can write an encyclopedia trying to walk the line between a plot summary with and without &#8220;substantial similarity&#8221; to the original is questionable.  We don&#39;t know until the next court case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 3/11 queries in 0.009 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 534/538 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.plagiarismtoday.com @ 2012-02-12 21:29:34 -->
