thebratqueen: Stealing from fellow fans

Woman vs Wild (

thebratqueen) wrote,
@ 2003-04-30 11:24:00

Current mood:	bitchy
Entry tags:	meta, rants

Stealing from fellow fans - don't do it
I've ranted before about stealing from your fellow fans, but the topic has come up again with people still scratching their heads as to why swiping someone's icons/vids/fanart/fanfic is an asstastic thing to do. Heck, even those who agree that this kind of theft sucks can't even seem to find the words to explain why beyond "Well, it's rude." So let me try to break it down for y'all in words of mostly one syllable or less:

NO ONE THINKS I'M JOSS WHEDON

What do I mean by that?

People who don't get why stealing icons et al. (which from now on I'm going to call fanwork to cover the spectrum without having to write it out constantly) from your fellow fans is wrong typically say "Well you already stole from the copyright holders, so what right do you have to bitch?"

Well here's my right: I don't steal Joss Whedon's money. I don't steal his profits. I don't steal his hard work. I don't go around and claim that I am the person who created Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I don't take episodes that he has made and sell them. I don't take the thing that he has created and in any way claim it for my own.

What I do do is comment on it.

Now how welcome my comments are varies depending on the creator or what part of their machine I'm talking to. Joss loves fanfic. Fox doesn't. JK Rowling loves it, Warner Brothers does not.

Is fanfic et al. a violation of copyright by the definition of the law? Well some of the top copyright lawyers in the US have differing opinions about that, all of which boil down to "it depends on the judge you get".

But we're not talking about the law at the moment - which, without any fanwork cases having come to court has no precedent by which to say how this would go down. What we are talking about is this so-called double standard of fanworkers not wanting their stuff stolen. And what I am telling you is that it is not a double standard.

When we make our fanwork nobody mistakes us for the original. It is very clear where the copyright belongs and where the source material comes from. It is obvious that we are only commenting on someone else's hard work.

When somebody steals from us that's no longer obvious.

lerefuge does collages. She uses screencaps and promo shots from the shows that she likes in order to do them. Nobody looking at her collages would think that she is actually a member of Mutant Enemy or whatever company does SG-1. They think that she is a fan of their shows using her talent to show her appreciation for the shows she loves. People then give her feedback based on the work she did which is the time, talent and effort necessary to create a beautiful collage.

If somebody swipes one of her collages, files her name off of it and claims it as their own they have now stolen her time, talent and effort. Moreover, they've done so without even giving her credit for what she did. Everybody knows a screenshot of Xander ultimately belongs to Mutant Enemy. You cannot be in the Buffy fandom without being aware of that. You can, however, be in the Buffy fandom without knowing lerefuge's work when you see it. To show her work without giving her credit or, worse, flat-out claiming it for your own is to have stolen from her. You did not put the effort into making the collage, she did.

If someone takes one of her collages, chops it, changes the color and then makes it into an lJ icon, does it then become "theirs"? Still no. At least, not entirely. Because again - credit for the source material. As before we still know that Spike belongs to Mutant Enemy. We can see any picture of Spike and know where credit for him belongs. But if your jumping off point comes after the work that lerefuge did then you have still stolen her time and work. You can claim credit for the time and work you did, certainly, but not for hers.

Same thing with vids. sisabet makes a Buffyverse vid. All clips in that vid clearly belong to Mutant Enemy. We watch the vid and we know this. The song of the vid belongs to the artist and their record label. We know that too. To my knowledge, nobody has ever mistaken Sisabet for Trent Reznor (as for example). Sisabet doesn't claim to have created the song, nor the television shows she is doing a vid of. She does claim, however, all the work she did in collecting the clips, organizing them, cleaning them up as needed to make them vid-usable and then putting them all together to make the vid itself.

If somebody comes along and swipes clips from one of her vids then they have stolen from her. Mutant Enemy and Trent Reznor are in the same place they always were - still getting all the credit they deserve for the work they did. Sisabet, however, has been robbed. Unless someone has seen her vids first nobody would know that a certain cut or order of scenes was her idea and hard work. If someone's vid jumping off point is after work that Sisabet did, then she deserves credit for that work.

Same thing with fanfic. I write stories. Nobody thinks I own Wes and Angel. On the odd chance any of my readers are retarded I make sure this is clear by putting in disclaimers. Mutant Enemy gets the credit they deserve for the work that they did. All I claim credit for is the work I did, which is writing a story about the characters. To that extent, it is original work. I don't, for example, swipe entire paragraphs of dialogue from the show, I make my own.

If, on the other hand, someone has swiped entire paragraphs of dialogue from me then they've stolen from me, just as I would have stolen from the show if I had swiped dialogue from it. Doing so means stealing from someone else's hard work.

Could someone take an idea from one of my stories and make a story of their own based on that? Sure! That's not stealing from me. That's doing the same thing I did to the show. This has happened to me on more than one occasion and I am fine with it. Heck, I'm even flattered. Sometimes people ask me beforehand if it's okay, othertimes they don't. It's nice when they ask (I always say yes) and I don't flip a bitch when they don't. Reason being we're on the same page. We're not taking what doesn't belong to us.

I could go on but you get the idea. It's the same for any form of fanwork. We here in fandom believe in giving credit where it is due. Our source material always gets credit. It's impossible for it not to. Our work, on the other hand, can sadly get lost in the shuffle if somebody steals from us and doesn't even give us so much as a footnote to say thanks.

You like what we do? Great. Give us credit for it. Don't repay our blood, sweat and tears by using a five-finger discount. If you like it then remember rules even my 2 year old neice knows: Say please, say thank you and respect the word "mine".

(Post a new comment)

	miss_edith 2003-04-30 08:37 am UTC (link)
	I write stories. Nobody thinks I own Wes and Angel. On the odd chance any of my readers are retarded… Just wanted you to know, once again, how much I absolutely adore you :) big wet smooches (Reply to this) (Thread)

	thebratqueen 2003-04-30 08:38 am UTC (link)
	Aww. I love you too sweetie. (Reply to this) (Parent)

djinanna
2003-04-30 08:44 am UTC (link)

*applauds*

Clear, succinct, compelling.

If anybody *still* doesn't get it after reading this essay, then they're morally bankrupt and pathologically dishonest. In the words of David Cannadine, historian and social commentator, such a "fan" is an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who . . . exemplified . . . the most disagreeable traits of his time.

Not that I feel strongly about it or anything. *grin*

(Reply to this)

	buffybot 2003-04-30 08:46 am UTC (link)
	I want to make sure you lit candles and said the approved chant before using Joss Whedon's (chanty chanty) name. /me squints suspiciously. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	thebratqueen 2003-04-30 08:50 am UTC (link)
	I sacrificed a pig. I'm told that's the thing to do for rants. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	buffybot 2003-04-30 09:05 am UTC (link)
	/me consults handbook. By jove, you're right! Good on yer! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	thebratqueen 2003-04-30 10:20 am UTC (link)
	Blimey! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	sockkpuppett 2003-04-30 08:55 am UTC (link)
	Lovely rant. Lovely. And goats are the preferred sacrifice. Just FYI. (Reply to this)

	zyre 2003-04-30 08:58 am UTC (link)
	Well said. As usual. :) (Reply to this)

	amara_1783 2003-04-30 09:20 am UTC (link)
	You've said everything there is to say, so all that remains is to tell you that I agree with you 100%. Thanks for posting this with such clear and reasoned arguments. You'd have to be retarded not to get it ;) (Reply to this)

	tzikeh 2003-04-30 09:23 am UTC (link)
	Would you mind terribly if we (taraljc and I) used this/linked to this/quoted this in the fannish primer we're constructing? It's wonderful. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	thebratqueen 2003-04-30 09:27 am UTC (link)
	Go for it! I'm happy to help =) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	taraljc 2003-04-30 12:35 pm UTC (link)
	Yay! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	castalianspring 2003-04-30 09:26 am UTC (link)
	Bravo. A well-worded, concise, coherent essay. I think I adore you (actually, I already do, for your A/W fic :) (Reply to this)

	heresluck 2003-04-30 09:31 am UTC (link)
	Brava! Thank you for articulating this argument so clearly and succinctly. (Reply to this)

	zafiro_v 2003-04-30 09:33 am UTC (link)
	I liked this. Can I post the link to the 4 lotr lists I am in? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	thebratqueen 2003-04-30 10:20 am UTC (link)
	Go for it! =) (Reply to this) (Parent)

kaytee4ever
2003-04-30 09:47 am UTC (link)

Very good points, and very accurate. Can't disagree a whit.

Another point you may want to bring up is that what you and others who make these items are creative derivative works.

From Dictionary.com

de·riv·a·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-rv-tv)adj.
Copied or adapted from others: a highly derivative prose style.

I liked this Chemistry definition:
Chemistry. A compound derived or obtained from another and containing essential elements of the parent substance.

To me, this says, a derivative work is something adapted from the original, containing essential elements of the original.

The derivative work itself is original in that someone took those elements and adapted it, showed a different side of it, displayed it in a new way.

Such as, look at Jane Austen's "Sense and Sensibility" and then look at Emma Thompson's adaptation of Austen's work. Obviously, the essential elements of Austen's work is there, but Thompson didn't merely copy what was there and slap her name on it.

AND if someone takes Thompson's adaptation and merely slaps his/her name on it, THAT is stealing.

IF someone takes screencaps or items from Thompson's adaptation, displays them in a new way (makes an icon, a songvid, wallpaper) and gives credit, THAT is a derivative work.

Of course, if someone does that but claims that these are his/her original items, that he/she created the original movie that the screencaps were made from, that is stealing Thompson's work.

In the same vein, if someone claims to have made that derivative work (icon, wallpaper, etc), that is ALSO stealing.

ooops. I rambled so long, I think I got lost.

*slinking away*

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	kaytee4ever 2003-04-30 09:50 am UTC (link)
	...what you and others who make these items are creative derivative works. D'oh! meant "creating", not "creative" (Reply to this) (Parent)

	naomichana 2003-04-30 10:08 am UTC (link)
	So, basically, you're saying that this is about intellectual honesty rather than intellectual property? Works for me. ;) (Reply to this)

Yes!

imation23
2003-04-30 10:22 am UTC (link)

If somebody comes along and swipes clips from one of her vids then they have stolen from her. Mutant Enemy and Trent Reznor are in the same place they always were - still getting all the credit they deserve for the work they did. Sisabet, however, has been robbed. Unless someone has seen her vids first nobody would know that a certain cut or order of scenes was her idea and hard work. If someone's vid jumping off point is after work that Sisabet did, then she deserves credit for that work.

Exactly. Well said. Concise, well thought out and intelligent, unlike certain people who pass themselves off as vidders.

The thing that really gets me about these people is, as you can see from this is that these people know that what they're doing is wrong. And they still do it. Grrr.

(Reply to this)

	kita0610 2003-04-30 11:05 am UTC (link)
	Every once in a while, I need to be reminded why I crush you so heartily. Thanks for reminding me. :} (Reply to this)

	wickedprincess3 2003-04-30 11:09 am UTC (link)
	Say please, say thank you and respect the word "mine". Pardon me while I go wallpaper those words on the walls fandom... Thank you, really. (Reply to this)

	What more is there to say... nyxmidnight 2003-04-30 11:47 am UTC (link)
	... besides that this should be required reading for every single fan in every possible fandom? (Reply to this)

	madame_mercredi 2003-04-30 12:02 pm UTC (link)
	As always I am in awe of and grateful for your wit, logic and eloquence. I definitely see myself referencing your thoughts here if I ever find myself in need of making this argument. (Reply to this)

Slinking up to the other podium...

secretrebel
2003-04-30 01:04 pm UTC (link)

I agree... really I do, but.

I think there are still fair usage issues to be explored here that you haven't covered. Vis a vis the fanworks you reference (good examples, btw :) it does seem obvious that it would be stealing to take one of lerefuge's collages or one ofsisabet's vids and claim it as your own work. No arguments there. I've never understood why anyone would try to claim credit for someone else's work. That's just weird to me.

But if someone takes one of [lerefuge's] collages, chops it, changes the color and then makes it into an lJ icon or swipes clips from one of [sisbet's] vids there's a fair usage case to be made before yelling Stop! Thief! or getting out the tar and feathers. You make the point that these uses would be okay as long as there was a credit for the source material.

But just to devil's advocate this point (after all, I'm reliably informed I belong in the Seventh Circle of Hell) the credit issue isn't exactly the same as it would be for a fanficcer crediting canon. After all Joss Wheedon isn't very likely to read your fic or take issue with your use of his universe. But if you were to cut up someone's lovingly made collage for an LJ icon, the fact you're in the same fen community means that they are much more likely to notice and might even take offense. Plenty of ficcers would take offence at zine editing policies. The disclaimer is the kind of covering your ass motion that we all do automatically, crediting could be seen to carry more insidious permission issues with it in the context of a community where people will be aware of how you've used their work.

All of which is kind of tangential to the point I originally intended to make though. I'm never in favour of blatantly stealing someone else's work. But sometimes the fandom community can seem a bit precious about their creations, especially given that we're in a dodgy copyright territory ourselves.

Artists of any kind use other people's work as their source material constantly, whether that's chopping up a Picasso print and sticking it back together randomly, or crayoning over Goya cartoons with puppy heads or rewriting the Odyessy set in Dublin. Recently I had a nasty issue with a novel where I wanted to use specific poetry quotations as chapter titles and ended up having to shell out thousands of pounds for the privilege. I didn't regret the cash so much (although there was a general feeling of owch about it) but it was maddening when the estate of one writer refused permission to quote something I really wanted to use.

I kind of feel that fandom should be above this sort of possessiveness. Stealing is wrong, sure. But creating art is good. Sometimes people seem a bit to eager to jump all over a hapless fan who just simply didn't know, or forgot that it's polite to credit what you use.

In any case, how necessary is it really to credit someone for creating a screen cap which might take them a few minutes with the right tech if you then take that and turn it into a work of art that takes you weeks to make? Or to credit someone for throwing out an idea on a board which you use as the inspiration for a 40,000 word novella?

Hmm, I think I've run out of point now so I'll stop. I'm not really disagreeing wit ya. Your points are all good. I just don't think of art so much as something that's *mine* but as something that's *ours* and all well-brought-up five years olds know it's nice to share their toys. ;)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Slinking up to the other podium...

vrya
2003-04-30 01:47 pm UTC (link)

But if someone takes one of [lerefuge's] collages, chops it, changes the color and then makes it into an lJ icon or swipes clips from one of [sisbet's] vids there's a fair usage case to be made before yelling Stop! Thief! or getting out the tar and feathers. You make the point that these uses would be okay as long as there was a credit for the source material.

Bit of a tangent here, and I may be the only nutcase who feels this way, and it doesn't quite carry over to my vidding, but, those caveats firmly in place: if someone were to take one of my collages and dice it up, change the colors, etc? Not only would I not wanna know about it because it would be kinda painful to even think about, but I most certainly wouldn't want to be credited for the original, because people viewing it wouldn't know where my contributions ended and anothers' began, and in all likelihood I wouldn't want my name even remotely associated with the mess they'd made of my precious ;-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Slinking up to the other podium... secretrebel 2003-04-30 05:24 pm UTC (link)
	Oooh, thank you for posting... You see this is one of the things I was getting at. Crediting doesn't solve all the problems if people don't all feel the same about being credited. Although... would you feel the same way if it was a friend or someone you respected slicing and dicing your creation? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Slinking up to the other podium...

vrya
2003-04-30 05:40 pm UTC (link)

would you feel the same way if it was a friend or someone you respected slicing and dicing your creation?

if they asked me first, and it was someone who's work I respected, then I probably wouldn't have nearly as big a problem... In fact, linzee and I have been on-again off-again playing a game of photoshop tennis in which that's the whole point. You make something, hand it off to the other person, who slices, dices and adds to what you've made, and hands it back to you for you to do the same and so on.

Also, many people make photoshop custom brushes (essentially a black-and-white image which can be "stamped" like you would with a rubber ink stamp in real life) and then hand them off to be used by other people in their own work, which is likely to involve substantial alterations to the brushes in question.

I guess it's really a matter of communication, intent and the spirit in which the thing is done. People do get very touchy about their brushes being used without credit being given, but they *don't* care what you actually do to them, there's no expectation that they'll be held inviolate. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a situation where I'd want to alter someone elses' fanart unless they asked me to, or it was part of a challenge or game like photoshop tennis. And so I'd be rather surprised if I were to get a request to allow someone to do the same to something of mine. I'd have to know why they wanted to do it, and it would have to sound like a reasonable idea before I'd grant permission.

People have asked me if they could use this or that piece as part of a site design, which typically involved a little reformulating and I usually do go ahead and grant those requests, at least so far, but I suspect that's because most people seem to request things I no longer am pleased with. I'd have a lot tougher time handing over something currently dear to my heart..

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Slinking up to the other podium...

thebratqueen
2003-04-30 02:29 pm UTC (link)

Yeah but there's a big difference between "sharing" and "you taking something from me". If something is mine - as the work I put into making a fanfic is - then it's mine to decide if I want to share it with you or not, not for you to come along, steal it, and then tell me I need to be more generous.

(Editorial "you" here, I'm just speaking off of your examples)

As for fair use - I'm fine for commenting on the text but I stand by my point that comments still need to somehow reference their sources, otherwise what the hell are you commenting on? Someone may chop up a Goya but we still know the source was Goya. Somebody chops up one of my fics, you might not know it was one of my fics.

And I disagree that the ability to get "caught" is the issue. Stealing is stealing, regardless of whether or not you get caught doing it. Getting caught just means you get punished. I speed on my way to work every day. I've been lucky enough not to get a ticket. This doesn't mean I'm not speeding. Joss Whedon may or may not ever read my fic and he may or may not ever like it. Ditto for my fellow fen. It's the same action either way and I show the same respect either way.

As for screencaps - it depends. Has someone put a lot a lot of effort into them? Then give a shout-out. I do agree, though, that screencaps have less effort into them than, say, fan art so I tend to rank them accordingly in terms of what kind of credit they deserve, if any.

And I agree that we should be in a happy land of creativity and sharing. That goes to my point that I have no problem with someone looking at one of my fics, liking the concept but not the execution, and writing their own version of what I did. If anyone wants to do this they can go nuts. That's how we all got here. But there is a BIG difference between being inspired by what I did and cutting and pasting my words as-is into a new story. At that point that's not being inspired, that's stealing my work.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Slinking up to the other podium...

secretrebel
2003-04-30 05:11 pm UTC (link)

Hey, TBQ, before I launch into the discussion at hand just wanted to say that it's cool we can have the discussion at all. I saw someone else saying further down in the posts that this might just be preaching to the converted. Whether or not that's true it's good to know the converted (or not) can debate the argument wihout getting nasty - and that's why I think fandom is still a nice and carey sharey place to be...

If something is mine - as the work I put into making a fanfic is - then it's mine to decide if I want to share it with you or not, not for you to come along, steal it, and then tell me I need to be more generous.

But if you share something I don't think you get to decide how that sharing will be interpreted. If the thing is out there (as any net posted item is) it can be used be anyone capable of accessing it. Even if you attach a bunch of disclaimers, restrictions and riders to the thign other people may still have a different interpretation of what it's availability implies. This reminds me of a case recently in which a journalist sent a private email about an official event to a friend who forwarded it to a whole bunch of people and eventually ended up on the net as a public access document. By the time that had happened there were already 101 different interpretations of how acceptable it was to pass the document on. The point I'm making here is that although you may feel you have a perfectly reasonable idea of what sharing entails, others may feel differently.

Someone may chop up a Goya but we still know the source was Goya. Somebody chops up one of my fics, you might not know it was one of my fics.

But reputation doesn't rely on the canon status of the product. In fact I've seen posts to the effect (I think

liviapenn said this) that the fen community is sufficiently closeknit that plagarists will be noticed.

(dammit this was error messaged for length and I lost some of my deathless prose too, I'm going to have to separate it, sorry)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Slinking up to the other podium...

liviapenn
2003-05-01 10:50 am UTC (link)

My point and

thebratqueen's aren't mutually exclusive. Her point, at least as far as I understand it, seems to be that when Fan X makes a vid, or when Fan Y writes a Smallville fanfic, and then when they publish those works-- it is *immediately obvious* that it is a derivative work. Gongingly, clutchingly obvious.

Nobody downloads vids and thinks "Wow, Fan X did a great job writing that song and singing it, and then hiring James Marsters and David Boreanaz and costuming them and filming an episode of Angel, and then making a vid." Nobody reads Fan Y's fanfiction and thinks, "Hey, Superman, Lex Luthor and Lois Lane are a couple of neato original characters." And even though it is gongingly obvious that the work is derivative, most people put disclaimers on their stories and vids anyway: "These characters are not mine, only the story is mine." or "Music by so-and-so, clips from such-and-such, vid by me."

However. If Fan X decides to steal a couple of pages from Fan Y's story, or Fan Y decides to steal a couple of clips from Fan X's vid? And then they put *that* work out there? It's *not* immediately obvious that they're taking another fan's creative work and claiming it as their own. When I read a story, I generally assume it's not plagiarized; same with a vid. My point was that plagiarists will *eventually* get caught-- since fandom is so big and so diverse, it's likely that *eventually* someone will be able to match up those plagiarized paragraphs and stolen clips. However, when someone yoinks a paragraph out of my latest fic and plunks it down in her own, it's not as *immediately obvious*-- not obvious in the same way that it's immediately obvious that I didn't create Buffy.

What it really comes down to is whether you believe derivative artwork (ie, stories based on other people's characters, vids based on other people's footage) is actually legitimate artwork. Is my Buffy fanfiction *mine* even though I didn't come up with the characters? If not, how is that different from published work where the author didn't come up with their own characters? (say, "The Seven Percent Solution," a Sherlock Holmes novel by Nicholas Meyer.) Is it okay to plagiarize Nicholas Meyer's work because he didn't invent Sherlock Holmes? If not, why not?)

If you don't think derivative art is really *art*, then you really don't have a lot of common ground with people in fandom, and this discussion probably isn't going anywhere.

There's a huge difference between vidding, and stealing clips from other people's vids.

When a vidder makes a vid, and someone watches that vid, *nobody* thinks the source belongs to her. Nor does she try to claim it as her own. She claims the *resulting work* as her own. Just as Neil Gaiman doesn't claim, for instance, that Bast or Lucifer or Loki are *his* characters. But when he writes about them in "Sandman," that work is still *his*. His work is no less *his* because his characters aren't original. A vidder's *work* is no less *hers* because she is working with existing footage and music.

When a 'vidder' steals clips, and someone watches her vid? Again, nobody thinks the source belongs to her, but they do think the *work* does. When someone puts out a vid, they're saying "I put the *work* into this." All the effort of getting tapes, capturing footage, editing, tweaking, rendering, re-rendering, speeding up and slowing down clips, altering gamma and saturation and color, editing down scenes to make them fit a beat, adding effects-- that is work. That's the creative part of the equation. And the plagiarizing vidder is taking that *work* and putting it out under her own name.

Unlike the original vidder, where it's completely obvious that she doesn't own the Angel footage or the music she's using, *and* she usually gives credit anyway-- when someone puts out a cannibalized vid, it is not *immediately obvious* which clips are stolen and which aren't, unless you're very, very familiar with the original vid. The theif is not giving credit to the original vidder who spent all that time and did all that work.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Slinking up to the other podium...

secretrebel
2003-05-02 11:26 am UTC (link)

I din't mean to imply that you and TBQ weren't on the same page! I know you're coming from the same place in this discussion even though you address slightly different points in your LJs.

If you don't think derivative art is really *art*, then you really don't have a lot of common ground with people in fandom, and this discussion probably isn't going anywhere.

No, I'm not quite that much of a malcontent. But not only do I think fanwork is art, I also believe all art is derivative.

I'll freely admit I don't know much about fanvidding so I'm willing to accept what I've read on various LJs about the amount of work it requires. However although in her initial post TBQ implies that it's acceptable to use someone else's material as long as you credit the source the recieved opinion among fanvidders appears to be that using someone else's clips is completely unacceptable, attributed or not. That's not an opinion I find it easy to get behind.

So, before I go on, where do you stand on that? If we both accept that outright theft is wrong, is attributed/credited use okay?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Slinking up to the other podium...

secretrebel
2003-04-30 05:17 pm UTC (link)

(continued)

Btw, when I started engaging in this debate I wasn't aware it applied to an actual instance. Now I've read and followed some posts on my friends list that make it clear that there has been a recent cases of a fanvidder 'plagarising' someone else's work... which unfortunately complicates the issue with personalities.

And I disagree that the ability to get "caught" is the issue... Joss Whedon may or may not ever read my fic and he may or may not ever like it. Ditto for my fellow fen. It's the same action either way and I show the same respect either way.

Um, respectfully, no. It isn't. If Joss sees your stuff and objects to it you might get slapped with a law suit and have to decide if you'll take that to court. We both know all too well how fans can get scared off by a canon creator with an urge to sue.

But if your fellow fen take exception to your usage of their material.... (now I'm claiming that editorial you disclaimer ;) your response to that has to be considered in the light of the fact that this is a community to which you belong. You versus Joss Wheedon is a law suit with a huge disparity with wide ramifications for copyright practices. You versus Other Fan is an issue which relates to your own subsection of fandom culture. There are no any laws regarding this question and my fear is that the issues get solved by mob rule. If the majority of a subsection of fandom or a few BNFs (if you'll pardon the term) say something is wrong, any transgressors are likely to fall into line so as not to get a bad repuation with their fellow fen. In fact this is a situation in which a Big Name Fan is at an advantage whereas in any hypothetical conflict with the original canon author the situation would be precisely reversed.

Without question it's good that you show the same respect in either case but I don't believe the situations are comparable.

I do agree, though, that screencaps have less effort into them than, say, fan art so I tend to rank them accordingly in terms of what kind of credit they deserve, if any.

Our opinions are consciously or unconsciously influenced by our judgements of artistic importance and value. Which is precisely why we shouldn't trust them. There have got to be a million thin end of the wedge arguments and none of us are equipped to be judges.... although we might contribute usefully to a jury panel. :)

That goes to my point that I have no problem with someone looking at one of my fics, liking the concept but not the execution, and writing their own version of what I did. If anyone wants to do this they can go nuts. That's how we all got here.

But would you expect to be credited for the concept? And would you (editorial you) be offended if you weren't?

But there is a BIG difference between being inspired by what I did and cutting and pasting my words as-is into a new story. At that point that's not being inspired, that's stealing my work.

Even if it's a single sentence?

In conclusion, I'm now honestly unsure how much we're on the same page here. Or indeed how much the dabte is being influenced by the fact that there is an actual case of fanvid plagarism floating about. But I'll conlude with the final thought that, it seems to me, your main argument has centred on the idea that it's okay to use something as long as you attribute it.

Already in response to my initial point someone has mentioned that they wouldn't want to be attributed if they didn't like the work resulting. In the current fanvidding kerfuffle the plagarist has been asked, advised and ordered respectively to remove the vids from their site. I saw somewhere (please excuse my shocking memory) that the fanvidder whose work had been utilised said it made them feel physically ill to have their work taken and plugged into someone else's inferior product.

That's not an attribution issue. It has nothing to do with your (very sane) advice to credit what you've used. It's symptomatic of the kind of possessiveness about secondary material that I find surprising. Sure, credit where credit is due, fair enough. But why should anyone have to remove their material for failure to attribute sources, shouldn't the insertion of a credit suffice?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Slinking up to the other podium...

liviapenn
2003-05-01 10:51 am UTC (link)

(continued)

If someone put their vids on a VCD and sold them, I'd consider that to be stealing from TPTB. If someone *isn't* making a profit-- just writing fanfiction and putting it up on a page, for instance-- I don't consider that "stealing," unless you're also willing to call every pro and published author who's ever written a derivative novel or story a thief.

In exactly the same way, using footage as the basis for a derivative *creative work* which makes no profit is not stealing. However, we in fandom aren't here to make profit. The only gain that a vidder gets from vidding, or a fanfiction writer from writing, is the satisfaction of creating something and having their name on it. If someone takes that from them, takes credit for their work, then they *are* stealing, because time and effort and creativity are the currency of fandom. They're stealing that person's time and effort, and taking credit for their hard work and creativity.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Preaching to the converted? chicken_cem 2003-04-30 03:03 pm UTC (link)
	Wow! Great essay! But aren't you preaching to the converted here? Do you think that people who steal your stuff will read this? Sorry to be cynical. Maybe if people re-post your essay around at fanfic-y sites and stuff, then maybe someof them will? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Preaching to the converted? thebratqueen 2003-04-30 03:15 pm UTC (link)
	Well some of the people who didn't seem to get it are on my friends list, and have friended me in turn. So it's not all preaching to the choir =) And a few people are apparently going to link and repost from other sites as well, so it's all good. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	renenet 2003-04-30 03:12 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you! (Reply to this)

	out_there 2003-04-30 05:03 pm UTC (link)
	Say please, say thank you and respect the word "mine". And really, that sums it all up. You wrote an excellent argument, and I couldn't agree more. (Reply to this)

	taffimai 2003-04-30 05:15 pm UTC (link)
	Nobody thinks I own Wes and Angel. On the odd chance any of my readers are retarded I make sure this is clear by putting in disclaimers. I heart TBQ. (Reply to this)

	question (Anonymous) 2003-04-30 10:14 pm UTC (link)
	So, if I understand properly, you reserve the right to use other people's work and claim it as your own after a little editing, but if somebody else uses the copyrighted material after you have edited it, that is stealing?? or is the operative thing here in asking for permission before doing it? I am just trying to understand the rules. I admit I am new to all of this. (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: question

thebratqueen
2003-05-01 05:17 am UTC (link)

At what point did I say claim copyrighted material as your own? I've said claim your own work as your own. The copyright stays with the copyright holder. But your work is, by definition, yours. You have a right to want credit for the time and effort that you put into something.

Again - someone makes a vid. The source material for the vid belongs to whomever owns the TV show or movie. That never changes. It could go through a hundred hours worth of work or a hundred hands. It still belongs to the copyright holder.

But the work that someone puts into making a vid is their own.

Think of it this way - if you go into a garage to get your car fixed what are you charged for? Parts and labor, right? Well in this instance the source material is "parts" and the fanwork is "labor". You wouldn't try to tell your mechanic that their labor is worthless because all they did was use somebody else's parts, right? Likewise do not tell those who make fanwork that their labor is worthless.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

montykins
2003-05-01 12:36 am UTC (link)

As an outsider, I'm not sure I buy it. I agree that people should not be stealing fanwork willy-nilly and saying "look at this great video I made" if they didn't put in the work. But I'm not sure you answered the question "So how come it's okay to make the vid in the first place?"

My feeling is that people probably shouldn't do anything to someone else's work that the someone else doesn't want done. You put effort into creating a collage or an icon and then get angry because someone comes along and steals it. You are justified in your anger, because you don't like what happened to your work. But if the creators of the source material object to what you did, their objection seems to me to be equally valid. I realize you put in more creative effort, but it still, for me, comes down to unauthorized use.

Mutant Enemy and Trent Reznor are in the same place they always were - still getting all the credit they deserve for the work they did.

Except that now, instead of people having to see Buffy in the context of episodes created by Mutant Enemy, they're able to see Buffy in entirely new contexts. If Mutant Enemy wanted to make the argument that you're damaging the perception they want people to have of their intellectual property, that might stand up. You don't steal dialogue, but you do "steal" the characters and put them in situations that their legal owners might not approve of.

Now, admittedly, I had to put "steal" in quotes, so I realize it's not a clear-cut situation of theft. But I also don't think it's as clear-cut the other way ("first-generation reappropriation and so on is perfectly okay; anything after that is intolerable") as you make it out to be.

Anyway, you get my point. I'm not sure you've really answered all the questions.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

thebratqueen
2003-05-01 05:26 am UTC (link)

But I also don't think it's as clear-cut the other way ("first-generation reappropriation and so on is perfectly okay; anything after that is intolerable") as you make it out to be.

I didn't say it was. I'm not even addressing that issue at all right now because it's honestly too complex. Having attended that copyright panel (link in the essay we're commenting on) it seems to me that the conclusion about that is "Fuck knows" particularly since some, to me, obvious cases of copyright violation were ruled perfectly okay by some courts while other instances that seemed okay to me were considered to be violations. I still don't understand why The Wind Done Gone was ruled okay, yet the lawyers I talked to felt that a similar instance of a child writing a "What if the wizard world of Harry Potter was in the US?" style fanfic for a private audience with no intent on profiting from it was not.

All I'm addressing here is the accusation that wanting credit for one's fanwork is a double standard when one has "stolen" from the source material. My point is that it is not a double standard, because we are not stealing credit from the originals.

Now if we were in a fandom where the copyright holders had made it absolutely clear that they did not like fanwork and we went ahead and made it anyway - okay yes, then we're in the land of double standards. But that then becomes fandom-specific, and needs to be addressed on a case by case basis, particularly in instances like Joss Whedon related fandoms where he, the creator of the source material, loves fanwork but Fox, the company that owns it, does not.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	montykins 2003-05-01 06:38 pm UTC (link)
	That's fair. The way I look at it, people creating collages (etc.) are in a grey area, while people grabbing those collages without permission are clearly in the wrong. It's not so much a double standard as one and a half standards. Or so. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	rliz 2003-05-01 03:14 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you so much for this essay-- you've clearly and beautifully articulated a terribly important point about fandom. (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs