![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
avevale_intelligencerVery interesting post by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
grrm here, responding to the Diana Gabaldon thing that's blown up recently.
I write fanfic, as you all know. I'm in the middle of one now. I started serious writing that way, as I think many did who are now writing their own original stuff. I think it can be a useful step on the path. It's unlikely I'll stop doing it any time soon. As regards my own original creations, such as they are, my attitude has always been that I would be insanely flattered if anyone thought them worthy of imitation.
This post does give me pause, though.
Realism time: fanfic is going to happen. I did it before I knew what it was, when I was still at school (don't ask) and I'm not unique. If it were to be driven underground in some monstrous Orwellian clampdown on amateur writing, people would still do it, on loo paper in their own blood, or something. As things are, it can be shared and enjoyed, writers can learn from constructive criticism, and grow a layer of skin to cope with the less than constructive kind, and anything that increases the general level of (a) enjoyment and (b) creativity in the universe is good in my book.
The authors (grrm and Gabaldon) say that "the central—the only truly vital part—of a story, and what makes it unique, is the character or characters." I don't agree. You could single out any element of a story and say that made it unique, and someone would come up with a reason why it didn't. What makes a story unique is the story. The whole thing. My characters aren't unique. Neither (I dare to suggest) are anyone else's. They're all people, and there's only so much you can do with people to make them unique without making them weird. A new story, that throws new light on those characters, is a different creation.
The characters are like the instruments in your band, and the plot is the harmonic structure, and the dialogue and narrative are the melody, and the story is the piece of music itself. You can invent your own instruments, like the composer Harry Partch, and devise your own tuning system to play your music on them. Unique, certainly, but I haven't heard of anyone else using them for their compositions, which means that now he's dead that uniqueness is gone from the world as if it had never been.
I take the point that someone can, if they will, do something with my characters that I would not like; make the Nyronds into rapists and torturers, for instance. I can be reasonably aggrieved at this, and I would hope that anyone who wanted to use my characters would respect their nature enough not to pervert it that way. (I have no objection to Nyrond slash, by the way, though I can't imagine it myself.) But I don't know if I would feel comfortable saying "no one can write anything about my characters but me" purely on the basis that there might be a few who would do things I don't like. That would be like closing the park because one person littered.
I also take the legal and economic point, but as long as the writing biz is structured the way it is, I don't see how to help that. As I said, fanfic will happen as long as the connection between people's brains and their writing hands is unmonitored. You can make it illegal (some would say it is) and it'll still happen. The question is, how much oppression do you want to impose to protect your characters? ERB vigorously pursued any attempt to use his creations, and he died rich: HPL threw his universe open to anyone who wanted to play in it, and he died poor. I think there may have been other reasons in both cases, to be fair; but even so, and much as I'd love to be rich, I'd take HPL's route every single time. That's just me.
So, I end like a Discovery programme, with no clear conclusion and no minds changed on either side. I believe that writers who do not want their creations used in fanfic should have their wishes respected, and not be argued with in their blog or anywhere else; they're the writer, they have the say, and if you do it anyway and bring legal action on yourself that's your own stupid fault. But I would hate it if that became the general attitude, or if repeated outrages led to some legal restriction on the creativity of fans.
Oh, and a vaguely relevant snippet from the world of Uru: Cyan are still making slow and stately progress towards making parts of it open source, as they have said they would, in their spare time and as and when they can. In the meantime, another game, Ryzom, has gone open source just recently, and the makers included a snarky comment about Uru in their FAQ. (Way to show class, guys.) And so the hackers on the Uru forums (who have been reverse engineering an earlier version of Uru in which a major publisher may still have rights) are getting all up in people's faces about how Cyan has "broken their promise." No, really. Someone else did something completely different with an entirely different game, first, and so Cyan is guilty and has to be made to pay. I love the smell of fannish entitlement in the morning. It smells like...well, rancid underpants to be honest.
That's all for now.
grrm here, responding to the Diana Gabaldon thing that's blown up recently.I write fanfic, as you all know. I'm in the middle of one now. I started serious writing that way, as I think many did who are now writing their own original stuff. I think it can be a useful step on the path. It's unlikely I'll stop doing it any time soon. As regards my own original creations, such as they are, my attitude has always been that I would be insanely flattered if anyone thought them worthy of imitation.
This post does give me pause, though.
Realism time: fanfic is going to happen. I did it before I knew what it was, when I was still at school (don't ask) and I'm not unique. If it were to be driven underground in some monstrous Orwellian clampdown on amateur writing, people would still do it, on loo paper in their own blood, or something. As things are, it can be shared and enjoyed, writers can learn from constructive criticism, and grow a layer of skin to cope with the less than constructive kind, and anything that increases the general level of (a) enjoyment and (b) creativity in the universe is good in my book.
The authors (
grrm and Gabaldon) say that "the central—the only truly vital part—of a story, and what makes it unique, is the character or characters." I don't agree. You could single out any element of a story and say that made it unique, and someone would come up with a reason why it didn't. What makes a story unique is the story. The whole thing. My characters aren't unique. Neither (I dare to suggest) are anyone else's. They're all people, and there's only so much you can do with people to make them unique without making them weird. A new story, that throws new light on those characters, is a different creation. The characters are like the instruments in your band, and the plot is the harmonic structure, and the dialogue and narrative are the melody, and the story is the piece of music itself. You can invent your own instruments, like the composer Harry Partch, and devise your own tuning system to play your music on them. Unique, certainly, but I haven't heard of anyone else using them for their compositions, which means that now he's dead that uniqueness is gone from the world as if it had never been.
I take the point that someone can, if they will, do something with my characters that I would not like; make the Nyronds into rapists and torturers, for instance. I can be reasonably aggrieved at this, and I would hope that anyone who wanted to use my characters would respect their nature enough not to pervert it that way. (I have no objection to Nyrond slash, by the way, though I can't imagine it myself.) But I don't know if I would feel comfortable saying "no one can write anything about my characters but me" purely on the basis that there might be a few who would do things I don't like. That would be like closing the park because one person littered.
I also take the legal and economic point, but as long as the writing biz is structured the way it is, I don't see how to help that. As I said, fanfic will happen as long as the connection between people's brains and their writing hands is unmonitored. You can make it illegal (some would say it is) and it'll still happen. The question is, how much oppression do you want to impose to protect your characters? ERB vigorously pursued any attempt to use his creations, and he died rich: HPL threw his universe open to anyone who wanted to play in it, and he died poor. I think there may have been other reasons in both cases, to be fair; but even so, and much as I'd love to be rich, I'd take HPL's route every single time. That's just me.
So, I end like a Discovery programme, with no clear conclusion and no minds changed on either side. I believe that writers who do not want their creations used in fanfic should have their wishes respected, and not be argued with in their blog or anywhere else; they're the writer, they have the say, and if you do it anyway and bring legal action on yourself that's your own stupid fault. But I would hate it if that became the general attitude, or if repeated outrages led to some legal restriction on the creativity of fans.
Oh, and a vaguely relevant snippet from the world of Uru: Cyan are still making slow and stately progress towards making parts of it open source, as they have said they would, in their spare time and as and when they can. In the meantime, another game, Ryzom, has gone open source just recently, and the makers included a snarky comment about Uru in their FAQ. (Way to show class, guys.) And so the hackers on the Uru forums (who have been reverse engineering an earlier version of Uru in which a major publisher may still have rights) are getting all up in people's faces about how Cyan has "broken their promise." No, really. Someone else did something completely different with an entirely different game, first, and so Cyan is guilty and has to be made to pay. I love the smell of fannish entitlement in the morning. It smells like...well, rancid underpants to be honest.
That's all for now.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-09 12:37 pm (UTC)Because I believe that there are variations between the two.
I may be wrong though. Often am. See my miscounting the number of episodes in the current season of DR WHO on another thread.
Michael Cule
no subject
Date: 2010-05-09 05:10 pm (UTC)Trademark law varies from country to country a lot more than copyright does, since copyright law is basically set by the Berne Convention, which pretty much everyone in North America and Europe (and much of the rest of the world as well) has ratified.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-10 02:27 pm (UTC)IANAL, however. =:o}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-10 08:34 pm (UTC)The trademark differences are (as I understand them) largely that UK trademark law bars a lot more common words and phrases from being registered as trademarks that US law. IIRC there is also a difference that one of them is a lot more particular about font and colour (presentation in general) being the same to show infringement than the other, and about the context being significant.
Unfortunately a number of writers have also blurred things by trademarking the names of their characters and places and then sueing about infringement of those, but using the term 'copyright' as a cover-all for the infringements.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-11 12:10 am (UTC)