Heroes and strike suits

[rivkat]

Datum for the part of the fan fiction argument that goes, "copyright owners have to oppose fan fiction or they'll end up getting sued when a fan story is like a later storyline": The section on NBC's website called "Share Your Heroes Theories: Tell Us What You Think Will Happen Next on 'Heroes.'"

As a practical matter at the very least, I think fan authors have no valid rights against the original copyright owners, even in the extremely unlikely event that the latter copied from the former. (Much more likely is that a fan story would extrapolate from elements in existing episodes/volumes in a logical way, and then the official version would do a similar thing, for similar reasons. That's just working from the same source. Fans joke about these situations as 'ripping off fanfic,' but we shouldn't -- the fannish hivemind extends beyond fandom.) I don't think ordinary disclaimers like "I don't own Superman" are all that useful or important for fan fiction, but maybe I should think more carefully about disclaimers that attempt to address the (overblown, but deeply felt) fears about being sued by a fan. The Heroes site, of course, only accepts submissions when the submitter agrees to a page of rules surrendering every possible right to NBC, and that's overdone and too legalistic for fandom, but maybe there's something short and sweet one could routinely say disclaiming any interference with the original copyright owner's rights to create new works.

Comments

[lightgetsin.livejournal.com]

If you do come up with something, please share. I'm in the somewhat odd position of starting an archive for a tiny fandom whose author has publicly said that she doesn't look at fanfiction, per instruction of her publisher (and really, I can think of only one reason they'd say that) but in fact she does read, now and again. It would be nice to have something quick on the front page on this subject, without being all, "no one is going to come after you! seriously!"

[harriet-spy.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...I wonder how much this applies to TV shows in particular, though. For other reasons, I found myself reading the line of CA cases dealing with unsolicited submissions, and in fact it's easier than I would have thought to find yourself in an implied-in-fact contract with someone who hands you a script than I would have thought. These were all movie/TV cases, and I think it's easier to generate fact patterns in which the submitter could argue that the circumstances were such that he could reasonably expect payment for his submission if used than it would be for a book, etc. (possibly excluding comic books, come to think of it).

(There's also the issue of plagiarism--it may not directly cost you money if a fan raises hell, but plagiarism can be a big black eye.)

[(Anonymous)]

It's clearly the biggest problem for TV series, with movie sequels and book series following (oddly, I haven't heard of any such threats or fears in comicland, but maybe I just haven't listened to the right people, or maybe the visual components are so important that people understand that storylines are just the beginning), but that covers most of the properties that tend to inspire fanfic. California's idea submission law is, IMO, overly favorable to the submitter, but I doubt that posting fanfic publicly could count as conduct inviting a contract even in CA.

[rivkat.livejournal.com]

That was me. Logout glitch.

[wearemany.livejournal.com]

The Hollywood version of this, which maybe you know, is a thousand nervous new screenwriters convinced they have to hoard every brilliant idea they have lest some greedy studio steal it and reap all the rewards. And while there's a huge, obvious, problematic power imbalance between writers and studios, every credible industry person I've met laughs hysterically at this urban legend. They all say, almost to a word, "It's cheaper to buy your idea than steal it." I guess I could choose to believe that that is also false security, but when so much of what makes an idea worth paying for is, in fact, its execution (or its easy ability to be bought and re-executed), I've just officially decided not to worry.

[rose-etta.livejournal.com]

One of my high school pals ended up in court against the studios for stealing his idea for Supes III (not that I'd want to take credit, but that was back in the earl 70s. Maybe it's different now.
Still, I say, copyright story, not characters, and agree that the page of rights vesting is something I would avoid.

[executrix.livejournal.com]

Just because I love fans doesn't mean we can't be godawful hypocrites sometimes. If we're going to assert the idea/expression dichotomy defensively, we shouldn't demand compensation every time we think that one of our (generally obviously scene-a-faire) ideas turns up someplace else. Nevertheless, there have been lots of nutcase plagiarism suits, and just because the nutcase never wins doesn't mean that the defendant enjoys the experience.

I'd be in favor of a reciprocal license, under which TPTB permit non-profit derivative works, and writers of such non-profit derivative works who choose to make them available to everyone on the Internet waives claims of the "Hey, there's a happy ending! You stole that from me!" variety.

[j-bluestocking.livejournal.com]

I like that, though I don't know who TPTB would be in the case of television and movies. The studio retains copyright and power, and while producers and writers seem mostly fine with fan fiction in the abstract, the studios go by whatever current fashion and their lawyers dictate. Meanwhile, the writer's the one who'd be named in any hypothetical suit, and certainly the one who'd be losing sleep. (All Hollywood writers have to sign contracts with their studios saying they -- the writer -- are solely responsible for all creative ideas. The studios thus reap the benefits and keep their noses clean.)

You'd get the writers and producers on your side with a waiver. (And sometimes moral support can have real-world effects.) The studios are a vast dark entity of collective self-interest, so who knows?

[executrix.livejournal.com]

However, the principle that ideas as such are not copyrightable, only particular expressions of ideas, deals with that problem (to an extent--you're right about power imbalances).