It's a common misconception that "parody" is the proper category. Actually, the concept of "transformative use" is much broader than parody, which is merely one variant of the transformative type of fair use. In Justice Souter's words, "The central purpose of this investigation is to see ... whether the new work merely 'supersede[s] the objects' of the original creation, or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message" (citations omitted). If you follow the link to the opinion, you'll see the Eleventh Circuit muddy the issue further by defining a work as a "parody" "if its aim is to comment upon or criticize a prior work by appropriating elements of the original in creating a new artistic, as opposed to scholarly or journalistic, work." That's transformation, not just parody.
In my opinion, much (though not all) fanfic does meet the test for transformative use, regardless of whether it styles itself parody.
Some authors are more likely than others to protest, of course, but I don't think they have "more to lose" in any economic sense. Rather, they have more emotional investment in their characters and feel more personally offended when other people play with them.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-01-09 02:39 pm (UTC)In my opinion, much (though not all) fanfic does meet the test for transformative use, regardless of whether it styles itself parody.
Some authors are more likely than others to protest, of course, but I don't think they have "more to lose" in any economic sense. Rather, they have more emotional investment in their characters and feel more personally offended when other people play with them.