fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2106 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2106 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

19.

__________________________________________________

20.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 085 secrets from Secret Submission Post #301.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - way too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - secret posted as text ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I do nice things because it makes me happy. But I'd still be a little annoyed if someone took my work and put it up not just without credit but claiming it as their own. And if I kept doing nice things for people and the result kept being that? Yeah, I'd stop doing nice things for them.

And again, why does it even matter who gets credit for it? It's all fan-derivative shit anyway, so nobody in fandom can legitimately claim credit for anything. It's why I find these arguments so hilarious. "HOW DARE YOU STEAL THE WORK THAT I TOTALLY STOLE FROM THE ORIGINAL CREATORS!"

Oh you're one of those. That's cute.

Translation: I don't have an argument against that, so I'm just going to fail at snark because that's what's cool on the internet today.

DA

I think it was more "this anon isn't worth arguing with." Which is true.

Congrats, anon--you have won this argument! Feel triumphant!

Oh believe me, I do *smug*

Spot on. Other anon is not worth the time as they obviously have drastically different views and are very angry about those views, thus the only outcome of this thread is frustration and anger. They are not looking for a discussion, and so I leave the thread.

you seem really mad about this

i think you need to calm down and think about why the idea of common courtesy is so repulsive to you

"Common courtesy" is overrated.

the anon said, after starting a whole shitfest about how "you should be nice for the sake of being nice"

Probably because "common courtesy" doesn't directly benefit them.

Pot, meet kettle

NA

Except that transcription is a service that people are often paid for, even when they're transcribing other people's work. So how does this argument even apply in this case? People can absolutely claim credit for doing work like this outside fandom, so why not in fandom?

Because outside fandom, it has the blessing of the original artist. In fandom, it's just flat-out theft.

No income stolen from the original creator. Theft, no.

It's still stealing their work and demanding credit for the effort. Which is funny.

AYRT

Sorry, not theft if nothing is stolen. Also, on the reread this sounds like musical transcription, and arrangers absolutely have rights to their arrangements (though not rights to sell, etc.). School bands and choirs often have directors who write arrangements especially for their groups.

The work itself is being stolen. But hey, whatever soothes your butthurt conscience, right?

You still haven't explained how this constitutes "theft" so I'ma call troll and leave this thread. Have a nice night. :)

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-09 01:10 (UTC) - Expand

If the original artist is credited, and the derivative work generates no profit, then where has theft occurred?

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-09 01:43 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-09 01:49 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-09 02:50 (UTC) - Expand

fan-derivative shit

This is the point at which I decide you and I are approaching the subject from irreconcilable viewpoints. I could respect your strict adherence to copyright, although I don't agree with it, but this just comes off as classifying amateur as automatically worse than professional.

It is in a lot of cases. Professional stuff at least gets a revision or two on the technical side (proofreading/editing), even if the content is crap. Amateur shit goes by the honor system.

Piping up with a side note, but that depends on what you're doing. When it comes to writing, for example, that used to be the case. Nowadays, with self-publishing becoming more and more popular, it really just depends on whether or not you're publishing with a house, and sometimes, not even then. It's very easy to be a "professional" author by self-publishing through Amazon or the plethora of other sites out there that just assume you're working with a freelance proofreader. Meanwhile, a lot of fanfiction authors work with beta readers, and the beta readers, being people who do their job just because they feel passionate about writing/the characters/what-have-you, tend to be just as thorough as professional proofreaders (who are only doing their work out of the sake of a paycheck). So in that sense, amateur and professional are actually on equal footing these days.

Admittedly, I'm not certain about any other industry and how they compare to their fandom counterparts.

Self-publishing is as amateur as it comes, really. And even fic that's been beta-read is also damn near unreadable most of the time, because the beta-reader's just as bad at spelling/grammar as the author.

You're going to have to define "professional," then, because I'm not sure I understand your point without the distinction made clear. To me, professional means that it's basically your job - that is, you get paid for your goods/services on a somewhat steady basis - which means that self-publishing is still professional. Self-publishing also still considered a means of professional publishing according to, well, professional publishers.

Re: DA

(Anonymous) - 2012-10-09 02:25 (UTC) - Expand