[ SECRET POST #2623 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2623 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 064 secrets from Secret Submission Post #375.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[forgottenjester]

For me it's less about published fanfiction being ew and more about 1) Was it free to read at any point before you decided to publish? and 2) How removed from the source material is it?

The second one is really important. It also helps if whatever you're writing published fic of is in public domain.

[feotakahari]

I've seen people write Snow White stories that were pretty closely connected to the Grimm version. One even wrote one that was a dark and edgy sequel to the Disney version, and all she had to do was give the dwarves real names and casually mention things like "one of them sneezes a lot." But if she had dared call him Sneezy--copyright violation! It feels really arbitrary to me.

[forgottenjester]

...The Grimm version is in public domain though? I don't have a problem with blatant adaptations? Heck, I've written adaptations myself.

As for Disney... yeah, that's still under copyright but in all honesty what she wrote might fall under Fair Use because of parody?

[feotakahari]

Actually, it was a deadly serious attempt at deconstruction--not so different from all those attempts to deconstruct the Grimm story. I don't think Fair Use would have protected her if she'd called him Sneezy. What I'm trying to say is that I think the Disney version and the Grimm version occupy the role of legends at this point, and I feel like authors today should be able to freely adapt and mess with the Disney version without having to circle around it, for the same reasons Disney was able to freely adapt and mess with the Grimm version. (In other words, I think copyright lasts way too long.)

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think you'll get any argument from anyone that the life+70 years term of copyright we have in the US is way too long.

[forgottenjester]

Then you won't find an argument with me. I think current copyright law is stupid.* However, it's still law so I'm going to make sure I follow it so I don't get in trouble.

On top of that, a deconstruction, to me, is very different from the original. It's an adaptation that changes a lot of a story. If you remember my first comment I said, "How removed from the source material is it?" To put it simply, I was asking how much are you copying and how much are you reimagining? Did you make it your own? I said nothing about copyright until the end when I said, "It also helps if whatever you're writing published fic of is in public domain." I said it helps, not that it's necessary. I just don't want people taken to court.

So I don't understand why we're having this conversation when we basically agree and copyright law had absolutely nothing to do with my original point. That point being "Published fic is cool but can be skeevy if you go about it the wrong way."

*Due to how long it's been extended. I think it should be a shorter time because the only thing it serves right now are stupid corporations.

[feotakahari]

I'm not sure I agree with the statement that deconstructions are very different from the original, but you don't really seem interested in this argument, so I'll back off. Sorry.

[forgottenjester]

It's just that's we're arguing about something that we, in general, agree on. You have said nothing I disagree with. Nothing. So I'm confused and a bit frustrated. I don't want to sound mean. Sorry. I just don't like arguing over something if the person I'm arguing with agrees with me and I with them. Because then it's not arguing. It's agreeing with someone in a very antagonistic manner. Which is really only funny if it's intentional.

As for deconstructions, well, that gets into the argument/question of "What is an adaptation and what is a work that is merely inspired by something else?" I honestly spent an entire quarter in college going over that question/debate so I can tell you truthfully, there is no right answer. There probably never will be. Adaptations are all about person feelings of "is it different enough?" and that's never going to be answered the same way by two different people. It's a feeling we get. It's an opinion. Unfortunately laws can be based on these opinions. I find these laws tend to be shaky, grey, and normally ill-suited for actual use.

[ibbity]

What kind of "dark and edgy deconstruction" are we talking about here? I love twisted fairy tales so you've piqued my interest.

[feotakahari]

It was a short story in which Snow White became a tyrant who oppressed the dwarves. It was surprisingly slow and thoughtful, and the ending really had an impact on me. The author's name was Chris Pierson, and it was in the anthology "Terribly Twisted Tales", edited by Martin H. Greenberg.

[(Anonymous)]

See, the first one is more important, to me. If you put it out there in the world for free, and when it gets popular, you suddenly get greedy? Yeah, no.

[forgottenjester]

Yeah, that tends to really bother me. I mean, I understand it but still. It makes me feel like I just watched someone do something a tad bit dirty and unclean.

[littlestbirds]

can someone explain further what upsets them about this? How is it different from someone writing a webcomic and then publishing it in a book? From what I've seen the writers who end up selling fic aren't opposed to giving it away for free, it's just that the publishing industry isn't able to allow for that. They'll often offer to send a copy to people who ask, or give people warning before they have to take it down.

My instinct is to say that the idea that money is a dirty subject always works in favour of those for whom money is no issue.

[truxillogical]

Yeah, I'm not really inclined to call anyone who dares to want to make money off of their creative efforts "greedy."

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

All I can think of is, what if a fanfic author, trying to move into original fiction, posts their original fic online. They have a good rep as a fanfic author, so some of their fans read their original fic. Then down the line, they get a publishing deal for a different story, and now they pull that first original fic off the net and if they see any hint of anyone having a copy of it elsewhere, they want to sue them for it?

There's also the other issue that if you put something out there, for free, there's a possibility of plagiarism that a publishing company has no way of stopping. It's only stories the company publishes that gets protected by copyright laws.

[littlestbirds]

I've never heard of either of these happening- they seem to be problems with a wider scope than people who sell fanfic? The closest I can think of is Sarah Rees Brennan requesting that people don't actively share her fic, but I think someone would have to be seriously disrespectful for her to hire a lawyer.

Obviously my experience is limited, but from what I've seen authors want to maintain a friendly relationship with fandom and still seem to get a lot of abuse for it. Even the comment below me, people just get upset!

[(Anonymous)]

I just had this happen in the middle of a (fairly popular) fic I was reading - author put up a notice that they pulled it offline to publish it. The fandom is a currently airing tv show, so yeah. I'm not okay with that, even if they change the names or whatever, and I'll be avoiding that author's work from now on.

[(Anonymous)]

I certainly hope they're either self-publishing or that they disclosed to their publisher that it's been published already...

[mautradutor]

The second point makes me think of stories that were once fanfics, but then they were dressed to make them seem original. I feel that is the thing that makes people more upset: go for a story about something that is not.

[forgottenjester]

Yeah, you gotta put more of yourself into it.

[(Anonymous)]

...I put quite a lot of myself into all my fiction, derivative or otherwise.

[forgottenjester]

We all do but how much of it is apparent to the reader? 'Cause you don't have to convince yourself that it's something different. You gotta convince other people.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh yeah, seeing the rash of woobie Loki profic that is just Hiddleston, but with a myth window dressing to get out of the copyright thing. It just seems UGH to me, the bad fanart for the front covers on Amazon even look like Hiddleston, and I will read many things about MCU Loki, and myth Loki, but not that. Especially when the author spams the #norse mythology tag on tumblr for it under their many aliases.

[mautradutor]

Oh my! I didn't know that was happening in that fandom. As someone who enjoys the mythology, I find that is very unpleasant and rude. I would not want to be fooled in reading fanfic or have more difficulties to find legitimate texts because of something like that.