Talk:Fan fiction: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(copyright discussion) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
...and by using the "stub" template, I '''DON'T''' MEAN that you should DENATURE MY ANALYSIS. Just that a lot more information about fanfiction can be added to this entry. | ...and by using the "stub" template, I '''DON'T''' MEAN that you should DENATURE MY ANALYSIS. Just that a lot more information about fanfiction can be added to this entry. | ||
--[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 01:05, 10 December 2006 (PST) | --[[User:Ide Cyan|Ide Cyan]] 01:05, 10 December 2006 (PST) | ||
* Ide Cyan, this is a wiki, so anyone can edit it ... if you want it to remain "your" analysis, you should post it as an essay on the blog. (Also -- if this is going to be categorized "materialist analysis then it should probably be retitled, "Materialist analysis of fan fiction"; other approaches to fan fiction might reasonably find a home here, too. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 18:29, 18 February 2007 (PST) | |||
=="legitimate" and copyright== | |||
I write to raise some issues with the discussion of copyright. First, the use of the term "legitimate" for licensed fanfic or fanfic based on public domain works suggests that other fanfic is "''il''legitimate", an assertion that is not based in law. Relatedly, the phrase "the lawful attacks of copyright owners" suggests that copyright holders (I prefer "holders" to "owners" because it makes clear that copyright is not a traditional "property" right) are within their rights to "attack" fanfic; that is not necessarily and always the case. | |||
I would just edit the article, but for two things. (1) I want to make sure I understand what the original author is getting at, and clarify my issues with the language, and have discussion first ... and (2) there seems to be an element of possessiveness in the above comment, so I wanted to work that out first, too. --[[User:Lquilter|LQ]] 18:29, 18 February 2007 (PST) | |||
Revision as of 18:30, 18 February 2007
...and by using the "stub" template, I DON'T MEAN that you should DENATURE MY ANALYSIS. Just that a lot more information about fanfiction can be added to this entry. --Ide Cyan 01:05, 10 December 2006 (PST)
- Ide Cyan, this is a wiki, so anyone can edit it ... if you want it to remain "your" analysis, you should post it as an essay on the blog. (Also -- if this is going to be categorized "materialist analysis then it should probably be retitled, "Materialist analysis of fan fiction"; other approaches to fan fiction might reasonably find a home here, too. --LQ 18:29, 18 February 2007 (PST)
"legitimate" and copyright
I write to raise some issues with the discussion of copyright. First, the use of the term "legitimate" for licensed fanfic or fanfic based on public domain works suggests that other fanfic is "illegitimate", an assertion that is not based in law. Relatedly, the phrase "the lawful attacks of copyright owners" suggests that copyright holders (I prefer "holders" to "owners" because it makes clear that copyright is not a traditional "property" right) are within their rights to "attack" fanfic; that is not necessarily and always the case.
I would just edit the article, but for two things. (1) I want to make sure I understand what the original author is getting at, and clarify my issues with the language, and have discussion first ... and (2) there seems to be an element of possessiveness in the above comment, so I wanted to work that out first, too. --LQ 18:29, 18 February 2007 (PST)