Talk:Fan fiction
...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)
- Just clarifying: Since you posted it here, you don't get to control it any more, denatured or not. 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)
- I don't own the page, but I wrote that initial article, and while I posted it here knowing it'll be edited, I have a right to be pissed off if someone fucks it up. See the Mary Sue entry where someone changed the meaning of a sentence to its opposite without having a clue what he was doing. *g* --Ide Cyan 13:05, 19 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)
- Oh, I'm interested in the official legal perspective you can offer as a professional, but legitimacy isn't limited to written law alone, which itself changes depending on your country, your state, your town, etc. --Ide Cyan 13:05, 19 February 2007 (PST)
- Yes, legitimacy has many different meanings, and legal status is but one type of legitimacy. But in the context of a discussion about fanfic which is specifically talking about copyright, it seems to imply "legal legitimacy", i.e., "licensed" or "authorized" or "not unlawful", etc. So, in that kind of a discussion, I would be wary of the term legitimacy.
- The fact that "legal" legitimacy varies according to sovereignty / jurisdiction and according to social practice is, in fact, one reason why it's confusing to use the term "legitimacy" in a generic legal context (without specifying the body of law / practice that legitimates).
- Also, I should say that as a political matter, beyond any issues of legal nuance and clarity, I resist the conflation of the normative notions of "legitimacy" (good, useful, socially constructive or beneficial, etc.) with the legal definitions of "permissible," "authorized," "licensed," and "legal".
- --LQ 14:53, 19 February 2007 (PST)
- Yes, legitimacy has many different meanings, and legal status is but one type of legitimacy. But in the context of a discussion about fanfic which is specifically talking about copyright, it seems to imply "legal legitimacy", i.e., "licensed" or "authorized" or "not unlawful", etc. So, in that kind of a discussion, I would be wary of the term legitimacy.
- But this isn't a generic legal context. It's a generic feminist context. Do feel free to disambiguate copyright law and legitimacy, though. --Ide Cyan 15:07, 19 February 2007 (PST)
- I meant the context of the article, which has lots of "generic" (i.e., not specific to jurisdiction or sovereignty) legal issues addressed. ... I will work on the legal stuff at some point soon. --LQ 15:26, 19 February 2007 (PST)