I agree, Hatton. But who decides what the line is here for distasteful and compromising of the characters?
Technically, all fan fiction is a violation of copyright. But Lucasfilm has been looking the other way for years because the fan base is what built up SW. Paramount has a tradition of cracking down on ST fanfic online and offline and prosecuting. Lucasfilm doesn't. Will this, in the long run, hurt or harm Lucasfilm's image with the fans? Judith > > > > Of course, one could make the point that the Constitution > > > does _not_ say > > > > your right to not be pissed is protected. Although many people would > > > > disagree, see various "hate speech" type laws around the country. > > > > Personally, I think the more an idiot is allowed to spew > > > hate speech, > > > > the more people will realize... well, that they are an idiot. ;) > > > > > > Agreed, but you miss my point. My example was more along the > > > lines of a > > > slander or libel, not hate speech or anything along those > > > lines. You can be > > > pissed all you want about an idiot spewing, but when someone > > > takes your name > > > and uses it in a slanderous way, then the law can be involved. > > > > > > > Personally, I think libel/slander should be legal as well.... in theory. > > I should be able to say that you have three arms, even if that is a > > complete lie. I'm kind of an absolutist when it comes to free speech. > > (Of course, nothing works in absolutes, and it would be different if > > Newsweek said you had 3 arms.) > >I would hope that any competent person would see a difference between the >absurd (your 3 arms suggestion) and the graphic (such as the stories that >were pulled.) The first difference is that while you can draw me with 3 >arms 4 legs and a pair of horns, these stories took a step down the Dark >Side (sorry, couldn't resist). My example of slander or libel would make >the implication that people were involved in rather interesting sexual >escapades. That is what this "slash fiction" does. Some may not find lies >to that scale disturbing, others would be threatening lawsuits if they found >their name and likeness put into such a situation. > >My personal opinion in the matter is that once your freedoms begin >restricting mine or attacking my personal beliefs directly with attacks >aimed at me personally, we have problems. > >We're also going a little off the topic by using that example. I think a >better case might be made if your company (blah.com just to throw an example >out) had a group of characters that were used in commercials. What would >the reaction be if someone took those characters and then created an >explicit (and to some minds immoral or unethical) carnal story line that >bordered on the bizarre. If this was done without permission (since the >characters are copyright) then using the character's name and possibly image >in the story would be considered copyright infringement. > >Had the names been altered, the setting changed from what the characters are >normally found in... then that might be enough of a change to be considered >artistic license. No changes are made though. > >Hatton > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
