> 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
With fictional characters created (and copyrighted) by an individual and licensed for use by an entertainment group who then has to handle them, it's difficult to tell who's call it would be. I would assume that anyone in the chain of ownership or liability might make that decision. As far as affecting Lucasfilm's "image"... I think that it wouldn't matter. I don't know the mentality of the people that wrote the slash fiction in the first place, but I don't think many fans would know about it in any event. That's shooting from the hip with no evidence though. I have several SW fans in the office (about 5) and the two I asked said it didn't affect their desire to see the new movie at all. However, when you think about it, they were taking a slash at what had to be some rather blatantly negative material using their characters. They would have to think it would not hurt their wallet too deeply for them to take the action. Hatton > > > > > 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
