Fox Lawyers C&D Buffy Fandom Musical
http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2005/10/fox_lawyers_cd_.html

Ahh, copyright.  The fountain of creativity and artistic expression.
Unless, of course, you're a fan of someone else's copyrighted work and want
to express that artistically by reenacting your favorite episode.

This Halloween weekend here in SF, a local non-profit theater group called
CounterPULSE was sponsoring just such an occasion with a live-action version
of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer musical episode "Once More With Feeling."
The show was being put on as a one-time gig and as a tribute to the fans and
geeks that have been obsessed with the show during its six-season run.  The
idea was not to substitute the show for any purchase of a Buffy product, and
if anything, it might have encouraged more people to rent or purchase the
series on DVD.

But it was not to be.  Word of the musical got out on the 'net and soon
enough, the legal department at Fox slammed the hammer down on CounterPULSE
with a barrage of Cease-and-Desist letters and expensive legal threats.
Predictably, CounterPULSE quickly folded and canceled all the scheduled
shows, despite the fact that the creative force behind Buffy (Joss Whedon)
has said he had no objection to the performances.

So what does one make of this? Well, according to the doctrines of
traditional copyright law, the copyright owner (here, Fox) has the exclusive
right to control public performances of its works, including the musical
episode.  But does this make sense? Is this the kind of copyright policy we
want? Those are tougher questions.  Just as artists are an engine for
creativity in our culture, so are fans.  An artist on their own can make a
work of art, but only fans can make it mean something in our society.  Fans
take art and translate it into culture.  They invest in it, obsess over it,
share it, and spread it to others.  They turn it from an isolated item into
a means of communication.  (For more on this, see danah's posts here and
here where she breaks it down more eloquently).

But where is the recognition of this reality in copyright? Well, before the
digital age, it was often in the idea that copyright was a public right and
fandom was a private series of acts.  Copyright would control public
distribution of works and fans would collect them and share them and discuss
them in private.  More importantly, they would do so without making "copies"
of them; instead, they would trade physical goods and have verbal
conversations.  Some would make costumes or their own art based on the
subject matter, but those were generally kept private or only exhibited at
limited forums like Comic Cons.

Yet now, in the age of the Internet, online fandom has become massively
popular.  There are huge communities of fans who are having millions of
conversations about the copyrighted works they love.  Not only are many of
these conversations happening in public on the Internet, but because they
are conducted over networks with computers, they are had by making copies --
copies of the works, copies of clips and snips, and copies of images and
sounds.

All these copies are potential copyright problems, just as the live-action
Buffy musical was a potential copyright problem because it was public.  Yet
copyright does not explicitly protect these parts of our culture the same
way it protects the artists who create the original fandomed work.  There
is, of course, the fair use doctrine in copyright law, but traditionally, it
has not included fan-based works unless they were explicitly parodies,
commentary, or criticism.  Perhaps the time has come that it should.  If we
want copyright law to be a vibrant engine for fan creativity as well as
artist creativity, fans must be treated as equal partners is cultural
production and not just as passive consumers of "artistic" creations.



You are a subscribed member of the infowarrior list. Visit 
www.infowarrior.org for list information or to unsubscribe. This message 
may be redistributed freely in its entirety. Any and all copyrights 
appearing in list messages are maintained by their respective owners.

Reply via email to