38 replies to this topic

[BakeNeko-Chan]

According to the information in the link deviouslyChaotic posted, the real problem isn't "SOPA" but "TPP" or the Trans-Pacific Partnership. If this were to came to pass it would expand the definition of 'copy' for all signatory nations and turn copyright violations done without commercial motivation into crimes, meaning things like fanfiction and fanart could become criminal matters. 

 

I really hope this doesn't happen.

 

 

Edit:

 

Here's more information on TPP:

 

http://www.fromthetr...net-censorship-

 

This thing goes way beyond fandom.

Edited by BakeNeko-Chan, 17 March 2014 - 05:41 PM.

[Liu bie]

If is  real, so I want to see your fanfic ending BakeNeko and of course the others  writers from this forum I want to see  the best Narusaku that you have ever written.

 

In the end I hope that was not true.

[BakeNeko-Chan]

If is  real, so I want to see your fanfic ending BakeNeko and of course the others  writers from this forum I want to see  the best Narusaku that you have ever written.

 

In the end I hope that was not true.

 

It definitely appears to be true, but the talks for the TPP agreement have apparently stalled over some key issues and there is a big push to open the matter to public input. If that happens there is a good chance that it won't pass because of the extreme censorship rules it would implement, not only for the U.S, but Japan, Australia, Mexico, Canada and more. So hopefully people keep spreading the word and speak out to keep this thing from coming to pass. Fingers crossed on this one.

 

I hope I will be able to finish my fic, I put a lot of work into it and I don't want something like this to keep me from finishing what I started.

Edited by BakeNeko-Chan, 17 March 2014 - 08:19 PM.

[narusakuforlife1667]

Are they serious  ughhhhhhh all that time I spent on my fanfic for nothing

[kidNinja]

Why are you guys stressing out about something that most likely won't even pass if real. There are much bigger and more important issues to tend to. I really don't get y'all sometimes and that's coming from a fanfic writer.

Edited by kidNinja, 18 March 2014 - 01:27 AM.

[xxRomanceGirlxx]

I mostly don't believe it will come to pass, but as fanfic writer with many ideas for my current stories and future ones, this attempted censorship is making me a little nervous.  I don't want to have take down all the work I did because of something as extreme as this.

 

I personally feel like if this law must be acted upon, it should be a personal choice on the opinion of the creator of whatever series they have. It shouldn't be outlawed worldwide, but certain authors can decide to ban fanfiction/fanarts of their work if it displeases them and sees as plagiarism. That's the more sensible option and definitely more fair.

 

I'm really confused ... why exactly is fanfiction and fanart apparently causing harm?

[deviouslyChaotic]

Guys… don't just brush this off by saying "Oh, hopefully it won't pass." This is not a law therefore, it is not a matter of being passed or not. This "new SOPA" is a network of mutual agreements and treaties. "Basically, since the people behind SOPA can't get it passed into law and enforced by the government, they're trying to get companies on the internet, like ISPs, hosts, Domain Name Registers, etc., to do it for them. They want these companies to sign contracts to enforce SOPA-like provisions on their own, and they'll probably strong arm them into doing it by using financial incentives like the threat of a lawsuit(flamewarflipsides)" "It's my understanding that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a CLOSED committee negotiating for an international treaty(flamewarflipsides)." (Source: http://flamewarflips...down-439990931)

Signing a petition probably won't do anything since the government is not directly involved… SOPA activists are being very sneaky about this. 

 

 

I'm really confused ... why exactly is fanfiction and fanart apparently causing harm?

It is because fan art and fan fiction uses copyrighted characters. These characters are part of someone else's intellectual property. So, SOPA's goal is to "protect" this intellectual property of the author. That includes removing fan art and fan fiction that uses copyrighted characters and materials.

Edited by deviouslyChaotic, 18 March 2014 - 02:48 AM.

[xxRomanceGirlxx]

Like I said before, it's not companies right to ban fanarts/fanfiction for the "author's" property. I should be the author's choice whether to ban it or not since it is their series and their characters. This shouldn't be applied to everyone and as far as I'm concerned, this banning attempt is far too extreme unless the writers/artists claim it as their own or don't do some sort of disclaimer or sig. That I support.

[Jenskott]

I... honestly, if this is real, I do not see how it can possibly work. Too many people creates derivative works. Do they plan jailing everyone? And in places like ff.net any average twelve-eyar-old can make up a fake identity and write a fic about the first chapter of the newest anime has been just aired and he/she has just watched (and declared it is the biggest masterpiece ever, way better that old crap that old farts call "classics", which he/she has never watched but he/she KNOWS it is garbage... I am sorry, digressing here  Middle-aged fanboy trait). How can you prosecute that?

 

On one hand, companies have all legal rights to take action. Those are their properties so they can do whatever they want with them, and decide whether they allow another people play with them or not (I still remember during a discussion about ooc-ness in fanfiction someone claimed writers have right to make whatever they want with those characters. I shook my head, because fanfiction writers have NO that right. Neither they created the characters nor they own them , so they have no right to make however they pleases them with them. That is because ff.net did not accept fanfiction submissions if those stories were about a property whose owners had complained).

 

And on other hand, fanworks show your work is popular and may help to make it more popular. There are people checks a fic or fanart about a series, becomes interested, and checks the original material. Ban fanworks sounds like a sure way to make your customers loathing you. They can stop buying your products, your property ceases being popular and you stop making profit.

 

And on the other hand ("What OTHER hand? Most people begins with two, you know!" "Pfffft. Peasant.") if you allow copyright violations, you can lose your copyright.

 

This link explains because pretty well: http://www.jimshoote...-vengeance.html

 

I’m not a lawyer, but for over nine years, as Editor in Chief at Marvel, I was obliged to represent Marvel’s legal position to creators with regard to their work. I worked closely with Marvel’s house counsel and outside counsel. I attended an intellectual property law seminar. I was called upon to give depositions in several cases. In more recent years, I have served four times as an expert witness on cases involving IP issues. I know a good bit about the subject.

[...]

2.  Speculating about Marvel’s motives seems like a road to nowhere. From the outside, Marvel’s suit against Gary looks to me like one of those defend-the-trademark things. If you know someone is violating your trademark and you don’t do anything about it, you may lose your trademark. You must take action. You can’t pretend to take action. No “just kidding, we don’t really want the money.” I believe that a judge would frown upon that. You have to at least look like you’re serious. That said, is it possible that Marvel will show a little compassion and never bother to collect, or in some other way let Gary skate. Could be. We’ll see.

 

However, is this a violation worth to pursue? In spite of how often it happens, it seems quite insignificant (ultimately people will want reading/watching the real stuff, instead a fanwork). And BECAUSE how often it happens, you can face serious backlash of people thinks they are being unjustly hounded by greedy mega-corporations. And that people are your actual or potential customers.

 

One or other way, I think nothing will come from it. Even if it is real and it comes to pass, and it may create inconveniences (hotfile has been shut down. I just found out yesterday), the sum of all fandoms is too big of a dragon to slay. Fans will find or create other places to share their works.

[luffyq1]

We've reached over 100k :)

[BakeNeko-Chan]

Like I said before, it's not companies right to ban fanarts/fanfiction for the "author's" property. I should be the author's choice whether to ban it or not since it is their series and their characters. This shouldn't be applied to everyone and as far as I'm concerned, this banning attempt is far too extreme unless the writers/artists claim it as their own or don't do some sort of disclaimer or sig. That I support.

 

Unfortunately though, once an author sells the copyright to their work to a publisher, it is no longer solely theirs and the rights they have to their own work will depend on the contract. The company/publisher have rights to the work too, and in some cases the author may end up losing the rights entirely to the company/publisher. Say, an author of a popular series decided that they didn't want to keep writing the series anymore for whatever reason, but the publisher wants the series to keep going; they may have the "right" to find someone else to ghostwrite the series and the original creator would have no way to fight it because the work is technically the property of the publisher.

 

I agree that something like the subject of allowing fanworks to be published on fansites should be up to the original creator to decide, and authors do have the right to ban fans from using their work now. FF.net isn't allowed to publish anything based off Ann Rice works for example, and there are others too. If a writer doesn't want their story and characters being used in derivative works by fans, that is totally understandable, but it shouldn't be banned entirely and made into a criminal offense. That is just ridiculous.

[manbeast101]

I honestly don't know why these people are going after the fandoms, because without fandoms, things like manga wouldn't be as popular if fans didn't spread the word about new works and stuff. Also, in a way, this ruins the potential for future writers and authors because many are inspired to write by other people's works.

 

Besides, I thought it was only copyright infringement if money was being made off the fan work or something like that, I don't know much about how this whole copyright thing works.

 

I also think that what they are attempting to do is violating Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression, both of which are protected by the Constitution and by extent, the Bill of Rights. Plus I think that with them doing this behind the public's back, I think it might be like vigilantism, which is AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!! When will they learn that they or anyone else CANNOT control the internet like that without angering a lot of people, or do they just not care?

 

Plus, if this succeeds, it will NOT stop at fandoms, oh no, it would just be the beginning and only get worse because these people in the TPP or whatever, would just abuse this thing and make life in general and on the internet miserable, because it would destroy most of the internet anyway, so I think they are idiots for attempting to try this crap AGAIN!!!!!!!

 

Sorry for the long comment, but I REALLY had to get this off my chest.

Edited by manbeast101, 19 March 2014 - 01:43 AM.

[MangaReader]

I feel like this thing is just to scare people into thinking this will turn into a witch hunt... we have more serious problems in this country then online piracy anyway :-P

[Heartsbattle]

I feel like this thing is just to scare people into thinking this will turn into a witch hunt... we have more serious problems in this country then online piracy anyway :-P

When it has to do with someone's money you get faster action than when we have social issues. Sad, but true. 

 

 

But I don't think we'll see jail time. Most likely fines. The prisons are filled already so if anyone got sent to jail because of this they would most likely be let out due to over crowding. 

[Jenskott]

Unfortunately though, once an author sells the copyright to their work to a publisher, it is no longer solely theirs and the rights they have to their own work will depend on the contract. The company/publisher have rights to the work too, and in some cases the author may end up losing the rights entirely to the company/publisher. Say, an author of a popular series decided that they didn't want to keep writing the series anymore for whatever reason, but the publisher wants the series to keep going; they may have the "right" to find someone else to ghostwrite the series and the original creator would have no way to fight it because the work is technically the property of the publisher.

 

That is also a factor, and it has spawned a good amount of lawsuits in American comic-book industry since it used to be customary business practice during decades. Up to late sixties, writers and artists were work-for-hire: they were paid for their work, but the company owned all they created. And NO ONE thought absolutely nothing of it, since as far as they were concerned, they were producing disposable rags for little kids would throw them away after reading them.

 

However, Marvel changed that in the sixties. Before then, the reading population outgrew and quit comic-books after a few years and were replaced by the next generation of children. Marvel Comics created a public genuinely NEEDED knowing what would happen to their heroes/heroines in the next issue, so they stuck around. That led to both positive and negative consequences (IMO, a negative consequence of readers growing up was that they demanded their comic-books "grew up" with them instead of accepting they were made for another kind of public and appreciate them for that they were or quit them. Thus, kid-oriented comic-books began to be filled with -often awfully-written- dark stuff or/and political and social issues... a. k. a., the writer trying to shoving his/her ideological agenda down the readers' throats. And adult entertainment began to corner and canibalize child entertainment).

 

A consecuence of that was the next: Nobody cared for original art work before then. It was given as gifts or cast in the trash bin (Harold Foster's Prince Valiant original pages were used for covering floors in rainy days). But then a bunch of older fans loved those comics and were willing pay cash for those pages showed up. Then creators thought "Hey, maybe this stuff is worth of money. I want it back!" and in turn publishers thought "Yes, ri- Wait a minute, we had agreed your work belonged to us! If we returned these pages it may imply that is not the case!".

 

Cue disputes between creators and publishers.

 

People often complains Siegel and Shuster (Superman's creators) being ripped off by DC, and Jack Kirby (co-creator of Fantastic Four, Thor, The Avengers...), Steve Ditko (co-creator of Spider-Man and Dr. Strange) and other creators were shafted by Marvel, and often accuse -wrongly- Stan Lee of stealing credit and cheating Kirby and Ditko (in spite of he did nothing of the sorts). However they were adults when they signed their contracts, they understood the terms and that that was the norm in the time, and they were paid duly according their contracts.

 

Unfair? Maybe. Marvel has made a vast amount of profit from their work. However their situation is completely legal. And it hardly seems fair they turn back on their words only because they could not have guessed those funny books they created -and did not care for- would be worth milions after several decades.

 

Jim Shooter started writing comic-books when he was fourteen. On the back of his paychecks was always written "We own everything". Paraphrasing his own words "I perfectly understood the terms when I was fourteen. I do not believe an adult did not get them."

 

In Japanese comic-books it is different because usually a creator is owner of his work. However there has been some bitter disputes. Go Nagai stopped working with Toei due to several disagreements (they created a Harenchi Gakuen anime and did not pay him. Likewise they did not credit him with the mecha designs for Gaiking in order to not pay him. And their legal fights are the reason is hard to release Mazinger-Z or Grendizer DVDs out of Japan). And the creators of shojo manga Candy Candy have kept a terrible legal fight.

 

I agree that something like the subject of allowing fanworks to be published on fansites should be up to the original creator to decide, and authors do have the right to ban fans from using their work now. FF.net isn't allowed to publish anything based off Ann Rice works for example, and there are others too. If a writer doesn't want their story and characters being used in derivative works by fans, that is totally understandable, but it shouldn't be banned entirely and made into a criminal offense. That is just ridiculous.

 

I agree.

 

I also think that what they are attempting to do is violating Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression, both of which are protected by the Constitution and by extent, the Bill of Rights. Plus I think that with them doing this behind the public's back, I think it might be like vigilantism, which is AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We would have to ask Nate because I am not fully sure, but I do not think that works like you think it does. If they are exercising their rights and freedoms in a way harms other people's rights and freedoms, a judge can rule out against that.

 

And I am quite sure that is not vigilantism.

 

Nate, if you are reading this -and you are not too busy-, please, can we have your input?

Edited by Jenskott, 19 March 2014 - 02:30 PM.

[Nate River]

We would have to ask Nate because I am not fully sure, but I do not think that works like you think it does. If they are exercising their rights and freedoms in a way harms other people's rights and freedoms, a judge can rule out against that.
 
And I am quite sure that is not vigilantism.
 
Nate, if you are reading this -and you are not too busy-, please, can we have your input?

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

This is going to be you problem when trying to claim Freedom of Speech Protection. The Consitution allows for the creation of copyright (and patent). To read the first amendment to do what manbeast implies would render the "Copyright Clause" a nullity. For it to have meaning, the first amendment could not be read to protect the use of other people's creations while it's still subject to copyright law.

About the only way it would work is if, in creating the law did something like violate the 14 Amendment (only certain races got protection for example) or it engaged in viewpoint/content discrimination (only works that the state approves of get copyright...i.e. yes to stories nice about it and no stories that aren't). But a blanket protect for fanworks? I don't see that working.

I also don't see how a court could read that to say only civil enforcement is permitted for certain violations while criminal is permitted for others. I can't see the courts micromanaging the clause and statutes that way (nor do they have any business doing that). It's an issue for Congressional determination, so long as it doesn't violate some other clause, like the Eight Amendment.

The only thing protected in a fanwork is anything within the work that is original to the fan. Of course that won't save you. It's long been established, that the amount appropriated isn't the question, it's whether it was appropriated at all. So, you still an be sued or prosecuted for the material you did use.
 

Besides, I thought it was only copyright infringement if money was being made off the fan work or something like that, I don't know much about how this whole copyright thing works.

Nope.

A commercial element is necessary for criminal prosecution, but for civil lawsuits by those hold rights to the material...it is completely unnecessary. Nor is the lack of commercial element, by itself, enough to give you fair use protection. Supreme Court has said on several occasions whether someone makes money off it is only a small consideration.

Because so many works in question are commercial, I think people focus solely on this, but copyright isn't about money, it's about control. It's hard to make money off your work if you or someone you designate has no control over what happens to it.

[BakeNeko-Chan]

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

This is going to be you problem when trying to claim Freedom of Speech Protection. The Consitution allows for the creation of copyright (and patent). To read the first amendment to do what manbeast implies would render the "Copyright Clause" a nullity. For it to have meaning, the first amendment could not be read to protect the use of other people's creations while it's still subject to copyright law.

About the only way it would work is if, in creating the law did something like violate the 14 Amendment (only certain races got protection for example) or it engaged in viewpoint/content discrimination (only works that the state approves of get copyright...i.e. yes to stories nice about it and no stories that aren't). But a blanket protect for fanworks? I don't see that working.

I also don't see how a court could read that to say only civil enforcement is permitted for certain violations while criminal is permitted for others. I can't see the courts micromanaging the clause and statutes that way (nor do they have any business doing that). It's an issue for Congressional determination, so long as it doesn't violate some other clause, like the Eight Amendment.

The only thing protected in a fanwork is anything within the work that is original to the fan. Of course that won't save you. It's long been established, that the amount appropriated isn't the question, it's whether it was appropriated at all. So, you still an be sued or prosecuted for the material you did use.
 

Nope.

A commercial element is necessary for criminal prosecution, but for civil lawsuits by those hold rights to the material...it is completely unnecessary. Nor is the lack of commercial element, by itself, enough to give you fair use protection. Supreme Court has said on several occasions whether someone makes money off it is only a small consideration.

Because so many works in question are commercial, I think people focus solely on this, but copyright isn't about money, it's about control. It's hard to make money off your work if you or someone you designate has no control over what happens to it.

 

Not exactly encouraging to hear, but thanks for the information.

 

 

News on TPP and what it could mean for the internet:

 

https://www.eff.org/isues/tpp

 

http://tppinfo.org/

[manbeast101]

Thank you Nate for explaining those things, like I said, I am not that smart or knowledgeable when it comes to things like copyright, or the constitution. Those points I made were just me expressing my opinion on this matter, that's all, I was just venting.

 

But I still say the tpp or whatever is stupid for going after the fandoms, not to mention these people who are trying to do this will lose a lot of popularity and support from the public as a whole, again, this is just my opinion on the subject and I am not speaking for anyone else, because everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this matter, or anything. Just typing my thoughts on the matter.

[Jenskott]

Thank you for explaining, Nate.

 

So... much like I imagined, claiming Freedom of Speech will not protect you, right? After all, you are borrowing someone else's property without permission. His/her rights also count and must be protected.

 

 

 

 

News on TPP and what it could mean for the internet:

 

https://www.eff.org/isues/tpp

 

http://tppinfo.org/

 

That does not sound very encouraging either.

 

I do not know... I do not think this law comes to pass. It sounds too severe, and a lot of people will feel that it threatens their freedoms -whether they are actual and law-acknowledged or perceived and spawned of self-entitlement-. It can generate much outrage and bad publicity.

 

However it has been historically proven that people only acts against their rulers and law-makers when their bellies and pockets are empty. Below that, they are willing to put up with much abuse. So maybe whoever is considering this stuff think they can get away with it because only geeks will get mad and their outrage will eventually blow over.