What's Wrong With Paying Homage To A Literary Classic By Writing A Sequel?
from the trying-to-figure-it-out dept
Against Monopoly points us to a NY Times article that discusses some of the recent "controversies" over unauthorized sequels/prequels/re-imaginings of certain classic books, including the ban on an unauthorized "sequel" to Catcher in the Rye -- as well as the awesome addition of zombies to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, now known as Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. But the key point is made towards the end:Yet the urge to write sequels and prequels is almost always an homage of sorts. We don't want more of books we hate. The books that get re-written and re-imagined are beloved. We don't want them ever to be over. We pay them the great compliment of imagining that they're almost real: that there must be more to the story, and that characters we know so well -- Elizabeth Bennet, for one, or Sherlock Holmes, who has probably inspired more sequels than any other fictional being -- must have more to their lives. In a couple of quite good sequels recently -- "A Slight Trick of the Mind," by Mitch Cullin, and "Final Solution: A Story of Detection," by Michael Chabon -- we even get to watch Holmes grow old and discover love of a sort.And, then when you think about it, if copyright is designed to encourage more creativity, wouldn't these sorts of re-imaginings of already existing fictional worlds fit that criteria exactly?
Certain books are more than mere texts -- words on a page or, these days, an electronic reading device. They're part of our mental furniture. And yet it's their familiarity, their well-wornness, that makes them such tempting targets. If zombies were to turn up, for example, in Mrs. Gaskell's "Cranford," it wouldn't be nearly so funny.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, creativity, homage, sequels, writing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I hesitate to say something positive about the music industry but, given the last elections sampling of music by John McCain (Heart's Barracuda for example), I liked how by making sure the artist was compensated fairly anyone could use the works during the time copyright was still in effect. Heart didn't like it much, but as was pointed out, they didn't have much say because the licenses had been properly paid.
The Heart example was just 'using' an original work as is not transformative. But would it have been different if they had simply changed the words to include 'Sarah Barracuda' so that it wasn't exactly the same? I think paying the royalty fee would allow you to do what you want with it, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They get exclusive rights over copying. Why should that extend to writing new works? There ought to be no such thing as copyright over a character (I don't know if there is or not, copyright law is such a mess).
So unless the character is trademarked (which I think is also problematic unless the character is actually used as a mark to represent an entire company or brand), anyone should be able to release a novel or movie about Batman, Captain Kirk, Gatsby, or anyone else, without worrying about whether the original author approves. But just try it and count the days (or perhaps hours) until you get sued. The exact opposite of what copyright is supposed to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But the copyright should exist independent of any person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But what happens if a writer dies and doesn't assign his copyright to anyone? Does that mean the work keeps copyright but no one has the ability to license out that content? How does that "promote the progress of science and useful arts"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not the author, it's the copyright owner. If they happen to be the same, sure. But who owns the copyrights to Disney movies? Why, the Disney company, of course. The author and his or her descendants won't see a plugged nickle past whatever is in their contract.
...Depends on the movie, of course, but I think you get the idea.
Same with music: the typical contract gives the rights to ASCAP or something. The artist collects money until his contract is up, if he's lucky. But somebody else owns the copyright and gets to collect if the recording keeps selling.
Always keep that in mind, especially when arguing the pros and cons of extended copyright. Who benefits? The copyright owner -- who is NOT necessarily the author or heirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
troll much?
28 years, period. No extensions, no lifetime benefits. It's ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: troll much?
what this means is that any work created in today's generation won't become public domain until this generation's grand-kids are retired, if even then.
that's what's really messed up with the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: troll much?
The length of copyright is an entirely different issue and I completely agree it's been pushed into abusive territory. We weren't talking about copyright length...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't use to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Didn't use to be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One writer's ego
On another note, does anyone know if an author gets special privileges to take a story with them when they die? Is there a special deal worked out with God or some other deity over this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just don't get it...
If I were to write a sequel to a book, and it took off, don't you think that people would then go and discover the original work? I would!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My only issue as a writer
For instance, I have a story, intended to be a series, in which a very, very anti-government citizen is pursuing national traitors that are part of the Illuminati. Now, I've got one book done, and I'm working on another. What if the 1st get released, someone really likes and is a talented writer, and then writes a popular sequel in which my anti-government character gives into temptation and joins the FBI? Well, depending on its popularity, that story can seriously fuck up the canon(sp?) of the story I was in the midst of creating.
There definitely needs to be a limit, thought. If an author hasn't released a work including that character within, say, 5 years, then you're no longer actively creating and others should be allowed to do so.
I'm thinking along the lines of the tight control that Lucas keeps over the Star Wars universe in all the novels by all of the authors working on that universe. The stories have to be approved to make sure they're in keeping with the canon. In a tightly limited way....I guess as a writer I kind of like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My only issue as a writer
So your fear is that someone is better than you... What if that "someone" writes a book with the same themes without knowing anything about your book and it becomes more popular than yours? What grounds will you be missed off at them then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
Believe me, I know that's how it sounds, but for me at least that's NOT what I mean. When you invest in the creation of a character, invest the time, money for classes/books/etc., emotions, whatever, and you're actively writing that story out over several books, I just think it would suck to have someone hijack that in a way that it becomes canon. Granted, it probably wouldn't happen very often, since too many things would have to line up, including the sequel writer being an excellent writer and good enough at transitioning from the original work that people would generally accept the work as canon.
Take a look at my long list of past comments, I ain't pro-copyright. But what if someone wrote a sequel to the 2nd Harry Potter book in which he died in the 3rd book, and it was good enough that most Harry Potter fans read the book and accepted it as canon. Wouldn't that be kidn of shitty when Rowling was actively working on book 3? Funny, but shitty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
But who's going to confuse that with canon? Slashfic has been around for forty frakin' years, and nobody, slashfic writers included, accepts Kirk/Spock as canon.
It's just another rent-seeking moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "canon" is in creative world.
First, you assume that one derivative work can all of a sudden define and cement canon. That is wrong. "Canon" does not get defined for a long time and might actually get redefined over time as more and more gets written. Feel free to check out the world of comic books. Also, the original authors commonly have an upper hand in creating "canon" even in a corporate environment such as comic book writing where the works do not belong to them.
Second, you somehow think that there is such a thing as a "good enough" book being able to kill off series. Really? If Halloween series is any sort of indicator, people have an insatiable appetite for MORE of what they liked.
You are still coming off as a writer who is afraid to be outdone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
You build a huge building, and then someone shows up, sticks their flag on top, and claims part ownership of the entire building.
See where that goes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
Er, no.
More like you build your dream house over a waterfall, and someone comes along and explains why that is a stupid idea, since you've now built an expensive house in a floodplain.
See where that goes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
You could do a great job or make a horrible mess. Neither would be blamed on the architect. And in the case of a story (not something physical), there's nothing to stop the original designer coming along and revising the design to be more pleasing, or to build another addition, or do something else that might stretch this tenuous metaphor further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
No true fan would be oblivious to the fact that the book wasn't written by the original author. That is my issue with your argument. Wait a minute...this book was written by J.R. Bowling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
"Canon" by definition would be only work written by Rowling. If an alternate-universe Harry Potter fanfic were really good, then it would be appreciated for being really good, but it would never be canon, unless it were misrepresented as Rowling's work.
(Something like that did actually happen in the run-up to the publication of the last book, when someone took a fanfic and claimed it was a leaked copy of the book. Many people took it seriously, but only because Rowling's name was on it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
But seriously, it really ISN'T that I'm afraid to be outdone, mostly because I KNOW I will be. I'm not the greatest writer out there, not by a long shot, but what few characters I've fully fleshed out I truly LOVE. They're not mine, per se, but I already know they're futures and I they're part of me.
I don't know, I have to do a lot of thinking on this one. Like I said, I'm far from a pro-IP guy, so I'm not sure how to reconcile this other than perhaps to say my instincts are getting in the way of true understanding....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
It might piss you off, offend you to the core, and even be assholish of me but I have the right to do it, and it does you no actual harm, monetarily or otherwise.
What I cannot do is take your book, scribble out your name, write mine in, and sell it as my own work. I also could not write anything and claim to be you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My only issue as a writer
The original author fleshed out the characters, wove the plotlines, designed the tech or magic that powers their worlds, and set their universe in motion. In other words, fanfic authors are guests in the original author's house.
Interstitial stories between the author's own work, minor plotlines filled in, even entire worlds dropped in the corner of the universe; but you don't change the major characters or their plots as a guest author.
If you're a good guest, the worst you'll really face is being ignored. You could even be invited back. If you're a bad guest and start breaking your host's universe, expect to be put down like a rabid dog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not in the slightest. 90% of the creativity in it happened in the creation of the original characters, settings, and situations. Writing a "homage" or an extension is a remix artist version of writing.
If you want to be creating, create your own characters, your own settings, and your own circumstances. Using someone else's is just not very creative at all. In the end, copyright is designed in many ways to exactly preclude this going over the same rut, making people think past the ends of their noses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I believe you are mistaken in assuming that ALL homage's and/or extensions are a static lengthening of the original work.
Take Time Ships by Stephen Baxter. It is a homage/extension of HG Wells Time Machine. In it the character goes through completely different ordeals and the character evolves throughout the book. All new settings, crammed with character development, new characters thrown in the mix, different situations...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, tell that to Shakespeare, who used others' characters for most of his works, including pretty much all of the famous ones.
He wasn't creating at all, I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When they added screenplay, script, animation, choreography, etc, apparently according to AC, they weren't creating or adding any value.
Rudyard who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The very common perception you have is consistent with all big businesses that can claim rights to a franchise. Microsoft makes zillions off of the dominance of Windows, Rowling makes cake off of ownership of Potter, etc.
But what is so seldom recognized is that the value in these brands, these rights, these canons is conferred upon the brand by the fans that have invested in reading, installing, learning the material. You see, people have a limited appetite for 'stuff'. Learning new stories and characters is hard. It's easier to just follow the existing franchises that we already know. Change is resisted, new things are feared and rejected.
I think this is a negative characteristic of humans, but it is real. Some of the effects are: the fascination with celebrity (we prefer to see familiar actors in films, rather than unknowns with more talent). Racism is a reaction to things that are different. My kids prefer stories with known characters, like Little Mermaid spin-offs over better content with unknown characters. They are invested in Ariel. Humans are, by design, drawn to familiarity.
So if the first Harry Potter book is good, and millions read it, and become invested in it, then we (as an audience) now confer upon the brand the value it holds. Rowling *could have* written absolute shit as a follow-up and still had a NYT best-seller. We don't want another set of characters and settings, we want more of these characters but in new situations. But (with copyright and trademark) there is only one place we can get it...Rowling is our pusher.
Perhaps under the current system, she's earned that right. But my point is that she now has an unfair advantage (against any book of new characters) that is conferred to the Potter brand BY US, not by her ongoing output. We're hooked on Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Dumbledore. In a sense, we all "own" these characters, as they are just ideas. And if she didn't want to share them, why were they published and sold in the first place? I fairly bought my knowledge of Harry Potter's world...don't I even own the resulting ideas in my head?
You suggest that authors should be forced to write about new characters, in order to, in turn, force readers to "think past the ends of their noses". Forcing the customer is not generally a good way to increase the audience. But if you're right, why does that not apply to Rowling, too? Under your logic, new characters support the greater good, so copyright should also be designed to force Rowling to abandon Potter after book 1, and get creative with new characters.
end rambling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because Disney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Because Disney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Because Disney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few more recent examples
...although there have been no copyright controversies about them:
* "Shoggoths in Bloom", an obvious H. P. Lovecraft derivative, which won Best Novelette at this year's Hugo Awards (and deservedly so, IMHO)
* "Pride and Prometheus" (PDF), one of its fellow nominees, which combines Pride and Prejudice with Frankenstein
* Lavinia, by Ursula K. Le Guin, which retells part of the Aeneid from a different point of view
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright to foster creativity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright to foster creativity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: creativity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: creativity?
Exactly! How dare:
Roger McBride Allen
Aaron Allston
John Alvin
Kevin J. Anderson
Greg Bear
Terry Brooks
Craig Carey
Chris Cassidy
Marc Cerasini
Dan Cragg
A. C. Crispin
Elaine Cunningham
Aaron Curtis
Brian Daley
Cathal Danaher
Hollace Davids
Paul Davids
Troy Denning
William C. Dietz
Shane Dix
Dave Dorman
Tommy Lee Edwards
Graham Fontes
Ron Fontes
Alan Dean Foster
Donald F. Glut
Christopher Golden
Barbara Hambly
Elizabeth Hand
Rich Handley
Patty Jackson
K. W. Jeter
Drew Karpyshyn
Greg Keyes
Monica Kulling
James Luceno
Michael P. Kube-McDowell
Vonda McIntyre
Ralph McQuarrie
Steve Miller
Rebecca Moesta
Christopher Moroney
Charlene Newcomb
Tish Eggleston Pahl
John Peel
Steve Perry
Michael Reaves
Nancy Richardson
Voronica Whitney-Robinson
Kristine Kathryn Rusch
R. A. Salvatore
Peter Schweighofer
David Sherman
A. L. Singer
Bill Slavicsek
L. Neil Smith
Michael A. Stackpole
Sean Stewart
Matthew Stover
Todd Strasser
Karen Traviss
Chris Trevas
Ezra Tucker
Kathy Tyers
Boris Vallejo
Graham Mcsweyn
Daniel Wallace
Jude Watson
John Whitman
Ryder Windham
Dean Williams
Sean Williams
Walter Jon Williams
Dave Wolverton
Timothy Zahn
Consider their authorized Star Wars Universe novels "creative". All they did was...create...wai a minute....
Retard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: creativity?
And start thinking of it as 'using a set of characters that the general public knows and enjoys as a starting point.'
It's about connecting with the audience in a way they want, NOT about taking something away from the original author. The original book will probably fare better as a result, and the original author is still free to compete in the marketplace with subsequent work.
A derivative author is not "stealing" the author's characters, but is giving the audience a new story that they want. S/he is building on something the audience has, not something the original author has.
Except that in an IP-centric world, the author apparently owns all the consumer's familiarity, appreciation, and attachment to fictional characters. How they own things inside my brain is unclear to me, but so it is.
"Copy right law is fostering creativity here by encouraging original ideas"
If so, then shouldn't the law also force Rowling to stop writing Potter novels? No. When people become tired of this franchise, then new ones will emerge. Think of sitcoms. M*A*S*H lasted a long time. There were many writers of the show, but all used the same characters and setting. It ran its course, used up some of the better storylines, and came to an end. There are always plenty of pilots to potentially replace it. Would it be better if every TV show had only one episode, then the next week, we had new characters, new settings, blah, blah?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sequels, prequels and parodies
Comparing Austen, who is dead as a post, and Salinger, who is alive and well, is specious.
Holden Caulfield is Salinger's creation. If he is working on any addition to his creation's fictional history, or intends to in the future, homage be damned. A pirate is at work building a critical reputation and probably some coin without half as much creativity or labor as Caulfield's inventor. Here a shock to Technodirt readers: writing well requires more than typing. That's not homage--it is theft.
Austen on the other hand can be relied upon not to be producing more work. Give 'em zombies, and if people hunger for Elizabeth and Darcy eating brains, get crazy. Rewrite Shakespeare. Perform Macbeth naked.
But taking a living writer's work isn't about homage or defending the canon -- it's about expoloitation, quick profit, and theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sequels, prequels and parodies
It might (or might not) be about exploitation and quick profit, but what is this strange definition of "theft"? For there to be theft, someone must be deprived of the use of the property.
If I write an unauthorized sequel of a living author's work, that author is deprived of nothing -- not even the "potential profit" that music labels claim. The author will not lose any sales because I gained some. It's a very, very different thing than if I copied your work and sold it as mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sequels, prequels and parodies
Parody is an excellent example of why derivative works don't harm the original. It is a derivative work that can change the original plot and characters in any number of ways, and have them do any number of things, good or bad. Nobody views that as harming the original author's work, do they? Nobody confuses something on CollegeHumor or FunnyOrDie with the original author's work.
As long as the distinction is made that it isn't the same author (e.g. it isn't Salinger's own Holden Caulfield), why should it matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please..
Please explain to us poor, stupid mortals exactly what the author is *permanently* deprived of when someone "steals" from him by using his characters/stories? I think we would all be enlightened as to how that works and how the loss is transferred from the author to the "thief."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately, no. Just because you made up a fictional world, say the Seinfeld TV show, the details of that show are not facts. Similarly, creativity is not embodied merely in the words but also in created characters and plot. Copyright certainly protects characters and plot.
However, I'm not convinced that fan fic isn't protected by fair use. Assuming fan fic is clearly differentiated from authorized works, I have a hard time believing it affects marked for authorized works. In addition, it's strongly transformative. I would argue that fan fic does infringe the copyright but is protected by fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Authority and One True Way
The fact is that much of the meaning and interpretation of culture is done *by the audience*. WE decide what works we value. We interpret them in our everyday lives. Collectively, all of these little acts of interpretation and meaning-making are what make a given piece of art significant for the culture as a whole. We are co-creators of art. (And by giving it meaning, we also give it popularity and economic value. We create the success of blockbusters - one reason why that success is so hard to predict.)
We all interpret art differently. I have heard of a study of convicts watching one of the Die Hard movies. Whereas most people see the films as ultimately supporting law and order, the convicts cheered to see the criminals giving the police a piece of their own medicine. The film for them *was a different movie* from what you or I would see.
I once read an article proposing that the Lord of the Rings was written from the point of view of the victors. Naturally they had depicted their opponents as evil. From the other side, things looked quite differently. Sauron's armies were racially integrated, while the elves, dwarves etc. were segregated. Sauron pursued progress through technology - something his opponents saw as despoiling the landscape.
This is not just a cute story. This is how all communication works. There is reams of scholarship to support this. Both parties *always* contribute to the meaning of communication. The originator of a message *never* has the exclusive power to dictate how it is understood. Societies where they nearly do are not free.
Copyright law has embedded within it the fiction that there is one true idea that is communicated or expressed by a work of art. This is a romantic fantasy from the 19th century. It simply isn’t so. There is no one true authoritative interpretation of a work. The only way a work or its author can have that authority is if we, the audience, *give* it.
If you look back at mythology and folk tales and stories, you will see that there is no one correct version of any of them. There are many. Some may be the only survivors because they were given the status of canon, but for any culturally significant story there are invariably different versions. There are even alternative Gospels for the Bible.
So. Should the law dictate meaning? Should the authority of the author be enforced be all the coercive powers of government? Should the audience not be permitted to choose what art means to them in their lives? I do not think this is just an abstract question about the nature of authorship. I think it is an essential question about the structure of power and the ability of people to decide what is right or true for themselves, to make meaning, to communicate, persuade - to be democratic participants in society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Authority and One True Way
I would like my comments above to be taken in the context of what you have written, and build off of it (not even joking).
The interpretation of the work, the connection to the fictional characters that is in the audience's brain, cannot and should not be said to be "owned" by the author. It is as much mine as theirs. If they wanted to keep it, then they should have kept their story a secret, and never told nor sold a copy of their book.
If a derivative author wants to address me as a potential reader, and chooses to use characters that I have interpreted and stored into memory, then I wish them free to do so, and then their work judged on its merit. Their contributions (good or bad) will only augment the value of the original work. If good, it will generate interest and add value to the original story. If bad, the original will be better by comparison.
If the original author wishes to continue to write about the characters, then they are encouraged to do so and compete in a free marketplace of fictional stories, characters, and ideas. There is an incentive to create, and more overall creation will take place.
Sadly, what will be lost is the ability to create a franchise with a good first book, and lock it down for way too long. We'll also lose the ability for an author to milk a good first book by selling out with inferior sequels. Such a pity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA!
Who said copyright is supposed to encourage creativity? Copyright is to designed to protect the creator so money can be earned from the creation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HA!
Creativity is coming up with something yourself, from scratch, developing characters, situations, back stories, peril, risk, and resolution. That is creativity.
Making a photocopy of someone elses work and writing "da" over every "the" in the text isn't creative.
When you understand what creativity is, then the rest follows. This whole deal is just another one of Mike's magicial mystery tours, attempting to shade over copyright by misdirection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: HA!
Yeaaahhh, and a doodoo head, too.
Seriously? Copycat?
I'm slowly changing my mind from my original position and coming around to see why fanfic and derivative works by others can be good things, but for a completely different reason: I believe that fans of my fiction, true fans that care enough to want to write with the characters created, will:
A. Know the characters well enough to do a good job
and
B. Be relatively respectful of the original author.
Bring me some copycats!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: HA!
For someone commenting on the definition of creativity, you seem to have very little understanding of it.
Rodin sculpted The Thinker. But he did not develop characters in that work, from scratch. In fact, it would seem that he did not qualify for your definition of creativity. I mean, the doofus just chiseled out some model who was standing right in front of him, right.
And what about @W#$@ Van Gogh?!! That lame-o just drew a pot of yellow flowers! And Oliver Stone! Just makes movies based on stories that someone else created in the real world.
No, sir. Not a drop of creativity among them. And thanks to you for an iron-clad definition of creativity...something so elusive as to have evaded definition for eons, but you, sir, have nailed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Originality" requirement produces repitition
Most artists are better at some things than others. But most creative works these days require a range of creativity to create. If artists are required to ensure that *every* part of their work is original, then they have to divert effort from the areas where they excel to produce workmanlike filler for the parts where they aren't so creative. Even Shakespeare borrowed plots from elsewhere, focusing his creative energies on his skill with language.
In practice, limits on building on existing creativity produce two phenomena. 1) A lot of second-rate imitations - works or creative elements that are similar to something well known, but are different enough to be non-infringing (e.g. TV shows make up tunes that are recognizably similar to iconic songs like the Mission Impossible theme). 2) Consolidation of production in big media companies who can provide artists with the support they need (allowing them to use existing characters, for example) - in exchange for ownership and control.
This kind of "originality" does not seem to me to justify a complex legal regime of limited effectiveness being applied to just about every form of communication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to get a clue
Creativity is coming up with something yourself, from scratch, developing characters, situations, back stories, peril, risk, and resolution. That is creativity."
Dear colossal fucktard: Let me introduce you to something called creating in a vacuum. This exists only in your mind, and in the minds of pro-copyright nazi's. EVERYONE else, including whomever you might hold up as the standard-bearer of your "create your own stuff without ANY influence from ANY previous work", has built off what came before. This is true in EVERY case. Star Wars wasnt an original idea created "from scratch." Lucas himself has stated how many of the elements came from other sources. The Jedi and Lightsabers are the Knights of the Round Table with energy swords. NOTHING is created 100% original within itself. Grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to get a clue
Now, fucktard, let me explain something simple to you:
"Star Wars wasnt an original idea created "from scratch." Lucas himself has stated how many of the elements came from other sources. The Jedi and Lightsabers are the Knights of the Round Table with energy swords."
Did Lucas just take the knights of the round table and write and extra chapter at the end? Did he just take an article about energy swords and make a mashup of it with a Madonna video? Nope.
He took broad, wide concepts and created something entirely new.
That there is exactly the difference between being creative and just being a fucktard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Time to get a clue
That there is exactly the difference between being creative and just being a fucktard.
And where do you draw the line between "broad, wide concepts" and copying? Yes Mr. Coward, you just created a gray area that you will now have to define. And once you start defining, you fill find out that you are not getting paid enough shill money to pull that off. Even our honorable congressmen can't find the line in the gray area, so the only thing we can expect from you is misdirection and name calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Time to get a clue
Everything in life is grey, except for birth and death, get use to it. While we live in a digital age, we don't live as but 1s and 0s.
Example of a broad concept is "spacemen in a war". Example of violation of copyright is "Luke Skywalker, on the planet alderan, gets two new droids with a message for an old man who lives somewhere else on the planet".
Almost everything falls pretty neatly on one side or the other of that simple concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what about artists who take works in the public domain, make some changes, and copyright the result? Like, oh, photographing a centuries-old painting. Publishing a collection of fairy tales with some brief comments on each. And so on. I hope you will agree that by your logic these things should not be covered by copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So what about artists who take works in the public domain, make some changes, and copyright the result? Like, oh, photographing a centuries-old painting. Publishing a collection of fairy tales with some brief comments on each. And so on. I hope you will agree that by your logic these things should not be covered by copyright. i don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A valid point
A very good point, since this is how Disney got started, by raiding PD works, making a few small changes, then locking them up for the next 150+ years in copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personal Privacy is Intangible
------------------
Nothing. So long as you don't try to make money off it while giving the creator you're ripping off exactly zilch. All those authors cock helmet listed had permission from Lucas and everyone prospered from the deal.
How much money did Salinger get from this BS unauthorized sequel by some hack nobody? Oh right, nothing...
"A pirate is at work building a critical reputation and probably some coin without half as much creativity or labor as Caulfield's inventor."
-----------------------
Exactly.
"Here a shock to Technodirt readers: writing well requires more than typing."
-----------------------
Good luck trying to get that point across! At TechDirt, all you need to be considered an author is a pirated word processing program.
"Collectively, all of these little acts of interpretation and meaning-making are what make a given piece of art significant for the
culture as a whole. We are co-creators of art."
---------------------
Oh man, such collectivist tripe...
Nothing exists in a vacuum! We are all standing on the backs of giants in regard to everything! Does that mean nobody should have property? You owe the land you live on to your forebears who braved it's initial wilderness. That means we are all collectively the co-owners of your house! I'm coming over tomorrow night, please have dinner ready at six (for free of course) as we are all the co-harvesters of nature's bounty! Right? And how could you deny anyone anything that basically amounts to nothing more than a bunch of swirling electrons? Why, you'd have to be a soulless property tyrant nazi to think those swirling elections are worth more than their sum!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Personal Privacy is Intangible
Yup. Shakespeare. Dirty rotten thief, huh?
Ok. Credibility shot to hell... no wonder you won't say who you are. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Personal Privacy is Intangible
What wonderful logic there Mike. Maybe you should call the blog "sheepdirt"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Difference between making your own pasta sauce and buying a pre-made in the store, adding a dash of pepper, and calling it home made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow now you're just being childish. I don't think very many people could argue that what Shakespeare did was not creative or beneficial to our culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm... postmodernism at work here, I see
Perfect explanation of deconstruction. And perfectly wrong.
Language, whether oral or written, is designed to allow the transmission of a particular concept or idea. The story of the 3 little pigs and the Big Bad Wolf will forever mean that the pig who built with brick was a smart pig and the Big Bad Wolf is evil/bad, and no amount of 'deconstruction' is going to twist that meaning into suddenly finding that after all, the wolf (who was actually a husky) was just trying to avoid starvation, and that the 3rd pig was selfish for not allowing the wolf to eat him as well.
I as a creative person write a book wherein humans are the only intelligent species in the universe, organised into an intergalactic empire, with unlimited energy supply and a populace at peace. I flesh out my universe with a back story, a culture, characters and character development, and other such details. And oh, by the way because I'm homophobic I make everyone straight. This is a feature of my universe. So, you then make a 'derivative' work that takes *all* of my creation, and then tweak it so that everyone is gay instead. Call it what you want, but that's plainly pissing on my work and farting in my face.
I am not saying sequels can't be written. But seriously, copyright is supposed to provide a framework whereby if you do stuff to *my* 'baby', I should have some say in shaping how you do it.
Let's be honest; that's how GPL works. It uses copyright law and provides certain rights as well as restrictions. The balance should be in that way - if you want to make a new work based in someone else's framework, you should be free to do so... but only if, canonically speaking, you adhere to certain ground rules. Be true to the spirit and the letter of the original work, and the author's intent, so to speak.
And if you cannot, then change the setting and make it explicit. This is why I don't have a problem with Warhammer 40K and Starcraft - it really is obvious where the impetus for Starcraft came from, but it doesn't even pretend it's Warhammer, so no harm no foul.
WRT copyrights though: only humans should be assigned them. Not 'persons', but humans. Not Trusts, Institutions, Corporations, Partnerships, Proprietorships or whatever. Actual human beings who live and die. That should cut out a lot of this rubbish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]