"fan fiction "......

[bill_mchale]

I notice quite a few people here have avatars that contain images that might be copyrighted... has everyone gotten permission from the creators to use those images?

I am not, in general a fanfic fan. There is too much good original stuff out there for me to spend time reading it (For the same reason, I generally avoid media fiction). I do however often use myths, stories and other sources as the inspiration for Bed Time Stories I tell my three year old.

That being said, I think fanfic serves a number of useful purposes. The most valuable might be that it serves as a training ground for authors. People learn by imitating what they have seen others do. I suspect most authors started to train their imagination by imagining new stories in universes they already had encountered... even if they never wrote a single word down. Using fan fic, they can hone other writing skills in a fairly comfortable world where they can avoid the heaviest lifting of creating a unique world with unique characters. Later they can transition to doing all the work themselves.

Should they publish? Who knows. That being said, I have yet to see a study that shows a correlation between a universe existing on fanfiction.net and a drop in sales for books set in that universe.

--
Bill

[DiapDealer]

No harm no foul.

[Yapyap]

I have to ask - seriously, this is - whether people who think fanfic writers "should just write original stories" actually think that people sit down at their desk/computer, thinking "I want to write" and then just force themselves to come up with a brand new original world, setting, plot and characters?

I'm sure some people do actually do that, but in my own experience (and in that of most of my friends, most of whom have written both fanfic and original stories) the idea comes first. Once you have got an idea - for a plot, for a world, for characters; anything, as long as there is that thought, that germ of something - then you start considering about writing it. If you have that germ of an idea, you can start working with it, building on it; if you don't have anything, you can't just force yourself to come up with something (well, you can, but why should you?).

If that idea is for an original story, with original characters, you write that story, with those characters. If it's an idea for a fanfic story that enters your brain, though - well, what can you do? You can either write it down and share it with other fans (provided the creator is either okay with it or has been dead long enough that it's fine) or you don't write it down. In neither case can you just sit down and write an original story instead, if that original idea isn't there but a fanfic idea is.

Oh, and of course there is a lot of bad fanfic. There's a lot of bad everything. There's also plenty of very good fanfic out there - thought-provoking, interesting, well-plotted and well-written. Fortunately, it's not as if anyone forces people to read fanfic.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

There is too much good original stuff out there for me to spend time reading it (For the same reason, I generally avoid media fiction).

There is no original stuff. There can be original elements to a story, but it's all been done before.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

What's the difference between a character study & critique written as a "review," and one written as "fiction?" What makes the fiction more infringing? Neither directly copies the original (other than a few words or maybe phrases); both attempt to show the reader's reaction to and perspective on the original.

If the fiction began with, "I will describe my reaction to this [book/movie/tv show] by describing a hypothetical situation involving the characters, and showing how I think they might react to that hypothetical situation," would that be less infringing?

That, of course, doesn't address parody, which is also legal fair use. A great deal of slash fiction falls under the legal definition of "parody" even though it's not intended to be funny.

Much different, very much. A review is a non-fiction statement of reaction to a work of intellectual creativity. Fan fiction is a work of FICTION based on someone else's intellectual property.

Very different things. (as are parodies)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I am saying that "writing a new story" can be, and often is, a form of criticism and review.
....

No it's not if it's based on someone elses intellectual property. There is a very clear distinction between criticism/review and fiction.

Certainly an original story(or other work of art) can be written as a reaction to another work of art. I've seen this a lot in the poetry world and often in the fiction world, but when it is not original work (i.e. using someone elses intellectual property) then not only is it not crit/review, it is not even original (whether done with permission of the copyright owner or not).

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Every science fiction author I ever met, and I've met a lot of them, and I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE, began writing as teens or pre-teens, and every single one of them began by writing Star Trek fanfic.
...

Hi there! Pleased to meet you. I'm Kenny. You can now say that at least one SF Author did not start by writing fan-fic or star trek.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Harper Kingsley

Wow, this is really a hot button topic, I guess.
...

Yep, apparently so. Sorry for my late arrival and hope to not stir the hornets nest again. ...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think your time would be better spent writing original fiction rather than using someone else's intellectual property, permission or no.

I have to agree with Harry on this and many of his points (with the exception of the over-the-top name-calling).

I can see using someone's characters/universe as a way to learn to write, but I really don't think it's something that should be "published." I also understand it's a fannish homage to the author/story/etc. but it's still a bit weird and to publish it is even weirder (with or without the authors consent). and without the authors consent it is really not legal as Harry points out.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by VaporPunk

I think the most important thing to know about fan-fic is that 99.9% of it sucks donkey teats. Let an obsessed friend do all the hard work of sifting through it for you...

Yeah, there's that.

[covingtoncat73]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

There is no original stuff. There can be original elements to a story, but it's all been done before.

To quote Bono, "Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief.
All kill their inspiration and sing about their grief."

Also, you could say Shakespeare wrote "fan fiction." King Lear is based on a legend of Celtic Britain (which has a much cooler ending that Shakespeare's, i.e. beheaded evil sisters, rapprochement between Lear and Cordelia)and I understand Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet also originated elsewhere than with the Bard of Avon. See also the scene with Shakespeare and Marlowe talking in a tavern in Shakespeare in Love.

Certainly most fan fiction out there is crap. I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just pointing out that writers and other artists have always built on what has come before and used it to greater or lesser degree.

[QuantumIguana]

Fan fiction isn't wholly original, as it uses existing characters and locations, but it isn't wholly unoriginal either. It is no less original than writing an episode of a TV program. A fanfic story, just like TV episode is a mixture of existing content and original content. If it was wholly unoriginal, it would be a rerun.

You can say that writing fan fiction is weird, but that's a value judgment with little basis.

[fjtorres]

The problem I see here is that fanfic is, in copyright terms, strictly shades of gray but to the detractors and proponents it is either pure black or pure white and neither side pays much attention to the facts that don't line up with their pre-cast position.
Strictly speaking *all* fanfic *is* copyright violation. Letter of the law and all that.
That doesn't mean that nobody should practice it or enjoy it. Just that people should be aware that the practice treads through nebulous teritory, especially when publishing the content publicly.

Also, that when it comes to derivative works, there is a difference between parody, pastiche, and satire (which *can* be published commercially, BTW; C.F., Robert Mayer's SUPER-FOLKS, for one; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfolks or Philip Jose Farmer's various Doc Savage and Tarzan parodies/pastiches) all of which reflect on the original source material at a *clear remove* and fanfic, where the narrative *usually* follows the source closely and with minimal if any remove.

The various shared-universe corporate properties (STAR TREK, STAR WARS, DCUniverse, etc) lend themselves to fanfic because they are by design collaborative efforts intended to accomodate a variety of narrative voices and styles so it is no surprise to see people inspired to try *their* narrative voice and style on the characters that inspire them.
And it should be no surprise that many a writer (though hardly all) might have forged their own voice in those kinds of writing exercises. So there can be be a fair amount of good to come out of fanfic, which is why some authors *graciously* tolerate or at least look the other way at the distribution of such content as long as they don't find the derivative content offensive.

But it needs to be understood that this is a privilege that the authors *allow*, not an entitlement. And certainly no reason to villify an author who does not approve of it, even if the author might be less than gracious in discussing the subject.

Like many a touchy subject, a bit of empathy and manners is necessary if we're to discuss the matter. It's all a matter of degree, not absolutes.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Also, that when it comes to derivative works, there is a difference between parody, pastiche, and satire (which *can* be published commercially, BTW; C.F., Robert Mayer's SUPER-FOLKS, for one; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfolks or Philip Jose Farmer's various Doc Savage and Tarzan parodies/pastiches) all of which reflect on the original source material at a *clear remove* and fanfic, where the narrative *usually* follows the source closely and with minimal if any remove.

As a matter of interest, parody is not currently a "fair use" exemption under UK copyright law, although there are moves afoot to reform the law to include it (and also to permit such things as format conversion which are technically illegal in the UK).

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As a matter of interest, parody is not currently a "fair use" exemption under UK copyright law, although there are moves afoot to reform the law to include it (and also to permit such things as format conversion which are technically illegal in the UK).

Really?
A thin-skinned lot, over there, huh?