HIGHLA-L Digest - 12 Jul 2003 to 13 Jul 2003 (#2003-154)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Sun, 13 Jul 2003 22:00:03 -0400
There are 7 messages totalling 285 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Fanfic: Live and Let Di(ana)
2. Fanfic & Morals (5)
3. Two Questions, er, *three*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 17:59:05 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Fanfic: Live and Let Di(ana)
Rottie-
> The irony of the timing is that in the
> wake [no pun intended] of her death, the death of Mother Theresa got short
shrift
> in the press. If ever a life deserved to be celebrated !
Well, since she was such a saint, I'm sure she got over the slight.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 19:23:17 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Carmel (on why she feels DPP doesn't own the HL universe)
> But, the critical test is the
> originality of the character. My point was only that *I* cannot
> definitively determine for every character in the Highlander universe the
> level of originality that would meet the tests a court would apply to
> confirm intellectual ownership by DPP.
OK. You have that (extremely picayune) concern. If DPP get sued by someone
who, for instance, had previous dibs on that whole Mysterious Circle thing,
then maybe _that_ person has some rights. But, how does that relate to
fanfic, specifically to your fanfic? That is what you previously used the
substantially-not-wholly owned argument for, & then you said this--
"I have certainly used DPP's intellectual
property. However, after doing some further research, and discussing this
with some IP lawyers, I realised that my statement "I already admitted that
I breach DPP's copyright?" was in fact too bald and that this entire area is
far less black and white than I had thought."
So--how does this supposed haze relate to _your distribution of fanfic_?
Unless YOU wrote something way back when that you feel HL latched onto....
Is that what you are saying? Otherwise, _you_ still don't have any HL
ownership rights.
> I accept, of course, that it is 99.9% likely that DPP do in fact
> own the property in an Immortal sword fighter called Duncan MacLeod and a
> 5,000 year old Immortal called Methos.
I bet DPP are relieved about that. What about Evil Duncan? Who owns that
bad boy?
>What I was answering was Nina's
> categorical claim that DPP own "...the Highlander universe...".
By which categorical claim I stand w/ complete confidence. Even after a
whole 2 days.
me before--
> Carmel, exactly which of the HL characters do you think a court might
> find that DPP does NOT own?
Carmel--
> I have no idea. That wasn't my argument. I'm saying that no-one
> can say for certain where the cut-off line is.
Again--what does that supposed cut-off line have to do w/ your right to
distribute fanfic?
me before--
> Which HL canon really doesn't belong to DPP? And how can that be, if
> it IS HL canon?
Carmel--
> The canon that was invented by fans does, ipso facto, not belong to
> DPP. For example, the word 'Seacouver' does not appear in any script or
> movie or series episode. >>>
You are factually wrong there, Carmel. "Seacouver" IS in an episode; it is
clearly visible in the newspaper ad for the rally, in the paper that Duncan
rips out of Methos' hands in "The Valkyrie." So, it's canon.
>It was not written by any employee of DPP, and my
> understanding is that it was first used in fan discussion, yet is
> undisputedly now the location in which North American Highlander episodes
> are based and there part of the *canon*.
No. Had "Seacouver" never been said or seen onscreen, then it wouldn't be
canon, no matter how many fans called it that. As to who that term "belongs
to," it belongs to DPP. Even if the term originated w/ a fan, he or she put
it out on the Internet w/o legal protection (if there is any legal
protection available for such a narrow concept). And, now it's part of the
HL canon.
Carmel--
> Canon is an undefined
> amorphous inchoate concept. It is what a plurality of fans at any time
take
> it to be.
No, Carmel, you have it backward. Canon is defined by TPTB, as what they
decide to put on the screen. The fans' only "input" is whether they are
paying attention closely enough to notice the little stuff. But whether or
not they notice--or agree--canon is what TPTB use, do & say on the show.
TV shows aren't run by democracy--the idea that fans determine canon is
absurd for several reasons, one being that you'd have exactly as many
different canons as you have fans watching the show! And, when you say
plurality--do you mean among those HL fans frequenting the Internet HL sites
& lists (& who could know things like Seacouver)? Because even now, that's
probably not most genre fans worldwide, & it certainly was a small
percentage of HL fans when the show was in production. How could something
like canon just be determined by a relatively small group of fans?
>It's not defined by DPP (indeed, DPP themselves are often
> contradictory). For example, we spent years thinking that it was canon
that
> you couldn't kill immortals on Holy Ground. Then along came Sanctuary.
Was
> the canon wrong??? In reality, it couldn't have been canon at all since
it
> was wrong.
It was canon _until_ DPP decided to change it. Then, stupid or not, canon
was something else. If HL5 shows us female Immies delivering triplets, then
Immie fertility will be HL canon. And it won't depend on a poll saying that
a plurality of Intenet fans likes the idea.
Again--what exactly does HL canon have to do w/ your supposed right to
distribute fanfic? Frankly, your fans-set-canon theory sounds like a grab
for Internet fans--those who are doing most of the fanfic distribution these
days--of franchise ownership & control. That's desperate.
Also--I asked you last time if you _still_ say that you would take your HL
fanfic off your website if DPP asked you to. You didn't answer me. Is your
silence on advice of counsel?
Nina
mac.westie@veizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:31:30 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Nina wrote:
>Pat--
> >How do you know this for a fact unless you've been reading fanfic?
>
>Darn--you caught me, Pat. I never had a chance against you! Oh, the shame
>of it all....
I asked a simple question, and you assume I'm trying to "catch you". You
have a highly inflated opinion of your own importance in my life.
>I have never denied having read fanfic, slash & otherwise.
>My position re: fanfic isn't that people shouldn't write it, or that people
>shouldn't read it. It's that people shouldn't be distributing or selling
>fanfic, since they don't own the fictional universe they are using.
You don't have a problem with people reading fanfic distributed on the
net? Seems a bit contradictory. If no one read it there would be no
point in posting it. The writer would in effect be talking to
themselves. Readers are necessary accessories to what you perceive as an
immoral & illegal act. It appears you were one of those
accessories. Was that before you realized how wrong fanfic distribution
is or have you reformed?
I think I recall you equating writing & distributing fanfic to
stealing. Wouldn't that make you as a reader guilty of receiving stolen goods?
Pat L.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:24:53 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
In a message dated 7/13/2003 12:24:13 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
mac.westie@verizon.net writes:
> Canon is defined by TPTB, as what they
> decide to put on the screen.
Horrors. You mean Zeist exists in your canon? *vbeg*
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:28:46 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Out&About)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dotiran@AOL.COM>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Fanfic & Morals
> In a message dated 7/13/2003 12:24:13 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
> mac.westie@verizon.net writes:
>
> > Canon is defined by TPTB, as what they
> > decide to put on the screen.
>
> Horrors. You mean Zeist exists in your canon? *vbeg*
Actually, I have to agree with Nina (hey, it happens!) in that only TPTB can
dictate canon and though they may absorb fan-created concepts, those
concepts do not become canon until they do so. They can even green-light
official novels and could argue that they aren't canon until seen or
referred to on screen.
Of course, given that TPTB's remit seems to be 'hitch that kilt to the
nearest bandwagon and hope for the best', the word canon might seem less
appropriate than damp squib.
John
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:35:09 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
In a message dated 7/13/2003 8:29:21 AM Eastern Standard Time,
a.j.mosby@btinternet.com writes:
> only TPTB can
> dictate canon
...Er...which one? They seem to have several different canons of their own
creation.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 15:19:00 EDT
From: Highlandmg@aol.com
Subject: Re: Two Questions, er, *three*
Hi
Scars on Immortals... they got the scars before first death'
Mary
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 12 Jul 2003 to 13 Jul 2003 (#2003-154)
***************************************************************