3 ms·
> fan fiction is not copyrightable, so if you make a derivative work without permission you own nothing This is false. It's possible for both you and the origi
by ronsor 3y ago
> fan fiction is not copyrightable, so if you make a derivative work without permission you own nothing
This is false. It's possible for both you and the original author to simultaneously infringe each other's copyrights. This is unintuitive but true due to the simple fact that you own all the original parts of your work.
- seanhunter 3y agoCertainly in the UK it seems you have to have permission from the original rights holder to create the derivative work in the first place. If they didn't have this permission they weren't entitled to create the work and therefore their claim of copyright in the original parts of that work would be moot. I'd be surprised if that were not the case elsewhere https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_work...
- jasinjames 3y agoThis aligns with what I was taught in my U.S. Intellectual property class a few years ago
- Dalewyn 3y agoIt's also the case in Japan. Japan's very lucrative doujinshi (read: fan novels) and fan art scenes exist purely because most of the creators and publishers turn a blind eye to them (it's free marketing and good will from fans of their works). They only start caring if the fan works are being sold for profit or harming the original IPs. Comiket exists thanks to everyone knowing and respecting where the invisible lines in the sand are drawn.
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoThat's the opposite: you don't need permission from the author to do anything. Only if you make trouble, the author may slap you.
- Dalewyn 3y agoNo, you do need their permissions. It's just most creators and publishers choose to ignore the otherwise flagrant violations of their copyright, because most of the time everyone wins.
- GoblinSlayer 3y agoThey make fanfiction without permission, and it works fine, so they don't need permission.
- Dalewyn 3y agoNot obtaining permission and not needing permission are two very different things. Permission is absolutely required in Japan, legally speaking. In practice, the requirement for permission is ignored under gentlemen's agreements.
- antiterra 3y agoDid you not study Pickett v Prince in your class?
- seanhunter 3y agoThat is what Picket vs Prince says is it not? http://www.pelosolaw.com/casebriefs/copyright/pickett.html http://www.pelosolaw.com/casebriefs/copyright/pickett.html
- antiterra 3y agoYou are absolutely correct, I mistakenly thought you were responding to a different comment.
- Lapha 3y agoNote that the author of the unauthorised derivative work 'B', based on the 'original' work 'A', still retains copyright over their own (unauthorised) work B. Even if a court compels the author of B to stop distributing their infringing work B this fact doesn't change, B doesn't go out of copyright, and the author of A (or anybody else for that matter) doesn't have any additional rights to the use the work B. In this particular case the Guardian article doesn't answer the question, but it's almost certainly the case that the courts found that Tolkien's estate didn't infringe upon Polychron's unauthorised work. In the UK (and much of the world), the bar for creating an original work is incredibly low, currently it's the EU approach where the author needs to express (creative) originality through choice, selection, or arrangement of a work. Previously the UK had the 'sweat of the brow' rule where the bar was even lower, only requiring 'labour, skill or judgement' in producing a work. The UK also explicitly protects derivative works from being considered infringement if they're found to be a parody, caricature, or pastiche, but this obviously isn't the case here. Also note that 'copyright service' is a private company that sells copyright protection as a service through registering a work. The UK, unlike some countries, has no register of copyrighted works so you don't need to register a work for it to receive copyright protection in the UK.
- antiterra 3y agoTo the the contrary, in the US, there is caselaw that, if your unauthorized derivative work is infringing, then you do not own the original elements of that work either. See Pickett v Prince.
- gorlilla 3y agoWhat were the original elements there? That it was made into a guitar? What other part of the work was creative? I'm honestly asking because I can't find anything that goes as far as the claim you're making regarding original elements. I'm not even sure what original/severable elements could exist in that particular case.
- antiterra 3y agoPickett argued there were original elements, not me. But whether they existed didn’t matter to the court. From the decision: “We need not pursue the issue of originality of derivative works. The Copyright Act grants the owner of a copyright the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. […] So Pickett could not make a derivative work based on the Prince symbol without Prince's authorization even if Pickett's guitar had a smidgeon of originality.”