HIGHLA-L Digest - 2 Mar 2003 to 3 Mar 2003 - Special issue (#2003-32)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:54:35 -0500
There are 15 messages totalling 817 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Harry Potter meets HL (2)
2. HL-ish book?
3. Slash? (7)
4. PW on Dead Zone/HL-ish book?
5. PW on Dead Zone (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 17:02:38 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Harry Potter meets HL
me earlier (after a couple Mai Tais to recover my will to live after
Marina's stunningly brilliant "Oooh, burn!!")--
> >Is _that_ your idea of calm & rational discussion?
Marina--
> No, dear. It's my instinctive response to what you posted. I'm
> still waiting for you to post something worth discussing calmly
> and rationally.
This is _your_ topic. _You_ said you wanted to discuss fanfic, high-brow
literary this & that, etc. Go ahead--everyone's waiting. (Or not.)
I very much doubt that anyone here could say that I haven't made _my_ views
on all this perfectly clear. _You_ are the one who has yet to say anything
of substance, despite several invitations. If you _have_ nothing to say,
that's a bit sad, but fine. Just quit whining about not being _able_ to
delve into the intellectual depths of fan-written masterpieces, due to
certain people just being mean & shouting you down. Obviously, that's not
the case.
> Though the entire list can tell that slash obviously does.
> For someone who supposedly hates it, you sure do bring it up a
> lot.
And you seem ashamed of it--a lot. If it bothers you so much, maybe you
should reform. It's interesting that you seem to be trying to disparage me,
w/ slash--though to you there's absolutely nothing wrong w/ slash, right?
And, as you might recall, this IS a Highlander _discussion_ list. As
in--people presenting _different_ opinions. As others have pointed out
recently, this list has pretty much beaten senseless just about every
possible discussion topic. Personally, compared to slash or fanfic in
general, I am FAR more interested in, say, considering which HL:TS scenes
happened to catch AP's ass looking _just right_. But, what's there _to
discuss_ there?
So, excuse my attempt at CPR--quite possibly the list is dead & gone.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 22:33:20 -0500
From: Heidi <heidi@apocalypse.org>
Subject: Re: HL-ish book?
From: mama bear <parisrose_2@yahoo.com>
[..] Kate Elliot's Prince of Dogs [..]Karen Moning has built a
whole series on her take on a highland clan and a twist on immortality.
After I posted the earlier reply I looked around some book sites
for descriptions of their books. One seems to mostly be pure
fantasy/scifi and the other writes romance books. Neither of
which type fit the book I was thinking of. It was more of a
regular fiction book (if there was any sifi is was minor). So
does anyone else know of any other books that fit the `bunch
of HL character names' pattern?
=}{=
(heidi@apocalypse.org)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 05:30:05 -0500
From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
>> Ignorning a violation of a *trademark* can cause you to lose the
exclusive
rights to a trademark. This is well-settled US law. Never have I seen the
same principle applied to copyright. I've seen fans make this statement
for years and I've asked repeatedly for someone to cite me a single case
that actually says this, and nobody ever has. <<
And every time we've been round this particular house I've said exactly the
same thing.
Paramount found out that it was a problem - it's why they started chasing
after fan sites. It's also why they started to sell licences for their
merchandise and for conventions. It comes down once more to America is
not the entire world and a product which is available in other countries
can be covered by different laws. Equally please remember that Highlander
specifically is a Canadian/French programme so they are particularly aware
of international significance.
The production companies see this as a legal problem - they may well be
wrong, but it's how they see it and how they react.
The point I was making is that this is what they say the problem is.
Yes I do know the difference between copyright and a trademark, as I also
have stated every time this comes up.
It really doesn't matter how you coat it, using other people's property be
that intellectual or physical, without their permission is theft. If they
don't want you doing it, that is their prerogative. I use the characters,
but I am aware that I am committing theft and acknowledge that, I will
therefore not push it at the true owners and if they ask me to stop I will.
The law has very little to do with justice or what is right and what is
wrong morally - these days the law is about semantics and who has the
cleverest lawyer.
Elaine.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:53:02 EST
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: PW on Dead Zone/HL-ish book?
In a message dated 3/2/2003 3:43:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
heidi@apocalypse.org writes:
> Incase anyone didn't know, Peter Wingfield is on The Dead Zone
> tonight, 10pm eastern, USA network. The show also gets rerun
> several times later in the week on USA and Scifi. From the
> commercial I saw today he seems to be playing a pilot.
>
He virtually stole the episode. In my view, he and David O-S of a higher
level of acting talent than the rest of the plane put together.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:54:33 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Harry Potter meets HL
Nina wrote:
>Just quit whining about not being _able_ to
>delve into the intellectual depths of fan-written masterpieces, due to
>certain people just being mean & shouting you down. Obviously, that's not
>the case.
I never said that I *wanted* to discuss fan-written masterpieces. I
said I wanted to discuss authorial intent *in the show*. *You* are
unable to discuss that without bringing up fanfic and slash, and
that's just sad.
>And you seem ashamed of it--a lot.
Um, hello? Are you sure you're talking to the same person who proudly
proclaims her love for slash? Maybe there's another Richie fan
named Marina out there who's been discussing slash with you and
feels ashamed of it, but it isn't me.
>And, as you might recall, this IS a Highlander _discussion_ list. As
>in--people presenting _different_ opinions. As others have pointed out
>recently, this list has pretty much beaten senseless just about every
>possible discussion topic.
Well, slash has certainly been beaten to death by the two of us. And
I don't think we've exhausted all discussion topics; it's just that
people end up coming back around to familiar ones. Wendy posted that
one about Horton wondering about Tessa; that hadn't been done before.
It didn't last that long, but those of us who are non-lurkers got a
chance to post on it if we wanted to.
>So, excuse my attempt at CPR--quite possibly the list is dead & gone.
I think if it weren't for the few of us who erupt into fights every so
often, it would have been gone long ago. But I'm here until Debbie
pulls the plug because I promised her I would be. So, let's have
those scenes with AP's butt. It's better than nothing.
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=====Marina Bailey====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za====|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"It's Lord of the Flies in there!" - Josh; 'The West Wing'; about
the forum on his fansite.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:07:28 -0800
From: Becky Doland <becky@beckyjo.com>
Subject: Re: PW on Dead Zone
Thanks for the heads-up on this Heidi. I had never
seen this show, but I tuned in to see PW, and really
enjoyed it. As usual, he was great, really made the
epidode IMO.
Becky
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:05:22 -0500
From: KLZ3 <kzimmerman3@cox.net>
Subject: Re: PW on Dead Zone
>
> He virtually stole the episode. In my view, he and David O-S of a higher
> level of acting talent than the rest of the plane put together.
>
He did a great job. I'd lost track of just how good PW is; he
hasn't had many post-HL roles that have shown his talent.
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
I had some deja-vu, though. In Finale (fake Tessa), wasn't there
an exchange between (DM? Smokin' Joe Dawson?) and Methos where
Methos said he was going to the newspaper guy to do damage
control. DM (or JD) said something about history has already
been written and the world might not react well if he told the
truth. Methos said something like "Now why would I do that?"
When the pilot said that, I was still thinking that he was a bad
guy, so it seemed really chilling.
Of course, the premise was about as realistic as The Blitz, with
an 11-month-pregnant doctor going into a bombsite. No way would
a flight crew (or passengers) tolerate someone trying to get at
the captain. They would have landed at the nearest airport and
Johnny would have been politely escorted off the plan in
handcuffs for a lot of questioning and a nice quiet stretch in a
federal prison.
::: waving soggy hanky anyway for Anne Lindsey :::
ZK ("In the end, there can be only Clark")
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:11:11 -0800
From: Lynn <lloschin@sprynet.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
>> Ignorning a violation of a *trademark* can cause you to
>> lose the exclusive rights to a trademark. This is well-
>> settled US law. Never have I seen
>> the same principle applied to copyright. I've seen fans make >> this statement for years and I've asked repeatedly for
>> someone to cite me a single case that actually says this, and >> nobody ever has. <<
> And every time we've been round this particular house I've
> said exactly the same thing.
> Paramount found out that it was a problem - it's why they
> started chasing after fan sites.
But exactly how did Paramount find this out? Most of us in the law bizness find things out when a court makes a ruling or a legislature passes a statute. Someone at Paramount may have made a decision to chase around fan sites for whatever reason, but it doesn't mean it's based on a correct interpretation of the law. They might also have decided that their trademarks were threatened (which I think is silly when it comes to fan sites, because it's generally totally obvious a fan site is just that). None of this means that the current US law is that if you let someone use your copyright, you lose it.
And I guess DPP has reached a different conclusion, considering that the bulletin board on the offical Highlander site includes a board called "Chain Stories/Fan Fiction" and is described as "The place for fans to collaborate on Highlander-themed stories." (Go to http://www.highlander-official.com -- from the "Community" drop-down menu, select "Highlander Message Board" and scroll down.)
I have a hard time believing this bulletin board would exist if DPP thought that it would lose its copyright as a result.
> It's also why they started to sell licences for their
> merchandise and for conventions.
Generally, merchandise and convention licenses are trademark licenses, not copyright licenses. The only copyright involved is giving permission to show episodes in a public place, for instance. The right to use the name or market an action figure is a trademark right.
>It comes down once more to America is
>not the entire world
Which is exactly why I said "US law".
>and a product which is available in other countries
>can be covered by different laws.
Actually, it's largely covered now by international treaties, such as the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of International Property) protocol to GATT (General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trade), to which most western countries are parties. Members are required to conform their national laws to the treaties.
> The production companies see this as a legal problem - they
> may well be wrong, but it's how they see it and how they react.
> The point I was making is that this is what they say the
> problem is.
Yes, but that doesn't mean they're right, or that fans or consumers should bow and scrape to them. Not that long ago the motion picture studios were screaming that VCRs violated their copyrights. The court decided they were wrong. See Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
>It really doesn't matter how you coat it, using other people's >property be that intellectual or physical, without their >permission is theft.
Actually, it does matter how you coat it when it comes to intellectual property, because the use in question might be a "fair use." Then it's not theft. Accepting your very broad statement above, quoting a paragraph of another work in an academic article would be "theft," except we know it's perfectly okay to do that.
There is a very legitimate argument to be made that fan fiction, circulated in a not-for-profit manner and with clear disclaimers, should be considered a fair use. See
http://www.schrag.info/tushnet/law/fanficarticle.html
To date, this has not been settled by any court, so any sweeping statement that fanfic is or is not a fair use is an opinion, not US law.
> The law has very little to do with justice or what is right
> and what is wrong morally - these days the law is about
> semantics and who has the cleverest lawyer.
That's an amazingly cynical viewpoint, and although you are perfectly entitled to it, I respectfully disagree.
Lynn
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:38:36 -0500
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Slash?
John wrote:
>If this is actually a one-sided dialogue, would this make it
>Hermaphroditian fiction?
So you perceived the "debate" as being male vs. female?
How odd.
Wendy(Men never seem to have much to say about slash.)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:40:06 -0500
From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
>> But exactly how did Paramount find this out? <<
You would have to ask them that.
>> Someone at Paramount may have made a decision to chase around fan sites
for whatever reason, but it doesn't mean it's based on a correct
interpretation of the law. <<
Never said it was. I was answering the question asked.
>> They might also have decided that their trademarks were threatened
(which I think is silly when it comes to fan sites, because it's generally
totally obvious a fan site is just that). <<
You have every right to think it's silly they obviously don't.
>> And I guess DPP has reached a different conclusion, <<
Well I only know what they told me I could or couldn't do with fan-fic when
I was given official status for the fan club.
>> Members are required to conform their national laws to the treaties. <<
Yes I do know about international treaties.
>> Actually, it does matter how you coat it when it comes to intellectual
property, because the use in question might be a "fair use." <<
We weren't talking about fair use which is a subject all on it's own. We
were talking about writing things with other people's characters.
Also we were not talking about academic work which is generally put out
there for discussion.
>> To date, this has not been settled by any court, so any sweeping
statement that fanfic is or is not a fair use is an opinion, not US law. <<
Fair use is generally based on the size of the item - however a number of
people have put forward that fair use should be a percentage volume of the
work which is considered appropriate to illustrate that work.
My own feelings on that are that you should quote as little as possible but
make reference to the original work.
>>
That's an amazingly cynical viewpoint, and although you are perfectly
entitled to it, I respectfully disagree. <<
You are right it is cynical, but it's also based on experience of what goes
on. I think you'll find it's a view many people have including a number
of lawyers.
Elaine.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:38:43 -0500
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: PW on Dead Zone
Of Peter, ZK wrote:
>He did a great job. I'd lost track of just how good PW is; he
>hasn't had many post-HL roles that have shown his talent.
Finally a post-HL alumni performance that didn't make me cringe . Everything AP has done since HL:TS has been crap (including, for the most part, HL-3) . Most of PW's work has been iffy too (a giant frog suit??????). Here, at last, was a decent job. While the plot may have been unrealistic (But, come on, it's the Dead Zone<eg>) he sold me on the character.
Wendy(I still keep expecting AMH to ask to borrow someone's undies for 10 minutes<g>)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:41:23 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: PW on Dead Zone
Wendy-
>>>Finally a post-HL alumni performance that didn't make me cringe .
Everything AP has done since HL:TS has been crap (including, for the most
part, HL-3) .>>>
Agreed. (Except-it was HL4.) I was a bit distracted by PW's nose a couple
times, though; it requires a larger set than that cockpit.
>>>Wendy(I still keep expecting AMH to ask to borrow someone's undies for 10
minutes<g>)>>>
I can't quite buy him in a serious role, either.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:32:18 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Slash?
Lynn-
>>> Most of us in the law bizness find things out when a court makes a
ruling or a legislature passes a statute.>>>
Excuse me? "Most of us in the law bizness?" Is that _really_ how LA
attorneys talk about themselves? Or were you trying to be obscure?
Lynn-
>>>They might also have decided that their trademarks were threatened (which
I think is silly when it comes to fan sites, because it's generally totally
obvious a fan site is just that). None of this means that the current US
law is that if you let someone use your copyright, you lose it.>>>
Are you handing out legal advice on the net now?
Lynn-
>>> I have a hard time believing this bulletin board would exist if DPP
thought that it would lose its copyright as a result.>>>
I have a hard time believing most anything about DPP, but they DO seem to
exist. For instance-if DPP cared about fan relations, why would the product
quality & business practices of the HL Store _continue_ to scrape bottom
after several years of complaints? Even more simple-if DPP really hated the
way HL4 turned out due to interference by big bad Miramax, how come they are
threatening to partner w/ Miramax _again_ for HL5? As for the bulletin
board, forget logic-DPP likely is just trolling the board for plot ideas.
Or, maybe they have crappy legal advisors.
Lynn-
>>> Yes, but that doesn't mean they're right, or that fans or consumers
should bow and scrape to them. Not that long ago the motion picture studios
were screaming that VCRs violated their copyrights. The court decided they
were wrong. >>>
When a court decides that anyone can take another's person's fictional
universe & characters & use them publicly like fanfic does-you let us know,
because that would be a HUGE change in the law. And, there's absolutely no
reason to think it will _ever_ happen. And-SHOULD it happen? Think about
the ramifications-no one would own their literary creations any longer.
Hardly a pleasant thought. And all so that fans can "have fun" w/ other
people's work? No thanks.
Lynn-
>>> There is a very legitimate argument to be made that fan fiction,
circulated in a not-for-profit manner and with clear disclaimers, should be
considered a fair use.>>>
Well, your idea of "legitimate" is not mine. Fair use is a VERY narrow &
limited exception--NOT an umbrella for taking someone else's work & playing
around w/ it. Again-let us know when a court agrees w/ you.
Lynn-
> To date, this has not been settled by any court, so any sweeping
> statement that fanfic is or is not a fair use is an opinion, not US law.
You don't seem to understand the basics here. Unless & until fanfic is
granted an official exception, it IS illegal, just like all other
non-authorized usage of intellectual property. And, in my opinion, arguing
that fanfic deserves or will as a practical matter ever receive an exception
is ludicrous.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:05:43 -0500
From: "a.j.mosby@btinternet.com" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
Copyright debates? Gee, March already???
You know....sod the legalities. It's just a plain ethical issue as far as
I'm concerned.
It's one thing to have some fun for your own personal amusement, but the
moment you step into someone else's sandbox and then turn that personal
enjoyment into a shared experience with others...then you have to bear in
mind the wishes of the sandbox's owner.
Not a matter of what *harm* is done or not done.Not a matter of profit or
not. It's just the plain politeness and courtesy of saying 'I will respect
the owner's wishes.' Nothing more, nothing less.
Anyone disagrees with that,please send your web address so that I can come
and hack it.
John
share anythign with anybody
My position has always been that if you assume you have the automatic right
to take someone else's idea, feel you can use it as you will, pretend its
your own, feel pissed off because the originator doesn't like you using it
for free...then it's you (no particular you here, just a genreic 'you')
that has the problem.
It's not if any 'harm'is done
Original Message:
-----------------
From: MacWestie mac.westie@verizon.net
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:32:18 -1000
To: HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU
Subject: Re: [HL] Slash?
Lynn-
>>> Most of us in the law bizness find things out when a court makes a
ruling or a legislature passes a statute.>>>
Excuse me? "Most of us in the law bizness?" Is that _really_ how LA
attorneys talk about themselves? Or were you trying to be obscure?
Lynn-
>>>They might also have decided that their trademarks were threatened (which
I think is silly when it comes to fan sites, because it's generally totally
obvious a fan site is just that). None of this means that the current US
law is that if you let someone use your copyright, you lose it.>>>
Are you handing out legal advice on the net now?
Lynn-
>>> I have a hard time believing this bulletin board would exist if DPP
thought that it would lose its copyright as a result.>>>
I have a hard time believing most anything about DPP, but they DO seem to
exist. For instance-if DPP cared about fan relations, why would the product
quality & business practices of the HL Store _continue_ to scrape bottom
after several years of complaints? Even more simple-if DPP really hated the
way HL4 turned out due to interference by big bad Miramax, how come they are
threatening to partner w/ Miramax _again_ for HL5? As for the bulletin
board, forget logic-DPP likely is just trolling the board for plot ideas.
Or, maybe they have crappy legal advisors.
Lynn-
>>> Yes, but that doesn't mean they're right, or that fans or consumers
should bow and scrape to them. Not that long ago the motion picture studios
were screaming that VCRs violated their copyrights. The court decided they
were wrong. >>>
When a court decides that anyone can take another's person's fictional
universe & characters & use them publicly like fanfic does-you let us know,
because that would be a HUGE change in the law. And, there's absolutely no
reason to think it will _ever_ happen. And-SHOULD it happen? Think about
the ramifications-no one would own their literary creations any longer.
Hardly a pleasant thought. And all so that fans can "have fun" w/ other
people's work? No thanks.
Lynn-
>>> There is a very legitimate argument to be made that fan fiction,
circulated in a not-for-profit manner and with clear disclaimers, should be
considered a fair use.>>>
Well, your idea of "legitimate" is not mine. Fair use is a VERY narrow &
limited exception--NOT an umbrella for taking someone else's work & playing
around w/ it. Again-let us know when a court agrees w/ you.
Lynn-
> To date, this has not been settled by any court, so any sweeping
> statement that fanfic is or is not a fair use is an opinion, not US law.
You don't seem to understand the basics here. Unless & until fanfic is
granted an official exception, it IS illegal, just like all other
non-authorized usage of intellectual property. And, in my opinion, arguing
that fanfic deserves or will as a practical matter ever receive an exception
is ludicrous.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:54:16 -0700
From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
Subject: Re: Slash?
John wrote:
>You know....sod the legalities. It's just a plain ethical issue as far as
>I'm concerned.
>
>It's one thing to have some fun for your own personal amusement, but the
>moment you step into someone else's sandbox and then turn that personal
>enjoyment into a shared experience with others...then you have to bear in
>mind the wishes of the sandbox's owner.
Serious question; how do know the owner's wishes? I know of a few authors
who've publicly expressed opinions on the subject, and they've been on both
sides of the issue. The majority of authors & producers have never
publicly addressed this. So do you know the owner's wishes?
>Anyone disagrees with that,please send your web address so that I can come
>and hack it.
Apples and oranges John. And it's not polite to make threats.
Let me try a different analogy, FWIW. I live in a rural area in a "free
range" state. Ranchers can allow cattle to graze freely. If you don't
want them on your property you put up a fence. IOW, you must take
affirmative action to exclude the cattle. Some folks who own acreage
don't care either way, and some welcome the grazing. It's up to the
individual property owner to decide and act accordingly.
Aren't those copyright owners who object to fanfic capable of letting that
be known? DPP, Paramount, etc. are certainly capable of sending out
"cease & desist" letters. The major fanfic web sites are easily
found. Their silence on the issue speaks loudly.
Pat
**__Global Mountain Scans all Inbound and Outbound email for Viruses.__**
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 2 Mar 2003 to 3 Mar 2003 - Special issue (#2003-32)
****************************************************************************