|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Feb 27 2015, 2:59pm
Post #1 of 31
(1693 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Fan edits vs. Fan fiction
|
Can't Post
|
|
This is kind of a mea culpa - I made a comment on the post below concerning fan edits that was probably a bit harsh. No, I don't particulary want to watch them, but I suppose that if someone wants to practice editing bits of film then, as long as they keep it to themselves there would be no harm. But the sharing of such work, whether for profit or not, is the problem. Well here's kettle saying hello to the pot. I write fanfiction for similar reasons, I consider it good practice for plotting and set/character development, and yes I've shared some of my work on the Fan Art forum - including an alt-ending for the Hobbit. I won't claim to be an expert, but I do work in a law school and have asked this question before. Technically I am palagerizing Tolkein by doing this, the fact that I don't intend to profit from my work is irrelevant. The work is copyrighted, which means I would need permission from the holder of the copyright before I can write anything. Copyrights last a long time, the lifetime of the author plus 75 years (this is why people can get away with re-writing Jane Austen). That goes for movie scripts, too, just FYI. The Tolkein estate probably won't do anything to me, but they've made it pretty clear to Peter Jackson that he didn't have permission to use some of the other works for his adaptation of The Hobbit. He could end up in court, and possibly lose millions if he tried.
Now that I've explained all that, I'd like to add that I don't really have the righ to criticize fan edits (beyond not watching them) when I am doing essentially the same thing with fanfiction. But of course some others may disagree, thinking that fanfiction is better or worse than fan edits. I am wondering if this passion concerning fan edits extends to fanfiction. (Hopefully this topic won't be nearly as controversial as my last one!) I would like to know what people think, thanks.
Why yes, I DO look like Anna Friel!
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Feb 27 2015, 3:29pm
Post #2 of 31
(1572 views)
Shortcut
|
[Tolkien had been sent details of a proposed 'sequel' to The Lord of the Rings that a 'fan' was going to write himself.]
12 December 1966 76 Sandfield Road, Headington, Oxford
Dear Miss Hill,
I send you the enclosed impertinent contribution to my troubles. I do not know what the legal position is, I suppose that since one cannot claim property in inventing proper names, that there is no legal obstacle to this young ass publishing his sequel, if he could find any publisher, either respectable or disreputable, who would accept such tripe.
I have merely informed him that I have forwarded his letter and samples to you. I think that a suitable letter from Allen & Unwin might be more effective than one from me. I once had a similar proposal, couched in the most obsequious terms, from a young woman, and when I replied in the negative, I received a most vituperative letter.
-Letter #292
******************************************
No Orc, No Orc!!
It's a wonderful town!!!
Mount Doom blew up,
And the Black Tower's down!!
The orcs all fell in a hole in the ground!
No Orc, No Orc!!
It's a heckuva town!!!
-Lord of the Rings: The Musical, music by Leonard Bernstein, lyrics by Betty Comden and Adolph Green
(This post was edited by Darkstone on Feb 27 2015, 3:31pm)
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Feb 27 2015, 3:51pm
Post #3 of 31
(1561 views)
Shortcut
|
From http://www.tolkienestate.com/faq/p_2/
Can I / someone else write / complete / develop my / their own version of one of these unfinished tales ? (or any others)
The simple answer is NO.
You are of course free to do whatever you like for your own private enjoyment, but there is no question of any commercial exploitation of this form of "fan-fiction".
Also, in these days of the Internet, and privately produced collectors’ items for sale on eBay, we must make it as clear as possible that the Tolkien Estate never has, and never will authorize the commercialisation or distribution of any works of this type.
The Estate exists to defend the integrity of J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. Christopher Tolkien's work as his father’s literary executor has always been to publish as faithfully and honestly as possible his father's completed and uncompleted works, without adaptation or embellishment.
******************************************
No Orc, No Orc!!
It's a wonderful town!!!
Mount Doom blew up,
And the Black Tower's down!!
The orcs all fell in a hole in the ground!
No Orc, No Orc!!
It's a heckuva town!!!
-Lord of the Rings: The Musical, music by Leonard Bernstein, lyrics by Betty Comden and Adolph Green
|
|
|
Goldeneye
Lorien
Feb 27 2015, 3:58pm
Post #4 of 31
(1549 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Different and similar at the same time
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm not very familiar with fan fiction, and to be honest I've never made a fanedit of a film before The Hobbit. So my answer might not count for much, but here goes.
Fan fiction and fan edits are both derivative works. Where fan fiction creates something new through unauthorized additions/embellishments to an original work, fan edits create something new through unauthorized subtractions/simplifications to an original work. It's like building vs. sculpting- you're adding to a work or you're streamlining an existing piece. There are exceptions to this of course, but I feel this is generally the case.
Fan fiction is really only limited by the imagination...if I wanted to write about or draw an epic battle between Saruman and Thor, there's nothing really hampering me. Fan edits are more or less limited to what material is available to work with. In the case of the Hobbit, a faneditor only has the 8-9 hours of finished films with which to create something different. In both cases the result is a new/different interpretation of someone else's world/characters. In both cases they are indicative of a devoted fanbase!
|
|
|
Ilmatar
Rohan
Feb 27 2015, 4:26pm
Post #6 of 31
(1531 views)
Shortcut
|
I suppose that the key issue in both cases that Darkstone mentioned - Tolkien's own view, and that of his Estate - is 'commercial exploitation'. As long as those making fan fiction or fan edits don't sell their work or otherwise seek to benefit from them financially, there can be no real reason to condemn them, nor effective way to prevent them.
I don't care for fan edits but so enjoy some fan fiction. Like Goldeneye said, fan edits 'sculpt' pre-existing material while fan fiction adds to it. I find the latter a more creative, less technical endeavor, and that's more attractive to me. And as I can't seem to get enough of Middle Earth, it's always better to add than subtract. 
(This post was edited by Ilmatar on Feb 27 2015, 4:32pm)
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Feb 27 2015, 4:31pm
Post #7 of 31
(1519 views)
Shortcut
|
|
*Shrug* depends whether profit or *besmirching* is involved re fan fic/edits IMO
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
While some authors like Tolkien seem to value the "purity"? of their creation, re film, or book, while of course people should make a profit from their artistic effort and creation, at times whether for profit or other reasons to me it seems to get to silly levels - like not even being able to MENTION the name of an original character.
But re some mythology/literature/humanities courses it's human nature to have archetypes and tell stories, and re-tell stories. LOTR being a journey myth, among other things, for instance. The Elven King is a re-telling of a far older myth, and so on.
So I've got an easy-going attitude toward fan edits, fan fiction, e.g., within hopefully reasonably tasteful boundaries . As far as I know, these fan edits and fiction are profitless and/or enjoyed by a relatively small group who even know about them. In any case, thanks to Tolkien himself being the master of modern adult fantasy literature - well, he's already been ripped off IMO by a plethora of published fantasy writers with their more or less thinly disguised characters and plots.
These film fan edits aren't reshoots of material, they're deletions and re-stitching of material that's already out there, and I'm not seeing much difference between that and a "Forward/Skip" button on a remote, except convenience. (Tho I have seen some quite nice You Tube vids, which are film edits of a sort.)
Also, the Tolkien estate - perhaps rightfully - is wary of what would be done to Tolkien's legacy, but I wonder that the estate does not also see the great compliment it is that Tolkien's work has so wholly seized the global imagination (and the films I think have fueled that). E.g., how many equally wonderful works perhaps were published (or not) by some academic, and yet are now forgotten, gathering dust in some used bookstore, if that?
I suppose my own attitude is that whether it is the tasteless and gross *mature* art (roll eyes) to lovely works re the characters to fan fiction - at a grass roots, non-profit, "underground" level it's sort of a celebration of the stories and characters, and anyone doing work like that is praised or condemned by the same community. That it goes on is a compliment to Tolkien - whether it's "any good" or merely laughable is another question, but globally there's no way to STOP it. Should cosplayers be sued, for dressing up as characters they have no "intellectual right" to?
And is any of this "grass roots" work going to be on anyone's shelves or DVD collection, 3 years from now? 5? 10? Tolkien will be of course.
Finally, since you mention Austen's work - I wonder, why it is OK in 100 years to re-write someone else's work, but not in 20? 30? 40? Why does the passage of time make it "better"? Just sayin' - because it almost feels like "we need to make as much money as possible before no-one cares, then it's OK" - I don't think the Tolkien estate has this attitude, but for some other works, yes. 
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Feb 27 2015, 6:50pm
Post #8 of 31
(1446 views)
Shortcut
|
No. In the case of writing a story or carving a sculpture that work does not exist before it is created.
When one edits an existing film, or a book, the work has already been created.
I don't think it's common practice for sculptors to start with someone else's sculpture and then carve that down into a smaller version, is it?
(This post was edited by Spriggan on Feb 27 2015, 6:54pm)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Feb 27 2015, 7:04pm
Post #9 of 31
(1440 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm not sure that the passage of time does make it better....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... or worse to make use of someone else's published writings, it's just that once there were laws to protect the rights an author would have in his/her own work it was only practical for those laws to define how long the rights were to last. The duration of copyright has changed down the years and I think it's different in different countries. In the UK and Europe copyright ends 70 years after the author's death.
Law apart, it would seem to be a more sensitive issue in the author's lifetime. I can understand why Tolkien really didn't like the idea of people writing their own developments of his stories while he was still developing them himself and I'm sure he's not the only writer who ever felt that way. And of course he has a family who feel passionately about preserving the integrity of his writing, as they have every right to do; it's part of their story too. But for living relatives of Jane Austen - and they do exist - or of someone like the Brontes - I don't think they do - it would all be much more remote.
For what it's worth - not much, probably! - I can never take the modern sequels written by other people in quite the same way as the real thing. Pride and Prejudice is the original story with Jane Austen's characters doing what she wanted them to do. Death in Pemberley is just what someone else imagined might have happened to them after. The author who wrote an 'official' Peter Pan sequel - can't remember her name or the book's right now - did an almost perfect job in matching not only J M Barrie's style but also his mood and attitudes. Even so, the book feels secondary to me - it's not quite Peter Pan.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Feb 27 2015, 8:34pm
Post #10 of 31
(1395 views)
Shortcut
|
That's funny, I've read some published Austen spinoffs (and have written one myself), so I know what you mean about sometimes they match up and sometimes they don't. Speaking of which, don't even get me started on "Scarlet," the "official" sequel to "Gone with the Wind." I don't think that author ever read the first book, it's just AWFUL!!!
Why yes, I DO look like Anna Friel!
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Feb 27 2015, 8:37pm
Post #11 of 31
(1398 views)
Shortcut
|
"Finally, since you mention Austen's work - I wonder, why it is OK in 100 years to re-write someone else's work, but not in 20? 30? 40? Why does the passage of time make it "better"? Just sayin' - because it almost feels like "we need to make as much money as possible before no-one cares, then it's OK" - I don't think the Tolkien estate has this attitude, but for some other works, yes. "
It's not the passage of time so much as the expiration of the copyright. Jane Austen didn't have any kids, and I guess her siblings' descendants didn't keep the copyrights going. Tolkein's estate is a bit more active in that regard.
Why yes, I DO look like Anna Friel!
|
|
|
Elarie
Grey Havens
Feb 27 2015, 11:41pm
Post #12 of 31
(1351 views)
Shortcut
|
quote: I don't think it's common practice for sculptors to start with someone else's sculpture and then carve that down into a smaller version, is it?
__________________________________
Goodness - did you even need to ask?  There's not much some artist hasn't done these days. In this sample the sculptures are not "cut down", but altered art is very much a part of contemporary art. And the copyright issues sound like a such a nightmare, it's hard to imagine even wanting to go down that road, but most of these works seem to be done as social statements and the artists obviously consider it worth the legal trouble in order to say what they need to say, so more power to them, I guess.
links:
https://www.designfaves.com/...-into-bright-pop-art
http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Appropriation_(art)
__________________
Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.
(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)
|
|
|
Dwarewien
Rohan
Feb 27 2015, 11:56pm
Post #13 of 31
(1349 views)
Shortcut
|
As long as those making fan fiction or fan edits don't sell their work or otherwise seek to benefit from them financially, there can be no real reason to condemn them, nor effective way to prevent them.
I don't care for fan edits but so enjoy some fan fiction. Like Goldeneye said, fan edits 'sculpt' pre-existing material while fan fiction adds to it. I find the latter a more creative, less technical endeavor, and that's more attractive to me. And as I can't seem to get enough of Middle Earth, it's always better to add than subtract.
and the one thing I like about fan fiction is that if you don't like what happens to a certain character (like Thorin, for example), you can always change it, since Thorin's not dying in any of my fan fiction stories. Not going to happen, since I won't allow it. After all, it's my story, I can shape it the way I like, and since I'm no book purist, I don't mind the changes, never did. And I'll write any kind of fan fiction (or drabble), except for slash, incest or abuse of any kind, and of course Thorin, Fili and Kili must survive, I won't kill them off. It's hard enough to watch, so why would I want to write about something that will depress me to no end?
"Will you follow me... one last time?"
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Feb 28 2015, 12:44am
Post #14 of 31
(1334 views)
Shortcut
|
But not, as I say, the common practice of sculpting. We don't imagine Rodin started with someone else's 4m Thinker in order to whittle it down to his own, do we?
|
|
|
Elarie
Grey Havens
Feb 28 2015, 1:34am
Post #15 of 31
(1321 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But relevant to the discussion of fan edits and fan fiction
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The crux of the discussion in this thread, and the other ones about fan edits, seems to be mostly about the concept and ethics of altering an existing work. But so far these discussions are approaching fan edits and fiction in a way that seems out of context to me, as though these works are not related to, or influenced by, the society in which they occur and the art movements that permeate that society. It's like trying to discuss the price of gasoline without mentioning the price of crude oil, but you can't - the price of gas isn't random, it comes from a set of circumstances involving oil production. Likewise, fan edits may seem like something that just popped up when digital media and computers came along, but they are actually the product of a society in which various forms of altered art have been widely accepted for over a century and which now hang in our art museums (the ultimate "stamp of approval" for an artist), and that is something that I find not only relevant to the discussion, but a necessary part of it.
__________________
Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.
(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Feb 28 2015, 1:57am
Post #16 of 31
(1315 views)
Shortcut
|
We would be hard pressed to find appropriated art where nothing is added and/or where the act of appropriation is not the one with the artistic merit rather than the product itself (let alone considering the status of the artist and the dialogue between the original work and the new). There is no new art here.
There is no suggestion of a lack of context but appropriated art doesn't bear any relationship. Certainly we can see a Chapmans' Goya given that "stamp" but we aren't going to see these fan edits there!
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
Feb 28 2015, 2:44am
Post #17 of 31
(1308 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There's nothing to stop anyone - at least in the 'developed world' - from producing something just as good as the original work.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
All they need is a pencil, and some pieces of paper. Then they can invent their own characters and stories and worlds and write about them, and make them just as good as anything Dickens or Tolkien or Austen came up with. If they're not good enough to do that, then why should they be considered good enough to write using characters, worlds and situations taken from other authors? And if they are good enough writers, and still use other people's work as the basis for their stories, then their characters and plots will reflect their own individual talents, and will increasingly diverge from the style of the original author. In which case, they might as well have started with their own characters etc. anyway, and come up with something truly original.
Of course some people may just be effectively forging the work of the original author - by following not only their characters and world but also their style. In which case, they're really only adding the story element - and even then, that is dictated to some extent by the nature of the characters created by the original author. Such works should, I think, be considered new works mainly by the original author, with story elements added by the new author. The problem there is that the main author has effectively no control over the nature of the piece, despite being the major contributor the the whole. That's not a very satisfactory position, with regard to respecting a person's creativity and talent.
There are of course some places and characters that have become part of folk myth, but don't really have their own specific writing style associated with them. King Arthur, Heaven, Hell, Robin Hood, Jesus - they're all open to new authors because nobody owns their creation; there's no original author to disrespect, just a series of disparate writings and styles, to be constantly added to by new writers.
Fan fiction reminds me of a lot of rap records, where the only good bit is the sampled tune of a proper musician, that has been inserted into or - more likely - forms the basis for, the entire song; the new 'artist' just adding a bit of talking, hand waving and a drum machine.
"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
Elarie
Grey Havens
Feb 28 2015, 2:05pm
Post #18 of 31
(1254 views)
Shortcut
|
___________________________________________
Quote: We would be hard pressed to find appropriated art where nothing is added and/or where the act of appropriation is not the one with the artistic merit rather than the product itself (let alone considering the status of the artist and the dialogue between the original work and the new). There is no new art here.
There is no suggestion of a lack of context but appropriated art doesn't bear any relationship. Certainly we can see a Chapmans' Goya given that "stamp" but we aren't going to see these fan edits there!
___________________________________________
it sounds as though you are now discussing the "merit" or the "quality" of the final altered work rather than the ethics of the process of altering. The point of putting fan edits into the context of contemporary art is that the act of alteration itself is widely held to be a creative act, and an act of alteration can consist of either adding or subtracting (or both) - there's no rule about it either way. It seems to me that the people doing fan edits don't see anything "wrong" with it because we live in a society where images are manipulated constantly, and where manipulation of pre-existing images and objects has been accepted as art for over a century.
Whether or not the artist has status in the arts community, or whether the final altered product is considered to be high quality seems like a different discussion, and to make a blanket statement that "there is no new art here" seems pretty sweeping. Lots of people have said that before about any new form of art and only time will tell what direction fan edits will take. I think we're just at the beginning of the digital art era and people should be encouraged to explore.
__________________
Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.
(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Feb 28 2015, 2:28pm
Post #19 of 31
(1253 views)
Shortcut
|
Suggestion about external markers of art, which you pointed to as an indicator to support the idea that appropriated art is indeed art. I agree with that but it clearly provides no evidence for these fan edits, does it?
There is no question that alteration cannot produce art. Absolutely obviously, however, not all or even most alteration produces art. Does the existence of appropriated art suggest to you that if I resize a picture on my computer I have created new art? If I edit a novel? If I download only certain tracks from an album?
Would you hold to your view that such acts of alteration are "widely considered to be art?" Of course not.
Appropriated art is cited within the issues I mentioned in my post above. As you helpfully point out, we also see all manner of external indicators. Can we see either those internal or external indicators in the field of fan editing TH? Of course not.
|
|
|
Elarie
Grey Havens
Feb 28 2015, 3:05pm
Post #20 of 31
(1241 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, now we've drifted into the "What is art" discussion
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and it's pretty clear we have different ideas about that, since my answer to your questions:
______________________________
"if I resize a picture on my computer I have created new art? If I edit a novel? If I download only certain tracks from an album? Would you hold to your view that such acts of alteration are "widely considered to be art?"
______________________________
would be, "Yes, possibly". But the "what is art" discussion has been going on for several thousand years and endless volumes have been written about it without anybody ever agreeing on one definition, so I don't see much point in going down that road on this thread.
The original discussion was about the ethics involved in fan edits, not the quality of the final form, and my response was that you can't discuss the ethics of fan edits without discussing them in the context of the society and art movements in which they are occurring, since the people doing the edits don't live in a bubble untouched by the world around them (if they did they would never have seen the original movie to start with). I just don't see how fan edits can be considered unethical by the same society that hangs Rauschenberg's "Erased de Kooning" in an art museum.
__________________
Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.
(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Feb 28 2015, 4:25pm
Post #21 of 31
(1228 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think the catch is in the 'widely considered'....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There may be a few individuals out there who would think that the actions Spriggan mentions can possibly create new art but I find it very hard to believe that this would be anything like a general view, so not 'widely considered....'
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Feb 28 2015, 5:30pm
Post #22 of 31
(1223 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"Possibly" vs "widely considered"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A little different, I think. But sure, if you have a personal doctrine of "art until proven otherwise" for every photo crop, partial album download or copy edit then that's a clear, if somewhat unlikely, stance! Certainly not a "widely considered" approach, though, I think it's fair to say.
On ethics, if that was the core topic, I'm not quite sure why you raised it in response to my post. I don't think fan edits are unethical and don't think I've ever suggested that I do.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Feb 28 2015, 5:36pm
Post #23 of 31
(1223 views)
Shortcut
|
About what qualifies something, empirically, as art. I am sincerely curious about your relationship to the art world. Are you an artist yourself, or do you have some background or education in the arts?
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Feb 28 2015, 5:52pm
Post #24 of 31
(1215 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm sure I know very little - these are common arguments.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And I don't think it's particularly relevant as I'm not suggesting any personal authority but yes to a couple of those, as it happens.
I wouldn't say empirically particularly, incidentally.
|
|
|
Elarie
Grey Havens
Feb 28 2015, 6:04pm
Post #25 of 31
(1208 views)
Shortcut
|
but your comment about carving away someone else's sculpture just seemed very related to the previous subject of editing out parts of the Hobbit in the fan edits that were being discussed in this thread and the previous one that the OP referred to. Anyway, I found this whole discussion very interesting and enjoyed it very much.
By the way, I like your phrase, "art until proven otherwise". I wouldn't go so far as to call it my personal doctrine but it does sound like a great title for an exhibit.
__________________
Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.
(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)
|
|
|
|
|
1
