Misrepresented

There's an interesting article in Reason Magazine about fanfic. The only problem with it is that the writer Cathy Young completely misrepresents my views on the topic.

The vehemently anti-fanfic writer Lee Goldberg, who blogs at leegoldberg.com, is the author of several authorized novels based on the TV shows Monk and Diagnosis Murder—a contradiction he defends on the grounds that he does it only for the money.

So I wrote a letter to the editor:

A number of people have sent me Cathy Young's thoughtful and interesting article about fanfiction.  I have written extensively on my blog about fanfiction, particularly my view that the practice of publishing it in print and on the Internet infringes on the original author's creative rights (not to mention the trademark and copyright issues). I've argued that fanfiction writers should get the permission of the author or rights holder before distributing their work. If the original author or rights holder  has no problem with fanfiction based  on their  work, then I don't either. I have also said that licensed tie-in fiction, which I have written, differs significantly on ethical and legal grounds from fanfiction because it is done with the consent, participation and supervision of the original author or rights holder. At no point have I *ever* expressed the views that she incorrectly (and I have to assume deliberately) attributed to me. It's a shame, because her article would have been far more informative, and fair, if she'd bothered to accurately reflect my actual opinions on the subject.

I look forward to seeing a correction in the next issue of REASON.

Do you think they will have the journalistic integrity to run a correction? Or should I assume that they have the same standards for accuracy as  Cathy Young?

UPDATE 2-8-07:  Cathy Young has responded to my email and still misses the point.  I'm not surprised.  She argues that because I said I wouldn't have written the MONK books unless I was hired to do so proves her argument that I believe the only difference between fanfic and  tie-in work is that I'm getting paid for it.  I replied:

I want to thank you for your lengthy follow-up to my email. While I stand by everything you've quoted this time (accurately, I should say), I still take issue with your statement above. I have never said that I write them only for the money. While it's true that I've said I wouldn't have written the MONK or DM novels unless I was hired to do so, I don't think getting paid is what separates fanfiction (the theft of an authors' work without his or her permissions) from licensed tie-ins or other derivative works that respect the original authors creative and legal rights. It's not PAY that is the defining element -- it's PERMISSION. Fanficcers routinely and blithely disrespect an author's creative and legal rights on the grounds that they aren't getting paid for their work.

She also makes the same old, weak excuses for not seeking permission before publishing fanfiction. Like other fanficcers, she takes no responsibility for violating the  creative and legal rights of authors and rights holders -- instead, she believes the  burden should be placed on authors or rights holders to issue a blanket approval or disapproval of fanfiction (not that fanficcers would honor such a statement anyway).  Sadly, her bitter disrespect for creative rights, trademark and copyright are all-too-common among the fanfiction community. 

UPDATE 2-8-07: My brother Tod enters the fray.

It was an interesting article and Lee was just a tiny portion of it...which makes her following screed a rather odd ancillary argument as it would appear she's more angered that Lee dislikes fan fiction (and more angered about Lee in general, as a human and as a hack) than apologetic that she misrepresented his well-known views, which is fine. People the world over hate Lee, but in the space of her story in Reason the inclusion of Lee at all was odd, but is now grossly apparent: She thinks he's a dick and wanted the world to know, just in case there was ever any question.

Comments

[Randy Johnson]

You probably won't get a correction. I don't know why you continue to argue with these people. They will continue to misconstrue your views(on purpose more than likely) so they can continue to justify they're theft of other people's characters. Your position has been clearly explained more than once.

[Carstairs38]

I doubt you'll get a correction. Very few newspapers issue them any more anyway.

Look at the bright side. You're now on the same level as politians in both parties. Congrats!

Mark

[Mark A. York]

Well they're Libertarians so I would think they'd like to get it right.

[Mark A. York]

Reason is a magazine but there is no basis in saying newspapers issue no corrections. They're not on the front page, but issued nonetheless regularly.

[Chadwick H Saxelid]

I'd like to think you'll get a fair shake in the matter of the quote, but my inherently cynical nature keeps telling me otherwise. I hate being so conflicted!

[Richard S. Wheeler]

I would like to think that Reason will offer you a retraction or at least print your rebuttal. Reason is the organ of American Libertarians, and one of their cornerstones is the sacrosanct nature of property, along with freedom of contract and the rights of persons. It is actually intellectual property you have diligently defended against its violation by fan fiction writers. I suspect Ms Young is seriously confused about her own social philosophy, or she wouldn't have fallen into such error.

[Nicolas Papaconstantinou]

Man, that was a bit of an unprofessional jab on her part, wasn't it?

And...

While I can understand why a website wouldn't allow comments, because of how sticky things can get in them sometimes, and while I understand that Reason is a web-based version of a print magazine... so that might affect their reasoning... It seems odd having a website dedicated to Free Minds and Free Markets, that doesn't allow easy commenting on their articles. I find that conflicted, and perhaps a little bit hypocritical...

After all, if they DID allow comments, whether or not you get a retraction or apology wouldn't be such an issue. There are plenty of people reading you that would be willing to make the correction themselves via comments.

[Chadwick H. Saxelid]

I read an essay by Miss Young awhile back (it was her column in REASON magazine, yes)in which she shared that she was a fanfic writer at one point. She might still be a reader, I'm not sure.

[Mark A. York]

Sure. And here it is: http://www.cathyyoung.net/mc/fiction.html

The link to it didn't work at Reason. Young definitely has a dog in the fight.

[Mike Barer]

What are the credentials of Reason Magazine and why did they not contact you for a quote?

[LJM]

Ms. Young responds here:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118582.html

I think she ably demonstrates that her description of his writings in the article was quite accurate.

[Cathy Young]

Thanks for the link, LJM. A longer version of my reply can be found here on my own blog:

http://cathyyoung.blogspot.com/2007/02/lee-goldbergs-war-on-fanfic_07.html

As for my "having a dog in this fight," I state upfront in my column that I write fanfiction.

[Jesse Walker]

"It seems odd having a website dedicated to Free Minds and Free Markets, that doesn't allow easy commenting on their articles."

We do allow commenting on our articles -- not directly on the same page as the articles, but in comment threads on our staff blog. If you'd like to react to Young's column, you can do so here:

http://reason.com/blog/show/118397.html

Or you can join the discussion at the URL provided by LJM.

[Mark A. York]

Done.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118582.html#637706

[David J. Montgomery]

It does seem a bit disingenuous of an editor to assign an article to a person who has such an obvious conflict. Unless, of course, there wasn't even a pretense of any objectivity.

Since the writer in question appears to have limited regard for the copyrights of authors, I wonder if she would object to other publications (websites, etc.) publishing her article without payment or attribution?

[Cathy Young]

Mr. Montgomery:

Regarding the alleged conflict of interest, perhaps you have heard of opinion articles? My column was an expression of OPINION, not an "objective" news story.

By the way, disingenuous analogies will not really help your case. I have absolutely no problem with any website reproducing my articles without pay. The only time I ever objected to that was when I found some of my columns that criticized anti-male radical feminism reposted on a far-right website that contained misogynistic and homophobic material. I told them to take those columns down because I didn't want anyone to think I was associated with such a site.

Now, "without attribution" is a wholly different matter, and it doesn't really apply, does it? Because as far as I know, EVERY fan fiction story is prefaced with the disclaimer that the writer does not own the characters and a statement of who does own them.

What's more, a fanfic is not a copy. For instance, if someone wrote an article based entirely on my original investigative research, I would have absolutely no power to keep them from posting it.

As for copyright law, I can say that as a writer, I have been directly hurt by what I regard as its overenforcement. A lot of my old articles disappeared from the Web after the Supreme Court ruled that newspapers and magazines could not include published articles in electronic databases unless the writer had specifically given his or her consent for such use. Thanks a lot, copyright zealots.

[BZTV]

Lee... Why Cathy Young seems to be so baffled by this mystifies me. Your point is completely accurate. Bryce

[Cathy Young]

Lee: please, do stop twisting my words. I never said that you argued that the *only* difference between fanfic and tie-ins is that you get paid. In fact, in my blogpost, I actually said that I should have been more specific in my article and made it clear that you defend your work on tie-in novels *partly* on those grounds. I even offered an apology if my wording in the column gave the misleading impression that you think it's the *only* difference between fanfic and tie-ins.

The fact is, you did on at least two occasions say exactly what you claim I incorrectly attributed to you: that you write tie-in novels based on TV series only because you get paid for them, that you would not have any interest in writing them if you could make a living with original fiction, and that this makes you superior to people who write fan fiction for artistic self-expression. (I assume that includes people who write fan fiction in fandoms in which the creators and owners of the characters have explicitly sanctioned fanfic.) That you continue to deny it in the face of your own words does not reallly change it.

Yes, I know I said I would stop arguing with you about what you did and didn't say in the thread on the Reason blog, but I frankly didn't expect to come here and find you blatantly misrepresenting what *I* said. Though, given your track record with Naomi Novik, I really shouldn't be surprised, should I?

You also conveniently fail to mention my statement of my personal belief that if a writer has expressed a wish that no fan fiction based on his or her work be publicly posted, that wish should be respected. (Just as you consistently fail to mention that fanfiction.net abides by such wishes.)

By the way, I gave an answer to a question that you say no fanfic writer has ever answered. So how about replying to my arguments, instead of slamming them as "the same old, weak excuses"?

As for your brother's contribution to the fray: actually, when I wrote my column, my knowledge of your person was limited to a couple of threads at fandom_wank sent to me by a friend, and two or three of your blogposts. Believe me, I had no intention of blogging about you until you accused me of mispresenting your words, which is also what prompted me to peruse your fanfic-related posts at length (not the way I'd ever choose to spend the better part of a day). When I was writing my column, I had no opinion on whether you're a dick. I do now.

[tod goldberg]

Cathy, it's impossible that you didn't think Lee was a dick if you'd read the threads on Fandom Wank. When I read the threads, I thought he was a dick. So come on, come clean, embrace your hate. You'll feel free. You'll wake up tomorrow lighter, happier and eager to face down any challenge that might be presented to you, be that in the real world, the fan world, or the world where writing from the heart is morally more invigorating than writing for publication (even if that writing from the heart concerns, you know, Harry and Ron whacking off together on a train bound for Hogwarts, which, while hot, is messy).

[Mark A. York]

Messy indeed. I was hoping for the 'tard treatment though, Tod. If ever a situation called for it...

[Maestro]

Speaking of analogies that do not help your case:

>"if someone wrote an article based entirely on my original investigative research, I would have absolutely no power to keep them from posting it."

Granted it would depend on exactly what constituted your "investigative research", but it's likely that the reason you would have no power to stop them would be because they did not infringe on your copyright; facts are not copyrightable.

A similar counterpoint could be made with regard to your "photograph of a garden" analogy because, although photographs are copyrightable, the copyright rests with the photographer, not the owner of the subject of the photograph. Again, no copyright is infringed upon.

>"You also conveniently fail to mention my statement of my personal belief that if a writer has expressed a wish that no fan fiction based on his or her work be publicly posted, that wish should be respected."

a) that's completely ass-backward. And b) because it's ass-backward, it's irrelevant, so why should Lee have mentioned it?

It's not about anyone's personal belief or wish, it's about the law. Even phrasing it in the most charitable way possible, "borrowing" someone else's property without their permission is against the law. The burden is not on the property owner to tell everyone else that it's not OK to borrow his or her property, the burden is on the borrower to seek and be granted permission from the owner.

So your personal belief--if the owner has stated that he doesn't want anyone to borrow his property, that the owner's "wish" should be respected--means exactly squat.

It's this exact principle that's behind the Supreme Court ruling you decry; the newspaper must seek and be granted permission from you first. They are not allowed to assume your consent absent a statement to the contrary.

And as an aside, what's preventing you from giving your consent now, and thus allowing the articles to be reposted?

[Cathy Young]

Nice to meet you, Tod. Actually, I only skimmed those f_w threads, and in all honesty, the only thing that stuck in my mind was Lee's declaration that he would much prefer not to write those "Monk" novels but a man's gotta make a living. As for "hate" -- I'm angry at anyone, it's at myself for getting into this silly food fight.

A few quick points before I bow out.

(1) I'm hardly anti-publication. I've got two published books (nonfiction) and about to start a third. Some friends who have read my fan fiction, including one who was an editor for a major publisher before launching her own small press, keep pushing me to write and publish original fiction. Maybe some day, but at the moment I've yet to come up with an idea for an original story that I'd enjoy writing as much as I enjoy writing my fanfic. Feel free to laugh.

(2) I'm hardly a mindless cheerleader for fanfic. Actually, I think it's quite worrying that some teenagers' recreational reading consists entirely of fanfic, often written by other teens and not only bad but subliterate. I said so in my column.

(3) Why do fanfic haters always feel obliged to make cracks about "Kirk shtupping Spock" or Harry and Ron wanking together? It's getting old, guys. Give it a rest. Let's have some equal time for Spike shtupping Buffy.

Speaking of wank, I've had quite enough of it for one day. Cheers.

[Danny Barer]

What I still cannot understand is how Ms. Young finds authorized tie-in novels so analogous to fanfic that writing them while slamming fanfic is "a contradiction."

How is a MONK novel Lee writes any more like fanfic than a MONK TV episode Lee writes? In both cases, Lee is writing characters that he didn't create. Is every episode of every TV series that is not written by the series creator fanfic? Are the LETHAL WEAPON sequels not written by Shane Black?

Is it because it's a book, not the original series? So are the Babylon 5 novels plotted by the series creator, but written by other writers, analogous to fanfic?

Ms. Young appears to distinguish corporate-licensed works from creator-licensed works. Is every book or other work analogous to fanfic if the creator did not personally license it? Is every episode of THE WEST WING after Sorkin left the show fanfic, because the creator was not involved in them?

Is the analogy because Lee likes the MONK and DIAGNOSIS MURDER characters? Is a work in an existing universe fanfic unless the author hates the material?

[Cathy Young]

Just to answer the question Maestro posed to me: A few publications to which I was a regular contributor sent me permission forms in order to keep my articles online. One of them apparently misplaced the form when I faxed it back to them and took them offline anyway, and by the time I discovered it, I had missed the deadline to give my consent. Publications to which I had been only an occasional contributor never bothered to contact me in the first place (and I don't blame them for not sending permission forms to hundreds of freelancers). If you're suggesting that it was my job to go through the hassle of contacting them, requesting a permission form, filling it out and sending it back -- all for no extra money -- that's a funny way of protecting my rights.

[Ey-up]

It seems to me that there's more agreement here than people are acknowledging. If Lee and Cathy both think that a)people shouldn't write fan fiction without permission and b)bad writing is not a good thing, then they're pretty much on the same side. There's some disagreement over side-issues and emphasis, but that doesn't mean you're disagreeing on the central issues. Maybe we could all be friends instead of fighting?

[David J. Montgomery]

So she agrees that people shouldn't write fanfiction when the author objects. But she also (apparently) believes that in the absence of a declaration of objection, fanfic writers should assume permission. That strikes me as being illogical.

On the other hand, I think she clearly has a crush on Lee. Why else would she keep writing about him, and keep responding to these comments when she keeps saying she's not going to? I can already see, this coupling is gong to be a fruitful source for some very hot real person slash fiction.

I'm willing to bet that Cathy has left comments on your blog as LadyGoth or something equally inane. Any woman who writes fan fic and makes fan art at age 50 needs to get a fucking life that doesn't involve her cats and her love of Lucy Lawless.

[Lee Goldberg]

Cathy wrote: "the only thing that stuck in my mind was Lee's declaration that he would much prefer not to write those "Monk" novels but a man's gotta make a living."

You really can't help yourself, can you? I never said that. And you know it...so why do you keep attempting to twist my words anyway?

I love writing the MONK novels. What I said is that, because I am a professional writer, I would have not have written them unless I was asked to because MONK doesn't belong to me. You desperately want to create the impression that I write these books reluctantly and shamefully just to pay my bills. Not only have I never said it, I've never even implied it...because nothing could be further from truth.

What I didsay is that as much as I enjoy writing MONK, I would much rather be writing entirely original work but I don't have that luxury. You have deliberately misconstrued that remark in a transparent attempt to create a false impression of my motives. The fact that you continue to do so mystifies me. Surely there are things I have actually said that you can disagree with equal passion.

Lee

[Lee Goldberg]

Cathy wrote: "I never said that you argued that the *only* difference between fanfic and tie-ins is that you get paid."

Um, that's not true. Here's what you wrote in your REASON column:

"The vehemently anti-fanfic writer Lee Goldberg, who blogs at leegoldberg.com, is the author of several authorized novels based on the TV shows Monk and Diagnosis Murder—a contradiction he defends on the grounds that he does it only for the money."

What am I missing?

Cathy wrote: "In fact, in my blogpost, I actually said that I should have been more specific in my article and made it clear that you defend your work on tie-in novels *partly* on those grounds. "

That still isn't accurate...and I suspect you are well aware of it. I never said I am only doing it for the money. I said I am doing it with the permission, consent and involvement of the author and the rights holders... they came to me and asked me to write a novel using their characters. That, Cathy, is what distinguishes my work from fanfic. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? It's you, and other fanficcers, who fixate on the money, as if that is the only issue of merit. Just because you aren'tgetting paid for your fanfic doesn't change the fact that it's violating the creative and legal rights of the authors you casually steal from.

Lee

[Mike Barer]

I don't think that Cathy has a leg to stand on and considering I had no clue who she was, she should thank you for all the publicity that you have afforded her.

[Mark A. York]

"Just because you aren'tgetting paid for your fanfic doesn't change the fact that it's violating the creative and legal rights of the authors you casually steal from."

Bravo. That's what I said over there. They didn't get it either.

[Micah]

In relation to the "permission" aspect of Mr Goldberg's arguments, I am baffled as to why any author would have an issue with having the onus on them to protect their own copyright. Um, that's the way it is and always has been with every civil right in the history of law.

Regarding TV shows: These days, it is common knowledge that if your TV show is going to a great success, some fans are going to want to write, and distribute, fanfiction. At least for a while (while there's a buzz).

No matter what you do, you are not going to convince the average Jo that this is hurting ANYONE.

Therefore, you CAN'T enforce a rule which prohibits these people from writing fanfiction.

Copyright law was never about that anyway! It has ALWAYS about giving author's a legal remedy, to pursue through the courts, for what they believed to be violation.

The onus has ALWAYS been on the copyright holder to issue a notice, to take up proceedings, to give or not to give permission.

Now, a blanket statement saying yes or no (with limitations) is one option. A public relations person, EASILY AVAILABLE to the public, issuing licenses on a case-by-case (or site-by-site) basis is also another option.

What's wrong anti-fanficcers? Afraid of finding a realistic solution to your problem so you can't bitch about it anymore? Just want the law to come down like the hand of Prometheus and BAN FANFICTION PERIOD? Because that just won't happen. There has to be a middle ground.

Accept it - and start trying to think of how you would like to see the rules of fanfiction phenomenon ACTUALLY work, rather than just bitching endlessly about it.

Lee, I'd like to offer some help on why you're being misquoted. What you say here:
"Fanficcers routinely and blithely disrespect an author's creative and legal rights on the grounds that they aren't getting paid for their work."

To me, the above statement appears to lump together views on ‘fanficcers’ who DON’T have permission with ‘fanficcers’ who DO have permission.

Furthermore, YOU'VE misquote the other side. It actually seems to be on the grounds that.. they aren't hurting anyone, not that "they aren't getting paid."

[Ey-up]

Whether or not you share her opinions, Cathy Young is at least pleasant and thoughtful in her writing style. I wish people would refrain from making nasty personal remarks about her. It is silly and disagreeable, and not a good advertisement for the opposing position.

[Mark A. York]

She's anything but pleasant in her style attacking me so I disagree. Maybe she's only nice to women? Micah's bifurcation is unqualified. The permitted fanficcers and in a distinct minority, except in the work itself. It's all the same in that regard.

[Mark A. York]

Consider this lovely analogy:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/118582.html#638982

"Your writing skills are roughly comparable to the average "fanficcer" -- okay, discounting the junior high school set -- but you need to feel superior to someone. It's the same reason the "white trash" in the old South were often so vehemently racist: sure they were trash, but hot damn it, at least they weren't n***ers!"

[Richard S. Wheeler]

Appropriating someone's property is normally considered theft. Micah's argument that it is permissible so long as the owner takes no legal remedies is a bit dubious, I think. The theft begins the moment any fan fiction writer makes any public use of literary property owned by someone else.

[Mark A. York]

Want to know why she picked that particular original passage of mine?

As I suspected: http://www.reason.com/news/show/117896.html

[Ryan]

What bothers me the most is why Cathy couldn't've just acknowledged the fact that Lee's opinion differed from her own, accepted his explanations for the statements that she found unclear or that she misinterpreted, and apologized.

Why was there a need for her to continue arguing?

When somebody says you've misrepresented their ideas, you take them at face value, respect their point of view, and apologize for the mistake.

At least, I thought that was the polite thing to do.

[Mark A. York]

Well, on the up side I'm now "vehement" as well.

[Angelle]

When I was a small kid, my mom said it's polite to ask before you take it. I guess that simple courtesy is beyond Cathy Young and many -- if not most -- of her fanfic buddies.

[Maestro]

>"If you're suggesting that it was my job to go through the hassle of contacting them, requesting a permission form, filling it out and sending it back -- all for no extra money -- that's a funny way of protecting my rights."

While I appreciate that you took the time to post an answer to my question, I'm having trouble reconciling your objection with your previous suggestion that it's the rights holder's job to go through the hassle of contacting fanficers and deny permission -- all for no extra money -- in order for the rights holder to protect his or her rights (read: have his or her wish respected).

[Mark A. York]

http://misssnark.blogspot.com/2007_02_11_misssnark_archive.html#117123203751177743

[Burl Barer]

I'm working on Cathy Young FanFic.
"Oh,Lee, I can't wait to taste your literary acumen," gurgled Cathy fluidly while clutching Goldberg's MONK.
"Cough up some cash, wench," barked Lee dogmatically. "The only dyke I'm interested in is Dick Van."
Cathy,overcome with adrenaline and alliteration popped two adverbs and an adjective while furiously poking her participle.
"Don't treat ma as if I'm some pre-published cyber cooze," she whimpered loudly while screaming soto voice, "your brother has more respect for me, and he's disrespectful of everyone."
--
do you think i can get permission from The Creator to post this crap on the internet?

[nona]

Oy. You know, every time this argument comes around, I wince and tell myself it's not worth jumping in, I'll regret it, the water is full of shrieking eels...

...and yet, here I am. Okay. Lee, you keep talking about those creative and legal rights fanwriters violate, whether or not they turn a profit, but, well, isn't the essential nature of copyright the right *to* profit? It's not the right to control the use or perception of your fictional creations, world without end, amen, or it wouldn't have an expiration date. Copyright is an assurance that other people won't profit from something you made, unless you give permission.

They're not making or distributing verbatim *copies* of an original work, which is straight-up piracy, and clearly covered by the law. They're producing original works with existing characters or settings, some in copyright, some not, some sanctioned by creators, some not. I guess I don't see how Jane Austen fanfic is acceptable but Narnia fanfic is abhorrent, only because Jane's out of copyright and C.S. Lewis isn't. It's not as though either one can give permission, what with being dead and all.

If a creator really can't stand the idea of other people writing their characters, and says so, I know of very few fans who'll carry on regardless-- you don't see much Anne Rice fanfiction around. And straight-up piracy is certainly illegal. But fanwriters don't profit from their work in any tangible way recognized by the U.S. court system. Praise, attention, and experience are certainly vauable things, and may be gained from fan writing, but they're tough to quantify when suing for damages.

[P M Rommel]

From Richard Wheeler, "Appropriating someone's property is normally considered theft."

Oh, no, not that hoary old argument again.

Copyright infringment is not theft, just in the same way that "dog" is not spelled C-A-T. Copyright infringement is, well, copyright infringment.

[Micah]

"Micah's argument that it is permissible so long as the owner takes no legal remedies is a bit dubious, I think."

Hmm, more than dubious - it's actually completely incorrect.

Lucky it wasn't my argument.

My argument is that if you want to protect what you believe to be your copyrightable interests, that's what you have to do. The common approach here seems to be that maybe if you insult fanficcers enough and get stuck into all who don't take the anti-fanfic stance, fanfiction will one day stop.

It's just not going to work.

[Axel; The Flurry of Dancing Flames]

Lee, I'd like to know your opinion on doujinshis, that is, fan-made comic books/mangas.
I am a westerner currently living in Japan, where the fan made comic market is a readily accepted part of life. I don't see how this differs from 'fanfiction', except that it has drawings with the words (and it's not in English, but I'm sure non-English speaking countries probably write 'fanfiction' too).
Doujinshis are as much in copywrite violation - taking characters that don't belong to artists, putting them in different situations, but in Japan this is accepted and you can actually just go out and buy them. Like 'fanfiction', they range from the highly sexual, the action/adventure, comedic, parodies...

Because this form of entertainment is encouraged by creators in Japan, how does this extend to English and non-English people writing fan fiction about it? If Nomura-sama has no problem with someone drawing a comic about Tifa getting sexually assulated by a squid, would this extend to someone writing about say, Cloud going on a picnic?

[Danny Barer]

I believe that doujinshi have become the equivalent of spec scripts in Japan: aspiring manga creators use them to try to get noticed; established manga creators soliciting assistants will ask applicants to send their doujinshi; some of the best-known creators (e.g., CLAMP) started out doing them of other creators' work; and established creators themselves will do doujinshi.

The doujinshi market is obviously officially tolerated, even though it is blatent copyright violation. But the downside must be the doujinshi that depict characters in situations that would be highly offensive to their creators.

Also, unlike spec scripts, doujinshi are sold for money. I don't think there's anything like that in America that would be tolerated by copyright owners.

For how one group of Japanese creators views English-language fan efforts concernint their characters, see the English-language section of http://www.clamp-net.com/information/index.html

[Quizzie]

Hello.
I read with interest your comments regarding fanfiction and the difference between fans writing their own stories and those commissioned by the owners of the rights to the material.
I'm sorry to be so forward, but I wondered what you thought of the very popular fantasy writer Neil Gaiman's latest collection of short stories "Fragile Things". One of his stories is written from Susan Pevensie's point of view (The eldest sister from C.S. Lewis's "The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe"). He uses the original author's world and his characters, but puts his own spin on events that happened after the book. Given that he cannot possibly have asked for the author's permission to write it, does that then make him a fanfiction writer?
Best wishes,
Quiz

I'll step in for lee. I suspect either the C.S. lewis book has fallen into public domain or, if it hasn't, that gaiman got permission from the C.S. Lewis's estate. A careful reading of Lee's arguments indicates that his problem with fanfiction has more to do with the creative rights/copyright violation issues than with the act of writing fanfiction itself.