OTW mentioned on Zuckerman's blog and Boing Boing

[femmequixotic]

OTW has been mentioned on Ethan Zuckerman's blog.

By using the word "transformative" in the organization name, the organizers of the group are advocating a legal argument - writing fan fiction based on the characters and universes of copyright-protected media is a transformative use, protected by fair use clauses in US copyright law. In other words, this is an attempt to stand up and fight for this interpretation, rather than hiding from copyright holders, which is a huge step forward to this subculture....

OTW has taken a very interesting step in declaring that fan culture has a dominant gender. In their statement of values, they note, "We value our identity as a predominantly female community with a rich history of creativity and commentary." Here, again, it's important to understand the definition of "fan culture" - media fandom, fanfic and vidding, a culture that's predominantly female, though not exclusively so.

Zuckerman's blog post has also been noted on Boing Boing.

ETA: OTW has also been mentioned on Netribution, and on the blogs of Tobias Buckell and John Scalzi. (Thanks to droneish for the links to the last two.)

--femmequixotic, bethbethbeth, ciderpress, mirabile_dictu, shrift, svmadelyn
Community Relations Committee

Comments

[maraceles.livejournal.com]

You write *in counterpoint to* the people who've already made up their minds, but you're not writing *for* them.

Ah, man, that's brilliant. (I'm serious.)

I keep thinking that the entire thing is pointless because those IDIOTS don't want to understand or have an open mind--okay, the name-calling is frustration talking, and I don't really mean it. But people like Tor, An Eric, Ed? We're never going to see eye to eye.

But writing for the lurkers--not to mention us? I've learned so much during this debate. *g*

[elf]

Once in a while, you can actually reach them, get them to understand your points, if not agree. And some of them are actually trying to understand, but can't get around the catch-phrases they're used to.

Like the concept, "an author should get to control what happens to her characters! Obviously!"--you have to gently lead into the idea that they can't stop parodies, and those can be vicious, and they can't stop selective quoting and biased analysis that might lead people to boycott the book--so what they're fighting for is the right to prevent certain types of manipulation of the characters.

And so on. It gets complicated pretty fast. And some of them, you never will convince of anything... but it really does help to think of it as writing for a sympathetic audience who's honestly confused or undecided.

Like a trial--the lawyer asks the questions, but it's the jury that needs to be convinced.