Anti-Fanfic Bingo Poll Row 1

[ciderpress.livejournal.com]

We're drawing the Anti-Fanfic Bingo reponse challenge to a close after three weeks of lively discussion and intelligent and often downright hilarious responses ("Ah, fuck you!").

There were 310+ comments in total for 25 bingo squares. Thank you all very much for participating!

Throughout this week, we'll be asking you to vote for your favourite responses to each square, one row at a time. Please check your favourite responses; we'll be collecting the results and announcing the favourites at the end of the week. I've been assured that there are plans to do something very sparkly with the bingo card and the winners.

We'd like to thank ithiliana, half_elf_lost, kitsune13 and cofax7 for creating the card and giving us permission to use it.

ETA: Please follow the links in the poll on a new tab or window. If you follow them in the same tab/window before you finish voting, your votes get lost in the wilds of the internet. :)

Also, if you don't have an LJ, please leave your vote in the comments. We'll definitely put them in the finally tally.




[Poll #1121294]



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

Comments

[elf]

Money being made by the infringer/lost by the IP owner is not specifically mentioned, but two of the four factors address money as a consideration. Noncommercial use is favored over commercial; not harming the original's market value is favored over costing the original IP holder money.

Neither of those is definitive--the Acuff case with Two Live Crew's "Pretty Woman" was (1) commercial and (2) potentially harmful to Orbison's future income--but found to be fair use anyway. (Parody. Part of me believes the best legal defense for fanfic starts with the presumption that all slashfic is parody.)

"No money involved" is about as meaningful as "I've only used small excerpts" or "this is a parody"--it's a statement about why one believes it's fair use; it's not an absolute answer.

However, I agree that far too many fans (and other people) think that "not making money" = "legal use of copyrighted material." It can be a substantial part of a claim of fair use, but it's not a simple "Are you making money/costing the copyright holder money?
Y[ ] N[ ]; if N is checked, you're okay!"

Doesn't work that way, and we do need to be more careful of mentioning that in our dialogues. (And not tangling it with the whacked author's moral rights discussions.)

[florahart]

Yes, all that. There are a number of cases and a reasonable person guessing based on the outcomes might not really come up with the code, you know? Like, Texaco, they were copying for internal use as opposed to republishing, but it was commercial, even though most of the articles weren't even being used. And so on. What I meant about the absence of the $$ in the US law was not that profit isn't mentioned at all, but that there is no specific statement that absence of profit for the possible infringer is relevant, which I sometimes think people literally think is the case. As you say, it's not at all just a checkbox y/n thing.