Kaylee Video link

Oh, now you're just silly, ManiacNumberOne. If you can't reason logically, you bring God into it. Or gods, whichever works for you.

There is no difference between the various forms of fannish expression. Drawings, writings, sculptures, songvids, filks... they are the same when it comes to courtesy and respect for the fan who created them.

I do not understand how such an incredibly simple concept as "if it was made by someone else, ask before you do anything with it" is difficult for both ManiacNumberOne and Succatash to comprehend.

Why anyone would consider posting publically any of their fannish work in any format at all after all this?

It's really this simple (and yes, I've said this before, worded differently, but apparently it confused you):

1. Fannish creators should be respected for creating their work, and their wishes regarding its distribution heeded.

2. The reason for this is that all fannish activity is in the muddy grey waters of trademark, copyright, and intellectual property law.

No one needs to be on a god-pedestal to be granted basic respect.

Elke

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Maniac, I wasn't so much replying to you personally as I was quoting your comments in order to offer an explanation, since some people might have had the same thoughts that you were having.

Sigh. Earlier I wrote a post thanking you for handing this with such grace all the way through. Now I think I should take that back. I'm sorry you feel that you have to take posts about an *issue* as a personal attack on *you*.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"I do not understand how such an incredibly simple concept as "if it was made by someone else, ask before you do anything with it" is difficult for both ManiacNumberOne and Succatash to comprehend."

--This is easy to comprehend, and believe it or not, we respect this issue more than you do. You all need to take the issue up one step further. Ask Joss Whedon, Ask Fox, Ask Mutant Enemy. Until you do, you have not got the rights you speak of, you are one of the thieves. So jump off your incredibly high horse.

If you don't address that point in your next post, please don't post at all. Thank you.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

If you feel I misunderstood, I apologize. I tried to read your original post very carefully, and not make assumptions. I'll try and explain myself more clearly in the future.

First, I used fanfiction as the example that I am most familiar with. However, any fan-created art is going to fall under the same set of guidelines. Artists, computer-graphic manippers, vidders, writers, zine editors, and anyone else who produces a piece of artwork that is derivative from an outside source, all have roughly the same system in their creation process, though the final product will vary. All of them adopt (or "poach," if you've read Textual Poachers by Henry Jenkins) materials, interpret them, modify them, personalize them to the audience, and re-release them.

I think where the two of us are diverging is our interpretation of ownership. Both of us agree that Nia (or any vidder) does not own the source material she used for her art. But I feel that the final product she produced--in this case, a vid--is completely hers. It would not exist had she not made it. It's similar to a cook being able to write and copyright a recipe, but the ingrediants of that recipe are free for all to use.

Regarding Nia and River, you ask why she "was giving it to others" if she's so concerned about litigation. It could be argued that she DIDN'T want it shared, and that your public posting of it was against her wishes. (A side note: you also asked why she didn't provide identification in the vid, and theorized that it was to avoid lawsuits. I believe she already answered that question, and said she couldn't include identification because her vidding software at the time wouldn't allow it.)

"Nor would I want them to turn it off. Just like I bet Nia is thinking."

I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you meant. Do you think you could elaborate?

Finally, regarding this:

[First there was nothing...
....then there was Nia.
Nia creates the universe with pure will!
From utter nothingness comes swirling form!!
Life begins where once was void!!
But Nia is no kind and loving God. She's one of the old Gods!! She demand sacrifice!!!
Yes, Nia is a God of the underworld!!
And the puny inhabitants of Firefly fandom displease her!! The great Nia ignores pleas for mercy and the doomed writhe in agony!!]

...right. Now, I don't know Nia, but I don't think this is exactly a nice thing to write about ANYONE. For one thing, it's incredibly rude and disrespectful--forget Nia-the-vidder, this is bashing Nia-the-person. For another, it almost totally misses the point. (By the way, if you bash people in public by calling them a god of the underworld, they tend not to let you mirror their vids on your site in the future. Just a thought.)

Artists create. They create using materials. Art doesn't come from nothing; it requires Things. The Art of art comes from using those Things in a new, special way. What the materials are changes from style to style--writers use language, painters use paint and canvas, architects use steel, vidders use footage, knitters use yarn, etc. And in some cases, the materials being used aren't tangible--words, for instance, or music. But they do exist.

The type of materials used does not necessarily invalidate the art that is produced. Incredibly powerful pieces of art have been produced using blood and cabbages and papier-mache. Rock and roll does not use instruments that are found in your average symphony, but rock is still an art medium. Vidding does not become less of an art form because the source material of the art is footage. Nia is an artist because very few can duplicate what she does, and no one can REPLICATE what she does. She has her own style, and the vids she produces are going to differ from anyone else's vids--even if they use the same song and the same set of episodes as a source.

Just like Rembrant took paint and canvas--items that have no intrinsic artistic value--and created masterpieces, Nia took footage and created vids. It's all about CREATION.

And when she gives it to a person or a fand

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bonibaru:
Maniac - I just wanted to say that I think you've handled this in a very responsible manner and you should be thanked for it.

So, thank you.

---

I TAKE IT BACK.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bonibaru:
Maniac, I wasn't so much replying to you personally as I was quoting your comments in order to offer an explanation, since some people might have had the same thoughts that you were having.

Sigh. Earlier I wrote a post thanking you for handing this with such grace all the way through. Now I think I should take that back. I'm sorry you feel that you have to take posts about an *issue* as a personal attack on *you*.

---

Hey when you do not quote what I said fully, I felt I had to put into place that what you quoted me as saying was incomplete. Do you think I want people believing that those "reasons" I gave were actual things I believed? I needed to defend myself by putting in the disclaimer you forgot to-- namely that I didn't believe that the possible reasons I was putting down were true, only that they were possibilities. And I did notice you defending me, and I appreciated it. Because I felt that even though I did do everything right along the way I got dissed on pretty bad.

Here's how it went down:

I found a great vid.
A few weeks later I saw someone wanted it on the taglog.
I posted saying I had it and would be happy to share, *(as it was unlabelled to creator).
I posted it on my site.
I was told (very rudely I might add) that I should ask for permission or take it down.
I responded (politely) that I didn't have the info or I would contacted the creator, and I asked if someone knew the creator.
I was given the info.
I contacted the person.
While waiting for persmission, the discussion of the true fan ensued.
LJC decided to take it upon herself to report me to Nia. (apparently not believing that I would follow my word)
LJC and Nia must have exchanged words to which I am not privy.
I was denied by Nia.
I took the gorram thing off my site.
this other set of ridiculous arguments started.
no one has payed much attention to what other people have written.
I have summed up.
this will probably not be read either.

----------------------------------
Who's winning?
I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
----------------------------------

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Um, maybe I'm being silly too, but perhaps it would be a good idea if everyone took a deep breath--and maybe waited a day or counted to ten or something--before continuing to post in this thread, because its looking pretty scary, with all the insults and whatnot being thrown around.

Maniac put up the material without knowing, and when his attention was drawn to the artists' wishes, he took it down. And y'know what? He doesn't have to agree with or understand the reasoning of the artist, or with any of us--just like the artist doesn't have to agree with him. He did the right thing anyway. All kinds of words were exchanged, but let's leave it at that.

At this point, if you ask me, this specific issue is dead, folks. Everything that's needed to be said has been said. The material has been removed from both sites. If ya wanna discuss etiquette and fan-related works generally, great, discuss, but sitting around firing off quick insults at each other is like taking the scenic route to the corner of No and Where.

And it's frightening the women.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Manic,
What you did makes sense, and it’s probably what I would of done if I found a great unlabeled vid ( if I knew how to do web page stuff). It sounds like people just haven’t gotten the whole story (the fact that after the problem was brought to your attention you contacted Nia)-- only little bits and pieces at a time and have started making assumptions too quickly.

I don’t really see what it matters anyway. Why do you other people care so much? It’s really between Manic and Nia. If Manic had taken “your” work, then you should be arguing with him personally, perhaps though e-mails and not on this board.

Dang it Philomel,

Quote:

---

Posted by Philomel:
Um, maybe I'm being silly too, but perhaps it would be a good idea if everyone took a deep breath--and maybe waited a day or counted to ten or something--before continuing to post in this thread, because its looking pretty scary, with all the insults and whatnot being thrown around.

Maniac put up the material without knowing, and when his attention was drawn to the artists' wishes, he took it down. And y'know what? He doesn't have to agree with or understand the reasoning of the artist, or with any of us--just like the artist doesn't have to agree with him. He did the right thing anyway. All kinds of words were exchanged, but let's leave it at that.

At this point, if you ask me, this specific issue is dead, folks. Everything that's needed to be said has been said. The material has been removed from both sites. If ya wanna discuss etiquette and fan-related works generally, great, discuss, but sitting around firing off quick insults at each other is like taking the scenic route to the corner of No and Where.

And it's frightening the women.

---

You took the words right out of my mouth-- and I was on a roll too.

*Waving peace symbol and lighter while chanting*
“Make love, not war!"



-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME