For those of you who are wondering, or bewildered, as to why I voiced complaints about some of the "parodies" and "fanfiction" stories that were published on Livejournal and were subsequently removed:
This does not actually answer
why you voiced complaints – unless, of course, your reason is simply “because I can”. Furthermore the suspension of the journals was related entirely to the LS fanfiction “A Ghost of a Chance” and in no way to “Parody” entries.
the Terms of Service in Livejournal do specify that the the use of another user's proprietary content, copyrighted material, ideas or subject matter, is not permitted on Livejournal.
Which does, of course include copyrighted material from the short story Brokeback Mountain by Annie Proulx. “Fanfiction” is copyright theft.
The original content of the Laramie Saga, while it does not carry a copyright, does qualify as proprietary content, and as such, falls under the provisions in Livejournal's Terms of Service.
And under the Bern Convention (1971 revision, Article 12): “Authors of literary or artistic works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing adaptations, arrangements and other alterations of their works.” Therefore, Annie Proulx has legal rights to the Laramie Saga (if she doesn't choose to sue on the grounds of copyright violation). She’d also have rights to A Ghost of a Chance.
The rules regarding the proper method of parody do NOT involve the reuse of the specific characters, plots, and ideas of a person's original fiction, or copying of its text - and this is recognized under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Anyone who would like to use any of my proprietary content, may do so only with permission, and those same rights extend to all fan authors, whether they know it, or not.
I think the issue here is not whether fan authors know that they have some claim to their own works but rather whether any of them would actually challenge another fan author over the issue of copyright. It seems obscenely narcissistic and hypocritical to me.
The reason why some websites were suspended had nothing to do with me:
That is untrue in the case of Kelpersmek and notthekelps livejournals. These accounts were suspended following a report filed to the LJ Abuse Team under the following terms:
“We have received a report, properly formatted under the provisions set forth by
United States law, indicating that your entries located at **** and **** violates the copyright of another”
if Livejournal requires removal of content, and it is not done by the user himself, they will suspend the account and do it themselves as an enforcement measure.
Actually, what happens is that you have the option of deleting the offending entries or filing a counter-notification which “indicates that you are willing to defend yourself in court against a charge of copyright infringement, and you may be bound by civil and possibly criminal penalties if you are found liable.”
During this period, your account is suspended pending court proceedings. From the LJ FAQ section on copyright: “Following receipt of a counter-notification, the original notifier will be provided with a copy of the counter-notification. Access to the content will remain disabled. Unless the original notifier informs the LiveJournal Abuse Team that an action has been filed seeking a court order to restrict access to the content, the content will be replaced after 14 business days.”
If the content is not removed and a counter-notification under the “fair use clause” is not sent to the LJ Abuse Team, the journal is permanently suspended. At no point does Livejournal remove content from users’ journals.
Just in case anyone was wondering.
I wasn’t. I know exactly what is going on here but I thought I would clarify for the benefit of others.
Topic: Taking Chances, by E. L. Van Hine and L.H. Nicoll (Read 3167231 times)