PDA

View Full Version : Meyers fanfic writer's *conditional* apology



Pages : [1] 2

Gillhoughly
05-12-2009, 12:38 AM
Lady Silly Potatohead is at it again with a new press release (http://www.prlog.org/10233245-lady-sybilla-apologizes-to-stephenie-meyer-for-writing-russet-noon.html).

She's leaving the future of Russet Nooner to S. Meyers.

Mighty big of the Syb, ain't it?

I'm thinking the Potatohead is still desperately longing to hear from Ms. Meyers directly and thus find a morsel of validation for her existence.

Ahh, but there are conditions! She wants to print 50 copies to hand out as freebies.

Ms. Meyers, I recommend a resounding NO to this moron.

Quoted in full before the Potatohead removes it:

Lady Sybilla Apologizes to Stephenie Meyer for Writing Russet Noon.
On April 30th, Lady Sybilla sent a letter of apology to Stephenie Meyer. Today, the letter is declassified for the first time since it was sent.Declassified. That's rich. Read on to more hilarity.


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) (http://www.prlog.org/)
– May 10, 2009 – Much controversy has surrounded the tribute novel Russet Noon since its upcoming publication was announced. According to blog reports, Stephenie Meyer's reps at Little, Brown in the U.K. are "well aware" of the novel already (http://twilight-to-breakingdawn.blogspot.com/2009/03/rus ... (http://twilight-to-breakingdawn.blogspot.com/2009/03/russet-noon-aka-rip-off.html?showComment=1238194980000#c30079353894329 61448)).

For this reason, Lady Sybilla made a final decision about Russet Noon and left its ultimate fate in Stephenie Meyer's hands. She wrote Ms. Meyer a letter of apology and let her know that she would be willing to shut down the project permanently if she asked her to.

The AV Paranormal team decided to give it a few days until the letter arrived at the New York office of Little, Brown to disclose it. Now, for the first time since the letter was sent on April 30th, 2009, it is released to the public. The letter is as follows:

Ms. Stephenie Meyer
c/o
Little, Brown and Company
Hachette Book Group, USA
(Address Omitted)
New York, NY 10017

Dear Ms. Meyer:

My name is Glorianna Arias and my pen name is Lady Sybilla. I understand some of your fans may have been contacting you to complain about my novel, Russet Noon.

First and foremost, I want to apologize to you for having started such an uproar. In all honesty, I never imagined there would be so strong and massive a reaction on the part of Twilight fans all over the Internet.

I want to assure you that my only intention was to pay tribute to you and your story by turning Jacob into a superhero. (Not to mention making a mint off your work by selling this fanfic ripoff illegally on Ebay and from my Russet Nooner website!)


I know I had no right to do this, no matter how much I loved your characters. I have no excuse for my actions. From the bottom of my heart, I am truly sorry. That you got caught.


By this means, I want to ask if you would please allow me to publish Russet Noon as a paperback. This woman's got more nerve than a bum tooth.


I assure you that I will only print 50 copies to give away to people for free. More than enough for an enterprising Twi-fan--such as the Syb herself--to scan and upload it onto the Net for all to read. Thus she grabs the attention she craves while allowing her to wail, "Some fan stole my words!"


I will cover all publication costs and will never try to sell it. Let this letter attest to that. Let this post attest to the fact that you're about as stable as the San Andreas Fault.


However, if you prefer for me to shut down the project altogether, It's something we would ALL prefer--never to hear from you again unless you have a legit and ORIGINAL book to pimp.


I will understand your position. It is your story, and they are your characters. Good heavens, was that the sound of the Clue Train smacking her in the arse?


If you ask me to shut it down, I will do so immediately. All I want to do at this point is make things right. You already KNOW what will make things right. Shut down everything immediately, including the 50 copies, go write something YOU made up, and hope everyone forgets this idiocy.


Please let me know how you want me to proceed. Thanks very much for your time.

Respectfully,
Glorianna Arias
Founder, AV Paranormal Publishing
Phone: (Omitted)

End of letter.

So far, neither Stephenie Meyer nor her publisher has responded to the letter, so AV Paranormal is still moving forward with publication.Bolding is mine.

Give it time, Potatobrains. They’re probably still laughing themselves silly at your magnificent gesture.

Consider just how much fan mail arrives at the publisher for Ms. Meyers every day. Add to that the countless manuscripts, submissions, and ordinary mail a large publisher handles on a daily basis.

Sometimes my fan mail doesn't reach me until two months after it was sent.

So please repeat this mantra: "I am NOT special...I am NOT special..." until it sinks in.

Kaiser-Kun
05-12-2009, 12:41 AM
I know I had no right to do this, no matter how much I loved your characters. I have no excuse for my actions. From the bottom of my heart, I am truly sorry.

http://www.nikonwatch.com/images/nelson.jpg

NeuroFizz
05-12-2009, 12:46 AM
Oh, the situation is special all right.

Of course, even in the smallest room of the house, I occasionally drop one from rim level that earns my admiration for its special qualities. But it then earns the same dizzying trip through the S-bend as all of the other afterpieces.

Pagey's_Girl
05-12-2009, 01:51 AM
Oh my. This is just getting juicier and juicier....

And does making dolls that look like your characters count as drawing them? 'Cause I have all of my major players in 3D cloth. (Okay, granted, that probably makes me sound as wacked out as Lady Potato, but oh well....)

Adam
05-12-2009, 01:59 AM
Good gawd. This woman needs institutionalising!

scarletpeaches
05-12-2009, 02:09 AM
Clearly at the back of the queue when the brainz0rz were handed out.

(Lady SillyBilly I mean, Adam, not you).

Everything she writes makes me cringe. It's like a car crash. I should look away but I can't...

alleycat
05-12-2009, 02:16 AM
We could make a game out of this and write fictitious letters to famous people explaining that we're using their properties unless they call and ask us nicely not to; although I don't think we can write one as funny as Lady S.

I could write a letter to George Lucas telling him I'm only using his Star Wars characters for a small indie film. Or a letter to Stephen King explaining that my new novel, Carrie Returns, is actually an example of "fan love, and fan love is the truest form of love there is". Or maybe John Grisham would like to hear my idea for The Firm / Return to Memphis. I bet he would! Surely the Beckett estate wouldn't mind if I wrote Godot Finally Showed Up.

Cyia
05-12-2009, 02:39 AM
Ha! Taterhead's about run sprout first into Smeyer's guard dog - A.K.A. her brother. He makes a habit of NOT passing along fanmail or questions or anything that might be construed as input or criticism.

Sorry, Tater, you're just a fic-writer like any other and Ms. Meyer doesn't owe you anything... not to mention the fact that if she DID okay those 50 free copies, she'd be opening her entire franchise up to every whacko who wanted to do the same. Smeyer's handlers are smart enough not to let her set a precedent of handing out keys to the playground.

Kaiser-Kun
05-12-2009, 02:43 AM
Ha! Taterhead's about run sprout first into Smeyer's guard dog - A.K.A. her brother. He makes a habit of NOT passing along fanmail or questions or anything that might be construed as input or criticism.

Sorry, Tater, you're just a fic-writer like any other and Ms. Meyer doesn't owe you anything... not to mention the fact that if she DID okay those 50 free copies, she'd be opening her entire franchise up to every whacko who wanted to do the same. Smeyer's handlers are smart enough not to let her set a precedent of handing out keys to the playground.

Just imagine your local bookstore flooded with published twilight fanfiction.

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/childhoodtitlle.jpg

Cyia
05-12-2009, 02:51 AM
This girl looks like she's being hunted by Glitter Zombies.


Just imagine your local bookstore flooded with published twilight fanfiction.

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/childhoodtitlle.jpg

marie2
05-12-2009, 05:19 AM
Wow. Just... wow.

Wayne K
05-12-2009, 05:46 AM
And yet here we are talking about her.

Moron that she is she will turn this into money somehow.

If she can write (I haven't read her nor will I ever) it would be nice. I'm tired of stunts that benefit bad writers.

BenPanced
05-12-2009, 05:46 AM
Why doesn't she just freakin' offer to buy the hounds airfare and send them links to the Google map to her place from the airport?! If she's that stoopid to take "no reply" as "yes", considering there are probably half a million letters ahead of hers, I'd hate to see her trying to navigate publishing down here on Planet Earth with the rest of us fools puny humans mortals.

Maybe she could write Martha Stewart for some handy hints for potential jail time...

emilycross
05-12-2009, 11:46 AM
God she's unbelievable!!! i'd love to know what she's smoking, if she things 'no reply' = go ahead. Hello, this is the publishing industry. no reply= hello no, get away from me!

Momento Mori
05-12-2009, 01:41 PM
PRESS RELEASE:
I know I had no right to do this, no matter how much I loved your characters. I have no excuse for my actions.

That right there is the sentence that Meyer's lawyers will point a judge to when they get their injunction.


PRESS RELEASE:
So far, neither Stephenie Meyer nor her publisher has responded to the letter, so AV Paranormal is still moving forward with publication.

And that right there is the sentence that Meyer's lawyers will point to when they ask for punitive damages, i.e. she knew it was wrong, acknowledged that she knew it was wrong and then went ahead and did it anyway.

MM

Mac H.
05-12-2009, 04:31 PM
From a legal point of view, though, it makes a lot of sense.

There is a principle in damages claims that says the person being damaged has a responsibility to mitigate damage. So if you scratch my car, I can get you to pay for the damages.

But if I don't repair the scratch and the car rusts away, I can only get you to pay for the original scratch ... I have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damages.

So by giving the original author an easy way to mitigate the damages, then the copycat can limit the damages claim. Sure, it will obviously be simple for the original author to get an injunction .. but it always was.

This way the copycat is making it no easier for the author to get an injunction, but basically preventing any large damages claim.

It really does make sense.

Mac
(Obviously I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.)

Momento Mori
05-12-2009, 06:21 PM
Mac H.:
So by giving the original author an easy way to mitigate the damages, then the copycat can limit the damages claim. Sure, it will obviously be simple for the original author to get an injunction .. but it always was.

This way the copycat is making it no easier for the author to get an injunction, but basically preventing any large damages claim.

I'm not sure about that (but I'm not a United Statesian IP lawyer).

I've sent C&D letters to people in the UK on behalf of clients. Depending on the infringement that we'd identified, we'd usually put in a paragraph saying that if the recipient accepted that they were infringing our client's work, then we would be happy to drop the matter in return for the recipient forfeiting all copies of the infringing work and making an account of any and all profits made (or provide evidence of any loss). If our client was really pissed off then we'd usually ask for an amount in respect of our legal costs as well.

If someone had come back to a C&D letter that I'd sent saying "You're absolutely right, I am infringing your client's work and I'm really sorry about it. But here's the thing, I'd like to go ahead and print 50 copies of my work and give them to friends and family. Please tell me what you want me to do" then I suppose she could try arguing that this was tacit consent. My argument would be that I don't have to do anything further because I'd be relying on my original C&D letter telling her to knock it off or else. My damages claim would therefore remain intact because it runs from the underlying infringement and because Potatohead would have to prove that those 50 copies were not intended for sale or resale (which I've seen some people try to use as a way of getting around an injunction).

However, I would imagine that the Meyers lawyers (once they've stopped laughing) will simply go back with another C&D letter that's a little tougher on the wording and if they think it's worth the cost, an injunction against the print-run. But I'm just guessing here, so don't sue me if it doesn't turn out that way.

MM

Alitriona
05-12-2009, 06:25 PM
This woman is turning into a serious stalker!

I wonder if the plan is to print off 50 copies and hope someone leaks it to the net, thus relieving her of responsibility for its circulation.

Namatu
05-12-2009, 06:28 PM
There aren't really any words so:

:roll:

:popcorn:

Nivarion
05-12-2009, 06:32 PM
I am so tired that all humor is currently lost on me.

I may get it latter.

CaroGirl
05-12-2009, 06:33 PM
Legally, silence does not equal approval.

Phaeal
05-12-2009, 06:45 PM
Don't you just hate these little yipping dogs that you know you should ignore but they keep nipping at your heels until you have to step on them?

Sure you do.

BenPanced
05-12-2009, 06:48 PM
Legally, silence does not equal approval.
But sometimes you laugh so hard, you can't make any sound...:ROFL:

Gillhoughly
05-12-2009, 07:40 PM
I've sent e-mails to Ms. Meyers' publisher, but don't know if any have been sent on to where they will do any good.

The house doesn't have a contact addy to their legal department on the website, and I'm not involving my agent in this kerfuffle. She's busy with her job, as I should be.

It's just that the Potatohead has really gotten under my skin, and I shouldn't let it.

She is wholly unimportant, but she just isn't GETTING it that her grand effort to "immortalize" someone else's work is ILLEGAL.

Potatohead--Meyers CANNOT grant you permission to print 50 copies for your own use.

Doing so will be in breach of contract with her publishers and open her up to a lawsuit.

You are NOT getting that permission.

And you've gotten no reply because your letter is probably still lost in an unopened bag full of fan mail.

Read this aloud to yourself: "No one wants to read my Twi-fic. My Twi-fic is ILLEGAL under the laws of the country I live in."

Even the most fanatic Twi-fans are able to grasp that--why can't you?

Your refusal to accept this has opened you up to mockage and insult. Apparently you get off on that, though I can't imagine why. How does all that abuse turn into a release of endorphins in your brain?

There are more pleasant diversions in this world. Please, shut off your computer, get out, and find some. We're tired of you.

Medievalist
05-12-2009, 08:24 PM
At this point, I think Potatohead deserves to lose her home, her car, any savings, any any future income—these are all quite likely outcomes if she "publishes." I don't think she deserves prison, but that's up to the judge.

So let her go ahead and "publish" her travesty. She's managed to violate copyright, digital and non (and the DMCA fees are killer), trademark, and possibly even engaged in Internet stalking and harassment; IANL so I'll let the judge and jury decide.

Plus, she luuuuuuuves the attention.

Kathleen42
05-12-2009, 08:28 PM
I'm sorry. I'm still laughing over "declassified".

CaroGirl
05-12-2009, 08:51 PM
Why do people think negative attention is better than no attention at all?

M.R.J. Le Blanc
05-12-2009, 09:12 PM
Because they can't get good attention, for whatever reason.

I think it might also be possible that any legal team might just be biding their time. She's just publically acknowledged what she's doing is wrong. And she's making a public spectacle of every step since she started this crap. I think at this point they're just going to let her hang herself before taking action. Given that she's acknowledged what she's doing is wrong (and has known from the beginning, whether she tried to play dumb or not) she's had plenty of time to do the smart thing and stop it. I don't think they necessarily have to say 'stop it or else' by this point. She knows it's wrong, she's continuing on. Let her hang herself - she'll only have herself to blame when it all crumbles around her.

BenPanced
05-12-2009, 09:18 PM
Probably just waiting for those 50 copies to hit the streets...

bettielee
05-12-2009, 09:25 PM
This chick is koo koo for coco puffs. (uh oh, is that copyright infringement?)

mscelina
05-12-2009, 09:31 PM
What a maroon.

Oh well. If nothing else the sheer spectacle of this idiocy is somewhat amusing.

PoppysInARow
05-12-2009, 09:36 PM
Wow. Just wow. I proudly support fanfiction, because it's enjoyable and it gives new writers a good place to practice, but that is not fanfiction. That's downright stealing characters and rewriting a book because you didn't like how one character was represented

"Wanted to make Jacob a superhero." Seriously, what the hell?

I'd sue her ass if I could. :rant:

Phaeal
05-12-2009, 09:53 PM
Why do people think negative attention is better than no attention at all?

Because they have become selfless, and unless other people notice them, they cease to exist.

Cyia
05-12-2009, 10:21 PM
The below quote was NOT in reference to Taterhead or her fanfiction, (it's about unauthorized ebooks) but it's still relevant -- especially the last sentence.



“It’s exponentially up,” said David Young, chief executive of Hachette Book Group, whose Little, Brown division publishes the “Twilight” series by Stephenie Meyer, a favorite among digital pirates. “Our legal department is spending an ever-increasing time policing sites where copyrighted material is being presented.”

Kaiser-Kun
05-12-2009, 10:26 PM
Don't you just hate these little yipping dogs that you know you should ignore but they keep nipping at your heels until you have to step on them?

Sure you do.

Gosh yeah. It's really tough having to peel them off my shoes every night before bedtime.

Medievalist
05-12-2009, 11:12 PM
I'm sorry. I'm still laughing over "declassified".

I just assumed that she meant déclassé, which certainly fits.

Phaeal
05-12-2009, 11:57 PM
Gosh yeah. It's really tough having to peel them off my shoes every night before bedtime.

Maybe Steph's people need to tie a surgical mask on Lady Syb. ;)

Gillhoughly
05-13-2009, 12:15 AM
I think it might also be possible that any legal team might just be biding their time. She's just publically acknowledged what she's doing is wrong.

Technically she's not done anything lawyers can act upon just yet.

She's just given them plenty of rope, should she step over the line, though. As it is, she's poised on the trap, noose around her neck.

The release lever is in HER hand. She can be stubborn and throw it or simply and wisely walk away.

Ebay shut her down, not because of copyright infringement, but because she couldn't deliver the goods for several months, in violation of their seller policy.

She's stated her intent to go ahead and release her theft to a helpless and undeserving world. Once she does that listen for the trap to drop and choking noises to follow.

The gagging sounds are from those unwise enough to inflict tater-fic on themselves. EMTs are standing by with sporks and eye-bleach.

Why she's waiting, if the book is ready to go, I don't know. It's not like the writing--and that sample she posted on YouTube was dreadful--is going to improve or the laws are going to change between now and then.

In the grand scheme, her copyright infringement is--hur-hur--small potatoes. :D

But those can be expensive.

She might get slapped with a fine, court costs, and have to pay compensation to the publisher, depending on the judge. I doubt she has the money to cover it, so maybe her poor family ends up paying for her stubbornness and bad judgment. What would Mom and Dad have to say about this, Tater? How rich are they? Can they bail you out of this? Even if you've not moved out of their basement, they're not responsible for your debts.

Most of these things are resolved quietly out of court by the lawyers. Potatohead's will be stuck with damage control since she's lost the case already with that press release.

Sorry, Potatohead--if you harbor a hope of ever meeting Ms. Meyers, forget it. They're not going to let you anywhere near her. She has better things to do than glance your way.

You are so unimportant that no one in the Meyers camp considers you worth so much as an email.

However, you have inspired an office (but not beverage) safe YouTube mockage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kSMFL891v4&feature=PlayList&p=183563CA433F6BEF&index=19) from the awesome Caito (http://www.journalfen.net/users/caito/)of Fandom Wank (http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/).

Cyia
05-13-2009, 12:43 AM
However, you have inspired an office (but not beverage) safe YouTube mockage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kSMFL891v4&feature=PlayList&p=183563CA433F6BEF&index=19) from the awesome Caito (http://www.journalfen.net/users/caito/)of Fandom Wank (http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/).


:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::r oll::roll: :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::r oll::roll: :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::r oll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::rol l::roll::roll::roll: :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::r oll::roll: :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::r oll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::rol l::roll::roll::roll: :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::r oll::roll: :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::r oll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::rol l::roll::roll::roll: :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::r oll::roll: :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::r oll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::rol l::roll::roll::roll: :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::r oll::roll: :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::r oll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::rol l::roll::roll::roll: :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::r oll::roll: :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::r oll::roll:

Pagey's_Girl
05-13-2009, 02:54 AM
Ha!Sorry, Tater, you're just a fic-writer like any other and Ms. Meyer doesn't owe you anything...

Thinking of all the fanfic I perpetrated over the years, I owe several writers a huge apology - even though mine were the only eyes that saw the horrors I visited upon their characters in the name of fandom.

I also owe them a huge debt of gratitude for making me want to create my own worlds to play in - and helping me figure out how to do it.

M.R.J. Le Blanc
05-13-2009, 04:46 AM
That's sort of what I meant Gill. Waiting for her to actually act. What I was saying is that she's only made things worse for herself by saying 'yeah I know it's wrong' because it's more fodder for the legal team if it's pursued. She can't be in court down the road and claim she didn't know - not that she ever could in the first place, but now lawyers would have it in writing that she acknowledges it's wrong. You know the miranda rights, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law? That's what going to happen here, everything she's saying can and likely will be used against her in a court of law.

Gillhoughly
05-13-2009, 05:47 AM
Totally yes, M.R.J.

This is a slo-mo train wreck the way she's drawing it out.

It's not like I'm having fun with this--I need to be working on my own books--but copyright infringement is one of my going-postal-now buttons.

I'm not a fan of the Twilight books, and Ms. Meyers is certainly able to defend herself, but I am furious at this boastful moron STEALING another writer's property.

It doesn't matter if the theft is from a world-wide bestseller
or a self-published unknown--this symbol © MEANS
something and should be respected.

bettielee
05-13-2009, 05:58 AM
However, you have inspired an office (but not beverage) safe YouTube mockage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kSMFL891v4&feature=PlayList&p=183563CA433F6BEF&index=19) from the awesome Caito (http://www.journalfen.net/users/caito/)of Fandom Wank (http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/).


I wanna be that girls best friend.

If only I didn't suspect she was a fan of Twilight...

Cyia
05-13-2009, 06:53 AM
Btw, Tater - THIS is how real fans treat the material they say they love.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=39995

A woman found the script for New Moon in the garbage, and rather than leak it online or sell it to a tabloid (as in profiting off something she didn't own...) she returned the material to Summit. For her trouble, she's been invited to the movie's premiere.

That's how you pull off a fan tribute AND get into press releases you don't write yourself while still maintaining positive public opinion.

Sirion
05-13-2009, 09:29 AM
So the woman is saying "I'm sorry, but I'm not going to stop"? She confuses me... :(

In related news, the woman attempted to create an article on Wikipedia for Russet Noon, and the good folks voted (unanimously) to delete it permanently -- very quickly, I might add.


* Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. This article serves as only a form of publicity for the author, someone who frankly, was unknown until the whole thing about Russet Noon. I'd wait for the book to be actually published before putting the article back on. 220.255.7.175 (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
* Delete non-notable fanfiction that can never be properly published due to its author's complete and bizarre misunderstandings of intellectual property law. I speedied this yesterday as spam but it was quickly recreated; at least having a full discussion gives us the option of using WP:CSD#G4. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
* Delete I'm another one of the speediers for this article and her bio article. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SOAP. Seems to me to be little more than an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote herself and a non-notable unpublished/unpublishable ripoff of Twilight. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
* Delete or change heavily. The main author of the article has used different means to promote her book in different areas of the Internet already. The one good argument for keeping a version of the Russet Noon article is the potential copyright issues it could discuss, however the book itself is not even a book, it's an attempt to sell a piece of fanfiction. --Frogwidget (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

* Delete, possible speedy delete per Criteria G11 as blatant advertising.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment Can't be speedied now as it's already been declined. --GedUK 08:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

* Delete; it can always be restored if the copyright infringement becomes notable. Laïka 23:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
* Delete A book that hasn't been published—and, given that it's a massive copyright violation, one that can't be published. Its notoriety consists solely of some flamewars with the author on Twilight fansites. A tempest in a teapot. — Gwalla | Talk 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
* Delete while the publisher has issued a press release about the copyright concerns[1], at best, any publicity may belong somewhere on the Twilight article. It's too early to see if this will even make it to publishing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
* Delete. An article about an unpublished work of fanfiction, written by its author, and cited exclusively by unreliable sources? That doesn't add up to any kind of claim to notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
* Delete. Self-promotion for an unpublished work does not meet notability standards, and fails several key WP policies as noted above. --Kynn (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
* Delete. Agree with above that this may even qualify for speedy delete per Criteria G11 as well as WP:SOAP. Clockster (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
* Delete. Now that I've giggled my way through it, toast that sucker. --Thespian (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
* Comment I believe this author has accepted deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
* Delete. Time to pack the snowball. Daniel Case (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The second one is my favorite.

-Travis

Cyia
05-13-2009, 02:55 PM
There's a massive entry/timeline on the Fan History Wiki for this mess.

http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/Russet_Noon

And I have to post this excerpt because the macro in question is linked from the original Lady Sybilla thread here (Gil made it, I think)


Same goes for the reactions of the ohnotheydidnt crowd. I've seen some images on those comments that have made me double up with laughter. The Russet Nooners image is the one winning first prize so far.


Then there's this: (anyone else find it odd that she needs to remind someone what they do and don't have permission to use)


I'd like to share that today I leaked the opening scene of Russet Noon to my dear friend Grace from Foforks. It's the opening scene of Chapter 1, which is entitled "Fireworks in La Push." I dedicate this scene first and foremost to my dear friends in Brazil who have supported me from the start. Their hopes and dreams drive me forward every step of the way. Grace is not authorized to leak the English version, only the one in Portuguese, which she will be translating out of the kindness of her heart. I am honored to let the opening scene of Russet Noon premiere in Brazil exclusively.

I will release the English version exclusively on my website this June 1, 2009.

emilycross
05-13-2009, 03:57 PM
I have no words. . . .

Gillhoughly
05-13-2009, 06:43 PM
First the wholesale destruction of the rain forests, now this.

Thanks a big fat heap, Brazil.

mscelina
05-13-2009, 06:53 PM
Brazil could redeem itself by sending Carmen Miranda's shade to spike some spuds onto her headdress.

I can't wait to see those god-awful sentences in Portuguese. Oy vey!

ChristineR
05-13-2009, 06:53 PM
Look, she's stolen another image for her cover. (From the fanhistory link above.)


First and foremost, I'd like to discuss the new Russet Noon cover. There's something called "fair use" when it comes to copyright laws, especially online. It is not a crime to use an image as a source of inspiration.

I have every intention of giving credit to the copyright owner of the talisman. I made a reasonable attempt to track down the artist by writing an email to Michael Delahunt, the webmaster of Artlex.com, but I never got a reply to my email. On his website, Delahunt refers to this image as a "talisman of unidentified origin and meaning," so obviously he doesn't know who the copyright owner is.

I am therefore entitled to refer to this image as a source of inspiration for the cover of Russet Noon. I have made it very clear that I'm not intending to use that specific talisman image for the cover, although I'd love to get permission from the artist in case things don't work out with Charli. I am simply using it as a model for the time being. I stand to profit in no way by its usage.

Charli is the artist who made the rose image that she used without permission for the first version of the book cover.

She's still trying to sell the book, this time with a cover using Michael Delahunt's photograph. She says it's all right because eventually she will change to a similar cover. She seems not to get that the photo is copyrighted, even if the piece of jewelry in the photo is public domain.

I think she needs to give up. Things are really ugly, and she has no defenders at this point.

mscelina
05-13-2009, 06:58 PM
I think the phrase "I am therefore entitled" pretty much sums up this woman's point of view on everything. She is entitled to use the cover image, she is entitled to infringe on Stephanie Meyer's copyright, she is entitled to sell that unauthorized fanfic on e-bay, she is entitled to use the Twilight characters at will.

She's probably also entitled to get her ass sued off.

scarletpeaches
05-13-2009, 07:05 PM
She's certainly entitled to suck my left nut.

scarletpeaches, always ready with a dignified comment.

Wayne K
05-13-2009, 07:48 PM
scarletpeaches, always ready with a dignified comment.
QFT

emilycross
05-13-2009, 08:00 PM
lthough I'd love to get permission from the artist in case things don't work out with Charli. I am simply using it as a model for the time being. I stand to profit in no way by its usage.

Regarding my negotiations with Charli, I am not yet sure if she will be the artist meant for the job. I really hope she is. I love her art and have total trust that she would do a magnificent job, but I fear she might buckle under the pressure.


:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Pressure from what? the flying monkeys who are against you???

She thinks its 'pressure' thats stopping the artist from having her art as the cover of 'a walking lawsuit' ???

God i'd love to know what she be smokin'

Wayne K
05-13-2009, 08:40 PM
..and why she ain't sharing.

Ketzel
05-13-2009, 08:44 PM
Gloriana - Please consult your attorney before you take this even further. If you think that not making a profit from the use of copyrighted material protects you from a lawsuit for violation of copyright, you need legal advice pronto.


Ketzel

Old Hack
05-13-2009, 09:29 PM
I suspect she needs more than legal advice, but perhaps I am being unfair.

Gillhoughly
05-13-2009, 11:16 PM
On his website, Delahunt refers to this image as a "talisman of unidentified origin and meaning," so obviously he doesn't know who the copyright owner is.

In which case YOU cannot use it.


I am therefore entitled

Oh, no, you are not. Please--point out the law that says you are entitled to use this or any other image without permission.

This isn't finders-keepers. This isn't a grade school playground where the kid who yells loudest wins. This is real life, and there are laws in place.

http://library.stanford.edu/cpyright.html

"Fair use provisions of the copyright law allow for limited copying or distribution of published works without the author's permission in some cases. Examples of fair use of copyrighted materials include quotation of excerpts in a review or critique, or copying of a small part of a work by a teacher or student to illustrate a lesson.

"Images, graphics and video should be credited to their owners/sources just as written material. Also, if you should change your mind and want to use material for commercial purposes, then it is important that you would know where and when you found the material and who is the copyright owner."

Yo--Potatohead--You started this mess off by saying that Ms. Meyers didn't have pictures of her characters making them fair game for ficcers.

Now here you go stealing an image.

Somewhere an artist made that bit of jewelry and another artist photographed it. THEY own the copyrights. You don't have their permission to use the image even if you're not making money off it.

You are without doubt the most self-serving, willfully ignorant brat I've ever encountered.

You won't take NO for an answer.

Listen up--in real life sometimes the answer is NO. You may not like it, but tough nuts, that's just how it is.

Adults suck it up and move on. You are twisting things any way you can to make it a yes, but it ain't gonna happen. No means NO.

Grow some brains and GROW UP--no one wants this book.

I'm sure the Brazilians are only interested out of morbid curiosity, like onlookers at a train wreck.

If you absolutely HAVE to have an image, then LEGALLY acquire one at a royalty-free site. (I can't believe I'm enabling you, but I'm doing this to spare the photographer you ripped off.)

http://www.istockphoto.com/index.php

NOTE THIS--you still have to BUY the image for your use.

I am hoping you'll just steal it and then Istockphoto can sue your a$$ off. It's what they're good at.

Nivarion
05-13-2009, 11:31 PM
DUDE GIL!!!

SHE'S Been here! They let her put bit into fanhistory and she put a picture of your russet nooner in. Lols, Now its killing time. We've explained it nice and thoroughly, and we also now have no doubt that she knows about everything we've said.

Gillhoughly
05-13-2009, 11:41 PM
She's clearly seen it, but she's still going ahead regardless.

I see that kind of pig-headedness in spoiled 2 year olds testing their parents' patience, and, in rare cases, supposed grown ups.

She a brat. She insists on remaining a brat.

But in this case the brat won't get a stern word or spanking, but a bank-busting fine.

Hope your parents are rich, Potatohead. Since you're clearly spoiled rotten, it reflects a lifetime of them always bailing you out.

How do you think they'll react when you're busted for this, despite all the warnings?

http://www.chillingeffects.org/piracy/faq.cgi#QID285

"In a civil suit, an infringer may be liable for a copyright owner's actual damages plus any profits made from the infringement. Alternatively, the copyright owner may avoid proving actual damage by electing a statutory damage recovery of up to $30,000 or, where the court determines that the infringement occurred willfully, up to $150,000. The actual amount will be based upon what the court in its discretion considers just."

She better hope she doesn't get Judge Judy.

:D

M.R.J. Le Blanc
05-14-2009, 08:59 AM
She better hope she doesn't get Judge Judy.

:D

Oh please give her Judge Judy!!! I'd pay to see that!

:D

bettielee
05-14-2009, 10:25 AM
*Delete. Now that I've giggled my way through it, toast that sucker. --Thespian (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

* Delete. Time to pack the snowball. Daniel Case (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My favorites! She's even too full of crap for Wikipedia!

Darzian
05-14-2009, 11:17 AM
:crazy:

NeuroFizz
05-14-2009, 03:51 PM
I'm still giggling about the Wikipedia thing. Way back in the old thread on this lady and her "book," I posted this about halfway through (post #419 out of 834, on page 17 out of 34):

We should keep a Wikipedia watch to see if Ms. Potatohead decides to put in an entry about her book, even if or particularly if, the C&D order comes through from the Twilight suits (like Jareo's).


How predictable is this person in seeking attention, both personally and writing-wise?

Namatu
05-14-2009, 05:07 PM
A work "inspired by" art is not the same as "using the art." There is no entitlement, under any circumstances. :e2smack:

This woman makes me tired.

BlueLucario
05-14-2009, 08:55 PM
Aww man. I want to read it.

Phaeal
05-14-2009, 09:26 PM
Me, too. I need a good laugh.

Kaiser-Kun
05-14-2009, 09:44 PM
Is anyone else thinking that this long road to ruin (badum-dish) Potatohead is walking through would make for an awesome book plot? With all the twists and turns, and the evil forces of copyright against her, and armed with only her powerful wit and love of Twilight, will this dumbass rebellious artist come through in the end, and achieve her goal of attention-whoring sharing her story?

Oh crap- *is blown away as every AWer in the room rushes out to register copyright of the idea*

jfreedan
05-14-2009, 10:03 PM
Writing a book about someone trying to write an unofficial sequel to another popular work?

I can totally see that working as a comedy.

You could even have a group of super obsessed fans stalk and try to kill the protagonist to prevent the publishing of the book, or maybe the publisher hires some hit squad? There's just so many ridiculous things you could do with this idea.

But you know, technically what she has done isn't anything that hasn't been done before. There are a lot of fiction books written and published that use characters created by other authors-- those authors are just dead, or the publisher owned the copyright and passed the series off to another author when it suited them.

I greatly suspect this whole thing is just a marketing campaign for AV Paranormal Publishing since their name is all over the net now.

Kaiser-Kun
05-14-2009, 10:11 PM
Writing a book about someone trying to write an unofficial sequel to another popular work?

I can totally see that working as a comedy.

You could even have a group of super obsessed fans stalk and try to kill the protagonist to prevent the publishing of the book, or maybe the publisher hires some hit squad? There's just so many ridiculous things you could do with this idea.

I could even use Taterhead herself as the MCwithout being sued. According to her logic, she's pretty much public property by now.

M.R.J. Le Blanc
05-14-2009, 10:30 PM
But you know, technically what she has done isn't anything that hasn't been done before. There are a lot of fiction books written and published that use characters created by other authors-- those authors are just dead, or the publisher owned the copyright and passed the series off to another author when it suited them.

I greatly suspect this whole thing is just a marketing campaign for AV Paranormal Publishing since their name is all over the net now.

In a way you're right, but that is not the case here. It's not just that she's using someone else's characters, but that she has zero legal right to do so. Characters created by someone else that eventually fall into the public domain can be used. A publisher who passes a series to another author has given that author the permission to use those characters. Tatterhead here doesn't fall under either of those categories.

Are you paying attention Sybilla? Twilight characters are not yet a part of public domain and Smeyer has not given you permission to use her characters! Silence does not imply permission. Until you can manifest physical written proof from the author or the publisher saying you can use the Twilight characters you have no authority and no entitlement to do so.

Oh, and while you're here, that talisman being "of unidentified origin and meaning" means that they don't know where it came from and what it was used for. The dude still owns the photo of it, which means YOU can't use it. At all. Not even as a placeholder. Go take your own photo of the talisman if you want it that bad.

Bubastes
05-14-2009, 10:33 PM
I greatly suspect this whole thing is just a marketing campaign for AV Paranormal Publishing since their name is all over the net now.

You do realize that AV Paranormal Publishing = Taterhead, right? They're one and the same.

jfreedan
05-14-2009, 10:53 PM
In a way you're right, but that is not the case here. It's not just that she's using someone else's characters, but that she has zero legal right to do so. Characters created by someone else that eventually fall into the public domain can be used. A publisher who passes a series to another author has given that author the permission to use those characters. Tatterhead here doesn't fall under either of those categories.


Oh, I understand she is doing something illegal (at least in the States. She could get away with it in most of the Middle East and Asia).

The thing is, most people are upset not because it is illegal, but because she is using someone else's characters and fictional universe. I just find that a little amusing because authors using someone else's characters and writing in someone else's universe happens all the time without the original creator's permission.

I think what she has done is bad form since copyright has not expired, and probably a little nutty, but doesn't really warrant a burning at the stake. It's not unusual for authors to enjoy a story so much they want to do a homage to it or write a sequel to it. There's unofficial (but legal) sequels to everything from Alice in Wonderland to Peter Pan to Little Red Riding Hood, and nobody bats an eye.

EFCollins
05-14-2009, 11:12 PM
But, jfreedan, she is trying to PUBLISH these things under her own name. That is blatant disregard for the woman who created that world. Meyer is the creator of that world... and even though some dislike the Twilight series, it's not to be abused by anyone. If Mrs. Potatohead simply wrote fan fic and left it at that, no one would know or care. Instead, she decided to try and grab a ride on the SMeyer train to fame and fortune and THAT is not okay. It's BS. If I wrote a book about a "little fellow" named Fredo who had a magical ring left to him by his auntie and made said "little fellow" go on a quest to destroy that magical ring in a giant volcano and tried to publish it, I do believe JRR Tolkien's peeps would have my head on a silver platter, and deservingly so. Actually, if I did something that stupid, I'd lay down on that platter and put an apple in my own mouth. I have no problem with people writing fan fiction. My nephew does it. He doesn't try to publish it, though. He's not that dumb.

Momento Mori
05-14-2009, 11:28 PM
jfreedan:
Oh, I understand she is doing something illegal (at least in the States. She could get away with it in most of the Middle East and Asia).

No, it's still illegal in any Middle East or Asian country that's a signatory to the WIPO and other intellectual property treaties. The question is whether it's effectively enforced there and some countries (e.g. the UAE) are beginning to ramp up sanctions against counterfeiters.


jfreedan:
The thing is, most people are upset not because it is illegal, but because she is using someone else's characters and fictional universe. I just find that a little amusing because authors using someone else's characters and writing in someone else's universe happens all the time without the original creator's permission.

What do you mean by this? If you're talking about tie-in novels then those are all done under licence from the original rights holder. If you're talking about novels that claim to be a pastiche then that's treading a fine line and you only have to look at cases where pastiche claims failed to see the costs of doing so without the original rightsholder's permission.


jfreedan:
There's unofficial (but legal) sequels to everything from Alice in Wonderland to Peter Pan to Little Red Riding Hood, and nobody bats an eye.

If we're talking about published novels sold for profit then Peter Pan had an official sequel published that was sanctioned by Great Ormand Street Hospital (the rights holder for Peter Pan and who benefitted from the sequel's royalties). Alan Moore published a graphic novel featuring Alice from Alice and Wonderland and Wendy from Peter Pan and Great Ormand Street Hospital looked at suing him for it, although I don't know what came of it.

If we're talking about fanfic then some publishers/authors shut it down because of concerns about the legal implications, others tolerate it provided it's not done for profit. There has never been a case about the legality of fanfic and legal opinion is split as to whether it's permissible or not.

MM

M.R.J. Le Blanc
05-15-2009, 12:29 AM
Simply put fanfic technically is illegal. It's still an infringement of copyright. But because of the popularity most people turn a blind eye so long as you're not attempting to make profit from it. No author really tolerates it per se. Authors basically fall into two categories: the ones who care are the ones like Anne Rice who don't like it, have publically said so, and will shut you down if you post fanfic pertaining to their work profit or not. The rest purposefully don't go looking for it, whether they care or not, because if they do it opens them up to be sued by their publisher if they don't report it. So yes, fanfic is illegal but it all comes down to how aggressively the author in question chooses to proceed.

As for the likes of Red Riding Hood and Alice in Wonderland, I do believe they fall into the category of public use. I could be wrong. But any character that falls into the public domain no longer belongs to anyone and thus can be used by anyone. If they don't it's likely because somehow the author has permission to use those characters. From what I've seen, what's pissed many people off is the fact that it's illegal. Personally, I could care less who the characters are because I have a huge dislike for the Twilight series. It's the fact that it's illegal and this idiot is showing absolute disregard for someone else's work. Specifics are irrelevant, I'd be just as angry if it was some other author. And I think many others would be too.

Gillhoughly
05-15-2009, 01:39 AM
jfreedan: The thing is, most people are upset not because it is illegal, but because she is using someone else's characters and fictional universe. I just find that a little amusing because authors using someone else's characters and writing in someone else's universe happens all the time without the original creator's permission.There is a big difference between using copyrighted material and material in the public domain.

Yes, writers are doing sequels to all kinds of stuff, Red Riding Hood, Dracula, Jane Austin, the Odyssey, Shakespeare, you name it--but those works differ in that they either had no copyright to start with, or it expired and is now in the public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain). Works in the public domain aren't owned by anyone.

If Potatohead decided to do a fic with Red Riding Hood meeting a werewolf, with him as the "superhero," then it would be absolutely fine. No one is outraged, no laws are broken. It's perfectly okay.

But she decided to pick on Ms. Meyers and cash in.

Potatohead, you want us to all shut the hell up?

Stop your grand project now. No 50 copies. No chapters "leaked" to Brazil so fans there can feed your ego. No more conditional apologies to the Meyers Machine.

You do what most writers do with their first novels and drop it in a trunk and work on something better. Something you made up yourself.

Suck it up and be an adult.

If you're such a fantastic writer, then you won't need the crutch of a fandom to sell your work.

And if you're very lucky, the editor you send it to won't have heard of you at all--trust me, outside of Little Brown you are a total unknown.

Why Ms. Meyers can't let you have 50 copies:

If her contract with Little Brown is like the one I signed a few months back it goes like this:

The Publisher shall print in each edition of the Work published by it a proper United States copyright notice in the name of the Author, sufficient to secure United States Copyright and Universal Copyright Convention protection in the work to such person. The Author hereby appoints the Publisher as his attorney-in-fact (snip)

In the event that the copyright of the Work shall be infringed, and if no mutually satisfactory arrangement shall be arrived at for joint action in regard thereto, either the Author of the Publisher, jointly or separately, shall have the right to bring an action to enjoin such infringement and to recover damages.

That's YOU, Potatohead. Please check my previous post on the kind of money a judge might decide you have to pay them.

It does NOT matter that you made no money off your book.

A judge won't be impressed by whining, lectures on Universal Minds, Collective Consciousness, Carl Jung, how hard you worked on your "tribute," how many times you saw the Matrix, or how much "respect" you have for S. Meyers. He will see you for what you are, a thief trying to leech fame off someone who actually earned the right.

Meyers won't be in court, BTW. This will be handled quietly and efficiently by Little Brown's legal team.

They have more money than you, and they've done this before.

If you don't decide to smarten up, they will destroy your future. It's their job.

Make a choice.

You don't even have to issue another "press release." It would be better not to do so. Your last one gave the lawyers more than enough rope to hang you out to dry.

Find some kind of validation from within yourself. Don't get it from outsiders. That kind never lasts, and there's never enough of it.

And one last word:

Brazil is included in the Universal Copyright Convention (http://erc.unesco.org/cp/convention.asp?KO=15241&language=E).

Little Brown can come after you there (http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15241&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html), too.

girlyswot
05-15-2009, 01:45 AM
Simply put fanfic technically is illegal. It's still an infringement of copyright.

Simply put, but not necessarily true. Ask a lawyer. It's always more complicated.

BlueLucario
05-15-2009, 03:06 AM
She's clearly seen it, but she's still going ahead regardless.

I see that kind of pig-headedness in spoiled 2 year olds testing their parents' patience, and, in rare cases, supposed grown ups.

She a brat. She insists on remaining a brat.

But in this case the brat won't get a stern word or spanking, but a bank-busting fine.

Hope your parents are rich, Potatohead. Since you're clearly spoiled rotten, it reflects a lifetime of them always bailing you out.

How do you think they'll react when you're busted for this, despite all the warnings?

http://www.chillingeffects.org/piracy/faq.cgi#QID285

"In a civil suit, an infringer may be liable for a copyright owner's actual damages plus any profits made from the infringement. Alternatively, the copyright owner may avoid proving actual damage by electing a statutory damage recovery of up to $30,000 or, where the court determines that the infringement occurred willfully, up to $150,000. The actual amount will be based upon what the court in its discretion considers just."

She better hope she doesn't get Judge Judy.

:D

Wow, Gillhougly.

What's with the instense anger?

Gillhoughly
05-15-2009, 04:32 AM
I never could abide a thief.

Adam
05-15-2009, 05:04 AM
I never could abide a thief.

QFT.

Medievalist
05-15-2009, 05:20 AM
I'm going to be blunt here, in case other people don't know what Gillhoully has already alluded to:

If a rights holder does not aggressively defend his or her rights they can lose them.

This is one reason why authors do not read fanfic in their universes.

AnneMarble
05-15-2009, 06:03 AM
However, you have inspired an office (but not beverage) safe YouTube mockage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kSMFL891v4&feature=PlayList&p=183563CA433F6BEF&index=19) from the awesome Caito (http://www.journalfen.net/users/caito/)of Fandom Wank (http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/).
I shared that link in a writing chat, and someone told me I was evil. I love it when they say that. :D

Loved the rap. :)

Gillhoughly
05-15-2009, 06:34 AM
Many writers will defend their copyright to keep it, others turn a blind eye. They have their reasons.

With my contracts, I have to take action if I slam into an infringement on my copyright and my publisher finds out. If I don't, then my publisher can sue me, which I cannot afford, as they don't pay me much.

Usually I just ask the writer to take the story down and offer a signed copy of one of my books as a thank you. That's worked pretty well so far. Most everyone I've met in fandom has been amazingly polite and understanding, and I've tried to return the favor.

For other writers it's better for them to be officially "unaware" of fan fiction and ignore the issue.

But the Potatohead made that impossible with her ridiculous "press releases" and continued attempts to garner attention.

The single most important rule all fan fiction writers learn from day one is "Stay off the copyright holder's radar."

The Potatohead can still salvage her life and future by simply going silent and getting on with some other writing project that involves her own characters. This kerfuffle can fade, and, if she's really lucky, be forgotten.

Fulk
05-15-2009, 06:37 AM
Just when I was starting to despair that the old Potatohead thread was getting stale, you guys bring me this. Thank you. :roll:

Nivarion
05-15-2009, 09:15 AM
You really have more say at this point than you think, Lady S. shut up and step away now and they wont send the shar...Lawyers on you.

and to help you understand this concept a little better.

http://i577.photobucket.com/albums/ss220/nivarion/RussetNoonJoke.png?t=1242364208

There will be nothing left but grease on the lawyers fingers after they are done. YOU WILL LOSE if you continue. Your options are to disappear or get shredded like a potato on one of these bad boys.

bettielee
05-15-2009, 10:16 AM
Is this woman in contact with anyone here? Does everyone think she is reading this?

If so....

ha ha ha ha ha hah ah hahahahahahahahah point point poke poke

BlueLucario
05-15-2009, 03:34 PM
How old is Sybilla? like 12?

CaroGirl
05-15-2009, 04:53 PM
I don't want to bash this "fan fiction" thing, which I hadn't heard of before joining AW. I think it's probably cool beans if someone wants to bash out fiction based on some other writer's characters and world in the privacy of their own computer. However, I still struggle to understand why anyone, aside from doing it as a writing exercise, would want to do that. I've never considered doing that and, before coming here, didn't realize anyone else did either. Maybe the books I tend to read--mainly mainstream contemporary and literary--don't lend themselves to being fan ficced. In the books I enjoy reading, there's no "world", aside from the one we all inhabit. Characters exist within the covers and there are rarely sequels or prequels, or any other -quels.

It seems to me writers could avoid a whole lot of hassle if this practise were simply abandoned in favour of writing original work, always. We should be encouraged, and encourage others, to explore our own writing imagination.

In fact, dare I say, I hate the idea of people using other author's characters in their work. It just squicks me all over the place. This might be unpopular viewpoint, but it's mine and I wanted to just put it out there.

emilycross
05-15-2009, 05:00 PM
CaroGirl - the majority of fanfiction isn't actually based on novels. you'll get the odd fandom such as Twilight or HP which will spawn thousands of fanfics, but generally in my experience its tv shows, anime, cartoon, comic etc (things that aren't usually written in novel form) which are usually used to fuel the fanfiction engine.

I've written fanfics, purely for fun though (not profit, which is the issue here).

and i do agree that its important to encourage original imaginative writing etc. but alot of people actually learn the techniques/skills or even realise that they can write through messing with fanfics and then moving on to work on their own stuff.

In my mind, FF (when done properly - disclaimers etc.) is just a bit of fun on the part of the fans.

BenPanced
05-15-2009, 05:04 PM
Simply put, but not necessarily true. Ask a lawyer. It's always more complicated.
They would probably have to be versed and practicing in intellectual property law to have a better understanding on the legal implications.

Gillhoughly
05-15-2009, 05:18 PM
How old is Sybilla? like 12?

She's in her 30s near as anyone can tell. It's a sad day when pre-teen Twi-fans are able to understand Copyright 101, but she doesn't.

There has been speculation she might have a type of Asperger's Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome) because of her extreme inability to accept the obvious. I've speculated that "Top Twenty Thumbs Down literary 'agent' " Barbara Bauer (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/007440.html) has it. She's left years of documented weird behavior all over the web (drive by e-threats, rants, threating to sue Publisher's Weekly for a billion dollars, etc.), giving a bad name to the nice people who have the disorder.

If not, then there's no excuse for the Syb's bratty behavior. Perhaps for the first time in her life she's getting attention. As it's all negative attention, and she seems to still enjoy it, one can reasonably question whether she has a mental or emotional disorder.

Calling herself the "Darth Vader" of fandom takes it way over the top. (Don't flatter youself, Syb. You aren't.) Aside from a few dozen people here on AW and Fandom Wank, she's completely unknown. At one point she was apparently anticipating an epic intellectual duel with Peter David, but after his first guffaw at her book on his blog and a snarkfic that's taken a life of its own, he's ignored her and moved on to other things.

She could do worse than follow his example. I think he did the wrong thing acknowledging her in the first place, but that's his business, not mine. I've had better topics to wank about on my blog.

And just to keep things on topic, let's not fall into a discussion on whether fanfic is a good or bad idea. Many writers sharpen their craft with it, and I know several pros who write it for their own amusement, but they're all on board with the "Stay OFF the copyright holder's radar" rule.

The Potatohead doesn't like the fact that no one wants her fic, and seems unable or unwilling to grasp that its release could ruin her life. Until she figures that out, forums like this will continue to mock her efforts to get famous by riding on another's coattails.

.

ChristineR
05-15-2009, 05:37 PM
Fan Fiction is a major gray area. The consensus is that is probably technically illegal, but copyright holders don't really want to discourage it, as it is obvious that the people who write and read fan fic are also the people who not only buy the actual book or watch the TV show, but also buy every action figure and collectible card you put out just so they can read the product notes for ideas. So there is a de facto standard that you can write it so long as you don't sell it--although I know some people that used to edit fan fic anthologies and sell them at conventions in the pre-Internet days and no one ever complained.

This makes it hard for people like Lady Sybilla to quite get the the distinctions, although she's carried it so far that I begin to suspect that she knows quite well that she's asking for trouble and is enjoying this. After all, it will be well-nigh impossible for the Twilight empire to keep her from printing copies on her laser printer and exchanging for ten dollar bills at the local convention, and the more attention she gets the more likely it will be that curious people will buy the thing, if only for the laughs.

CaroGirl
05-15-2009, 05:47 PM
CaroGirl - the majority of fanfiction isn't actually based on novels. you'll get the odd fandom such as Twilight or HP which will spawn thousands of fanfics, but generally in my experience its tv shows, anime, cartoon, comic etc (things that aren't usually written in novel form) which are usually used to fuel the fanfiction engine.

I've written fanfics, purely for fun though (not profit, which is the issue here).

and i do agree that its important to encourage original imaginative writing etc. but alot of people actually learn the techniques/skills or even realise that they can write through messing with fanfics and then moving on to work on their own stuff.

In my mind, FF (when done properly - disclaimers etc.) is just a bit of fun on the part of the fans.
Thanks for the insight Emily.

I'm guess just not fanatic enough about any book, movie, TV show or cartoon to want to spend my small window of free time trying to recreate it or expand on it. I like Star Wars and Harry Potter, but when the DVD player ends or I close the book, I walk away and don't think much more about it.

I'm a fan of the people in my life: my husband (because he's awesome), my kids (because they're double awesome), my friends, family and co-workers, the people in my community. These are the people I write into my fiction. Aspects of their personalities become my characters. I'm a fan of environmentalism, free speech, anti-censorship and socialism. I'm a fan of sociology, anthropology and children's rights. Those themes end up in my fiction whether I'm conscious of it or not.

I suppose I could practice writing using someone else's characters and themes but I guess I just prefer to practice using my own.

Gillhoughly
05-15-2009, 06:03 PM
Agreed, ChristineR.

I've been to several fic conventions (selling my pro-pubbed books) and yeah, there was much dealing and wheeling. I never bought the fic; I had better things to buy.

One thing's for certain, none of those fic dealers made money with it. Printing costs, travel expenses, hotels, and food made that a given. Most took a loss, but came anyway to visit friends and buy stuff.

A fic writer I know broke down her expenses and determined she'd made a whole penny of profit. That had been a *good* year, too!

Oh, yeah, she knew to stay off the radar. It was easy, since her stuff was based on TV shows, but she never sent copies in to the producers and actors.

I've talked with a producer/writer for a popular show about the fan fic they get in. She assured me that everything went into the shredder, usually unread. It's standard operating procedure. They're aware it exists, but turn a blind eye. Rarely, if it's an especially juicy slash fic, they might read it aloud for giggles and groans, but the shredder always gets it afterward.

Back in the day it was considered the height of insult to the writer to do fics based on their work. NO ONE would have tried a Lord of the Rings fic back then. It just wasn't the done thing, disrespectful. Sadly, that has changed.

Everything has become fair game, but those writers all still seem to get the Copyright Thing, with a few exceptions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Another_Hope).

Potatohead--here it is explained in plain language:

10 Big Myths about Copyright Explained (http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html).

Nivarion
05-15-2009, 06:09 PM
fanfiction is okay, so long as its kept quiet and on the sights nestled nicely in the pub houses blind spots. I've written a few fan fics myself, though none of them were on put on the internet.

My fan fics are like an artistic constipation, no one deserves to that crap... Maybe Lady Silly.

BenPanced
05-15-2009, 07:56 PM
Actually, you're safer if you don't post it anywhere online. Or broadcast your intent to publish in a press release.

jfreedan
05-15-2009, 08:02 PM
There is a big difference between using copyrighted material and material in the public domain.


There is a legal difference, but not a semantic one.

Whether it is copyright protected or public domain, you're still using someone else's characters and stories for the basis of your own.

This is nothing truly new in the publishing world. Every major franchise from Star Wars to Goosebumps has had stories written by authors that were not the creators of those characters / universes. The only difference between them and the amateur fan fiction is that the original creators / publishers make money off the officially sanctioned fan fic.

So, the reason people are up in arms about it has nothing to do with the fact she wrote a Twilight fan fic, and has everything to do with writers and publishers being afraid of what it would mean if people were allowed to sell fan fic on their own without consent from the author.

Bear in mind, I'm not trying to justify what this fan fic writer has done-- I mean, it's clearly in my own best interest to support authors being able to enforce copyright to prevent others from cashing in. I'm just throwing out some perspective here. Being upset because she is doing something that could damage the livelihood of an author is one thing, but writing so much anger about fan fiction as if the publication of fan fiction was anything new?

Why write pages of "How dare you write a story in someone else's universe and with their characters, and try to ride their fame!" to this one person and not the rest of the publishing world that does it all the time? That's kind of silly.

PS: Peter Pan is in the public domain. So is Little Nemo, Alice in Wonderland, Brother's Grimm, Conan the Barbarian, and the works of H.P. Lovecraft.

Pagey's_Girl
05-15-2009, 08:25 PM
PS: Peter Pan is in the public domain. So is Little Nemo, Alice in Wonderland, Brother's Grimm, Conan the Barbarian, and the works of H.P. Lovecraft.

I seem to remember there being some question about the entire Lovecraft canon being public domain at one point - but the vast majority of it (including the Cthulhu Mythos) is. I was looking into this awhile back because of something I'm working on that referenced "The Dunwich Horror." I was almost sure it was in the clear, but "almost" wasn't going to cut it.

(Sorry for the derail...)

BlueLucario
05-15-2009, 08:39 PM
She's in her 30s near as anyone can tell. It's a sad day when pre-teen Twi-fans are able to understand Copyright 101, but she doesn't.

There has been speculation she might have a type of Asperger's Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome) because of her extreme inability to accept the obvious. I've speculated that "Top Twenty Thumbs Down literary 'agent' " Barbara Bauer (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/007440.html) has it. She's left years of documented weird behavior all over the web (drive by e-threats, rants, threating to sue Publisher's Weekly for a billion dollars, etc.), giving a bad name to the nice people who have the disorder.


.

You know what? I hate it when people use Aspergers to get away with everything.

LET THAT BITCH BURN!!!!!

Phaeal
05-15-2009, 09:28 PM
You know what? I hate it when people use Aspergers to get away with everything.

LET THAT BITCH BURN!!!!!

Hmm, why does this start smelling like a witch hunt? Oh yeah, the whole stake and torch thing.

The author, publisher and lawyers will deal with Lady Syb as they see necessary. Why should we heap so much personal vitriol on her?

scarletpeaches
05-15-2009, 09:31 PM
Because she's a tit.

TemlynWriting
05-15-2009, 10:21 PM
How old is Sybilla? like 12?

I've found a few links with some interesting information about "Lady Sybilla," including a bio wiki-type page (http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/LadySybilla), her Google profile (http://www.google.com/profiles/avparanormal), and a call for an actor (http://www.iamanartist.com/MemberInfo/CastingPostingDetails.aspx?CastID=408) to appear in her graphic novel and website. She is also said to be behind AV Paranormal Publishing (http://biz.prlog.org/AV-Paranormal/). (Here's the link to the actual AV Paranormal (http://www.avparanormal.com/) site, but it appears to be down at the moment.)

She's definitely in her 30's, and according to several of her public profiles, she's a student at Cal State Northridge in Southern Cali. Apparently she's even won an award there [source (http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/LadySybilla)]:


Glorianna Arias, a.k.a Lady Sybilla, was the First-Prize Winner of The Robert apRoberts English Honors Essay Prize in 2000 at Cal State Northridge.[10] The Robert apRoberts Honors Essay Prize is an annual award given to the English Honors student whose thesis is judged to be the best submitted during that academic year. The title of Glorianna's thesis is "A Study of the Gothic in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and Toni Morrison's Beloved." It is available at the Oviatt Library at Cal State Northridge.

Gillhoughly
05-15-2009, 10:45 PM
Why write pages of "How dare you write a story in someone else's universe and with their characters, and try to ride their fame!" to this one person and not the rest of the publishing world that does it all the time? That's kind of silly.Yes it IS silly, but everyone has their buttons, and boastful thieves who refuse to take responsibility for their actions is one of mine.

Other fic writers I've met are not into the "getting famous" thing. They cheerfully acknowledge that what they do is illegal. They have adopted pen names to shield their identity, and if their work bothers someone, they just take it down.

The Potatohead, though, has been turning back flips through burning hoops to justify that she's entitled to get her book out.

I'll take the honest 'tude any old day. At least they're not trying to sell their stuff.

There is another huge difference between fanfic and basing works on things in the public domain and writing officially sanctioned tie-in books: MONEY.

At some point a publisher paid the writer--usually a hungry pro with bills--to do the words. Some of the books stink, others are outstanding, but they are legal, and no one minds, especially the writer. I've done a couple work-for-hires set in a universe owned by a big company. The books did well, even the critics liked my words, but I won't do any more. I'd rather play in my own worlds!

BlueLucario--take a chill pill, darlin'. We all know she's a tool, but let's give her a chance to turn into a grownup. She might surprise us.

I know it's annoying as hell when someone disrespects something you love. However angry I got, the mockage continued regardless until I learned to ignore it. It was their problem, not mine.

And I just speculated on the Asperger's. If she does have it, then she honestly cannot help herself, that's just the way it is. If she has any support around her (a friend or family member) to keep her out of trouble, then it's failed miserably, and they've got some damage control on their hands.

I'm hoping the spud's just an ordinary fan who got in over her head, got batshit crazy drunk on the sudden attention, and doesn't know how to gracefully retire from the spotlight.

Here's how you do it, Tater: You do nothing. No more press releases, letters to Meyers, videos, rants to Fandom Wank, etc., and above all you don't release the book here or in Brazil. (Remember they've signed on to that Universal Copyright thing I mentioned, so Little Brown can go after you there.)

This kerfuffle only lasts for as long as you choose to feed it. The last thread on this forum died for lack of new news, until you posted that daft apology and restated your intent to publish. "Fresh meat for the grinder," as Heinlein once said.

Stop now. Starve us and eventually we get bored and move on.

Really. It happens all the time.

KimJo
05-16-2009, 12:55 AM
*Derail* Re: Asperger's Syndrome. Not to start any disagreement with Gillhoughly, just stating my take on it.

My 10-year-old has Asperger's. She fully comprehends the concept of "copyright", has since she was six or seven and I explained it to her after I caught her copying a story from one of her books and trying to pass it off as her own. She now writes her own stories set in her own universe.

Asperger's can at times make it difficult for those who have it to understand certain concepts, or to let go of misconceptions. Asperger's (if anyone doesn't know) is a form of autism. It can cause difficulty with social skills, communication, and learning. It can cause erratic or unusual behavior. But people with Asperger's nearly always have average or above average intelligence, and it doesn't take much to teach them that something isn't acceptable, at least in my experience. (I'm a certified special ed teacher, in addition to having my daughter.)

I think what Potatohead has is a severe case of stupid. Just my opinion.

*end derail*

Gillhoughly
05-16-2009, 01:55 AM
KinJo--Thank you for letting us know all that! Your "take" is valuable and needed here!

people with Asperger's nearly always have average or above average intelligence, Certainly she's intelligent and persistent or she'd not have finished a book or attempted various marketing ploys. There are plenty of pro writers who've not taken advantage of the venues she's used. She just seems unable or unwilling to grasp that her project is, at its core, theft.


Asperger's can at times make it difficult for those who have it to understand certain concepts, or to let go of misconceptions.Sure seems to describe the Spud.

Yay for your daughter understanding what the Spud cannot or will not grasp about copyright.


I think what Potatohead has is a severe case of stupid.Rep point for getting me to snort ice tea through my nose. Ow. You owe me a keyboard, but I'll let it go this time!

:roll:

Memnon624
05-16-2009, 02:24 AM
PS: Peter Pan is in the public domain. So is Little Nemo, Alice in Wonderland, Brother's Grimm, Conan the Barbarian, and the works of H.P. Lovecraft.

Sorry to be a wee snit, but except for certain stories, RE Howard's Conan is only public domain in Australia; in the rest of the English-speaking world, CPI/Paradox Entertainment -- who owns the IP, now -- has been diligently renewing copyrights. Those they can't renew they've locked down with trademarks. Here's a link (http://www.conan.com/invboard/index.php?showtopic=41) to the official Conan messageboard, specifically the thread where the good folks at CPI/Paradox answer questions put to them.

/derail

Best,

Scott

Gillhoughly
05-16-2009, 03:31 AM
Crom!

BlueLucario
05-16-2009, 03:39 AM
I'm sorry it's nothing personal.

A man shoots the presidents, hacks the computer systems of the pentagon, and gets away with it because he has Asperger's(He may not even have it.) That's what I really hate about it. And if miss "female dog" potatohead pulls that crap on the public, you can be sure I would come round her house, cut her with razors and put bees in the cuts then sew her up.

scarletpeaches
05-16-2009, 03:41 AM
Hey! The cuts/bees/sewing up thing was my idea.

I remember posting something to that effect months ago about someone else. Can't remember who.

But anyway.

Carry on.

BlueLucario
05-16-2009, 03:42 AM
Hey! The cuts/bees/sewing up thing was my idea.

I remember posting something to that effect months ago about someone else. Can't remember who.

But anyway.

Carry on.
It's mine now :D

scarletpeaches
05-16-2009, 03:44 AM
Bee thief!

Mods - have her banninated! :D

MacAllister
05-16-2009, 04:06 AM
Heh. Let's not go down the road of specific bodily-harm revenge fantasies here, please. Mostly because I think it's poor moral hygiene. But also, because if some psycho takes it into their head to hurt someone I'm the one who gets the subpoena to turn over server records. (And yes, it's happened before, and no - it's unpleasant and I don't get reimbursed for the time and effort it takes to dredge those records out of the database.)

scarletpeaches
05-16-2009, 04:11 AM
*packs away the revenge bees and goes to bed*

IceCreamEmpress
05-16-2009, 04:13 AM
A man shoots the presidents, hacks the computer systems of the pentagon, and gets away with it because he has Asperger's

Blue, that never happened. I don't even know to whom you are referring, but nobody who has shot a President of the US has "gotten away with it."

If you mean that John Hinckley, Jr. is institutionalized rather than jailed for his 1981 assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan, his diagnosis isn't Asperger's at all. And he will be institutionalized for the rest of his life.

I don't know where the Pentagon bit comes in, though.

BlueLucario
05-16-2009, 04:15 AM
Blue, that never happened. I don't even know to whom you are referring, but nobody who has shot a President of the US has "gotten away with it."
It's just an example. I know that :D

IceCreamEmpress
05-16-2009, 04:18 AM
It's just an example. I know that :D

Oh. Apparently I need more coffee or something! ;)

BlueLucario
05-16-2009, 04:21 AM
Heh. Let's not go down the road of specific bodily-harm revenge fantasies here, please. Mostly because I think it's poor moral hygiene. But also, because if some psycho takes it into their head to hurt someone I'm the one who gets the subpoena to turn over server records. (And yes, it's happened before, and no - it's unpleasant and I don't get reimbursed for the time and effort it takes to dredge those records out of the database.)
Is that why you take joke threats seriously?

MacAllister
05-16-2009, 04:25 AM
Is that why you take joke threats seriously?
Yep. That's exactly why. :) Online stuff gets investigated right alongside meatspace stuff, these days, whenever there's a crime.

M.R.J. Le Blanc
05-16-2009, 05:30 AM
Karma never fails, that's all I have to say. And all this ridiculous crap she's trying to pull will come back to bite her, without any help from any of us :)

Gillhoughly
05-16-2009, 07:24 AM
Karma never fails, that's all I have to say. And all this ridiculous crap she's trying to pull will come back to bite her, without any help from any of us :)

Indeed. She could write something original, sell it, and wind up with ME as her editor!

Boo-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

Sirion
05-16-2009, 07:38 AM
United States Code. Title 17. Referendum 506. Article A. Section 1. Subsection A through C:


(a) Criminal Infringement.—
(1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

Another great bedtime story for lawyers: United States Code. Title 17. Referendum 101.


A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.


You'd be surprised just how specific copyright laws are. Oh United States Code. Title 17. Referendum 506. Article A. Section 1. Subsection A. you are a sly one. Why must you be so cryptic? Who could possibly understand such a concept!

jfreedan
05-16-2009, 09:39 AM
Sorry to be a wee snit, but except for certain stories, RE Howard's Conan is only public domain in Australia; in the rest of the English-speaking world, CPI/Paradox Entertainment -- who owns the IP, now -- has been diligently renewing copyrights. Those they can't renew they've locked down with trademarks. Here's a link (http://www.conan.com/invboard/index.php?showtopic=41) to the official Conan messageboard, specifically the thread where the good folks at CPI/Paradox answer questions put to them.

/derail

Best,

Scott

Paradox Entertainment is one of those companies that claims copyright on things they never actually owned and because of how scared big companies are of lawsuits, they just go with it. I could really care less what their employees claim; they don't own the copyright on his work. All they did was buy stock in a company L. Sprague deCamp formed. L. Sprague deCamp has claimed he is "one of the creators of Conan", when in reality all he did was sort of take the books and publish them while writing new ones. So the only stories they would actually own a copyright on are not the ones created by Howard, but by the later writers. It's ethically dubious but they get away with it only because of the peculiarities of the court system; much like how PublishAmerica and Scientology get away with all manner of things they really shouldn't. It's like how film companies still pay royalty fees for using "Happy Birthday" in movies when in reality if it was challenged in court, the song would probably be discovered to not be under copyright anymore.

Howard wrote his stories in an era where copyright needed to be renewed every few years. He never renewed his own copyrights, so they expired.

TTC you're forgetting the Fair Use clauses.

This is the best explanation of US copyright law I've ever seen. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo)

KimJo
05-16-2009, 02:45 PM
KinJo--Thank you for letting us know all that! Your "take" is valuable and needed here!
Certainly she's intelligent and persistent or she'd not have finished a book or attempted various marketing ploys. There are plenty of pro writers who've not taken advantage of the venues she's used. She just seems unable or unwilling to grasp that her project is, at its core, theft.

Sure seems to describe the Spud.

Yay for your daughter understanding what the Spud cannot or will not grasp about copyright.

Rep point for getting me to snort ice tea through my nose. Ow. You owe me a keyboard, but I'll let it go this time!

:roll:

Thanks, Gillhoughly. Sorry about the keyboard ;)

emilycross
05-16-2009, 05:39 PM
I have no legal knowledge what so ever and i know this will sound stupid so bear with me, but i'm curious, in regards to copyright law, many of your refer to the U.S.'s laws, but isn't she based in Brazil? and conducted her theft etc. over the internet? Does US copyright law have 'jurisdiction'(if thats the right word)

And is copyright law/fanfiction etc the same for every country?

and is 'the internet' as a domain liable and open to copyrighting if it is different for every country (i know it probably isn;t) ?

i know stupid question, but i'm just curious.

Alitriona
05-16-2009, 06:34 PM
I'm sorry it's nothing personal.

A man shoots the presidents, hacks the computer systems of the pentagon, and gets away with it because he has Asperger's(He may not even have it.) That's what I really hate about it.

(derail)
People with Asperger's have enough to deal with without making up examples. There's even stigma with the condition already.

My autistic son was writing a script and I had to explain why Bart Simpson and the hulk couldn't be main characters! He got it.

The more I read about this woman, it does seem like asperger's to a degree but I wouldn't like to hand it to her as an excuse to continue. As said in a previous, if this is the case her family should be looking out for her.

On the other hand it could simply be the result of a woman who's been indulged all her life and doesn't understand when someone tells her she can't have whatever she wants.

Gillhoughly
05-16-2009, 06:47 PM
emilycross, She's based in California. The whole danged Net has her home address, phone number, and shoe size, but so far no one's broadcast it, because most people on the Net have working brain cells.

Some Twi fan in Brazil, not understanding that the initial "press release" was for fan fic, gave her some attention, translated her You Tube video, and now the Spud's the big fish in their small pond. She "leaks" stuff to them so they can translate it into Portuguese.

The thing is, Brazil signed on (http://erc.unesco.org/cp/convention.asp?KO=15241&language=E) to the Universal Copyright Convention (http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=15241&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html).

Little Brown lawyers are just waiting for her to take it just one step too far.

Phaeal
05-16-2009, 08:41 PM
Because she's a tit.

Let she who is without mammaries flash the first nipple.

It's in the Bible. ;)

jfreedan
05-17-2009, 12:38 AM
Little Brown lawyers are just waiting for her to take it just one step too far.

I don't know. I'm sure there's a lot of intimidation going on, but generally lawyers don't engage in lawsuits against private individuals they don't believe will make them any money. Suing some woman who most likely doesn't have any isn't gonna be high on their "To Do" list. Litigation is expensive, and I can't foresee any reasonable person paying a lawyer several thousand dollars to have someone stop selling a fanfic that probably isn't gonna be widely sold to begin with.

If I was Stephanie Meyer, I'd just ask my fans to not purchase unauthorized Twilight works that I did not create and ignore her.

willietheshakes
05-17-2009, 01:01 AM
I don't know. I'm sure there's a lot of intimidation going on, but generally lawyers don't engage in lawsuits against private individuals they don't believe will make them any money. Suing some woman who most likely doesn't have any isn't gonna be high on their "To Do" list. Litigation is expensive, and I can't foresee any reasonable person paying a lawyer several thousand dollars to have someone stop selling a fanfic that probably isn't gonna be widely sold to begin with.

If I was Stephanie Meyer, I'd just ask my fans to not purchase unauthorized Twilight works that I did not create and ignore her.

If it was just a matter of getting money out of her, that would be the case.

However, it's not. Trademark (and to a lesser extent, copyright holders) are required to demonstrate due diligence in preserving the integrity of the trademark in order to maintain their rights to it. Failure to do so results in a trademark slipping into the public domain. THAT'S what's at stake here.

(The above is my loose interpretation of that whole thing, but, much to my mother's chagrin, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe one of the professionals could gloss the point?)

BenPanced
05-17-2009, 01:14 AM
Indeed. She could write something original, sell it, and wind up with ME as her editor!

Boo-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!
There aren't enough red pens and blue pencils for that job...

Gillhoughly
05-17-2009, 02:26 AM
generally lawyers don't engage in lawsuits against private individuals they don't believe will make them any money.True, but publishers are going to protect their copyright on a work, and they all have a legal department with lawyers if not on retainer, then available to look after problems like this.

In one of my past posts on this thread I've quoted directly from one of my own literary contracts. If a copyright infringement comes on the radar, my publishers have the right to act as my legal representative and go after the other party. I may not even know about it until after the fact. They tend to do such things quietly. Most of this stuff never gets to court.

Now, much as we'd like Little Brown's legal department to mash the Potatohead just for apparently being terminally stupid, they will likely start with a simple cease and desist shot across the bows. This is a clear warning to the offender, letting them know that it's a good idea to find another hobby.

Potatohead, I HOPE you are still lurking here.

It's been fun for you, but it's time to back off and do something else.

Under all the wank and insults here, you will notice a constant and common message: that you have a choice. You can push this forward for more egoboos from a few Twi-fans and get yourself a load a trouble or simply *stop.*

Stop now and you'll never hear from the lawyers, ever. This thread and Fandom Wank will fade and die.

Think how far you can go from this point forward if you don't get yourself in a legal wrangle.

You can write your own original works and start shopping those around. Lots of fic writers have done so. Multi-Hugo winner Lois McMaster Bujold started out writing Star Trek fan fic. Look her up.

Young adult paranormal is HOT. I'm betting you can "file off the serial numbers" from your book, tweak and twist things to wholly separate it from the Meyers universe, and sell it. That's what Lois did with one of her stories. She worked for years on a Trek fic she called "Mirrors." It eventually became Shards of Honor (http://www.amazon.com/Shards-Honor-Lois-McMaster-Bujold/dp/0671720872) and is one hell of a good read.

No one's going to be unhappy if you choose to simply stop right now.

Doing that keeps YOU in control of events, not some lawyer, not some publisher.

It's in your hands.

Come on. Be a professional.

Parametric
05-17-2009, 02:30 AM
Shards of Honour is an awesome novel and Bujold is a goddess.

Er ... carry on. :D

Pagey's_Girl
05-17-2009, 03:35 AM
That's the biggest leap of faith a fanfic writer can take - taking a story out of someone else's world and setting it entirely in your own. It's a little scary - but oh so sweet when it works. :)

Sirion
05-17-2009, 04:07 AM
TTC you're forgetting the Fair Use clauses.


I'm not forgetting the fair use clause. There is simply no possible way anyone could distort somebody making an entire novel based on someone else's universe, to fit under the clause. It would be completely absurd. "Fair use" does not apply to a new Twilight book (which she freely admits it is), anymore than me writing an eight Harry Potter book would.

BenPanced
05-17-2009, 04:31 AM
TTC you're forgetting the Fair Use clauses.

I'm not forgetting the fair use clause. There is simply no possible way anyone could distort somebody making an entire novel based on someone else's universe, to fit under the clause. It would be completely absurd. "Fair use" does not apply to a new Twilight book (which she freely admits it is), anymore than me writing an eight Harry Potter book would.
Live and direct from the US Copyright Office:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

This links back to 106, and it appears thusly:

§ 106 Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work
Emphasis mine.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

Lady Potatohead has FAILED with a capital FAILED. She's announced her intent to sell a derivative work based on a copyrighted source, later demanding permission (sorry, but I didn't see it as a polite request) to make 50 copies of said work to distribute to friends. Even though it is currently unpublished, Stephenie Meyer has every right to halt publication and/or distribution because she has exclusive right to produce future derivative works, so there is no way Twilight Tuber can withstand the scrutinty. Lady Spud's best bet would be to give up and walk away while she still can; there's no way she can fight this in court without going financially bankrupt (morally? That's been established, I'd say...)

Cyia
05-17-2009, 04:32 AM
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:W1Fa7W3jLMoJ:www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html+fair+use+-+define&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Fair Use:


The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

She could take her book, change the names of the characters and the basic setting (Forks is fair game, but the set-up is iffy if she keeps the same social structure with the Quilletes and the vampire whose dad=Dr. and has the same brother/sister pairings) and make her own novel. That doesn't mean a publisher would touch it, but it would be legal.


When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation.

Tater, that 2nd quote means silence =/= permission to go ahead.

ETA: Cross posted, but I'm not deleting it.

KaiaSonderby
05-17-2009, 04:03 PM
I'm sorry it's nothing personal.

A man shoots the presidents, hacks the computer systems of the pentagon, and gets away with it because he has Asperger's(He may not even have it.) That's what I really hate about it. And if miss "female dog" potatohead pulls that crap on the public, you can be sure I would come round her house, cut her with razors and put bees in the cuts then sew her up.


No. Just no. I'm sorry to derail as well, here, but NO. Asperger's is not an excuse for shooting the president or violating copyright and anyone who actually has AS and not this damn "Internet Asperger's" that is cropping up generally knows that. AS is not a psychosis, it's not being a sociopath, it's a social development disorder.

This does not mean misunderstanding copyright law. It means misunderstanding body language, tone of voice, and facial expression, and other factors inherent to humanity's natural ability to socialize (there are other side effects, but I won't go there). Lady Sybillia may socialize like an idiot, but that in no way, shape, or form means she has AS. And as far as I can tell, from experience, in the real world AS people don't "get away with" much of anything. I had to move to another country before I found people who actually got it.

So please do me a favor and don't group me with twits like her.

Gillhoughly
05-17-2009, 07:01 PM
Sorry, Brightlyiburn, no one's looking to give the Spud an escape hatch on this, and no one wants to offend others who have been diagnosed with AS.

I made speculations which may or may not be correct. Her behavior has puzzled a lot of people, and she seems self-destructively stubborn about getting her book out.

Whatever's going on with her, she's made some poor choices, picked some poor fights, and refuses to listen to common sense, which no one understands.

The mother of an Asperger's child has posted (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3592583&postcount=105) some valuable insight on this thread. Her 10 y.o. understands copyright, and KimJo's hilarious conclusion about the spud made me snort ice tea through my nose.

Puzzling behavior doesn't automatically mean AS is behind it. We ARE trying to understand WHY the spud is being so stubborn. AS is one possibility, is all.

She's another writer, and we don't want to see her ruin her future potential to achieve true publication.

At least I don't, not really. I've done my share of wank, no excuses. It's like seeing someone running blindly toward a busy highway. If yelling "hey, look out, stupid!" doesn't work, you try to trip 'em. It gives them skinned knees and bruises, but that's still better than winding up as street pizza.

Medievalist
05-17-2009, 09:00 PM
IANAL

But I do know a fair amount about copyright, and in particular, about the DMCA.

1. Rights holders have to defend their work--or the court can assume the work is orphaned, or otherwise abandoned.

2. Fair use is a safe harbor clause for specific uses--reviews, and education, for instance. Ms. Potato Head doesn't fit.

3. Fair use isn't a "right"--it's something decided in court with a judge, and usually, a jury.

4. There are DMCA issues--which include automatic fines. Pricey ones, for copyright violation, and failure to remove data and files.

5. People can and do go to prison for copyright violation.

6. People have their wages garnished for their lifetimes.

7. If convicted of a federal crime, said crime follows you your entire life.

Cyia
05-17-2009, 09:42 PM
Tater's not just in violation of copyright - she's stepping on Trademark and that's a whole other set of fines/restrictions. And, as she was going to sell her "tribute", that means she was engaged in trade. It's not just S. Meyer and Little Brown, but also Summit and anyone licensed to sell Twi merchandise.

(I'm not saying it would happen, but attaching the original author's name to a product she neither created, endorsed, nor gave permission for - if that book is bad - could arguably negatively affect merchandise sales. Wal-Mart's got a ton of Twi Merchandise and that's just one store chain. I would think - again, not a lawyer here - it would be akin to a high school athlete who gets their "championship" arm wrecked in an accident and the responsible party can be faulted for what that athlete "might" have been able to do had the use of their arm not been taken away.)

And as far as Asperger's goes, remember that's just one condition on a broad spectrum. She could have a minor form of high-functioning autism that skews her perception of Ms. Meyer's reactions, or just a monster sense of entitlement. There's no real way to tell by her on-line actions.

KaiaSonderby
05-18-2009, 01:21 AM
One thing I've learned, having AS and usually spending more time observing people than interacting with them: Sometimes people are just like that.

Nivarion
05-18-2009, 06:07 AM
If she sticks S. Meyers' name on it and it is really bad, Isn't that libel?

BlueLucario
05-18-2009, 03:47 PM
No. Just no. I'm sorry to derail as well, here, but NO. Asperger's is not an excuse for shooting the president or violating copyright and anyone who actually has AS and not this damn "Internet Asperger's" that is cropping up generally knows that. AS is not a psychosis, it's not being a sociopath, it's a social development disorder.

.

Not meant to derail, but...

QFT.

We know AS is a broad disorder. It's the fact that's being used as an "escape the punishment" tool. It's been done way too many times.

M.R.J. Le Blanc
05-18-2009, 06:30 PM
If she sticks S. Meyers' name on it and it is really bad, Isn't that libel?

No, it would be fraud at best if she were trying to make it appear as if SMeyer wrote the book and not her. Libel is an untrue statement written by someone else that harms the name and reputation of another.

Nivarion
05-18-2009, 06:45 PM
No, it would be fraud at best if she were trying to make it appear as if SMeyer wrote the book and not her. Libel is an untrue statement written by someone else that harms the name and reputation of another.

But wouldn't she be saying "S. Meyer wrote this" And result in people thinking that Meyer must be some mafia member that is scaring everyone into reading her books cause Russet Noon sucks? Sure seems like it would damage her reputation and putting her name on it be saying that she wrote it?

KaiaSonderby
05-18-2009, 07:54 PM
Not meant to derail, but...

QFT.

We know AS is a broad disorder. It's the fact that's being used as an "escape the punishment" tool. It's been done way too many times.

Well, please do give me some examples. Real ones, not Internet Aspies. Because I admit, I've never heard of that. Those things have a tendency to catch my attention and I can't for the life of me recall the last time I saw the headline "Man Acquitted of Murder Charge Due to Diagnoses of Asperger's Syndrome".

Gillhoughly
05-18-2009, 07:58 PM
Let's take the AS discussion to Private Messages or open a new thread in some other part of the forum.

This thread is about copyright violation, why it's a BAD thing, and speculation on why the Spud doesn't seem to get it.

I should not have raised the topic of AS and apologize for it.

We now return you to our irregularly scheduled Spud-wankage.

Ketzel
05-18-2009, 08:03 PM
From the perspective of an intellectual property lawyer, this is kind of an interesting idea, although hard for the offender to pull off, I would think. He or she would have to publish a terrible book, under circumstances where the public could reasonably believe that the book had been written by, or sponsored by, the author. The the author's theory of libel could be that her reputation was damaged by the misrepresentation that she wrote so badly. That, I think, would be difficult to prove, since it is likely that immediately and publicly repudiating the book would protect the author's reputation.

There would be other, easier claims to pursue in this case, including fraudulent misrepresentation.

And this is not an issue for Gloriana, as she is only too eager to put her name on Russet Noon, and has already declared publicly that Meyer has nothing to do with it.

Ketzel

Pagey's_Girl
05-18-2009, 08:03 PM
But wouldn't she be saying "S. Meyer wrote this" And result in people thinking that Meyer must be some mafia member that is scaring everyone into reading her books cause Russet Noon sucks? Sure seems like it would damage her reputation and putting her name on it be saying that she wrote it?

I think she'd have to come out and accuse SMeyer in so many words of being a mafia member or something like that for it to be libel - I don't think implying it counts. It might fall under "defamation of character," but I'm not sure. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, don't play one on TV and can't stand Law & Order... :) )

Would fraud cover any potential damage to the brand caused by having an inferior product associated (falsely) with it, or is that something else?

ETA - semi cross-post. :)

Gillhoughly
05-18-2009, 08:22 PM
As copyright violation and plagiarism are often linked, I thought an update on the antics of romance "writer" Cassie Edwards would be educational.

She was caught out last year for having plagiarized countless passages of her novels from--oh, everything.

Many of the books she copied from were in the public domain, which still doesn't make it right. Others were still under copyright, and that's how she was busted.

The Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books are the Woodward and Bernstein of "Cassie-Gate (http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/cassie_edwards_extravaganza/)."

Here's a blog I found (http://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2009/04/cassie-edwards-plagiarized-way-to-rainy.html) about a specific book on Native American history she used, leading to a line by line breakdown (http://wombat1138.livejournal.com/105792.html) citing the source book she copied from.

Naughty Cassie. Bad writer! NO cookie!

I bring this up because this and other cases have changed the publishing industry.

On my last book contract was an insurance rider I had to sign. I don't want to retype it, the full report is here (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111020).

So yeah, publishers take this respect copyright thing VERY seriously!

CaoPaux
05-18-2009, 08:41 PM
And lo! male fans can be idjits, too: :tongue http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/a_writers_life/2009/04/fanficcers-say-uncle.html

Gillhoughly
05-18-2009, 09:17 PM
They're The Men from MORON!

M.R.J. Le Blanc
05-18-2009, 09:37 PM
But wouldn't she be saying "S. Meyer wrote this" And result in people thinking that Meyer must be some mafia member that is scaring everyone into reading her books cause Russet Noon sucks? Sure seems like it would damage her reputation and putting her name on it be saying that she wrote it?

Sure it could damage her reputation, but that's still not libel. Especially since potatohead has given ample proof as to her identity, her trying to masquerade as S. Meyer now would be obvious fraud. We know potatohead isn't S. Meyer, nor is she connected in any way to S. Meyer. And if she tried you better believe someone from the Meyer camp would release a statement contrary to it. Plus she can't say now that it was Meyer's book all along because a.) potatohead has spent all this time putting her name on it, and b.) that wouldn't make any sense.

BenPanced
05-18-2009, 10:19 PM
Lady Potatohead needs to take a page from the Woody Allen vs. American Apparel playbook (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8056208.stm):

"I sued American Apparel because they calculatingly took my name, likeness and image and used them publicly to promote their business.

"Testimony revealed that American Apparel believed that fear of publicity would keep me from ever taking action."
Just because someone or something is in the pubilc eye doesn't mean you have Absolute Right to use it, and fair use isn't going to cover it, either.

Gillhoughly
05-18-2009, 10:56 PM
:Is so NOT investing anything in American Apparel, as it's clear they have IDIOTS running the advertising/marketing department:

You figure the genius who thought that was a good idea is now in the unemployment line?

I do.

BenPanced
05-19-2009, 12:45 AM
The genius who came up with the ad campaign?

One of the company's founders.

Gillhoughly
05-19-2009, 12:51 AM
Was his name Larry or Wilhelm? :e2stooges

BenPanced
05-19-2009, 12:52 AM
Right on, right on...

Pagey's_Girl
05-19-2009, 08:15 PM
The Smart Bitches Who Love Trashy Books are the Woodward and Bernstein of "Cassie-Gate (http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/cassie_edwards_extravaganza/)."

Here's a blog I found (http://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/2009/04/cassie-edwards-plagiarized-way-to-rainy.html) about a specific book on Native American history she used, leading to a line by line breakdown (http://wombat1138.livejournal.com/105792.html) citing the source book she copied from.

She swiped a couple of scenes from an article on ferrets? I had no idea our Ed was a romantic hero! (Waves to Shadow Ferret.)

CaroGirl
05-19-2009, 08:27 PM
American Apparel is really going to take a hit on this one. However, idiocy should not go unpunished. In 1998, the company I used to work for, Corel Corporation, used an old iconic image of Hedy Lamarr on their product packaging. Little did they know she was still alive (at the time; she passed away in 2000). She was alive enough to sue the pants off them, anyway.

Will people never learn?

Gillhoughly
05-20-2009, 03:59 AM
She swiped a couple of scenes from an article on ferrets? I had no idea our Ed was a romantic hero! (Waves to Shadow Ferret.)

Different ferret guy. The scene was quoted and OMG was it ever awful. My idea of pillow talk does NOT include lengthy discussions about the habits of black footed ferrets!

Check the romance forum for Cassie Edwards. There is much entertaining wank about ferrets and the playing of the "flute of love."

It did do the ferrets--the rarest animal in the world--some good. Nora Roberts would make a matching donation up to 5,000.00 to help the ferrets if the blog readers would donate to the cause. Within 3 hours they'd raised 5K.

Awesome.

Calla Lily
05-20-2009, 04:47 AM
No, Gill, No! Not the flute of love! I'd managed to forget that part of the Edwards' mess! :ROFL: :roll: :ROFL:

Pagey's_Girl
05-20-2009, 04:56 AM
If the "flute of love" is what I'm thinking it is... :eek: :ROFL:

ETA - yup. It was. :ROFL: at the whole "wind section of love" discussion....

ideagirl
05-28-2009, 10:11 PM
From a legal point of view, though, it makes a lot of sense.

There is a principle in damages claims that says the person being damaged has a responsibility to mitigate damage. So if you scratch my car, I can get you to pay for the damages.

But if I don't repair the scratch and the car rusts away, I can only get you to pay for the original scratch ... I have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damages.

So by giving the original author an easy way to mitigate the damages, then the copycat can limit the damages claim. Sure, it will obviously be simple for the original author to get an injunction .. but it always was.

This way the copycat is making it no easier for the author to get an injunction, but basically preventing any large damages claim.


I don't think that argument works in cases like this. A famous author suing a fanfic writer is almost never going to get a large "actual damages" award, because the fanfic writer's infringement will almost never eat into the author's own profits (would Meyer's fans buy this shlock INSTEAD OF buying a Meyer book? no), and it will almost never rack up huge profits herself (will millions of people buy this shlock? no). So actual damages aren't much in cases like this.

That's why there's such a thing as statutory damages in copyright cases: the copyright owner can request statutory damages instead of actual damages, and in that case they get an automatic payout that normally ranges from $750-$30,000 per each copyright that was infringed and can go as high as $115,000 per copyright if the judge finds that the infringement was willful. This would normally be the kind of damages you seek, as an author, both because actual damages are typically not much in this type of case and because it's a total hassle to calculate actual damages--far simpler to just go for the statutory damages.

Here's a link:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
(scroll down to section 504, which covers damages). So if the judge found that this nutcase willfully infringed, say, six of Meyers' books--six copyrights--the nutcase could get whacked with a damages award as high as $690,000. And when I say six books, I mean, for example, if she steals a character from one book, one from another, a location from a third book, etc., she could be said to be violating all of those copyrights.

At that same link, also take a look at section 505: the infringer can be ordered to pay the copyright holder's attorney's fees. That alone can be hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So the nutcase plagiarist/copyright infringer here isn't helping her case one iota, I don't think.

ideagirl
05-28-2009, 10:19 PM
She could take her book, change the names of the characters and the basic setting (Forks is fair game, but the set-up is iffy if she keeps the same social structure with the Quilletes and the vampire whose dad=Dr. and has the same brother/sister pairings) and make her own novel. That doesn't mean a publisher would touch it, but it would be legal.

No, it wouldn't--she wrote the thing as a derivative work and it remains a derivative work regardless of how many cosmetic changes she makes. In a normal situation, a normal fanfiction writer could get away with what you're proposing, but in this case, it's all over the internet that this nutcase copied Twilight--it would be almost embarrassingly easy, then, to prove that her "new" book that closely resembles her previous, Twilight-cribbing book is itself a derivative work based on Twilight.

So in this particular case, she would have to make some serious structural changes, basically transforming it into a different book, and scrubbing all traces of Twilight from it. In a normal fanfiction case, the approach you're suggesting would still be technically a copyright violation, but it would be almost impossible to prove. In this case, however, the proof is already all over the web.

Old Hack
05-31-2009, 12:01 PM
Little Brown lawyers are just waiting for her to take it just one step too far.

I think you're right, Gill. And might this announcement currently showing on old Taterhead's website help them notice when she does?


Russet Noon: Chapter 1is Out June 1st 2009

Matera the Mad
06-01-2009, 05:32 AM
eek

BenPanced
06-01-2009, 05:40 AM
Russet Noon: Chapter 1is Out June 1st 2009
:popcorn:

Cyia
06-01-2009, 05:49 AM
If only AW allowed fanfic - Taterhead could post in SYW and then we could all give some lovely concrit. :e2brows: :e2chain:

Pagey's_Girl
06-02-2009, 01:46 AM
That explains the cloud of doom today. I thought it was just because good ol' Aunt Flo dropped by for her monthly visit this morning.

The Lonely One
06-02-2009, 01:58 AM
Where is it? I WANT TO READ IT. NOWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, did anyone see this?


On behalf of AV Paranormal and Russet Noon, we'd like to offer our sincerest apologies to Charli Siebert, the creator of "Blood Roses," the above image. We had used this image for the cover of Russet Noon under the mistaken assumption that it was a royalty-free image.

This b*tch is REALLY making an impression.

The Lonely One
06-02-2009, 02:00 AM
oh, oh, oh and this.


Below is a temporary model of the new Russet Noon cover image that Charli will be recreating. The copyright information for the artist of this talisman is currently unknown. Hopefully the efficient fandomwankers will help us track down the artist who originally created this talisman so we can give them credit. This is just a sample image of what the final design will look like.

CALLING ALL WHISTLE-BLOWERS.

The Lonely One
06-02-2009, 02:08 AM
Correction of statement made on April 24 press release: Peter David is not a "right-wing conservative." This statement was based on an inaccurate assumption and has been removed. We apologize for the misunderstanding.

This woman backtracks a lot. Glad to see she's trying to run a legitimate publishing business and put out a book.

Good thing she's not an Emu.

Sirion
06-02-2009, 11:12 AM
Where is it? I WANT TO READ IT. NOWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, did anyone see this?



This b*tch is REALLY making an impression.

So she has no problem stealing a novel world, but a photoshoped rose is off limits? I...I...never mind.

I do LOVE how she put "Chapter 1 is Out June 2 @ 12AM" on the sight, saying that it will be release precisly at midnight so that the throngs of fans rushing to download it can see it. <wipes tear from eye>


-Travis

Momento Mori
06-02-2009, 01:04 PM
Mis Potatohead should probably check out this news story (http://http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0813167/).

Seems that J. D. Salinger is suing J. D. California for writing an unauthorised sequel to The Catcher In the Rye on the basis that he owns the sole rights to Holden Caulfield.

MM

Gillhoughly
06-02-2009, 08:13 PM
The link didn't work, try this one (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,524157,00.html).

I'm on the author's side. Sue the hell out of the whining bonehead. "I didn't mean to cause him any trouble."

Oh, brother. Where have we heard THAT before?

I couldn't get ten pages into Catcher in the Rye in high school, and despite multiple efforts to siddown and read the danged thing, I still can't get into it, but it belongs to its writer, not some pretentious moron stealing from the writer.

Just goes to show--write in your OWN universe. It's less annoying to everyone else.

.

The Lonely One
06-02-2009, 08:22 PM
I think the best part of that article is the last paragraph, where it goes on to say Catcher in the Rye outsells Harry Potter and the Davinci Code on amazon.

There is hope for the world. There is hope for the world. There is hope for the world.

Elwolf
06-02-2009, 08:44 PM
Jeez. There is no end to the stupid fan-fic writers out there who think it's actually legal to get their "work" published. I think Lady Sybilla is rubbing off on other people.

Talk about a bad influence.

The Lonely One
06-02-2009, 08:48 PM
Jeez. There is no end to the stupid fan-fic writers out there who think it's actually legal to get their "work" published. I think Lady Sybilla is rubbing off on other people.

Talk about a bad influence.

Kanye West eat your heart out.

(Booyah! All you who doubted I could merge West and Sybilla)

emilycross
06-02-2009, 10:56 PM
sweet lord, i leave this site for two weeks and she's releasing her 'chapter'.

So, own up, whose read it? i need a good laugh!

or has she 'postponed' the release?

Alitriona
06-02-2009, 11:48 PM
Anyone got a link to the first chapter. I need a laugh, hard day at work and it will give me hope for my writing. :)

Her site still says release day is September 09 under publication history.

Old Hack
06-03-2009, 12:02 AM
The announcement has been changed to this:


Chapter 1is Out June 2 @ 12AM

Apparently I can "stumble it" if I so desire. I don't. So I haven't. And I haven't read the chapter yet because it doesn't seem to be available yet. Never mind.

Cyia
06-03-2009, 12:04 AM
Sorry for the computer illiteracy, but what's "stumble it" mean?

Gillhoughly
06-03-2009, 12:06 AM
There's nothing on her website.

I'm really hoping she'll take the high road on this and choose to do the right thing.

For now, it is still her choice: put the fic out, get slammed by the publisher's lawyers, and f**k up all hope of selling professionally down the road or do nothing and start focusing on writing something original.

You checking this out, Gloriana?

YOU have control by simply doing nothing. No one is going to wank on you for doing the right thing.

BenPanced
06-03-2009, 12:16 AM
Okay, I'll admit it. I clicked on the link on her site, but I got a "not available" error.

ChristineR
06-03-2009, 12:17 AM
StumpleUpon is similar to Digg, but more personalized. Other people rank sites and you are given recommendations of sites you might like based on your own rankings. It does not show you the first chapter, or any content other than previewing her site.

The Lonely One
06-03-2009, 12:32 AM
I think she shouldn't post just because it can't possibly live up to the hype.

absitinvidia
06-03-2009, 07:39 AM
So she has no problem stealing a novel world, but a photoshoped rose is off limits? I...I...never mind.

-Travis


My understanding is that the person who created the image told her, in no uncertain terms, that she most emphatically did not have permission to use the image in any way, shape or form, and she needed to take it down. Now.

The Lonely One
06-03-2009, 07:49 AM
My understanding is that the person who created the image told her, in no uncertain terms, that she most emphatically did not have permission to use the image in any way, shape or form, and she needed to take it down. Now.

Now if someone could kindly inform the artist of the new cover she stole as a "sample," so the lawsuit-fest could begin.

BenPanced
06-03-2009, 08:17 AM
You still gotta pay for a "royalty-free" image, though, and you're not paying for the image itself. You're paying a license fee to use the image.

Jupiterimages' terms of use. (http://www.jupiterimages.com/termsofuse.aspx) Here's the fun part: JUPITERIMAGES or its licensors retain the full rights to the Image(s), and therefore you cannot establish your own rights.

Getty Images terms of use. (http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/LicenseAgreements.aspx#RF) And in case you forgot: Copyright. No ownership or copyright in any Licensed Material shall pass to Licensee by the issuance of the license contained in this Agreement. Except as expressly stated in this Agreement, Getty Images grants Licensee no right or license, express or implied, to the Licensed Material.

All that's legalese for "Just because you found it on teh intarwebz doesn't mean you can use it any way you want."

Leasie
06-03-2009, 02:18 PM
The announcement has been changed to this:



Apparently I can "stumble it" if I so desire. I don't. So I haven't. And I haven't read the chapter yet because it doesn't seem to be available yet. Never mind.

Okay so i actually read the first five pages of the first chapter, But i just couldn't read anymore. I got bored really quickly. It definately read like a fan-fic.

Alitriona
06-03-2009, 05:27 PM
I read chater one, it was a struggle but I got there. It doesn't even sound like Jacob. I really thought it was some kind of stunt, but it does exist.

I've read one other piece of fan fiction, that was fantastic.

This isn't and the woman isn't going to give up on Russett Noon until it's in print. She's full steam ahead and I don't think even lawyers will stop her at this stage.

BenPanced
06-03-2009, 07:01 PM
Hear that? That's the sound of smeyer's legal team sharpening their claws and teeth...

Gillhoughly
06-03-2009, 08:01 PM
I sent a mail with a page link to Little Brown with a note to forward it to their legal department.

If anyone has the addy of their British counterpart could you do the same?

I'm very sick today and haven't the energy.

I'm not reading her piece of c&&&, because I'm sick enough, and I'm tired of enabling brainless, self-centered publicity-seeking boneheads.

Yes, that's YOU, Glorianna Arais.

I'd hoped that you'd be better than this.

You made a poor choice and god help you if you send in anything original and it lands on my desk.

If you had dreams of a pro career as a writer, forget it. You just cut your own throat. No publisher will touch you now, because of your blatant disregard for copyright law. They can't trust you.

You're going to get more wank than praise out of this, and if name calling and insults are what feed your ego, then you need professional help.

Ketzel
06-03-2009, 10:25 PM
AV Paranormal is seriously considering the possibility of delaying the publication of the book until November to coincide with the theater release of the movie sequel to Twilight, New Moon.

Thereby explicitly notifying all and sundry that Gloriana's intent is to catch a free ride on the movie publicity with her fanfic? Her activity is starting to read like a law school intellectual property essay exam question. How many causes of action, based upon what evidence, and for what damages can you identify?

Ketzel

Alitriona
06-03-2009, 10:39 PM
I want to start by saying I love Wide Awake, a twilight fanfic. As I said above it's the only one I've ever read. Really no offence to S Meyer but I actually loved it more than twilight and there's no vampires. It has a massive following on the internet with people begging for an update daily.

Anyway, I read on the comments page that the writer will be publishing the work at a later date with a change of names. Is that possible for a work that started as a very well known fanfic with a growing base of readers or would the fact that it has been read by so many as fanfic go against it?

link to first chapter if anyone's interested.

http://angstgoddess003.livejournal.com/699.html

Cyia
06-03-2009, 10:45 PM
She can probably do it if she changes enough of the characterization so that it's obviously not set in Meyer's world or with Meyer's characters - if it's OC heavy, that would be great. But she needs to get it off the internet and she needs to change the title.

Alitriona
06-03-2009, 11:01 PM
I know I have terrible double standards wanting one fanfic to be printed, unlike Russett Noon it's nothing like the original story.

Old Hack
06-03-2009, 11:05 PM
I sent a mail with a page link to Little Brown with a note to forward it to their legal department.

If anyone has the addy of their British counterpart could you do the same?


It's done, Gill.

Cyia
06-03-2009, 11:06 PM
I would say there's a bit of a difference in the two - the one you're reading has no intention of using Ms. Meyer's characters when and if she overhauls it for publication. It's her own story she plans to fit it to her own world.

Taterhead just stuck her name on Meyer's characters and thought she could get paid for it.

Gillhoughly
06-03-2009, 11:51 PM
Is that possible for a work that started as a very well known fanfic with a growing base of readers or would the fact that it has been read by so many as fanfic go against it?

Multiple Hugo Award-winner Lois McMaster Bujold wrote a fan fic about a Klingon and human Federation officer trapped on a planet. They put aside their differences to survive and against all odds fall in love.

She called it "Mirrors."

She later filed off the serial numbers and it was renamed "Shards of Honor (http://www.amazon.com/Shards-Honor-Lois-McMaster-Bujold/dp/0671720872)" and sold it to Baen Books. It's still in print after all these years.

It is still my favorite kick-ass space opera novel.

It was the first of her whole amazing Vorkosigian series.

I don't know how well-known Mirrors was when it was still a Star Trek fic, but it can be done.

Let it be known that Lois never tried auctioning copies on the Internet or sent out press releases or sent whining letters of apology to the copyright holders or ever once used the phrase "I'm entitled."

Like any other fan with more than two working braincells between her ears, she knew better than to do that.

Alitriona
06-04-2009, 01:37 AM
Thanks for clearing that up. Hope you feel better soon Gillhoughly.

The Lonely One
06-04-2009, 02:51 AM
I'm not reading her piece of c&&&, because I'm sick enough, and I'm tired of enabling brainless, self-centered publicity-seeking boneheads.



Sorry to hear you're sick. Did you catch the Sybillis?

Christine N.
06-04-2009, 03:27 AM
Nope...swi-nooner flu.

The Lonely One
06-04-2009, 05:44 AM
I’d been having the same dream for several days now.

okay, okay. Not the best sentence but I'm ready to hear what comes next.


It was like a cycle, repeating itself over and over endlessly.

Huh. Like a cycle. Repeating itself over and over...isn't that a cycle?


Nothing ever changed in it. Everything happened exactly the same every time I dreamed it.

So. You need...both...those sentences?

It gets worse. Glad she decided to share this with the world.

Cyia
06-04-2009, 06:07 AM
okay, okay. Not the best sentence but I'm ready to hear what comes next.



Huh. Like a cycle. Repeating itself over and over...isn't that a cycle?



So. You need...both...those sentences?

It gets worse. Glad she decided to share this with the world.

And that was about as far as I got, too.

Reminded me of Bart Simpson: I'm on TV, it's my job to be redundant. My job is redundancy. It's my job. My job.

Gillhoughly
06-04-2009, 06:53 AM
Does anyone have the computer fu skills to ferret out the name of the host provider for her website?

If so, then she is now in violation of her Terms of Service. Most have strict rules about copyright violation, but rarely enforce them unless someone complains. You have to read the fine print of their TOS rules.

It's one way of shutting her down.

Thanks for the concerns on my health. I'm feeling better, and managed some work today: proofing the galleys to my next novel that my agent sold last year to a major publishing house.

BTW---That's something you'll never get to do, Glorianna Arais.

Cyia
06-04-2009, 06:57 AM
Not sure if this is what you mean, but from WhoIs:


Technical Contact:
Hostmaster, Globat hostmaster@globat.com
1128 Ventura Blvd. #443B
Los Angeles, CA 91604
US
+1.3234175167 Fax: +1.3234174995



Registration Service Provider:
Globat, support@globat-inc.com
877-245-6228
http://www.globat.com
This company may be contacted for domain login/passwords,
DNS/Nameserver changes, and general domain support questions.

Gillhoughly
06-04-2009, 07:16 AM
Cyia, you're AWESOME.

So---who wants to be first to report her?

I'm thinking multiple complaints might get their attention faster.

Here's the addy legal@1and1.com

Since we are not the actual copyright holder--that would be Meyers--we can't really do much more than point out to the host server that one of their customers in in violation of their policies.

OTOH, they might not want to wait to hear from her lawyers or from the publisher's legal department and take action first, just to avoid problems.

I hope so.

Moonfish
06-04-2009, 10:44 AM
I just like what George R R Martin says on his homepage, on the topic of wanting to write:
"Write every day, even if it is only a page or two. The more you write, the better you'll get. But don't write in my universe, or Tolkien's, or the Marvel universe, or the Star Trek universe, or any other borrowed background. Every writer needs to learn to create his own characters, worlds, and settings. Using someone else's world is the lazy way out. If you don't exercise those "literary muscles," you'll never develop them."

Gillhoughly
06-04-2009, 08:13 PM
Her host server is 1and1 (http://order.1and1.com/xml/order/Gtc;jsessionid=D8C2487BA01BCD62B82553BF690E1A90.TC 60a?__frame=_top&__lf=Static). The link is to their TOS agreement.

She was in violation of clauses 7.9 and 7.10 of her agreement with them by posting the fic. I just checked her site and there's no link to the page, but it's still up.

I've just sent a mail on it to them at this address:

legal@1and1.com

If anyone else wants to send them a "heads up" please feel free. I'm tired of this twit.

Old Hack
06-05-2009, 01:13 AM
Gill, might it be better NOT to get her website taken down? If it's still up then Little, Brown's lawyers can have a good look at it... which might end up being far more effective.

However, having seen how Old Tater reacts to Fandom Wank etc., I bet that if she did lose her internet access she'd just put out another press release and find herself a new ISP.

Gillhoughly
06-05-2009, 02:16 AM
In which case we go after the new ISP.

I'm tired of the "I'm entitled" brats.

At some point in their life they have to figure out that they're not special, and that no means NO.

She had a choice to be a better person and didn't take it. As far as I'm concerned, it's open season on thieves.

The site will be there in cached form. I hope they nail her sorry arse to the wall.

BenPanced
06-05-2009, 06:27 PM
Check out this link at Lady Tatertots' page: Why releasing copyright will be the smartest thing you do. (http://writetodone.com/2009/04/29/the-culture-of-sharing-why-releasing-copyright-will-be-the-smartest-thing-you-do/) Yanno, I'm all for artistic integrity and purity of ideas and all that rot, but if I'm going through the trouble of writing a novel, I'm making the money off of it, dammit.

Momento Mori
06-05-2009, 07:39 PM
BenPanced:
Yanno, I'm all for artistic integrity and purity of ideas and all that rot, but if I'm going through the trouble of writing a novel, I'm making the money off of it, dammit.

Yeah, I love how the people who want authors to "share" are always the ones who want to create derivative works themselves.

Having been quiet at work, I've taken the time to go through the article and it really is the most unconvincing piece of crud I've read on this subject in a while.


Leo Babauta:
there were a few people who were able to create works of art without the protection of copyright laws. Shakespeare, Milton, Cervantes, Virgil, Dante … to name but a few big names.

Way to miss the point. Of course you don't need copyright laws in order to create works, but you do need copyright to preserve your right to make money from them. How do these examples counter that - many of them were reliant on sponsors or patrons in order to make a living because they couldn't count on doing so from their actual work.


Leo Babauta:
The vast majority of artists are never read or seen or heard by the public, because the corporations don’t deem them to be profitable enough. So the system doesn’t help artists anymore — it hurts them.

Leaving aside the fact that the vast majority of artists who are never read, seen or heard by the public probably aren't good enough to be read, seen or heard by the public, in fact the copyright system does help those artists because it stops corporations from being able to take their work without compensating them for it. It's the market that works to keep their genius hidden.


Leo Babauta:
Third, I have proven that it’s possible to make money, even today, without using copyright.

Yes, it is possible to make money in certain circumstances - and it's interesting that those who have made money tend to do so in the written media and usually involve people with enough technical savvy to know how to exploit it. When you don't know what you're doing but just unleash your work to see what happens, you can actually lose money, which I think is what happened to Radiohead with one of their albums.


Leo Babauta:
Finally, copyright actually hurts artists, instead of protecting them. When you try to protect your copyright, you waste precious time and money pursuing violators — time and money you could be using to create instead of threaten litigation.

That's why you hire lawyers to pursue violators for you and why you claim damages against the violators to compensate you for those costs and damages. While your lawyers get on with the job of lawyering, you get on with your job of writing.


Leo Babauta:
When you protect your copyright, you are denying someone else the use of your ideas and creativity — which might seem good to you, but it doesn’t seem good to the person on the other end, and the community in general suffers a bit. And it hurts your reputation (if people think you’re selfish and protective) and stops your ideas from being spread as widely as possible.

Erm ... no. There is absolutely no obligation on me to think about the people who might want to rip off my work and consider their feelings. I am protective about my work. I have a right to be protective about my work, and I totally fail to see the logic of why someone else should be able to make money off their work when they've taken it from mine and not paid me a penny for it.


Leo Babauta:
By protecting your copyright, you are putting up barriers for the spread of your ideas.

Wrong. I'm putting up a barrier to the spread of the expression of my ideas not the ideas themselves.


Leo Babauta:
These people are making money by selling your work to customers you probably wouldn’t have reached anyway. They’re making money, sure, but how does that hurt you? If you could have reached these readers, you probably will anyway. In fact, if these readers really like your work, they’ll probably come looking for more … and you’ll gain a bunch of new readers.

Well let's test that for a moment. Someone puts out a book that's a word for word copy of my book but they haven't paid me to do so.

How are the "customers" supposed to know the difference between that book (which I'm not being paid for) and my book (which I am being paid for)? They don't. Either way, they're not going to come looking for my original because they think that's what they've got.


Leo Babauta:
They might put your work in a free newsletter, or print it and use it in a classroom, or put it on their blog without making money. They’ll share your ideas with others, and give you credit.

You're assuming that they'll give you credit, but there's no guarantee that they will and without copyright protection, it's going to be almost impossible to force them to do so.

In addition, it means that you lose track of where your work is being placed which could see you being put in a really difficult situation. For example, someone releasing copyright in an article about child discipline might be happy to have that article placed in a childcare magazine, but would presumably be less happy about it being reproduced on a paedophile chat room.


Leo Babauta:
I’ll repeat that in case the italics and exclamation point weren’t emphasis enough: by releasing copyright, you might get people to do your marketing for you, for free.

And the operative word there is "might". It equally might not. The issue is whether you want to take that risk.


Leo Babauta:
This digital age is defined not by how much money you can make with an individual post or book, but how widely you can get your ideas to spread. If you get your ideas to spread widely, you’ll make money. Somehow.

No, the collapse of the tech bubble in 2001/2002 proves that even the digital age is defined by how much money you can make. All those dot come entrepreneurs who sold their ideas to investment banks with the promise that their site would "somehow" make money ended up going belly up and taking the cash with them.

The lesson learned - don't go into something unless you have a very good idea of the revenue stream. And that applies to giving up your copyright protection as well.


Leo Babauta: REBUTTED POINT BY POINT IN BOLD
But how can you make money if you don’t have copyright? Let me count the ways:

- You can sell ads and make money off the increased visitors that come from your increased reputation. No one is making a lot of money from selling ads on their websites. You might make enough to cover your server costs with a bit on top. Plus if you're a writer, adverts are going to annoy the hell out of your readers. They're coming to find out about you and your books, not the special deals offered by Mr Smith's Mad Mad Autos. And this all presumes that people know to come to your website in the first place.

You can sell print versions of your book (after releasing an Uncopyrighted ebook version), and people will buy it anyway, because they like to have print books. Cite your source on this. Publishers have played with doing this for some of the bigger name authors, but they're people who already have a following of people likely to buy the print version as well. If you're a debut novelist, it's unlikely that people are going to want to own both.

You can become a consultant and people will hire you because you are widely regarded as having authority in the field … because your ideas are spread widely. Again, it assumes that people know who you are.

You can sell ebooks (as I do) even if the copyright has been released. Most of my website income, in fact, comes from sales of my Uncopyrighted ebooks. And ironically, you an only charge for those books by asserting your copyright in those versions. Equally, other people can sell copies of your work and make money for themselves.

You can gain a print book deal from your increased readership and reputation. This doesn't happen very often.

You can become a speaker at conferences and other events. You can do that without giving up your copyright.

You can create seminars and other training courses. You can do that without giving up your copyright.

You can sell related materials — t-shirts, coffee mugs, learning materials, etc. You can do that without giving up your copyright.


Leo Babauta:
Releasing copyright isn’t just about making money off your creative work — it’s much more powerful than that. It’s about sharing your ideas with others, and allowing them to use it in their work.

There's no copyright in ideas. People can do that anyway.


Leo Babauta:
isn’t this a wonderful way to repay the creative types that came before you and made your work possible? Isn’t it a great way to contribute to the creative community, and to make the world better?

The creative types who came before me kept their copyright, got paid and contributed to the creative community. I'd like to do the same and it's a system that's worked pretty well for over 300 years without all art as we know it coming to a halt.

MM

Calla Lily
06-05-2009, 07:48 PM
:Headbang:

MM, great rebuttal.

Gillhoughly
06-05-2009, 07:55 PM
Isn't it amazing how folk who don't actually make a living writing books have all these handy tips for those of us who do?

That guy's an idiot.

He's a big fish in a small pond.

I'm a small fish in a very crowded big pond and need all the help I can get.

Danged straight I'm defending a writer's copyright. It's ALL WE'VE GOT.

You gotta love the instant experts.

When people find out *I* write and sell books they hammer me with all KINDS of helpful suggestions. "You should get an agent!" (Covered.) "You should get a website!" (I should? Gee, thanks!) "You need to make it into a movie!" (Introduce me to Ridley Scott.) "Oh, don't put ME in your book!" (Not a problem.)

There was a gal in one of my writing groups who teamed up with another to do a "How to Write a Novel" book.

One tiny problem: neither had ever finished a short story, much less sold a book or had so much as a letter to the editor published.

They never let that detail stop them.

It's painful to add that they got taken in by an inept agent (they were warned) and nothing ever came of their grand project except for a few sales at s/f conventions of their spiral-bound Kinko's-printed opus.

All the information they had is available for free on the Net...which is probably where they got it.

Both are still unpublished. But they still have LOTS of ideas on how to write and how to be a writer!

They wanted a cover quote to help sales, but in good conscience, I couldn't give them one.

Like Lady Syb, they ignored facts.

She's ignoring copyright law because it's inconvenient to her ego.

Hardly professional. She wants to be seen as an equal to Meyers?

It takes more than filling up 300+ pages with words to achieve that.

Pagey's_Girl
06-05-2009, 08:02 PM
Check out this link at Lady Tatertots' page: Why releasing copyright will be the smartest thing you do. (http://writetodone.com/2009/04/29/the-culture-of-sharing-why-releasing-copyright-will-be-the-smartest-thing-you-do/) Yanno, I'm all for artistic integrity and purity of ideas and all that rot, but if I'm going through the trouble of writing a novel, I'm making the money off of it, dammit.

AIEEEE! *Headonkeyboard*

I. Don't. Think. So.

I'm with Ben. I love writing, I love building my own little worlds, but I don't see the harm in making a little (being realistic here) money off of doing what I love. (Okay, I'd really like to make lots and lots and lots of money doing what I love, but still....)

Topaz044
06-05-2009, 08:11 PM
And suddenly all the characters in my book were in porn...

brainstorm77
06-05-2009, 10:27 PM
I confess I have not read every post in this thread but have the Meyers machine made any comment?

Bubastes
06-05-2009, 10:48 PM
Isn't it amazing how folk who don't actually make a living writing books have all these handy tips for those of us who do?

That guy's an idiot.

He's a big fish in a small pond.


Bingo. I used to check out his blog from time to time, but it's clear that he believes his own PR. I'm see this with a lot of self-appointed personal development and career "gurus" on the web.

Red_Dahlia
06-06-2009, 07:34 AM
I've never posted in these threads before, but I've been following them for a while now. *looks around, waves*

Leo Babauta's article really bothered me though, especially this part:


First, history proves it wrong. Copyright laws originated in the 1700s, but amazingly, there were a few people who were able to create works of art without the protection of copyright laws. Shakespeare, Milton, Cervantes, Virgil, Dante … to name but a few big names.

Does he not realize that the reasons these copyright laws came into place was because authors like these were having trouble keeping their works from being stolen? Cervantes is one that I know for sure had this issue--someone wrote a sequel to Don Quixote and was trying to make a profit off of it (sound a little like someone we know? :tongue). That's actually why Cervantes ended up writing a the sequel to the book, or what is now known as part 2.




Sorry, I'm sure no one else is really interested in that. But it really ticked me off!

Libbie
06-06-2009, 08:17 AM
I tried to read a few pages of Potato Noon. Needs this to be more palatable:

http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/ba/b/AAAAAkhpnTQAAAAAALq8WA.png?v=1199217157000

Gillhoughly
06-06-2009, 08:29 AM
I'm not wasting my time reading more than three lines that stuff, though I will agree with you on MST3K being needed.

There's plenty of wankage going on in the Journal Fen community (http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/)if you need an outlet to critique her theft.

Let's try to keep this thread more or less on topic: that Glorianna Arias is violating Stephenie Meyers's copyright of the Twilight series by the posting of that fan story.

HapiSofi
06-06-2009, 09:32 AM
Isn't it amazing how folk who don't actually make a living writing books have all these handy tips for those of us who do? (...)

You gotta love the instant experts. (...)

There was a gal in one of my writing groups who teamed up with another to do a "How to Write a Novel" book.

One tiny problem: neither had ever finished a short story, much less sold a book or had so much as a letter to the editor published.

They never let that detail stop them.
It appears to me that a quite staggering number of books about how to write and publish a book, how to be a commercial success as a writer, how to start and run a successful publishing company, et cetera ad bewilderment, have been written by people who have neither experience nor credentials nor legitimate publishing credits. My favorite so far was the book that promised to tell you sure-fire methods for making your book a bestseller. It was self-published, as was everything else its author ever wrote.

Some days I wonder whether there are any unsuccessful writers out there who haven't written a book about how to write, organized a writers' workshop or conference, or started a publishing company. Maybe it's what they do while they're working through their denial about being unsuccessful writers.

It's painful to add that they got taken in by an inept agent (they were warned)If they were the sort of people who listened, they'd probably have been better writers.

Like Lady Syb, they ignored facts.

She's ignoring copyright law because it's inconvenient to her ego.

Hardly professional. She wants to be seen as an equal to Meyers?

It takes more than filling up 300+ pages with words to achieve that.I find Meyers unreadable, and her plots leave me gaping in dismay. That's my problem, not hers. The pertinent fact is that vast shoals of readers buy her books and obsess over them. The world is full of accomplished and talented writers who don't have that kind of impact on readers.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who write good fanfic. If the pubishing fairy turned up on my doorstep this minute, offering to wave her wand and change current copyright laws into a system where anyone could write derivative works as long as they paid a royalty to the original, I might very well encourage her to do it. At least that way we wouldn't have entertainment conglomerates trying to stake legal claims to narrative elements that have been common currency for decades, or in some cases for centuries.

It's not going to happen, of course. And if Lady Syb thinks she can ignore copyright laws, I can only drag out Uncle Jim's favorite quote for these moments:

FAUSTUS:
Come, I think Hell's a myth.
MEPHISTOPHELES:
Then think so, 'til experience change your mind.

Matera the Mad
06-06-2009, 10:06 AM
Amazingly boring, plodding, clunky, typical ff except it seems to have been spell-checked. Yawn. What has me groaning in the aisles is the appalling MSWord-abortion webpages. omfg, you should see what's behind the surface. 800 lines of crap to wrap 45 lines of crap. I can do a whole chapter in half of that. (Yes, all you top-down webmeisters out there, I'm laughing at you all the time)

Gillhoughly
06-06-2009, 07:18 PM
Again, let's stay on topic.

If you want, start a separate thread on this forum to critique the Potato Doom fan fic or post comments over at Journal Fen.

For what it's worth, I don't think the Syb's writing is worth the effort.

Apparently getting a prize for an English essay nine years ago went to her head and metastasized, the result of which has been posted on her website.

It also apparently impaired her ability to understand the concept of "NO." Most toddlers are able to grasp it, so do dogs and (sometimes!) cats.

The "NO" in this case is that she is not the copyright owner of the Twilight series, and has no right to use it.

While this makes her no different from thousands of other fanfic writers, SHE'S the only one dumb enough to issue press releases about her theft, as well as trying to make money off it.

I can respect the other fic writers for having the brains to at least stay off the copyright holder's radar.

swvaughn
06-06-2009, 07:24 PM
It also apparently impaired her ability to understand the concept of "NO." Most toddlers are able to grasp it, so do dogs and (sometimes!) cats.


Where do you get your cats, dude? I need me some of them. Mine think "no" means "please, by all means, dig through the garbage and scatter it all over the kitchen floor. I find it adorable when you do that, and I shall reward you with milk and kitty treats." :D

And on topic: where are those legal people? I'm astonished it's taking anyone associated with Twilight so long to act on this.

Gillhoughly
06-06-2009, 07:50 PM
One of my pals has good luck training her cats with water pistols and sometimes a Super Soaker. They know not to jump on the kitchen counters, but sometimes forget at Thanksgiving and Christmas, when the lure of turkey overcomes their training.

In this case, it is the turkey who was overcome by her ego.

I am also disappointed by the publishers apparently taking no action.

They're either getting their ducks in a row and taking their time, or more likely --and unwisely-- decided she's not worth the effort.

If it was my publisher I'd be calling my editor every other day for updates, but we all know Meyers is too well insulated from Real Life. No one in her clan wants to upset the cash cow.

But to put it in perspective, they have a point.

Glorianna Arias is ONE fan. She probably has about a dozen others who might read her stuff and (shudder) actually like it.

Putting those numbers against the thousands and thousands of Twi-fans who will either ignore her and/or quite rightly condemn her for her theft, then she's little more than a tick on the backside of the fandom elephant.

Fandom will lumber along, and sooner or later the tick will fall away and be forgotten.

I can hardly wait. She's wasted enough of my writing time.


So here, in a twist on Where's Waldo?, where's Glorianna Arias??

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/76/228091660_53c5cb2228.jpg?v=0

Cyia
06-06-2009, 08:09 PM
How long until a query shows up in SYW for a novel about a deluded fan who embarks on a crusade to publish her unaltered fanfiction in the name of free speech (and an A on that government/lit final!)?

Anyone?

dnic
06-07-2009, 12:27 AM
Question?

I've avoided reading the fanfiction (sometimes ignoring the problem does make her go away), but I'm wondering exactly what makes hers so different from the huge collection of fanfiction out there right now?

(Yes, I agree, copyright infringements and there's the huge lapse of judgment with the whole endeavor. I don't write fanfictions to avoid that particular mess. But...)

I mean, right now she has it up online, right? But there are websites that are dedicated to fanfictions. If Meyers' people go after her, what does that mean for others that also write Twilight fanfictions? Would they have to go on a crusade and catch the authors of those as well? Or is this a turn-a-blind-eye situation?

That being said though...someone needs a crash course on intellectual property laws.

Cyia
06-07-2009, 03:22 AM
It's always a "turn-a-blind-eye" situation when dealing with fanfic. Otherwise, they'd have to cite every single person on-line.

If they don't go looking for it, they can pretend it's not there. Taterhead didn't give them that option. She put herself out in the open, set off bottle rockets, strapped a GPS locator to her fic and held a press conference with confetti and balloons by comparison.

Sites like FFn or random fansites that allow (and thrive on) fanfiction take care to let their posters know that if a specific author has officially said "no fanfic", then that author's characters are off limits (Anne Rice, JRWard, Chelsea Quinn Yarborough, and Laurell K. Hamilton - among others - have standing cease and desist orders with their characters). Allowing fiction featuring Lestat or Anita Blake would get those sites shut down because the writers and their publishers aggressively protect their copyrights.

Most (like Ms. Meyer) operate on the "don't ask, don't tell" system. So long as no one waves the fanfic in their faces, they're happy to not have to deal with the hassle of getting it pulled.

Ms. Meyer and her publisher can shut down Tater's site without bothering to glance at FFn or the Twi-fan/RP sites. If she goes over to FFn and still causes the same circus, the mods there will simply pull her account so their whole site doesn't fold because of one bad potato.

Most fic-writers are content to have their comments and tiny clusters of "fans" following their writing. They like the characters and don't think for one second about claiming any part of them as their own. IMO, that's the kind of fanfic that's a "tribute" - something stuck a chord so deep that the fans don't want to let go of it - or they want the fanfic to fill in the gaps while waiting for the next installment.

Gillhoughly
06-07-2009, 03:28 AM
What makes her different is that she began with a "press release" of her book, calling it a "tribute novel" and presenting it as a release from a publisher (herself). Her views on copyright law were highly original and untroubled by reality.

She tried to auction her book on Ebay, another huge no-no and in violation of Ebay policies.

The less canny fans thought (for a brief time) it was legit, the rest of us couldn't believe anyone could be that much of an idiot.

She's desperate for attention, even if it's negative.

If you google things enough you'll find spots with the whole sorry story laid out in chronological order.


If Meyers' people go after her, what does that mean for others that also write Twilight fanfictions?

Nothing. They're smart enough not to put out press releases or send whining letters of "apology" to Meyers--who's never going to see 'em.

Most copyright holders do not go after the fans and choose to turn a blind eye. It's just not worth the trouble and expense.

Most fans, in turn, are courteous (and smart) enough to stay off the copyright holder's radar.

I expect that only a few dozen people on the whole of the planet even know about this kerfuffle, much less care how things will turn out.

While we would enjoy seeing her hung out to dry in her Twi-tribute knickers, there's no guarantee that the publishers will take action. They may decide she's just not worth the effort, and that anything they do will give her exactly what she craves: more attention.

The worst thing that we can do to her is ignore her.

I'm all in favor of that at this point.

dnic
06-07-2009, 03:35 AM
In other words, she went ahead and painted a big, red target on her back?

:e2thud:

Nice.

The Lonely One
06-07-2009, 08:14 PM
I think if you squinted when Kristen Stewart accepted the award for best female role at the MTV awards, you could see Sybillous being restrained by security in the background.

"That's MY golden popcorn!"

Gillhoughly
06-07-2009, 10:42 PM
Indeed, but I was sure Sybilious whined, "I'm ENTITLED to that award! Kristen and I are both adults, she'll be honored that I have it and I sent her a public apology and I'm putting copies up on eBay tonight, leave me feedback on the website, but no insults or I'll delete them and I want an interview with Taylor Lautner...!"


"I'm underwhelmed." - Kristen Taylor

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0fgKdgg0Ea2Bd/340x.jpg


"Make her stop, she's scaring me." - Taylor Lautner

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2014/2264215282_8596c1b18a.jpg

Cyia
06-07-2009, 11:47 PM
"Make her stop, she's scaring me." - Taylor Lautner

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2014/2264215282_8596c1b18a.jpg



More like:

Makes me wish I could really do that snarling mid-air werewolf quick-change.

LeslieB
06-08-2009, 04:15 PM
In other words, she went ahead and painted a big, red target on her back?

:e2thud:

Nice.

There are a lot of writers and media sources that don't mind fanfic because they consider it a pretty normal part of fandom. I've written fanfic based on a computer game, and not only did the company know our fanfic site existed, but one of the game's designers used to post the occasional story himself.

There are about half a dozen writers on the site who have produced novel-length works (yes, I'm one of them). Our chummy relationship with the game company would have evaporated in a heartbeat if one of us had started advertising our fanfic novel for sale and endangering the company's legal rights. Fun is fun, but money is money.

Gillhoughly
06-08-2009, 07:45 PM
Oh, joy.

There's another one at it. (http://www.amazon.com/J-N-Story-Rachel-Plotkin/dp/1442174897/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244435435&sr=1-1)

And wank on it. (http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/1210516.html)

I've AGAIN sent mails to Little Brown in the US and UK.

Thin edge of the wedge. More fics on Amazon to follow if this isn't shut down.



UPDATE -- June 15, 2009: Keep on reading. Rachel Plotkin figured out her mistake, yanked the illegal stuff from Amazon, and joined AW. We're proud of her!!

.

Calla Lily
06-08-2009, 07:47 PM
:Headbang:

Cyia
06-08-2009, 07:52 PM
Note the tags for it on Amazon:

Copyright violation
idiocy
illegal
fanfiction
fail
blatant theft
stealing established author
unauthorized image of actor
and my favorite: doorpost dumb

Plus the 5 one star reviews telling the author that what she's doing is illegal.

Have you seen her Youtube channel? (http://www.youtube.com/WritingBellaDotCom) Good grief.

emilycross
06-08-2009, 07:58 PM
That piece about Obama . . . *headdesk*

anyway back on topic - LittleBrown better wake up and smell the copyright!!


"I am using characters created by some other writer - please don't sue me, but if you use them or any of my characters I will sue you."

Cyia
06-08-2009, 08:11 PM
I'm sure LB is aware of the copyright, but they were probably hoping Taterhead would go away. Now, however, she's sprouted a Tatertot and who knows how many others could be taking this as a free for all shot at a quick buck? Sad sad sad. :(

I don't understand the logic block here. I like fanfiction (for TV shows, novel fanfic squicks me.). A friend told me about a little over a year ago and I wrote some myself - some of my WIP is made of passages I salvaged from a couple of them. BUT they're my own characters and I put them in my own world. I'd never try to sell something set in another writer's universe. Who wants to play by someone else's rules when you can make your own, anyway? That's part of the fun of writing.

LogicFail.

TabithaTodd
06-08-2009, 08:22 PM
Oups...hubbs youtube was logged in and I commented on her channel with "if you like copyright infringements...?"

I don't get the logic of all of this either. For one, I prefer to let these types of people hang themselves with their brouhaha and shenanigans...

BenPanced
06-08-2009, 09:17 PM
But just think of all the friends they're going to make when smeyer's legal team gets ALL fanfic banned and removed!

Gillhoughly
06-08-2009, 10:32 PM
What gets to me is when morons like that violate a writer's copyright, then have the nerve to state that their violation is copyrighted.

"This material is copyrighted by Rachel Plotkin. Any retranscription or reproduction is prohibited and illegal."

Hello, Rachel.

Posting fic on your own little website is one thing, but trying to make money from another writer's work by selling a book on Amazon is THEFT.

Read CreateSpace's rules again about copyright infringement. You're in violation of them.

Newsflash: you're not special. Not even a little.

Calla Lily
06-08-2009, 10:35 PM
I lurk mostly on these threads, but where were these people when the definition of "THEFT" was taught in grade school? :e2smack:

Cyia
06-08-2009, 10:51 PM
Brain bleach, who has the brain bleach?!

I made the mistake of clicking a F_W link to her first chapter. OMG, there's a reason Smeyer didn't write Jake/Nessie romance - having Ness mentally remind Jake of how she thought of him at SIX YEARS OLD - while her parents are down the hall having sex - is just... :e2cry:

BRAIN BLEACH!!!!

(Though I wonder how long it's going to be before Taterhead cries fowl because this new ficcer totally stole her very own unique idea of Jake/Nessie's life after Breaking Dawn. That argument could be morbidly entertaining.)

TabithaTodd
06-08-2009, 11:02 PM
What gets to me is when morons like that violate a writer's copyright, then have the nerve to state that their violation is copyrighted.

"This material is copyrighted by Rachel Plotkin. Any retranscription or reproduction is prohibited and illegal."

Hello, Rachel.

Posting fic on your own little website is one thing, but trying to make money from another writer's work by selling a book on Amazon is THEFT.

Read CreateSpace's rules again about copyright infringement. You're in violation of them.

Newsflash: you're not special. Not even a little.

I have an account with CreateSpace - How ever I won't be using it due to the fact that CS actually let this go through, at least not until the rectify the problem with this so called "author". I made a complaint to CS as well.

Perhaps they were unaware of the content of this person's book? If so, it leaves me a little leery on the legit processes of their POD services...