- Joined
- May 31, 2013
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 3
I am asking about how publishers and agents look at intellectual property and its possible disputes. The kinds of stories I am interested in writing are deconstructions and reconstructions of genres and specific stories. Fanfcition is the wrong word, it implies a respect and devotion I don't have to the subject matter. What I want to do is a kind of active criticism, of explaining why the subject was poorly written and how it should have been written instead.
It stands to reason that to make a parody, a satire of another work or anything similar, one needs to make the new piece as close to the original as possible, to make the criticism as stingily clear as human limitations will permit. However, after studying the matter extensively, I have come to the conclusion anything I want to do is 'transformative' and can be argued either to be original or clearly fair use. The flip of this is that due to the murky nature of of copyright law as it is enforced, on a whim the work could be sued into the ground, buried in cost and fear of litigation before any case could be argued.
So how to publishers approach this issue? Where do they draw the line between plagiarism, mildly interesting fanfiction, an insightful reconstruction and the kind of story that destroys or redefines a genre? I'm reluctant to write that which would be considered unpublishable, so just knowing approximately where the line is gives me a target to shoot for.
I appreciate your time.
It stands to reason that to make a parody, a satire of another work or anything similar, one needs to make the new piece as close to the original as possible, to make the criticism as stingily clear as human limitations will permit. However, after studying the matter extensively, I have come to the conclusion anything I want to do is 'transformative' and can be argued either to be original or clearly fair use. The flip of this is that due to the murky nature of of copyright law as it is enforced, on a whim the work could be sued into the ground, buried in cost and fear of litigation before any case could be argued.
So how to publishers approach this issue? Where do they draw the line between plagiarism, mildly interesting fanfiction, an insightful reconstruction and the kind of story that destroys or redefines a genre? I'm reluctant to write that which would be considered unpublishable, so just knowing approximately where the line is gives me a target to shoot for.
I appreciate your time.