|
|
|
From: Carlsbad
, 118 months, post #1 |
I was recently reminded of a favorite TG author who, for reasons
undisclosed, eliminated his/her online presence some time ago,
including removing all of his/her stories from the web, and asking
that people not share any archived copies of his/her stories, even
through email. I don't want to make this discussion about that
author, who shall remain nameless, but about the general principle
of his/her actions. Does someone who has produced a creative work,
and made that work available for free online, have the right to
subsequently remove that work, and inhibit its further consumption?
I am not referring to any legal right, e.g. copyright or IP, but
rather to a moral right to indefinite control of one's creations.
Should an author be able to do this? Or does a creative work,
through publication, attain its own "right" to exist, independent
of the author's wishes? Recall that Emily Dickinson asked that her
papers be burned upon her death; was it wrong of her friends and
relatives to publish them against her wishes? I am eager to hear
your thoughts about this. My only request is that our discourse
remain civil; I will ask this thread to be locked if it devolves
into a flame war.
|
From: JayGee
, 118 months, post #2 |
I didn't hear that about Emily Dickenson. She didn't write for the
public, however, and almost everything we have of her poetry was
published posthumously. There were other works that were not
published until being found later. I believe Handel's Messiah was
an example. Franz Kafka had unfinished works he specifically didn't
want published, but his wishes were ignored by his estate.
|
From: guest (mwf2ffan)
, 118 months, post #3 |
Once something is posted online, it is there permanently and is up
to the ethics of the readership to keep it or not. It is one reason
that I am very reluctant to write my own f2f stories or make f2f
captions as one day I may feel guilt for them and try to pull them
but enough will exist out there. So the author could have the moral
right to want to withdraw it, but the readership could also have
the moral right of wanting it kept as to how much it meant to them.
|
From: Cobe
, 118 months, post #4 |
Your question reminds me of something that I have been seeking out
for some time, and what I have learned in the search.
Decades a go, I saw a cute animated short film about a girl who
shrinks so small that she can ride on the back of a butterfly. I
have tried since then to track down the film and get a copy of it,
but to no avail. In the past year or so I have contacted the
creator of the short film; she is now a professional animator with
VERY long and impressive major studio work to her credit. It turns
out the film in question was a very early effort (it might have
been a student film, I guess). The animator in question is
considering adapting it into a children's book. However, she has
told me that to re-release it or post it online could be damaging
to her career. (I don't understand how that could be, but then I
don't work in her career field so she would know these things
better than I would.)
I would accept it as a "given" that, if I download something from
an Internet site, be it a story, an image, a sound file or video
file or whatever, then no one has the right to demand that I
destroy it or erase it or anything of the sort. (It is my
understanding that whether or not I downloaded it legally is
outside the scope of this discussion.) I imagine the creator can
take it down from websites where it may be posted, but beyond that
the best that can be done is for the creator to ask anyone who has
a copy to respect his/her wishes and not distribute it, online or
otherwise.
I would imagine the reason that (for example) Jerry Lewis will not
release or post his movie "The Day the Clown Cried", or the
above-mentioned animator will not post the "butterfly ride" short,
is that they know that once it's out there even long enough for one
person to download it, the work is pretty much non-retrievable:
they can't very well demand it be erased, and they don't want to be
at the mercy of the downloader's whims as to whether or not they
distribute it.
For the record, I can think of a couple of examples (that I'm not
going to go into here) where a request was put forth to stop
reporting image collections and the request was by and large
honored.
|
From: greendoubleaught
, 118 months, post #5 |
I can imagine an author asking the community to stop circulating a
story containing uncomfortably biographical information for fear
someone might trace the authorship to him in real life. As an
example: When the Web was in its infancy I used one email address
for everything, but I would never do that now. Since the popularity
of email, search engines and social media has exploded, I can see
why someone would want to divorce their TG story-writing from their
"public" web persona. Who knew 10 years ago that employers would
(or could) one day Google your email alias?
|
From: guest (Ballad with a Cause 1767)
, 118 months, post #6 |
As I understand it Saint Jerome was faced with a stack of scrolls
that he needed to pare down to the "Word of God" to create the
Bible.
So he had to figure out which of those scrolls had been inspired (
by HIM )
Ignoring the issue of what of modern internet literature has HIS
influence
and assuming HIS inspired literature will do good things,survive
hard drive crashed,
Yahoo and Google bankruptcies,etc
I'd say if a work is " On a Mission ( from God) " it'll
manage to stay around no matter what its flesh and blood author
wishes
|
From: guest (AuthorsView)
, 118 months, post #7 |
What is seen cannot be unseen. No one can erase from your mind what
you read. AND, if you have it in your files legally, no one can
make you unfile it.
However,if an author does not wish their work to be further
distributed **at a given point in time**, then commercially there
are laws to deal with. Plus just the usual obligations to the
author's wishes - ethical, moral, etc.
Works of art are deeply personal, not 'things' to be thrown around.
|
From: cj
, 118 months, post #8 |
"Does someone who has produced a creative work, and made that work
available for free online, have the right to subsequently remove
that work, and inhibit its further consumption?"
In a word, yes. Yes, they have the right to remove that work, and
the right to inhibit its further consumption. It is the product of
their creativity, a work created by them.
The problem is the ability
to do so. Just like releasing the "Nuclear Genie", or committing a
murder... once a story is set free upon the internet, it is
impossible to undo / unshare.
The best that any author can hope for, is the decency of others to
respect their wishes... because, really... other than some possible
legal action, it is the only action they can realistically take.
Make their wishes known and hope that others follow them.
That's my opinion anyhow.
|
From: guest (AJJ)
, 118 months, post #9 |
"I am not referring to any legal right, e.g. copyright or IP, but
rather to a moral right to indefinite control of one's creations."
I think it's worth turning the question around: would the author
ever have produced the work, let alone made it available for free
online, if he or she thought they didn't have a basic moral right
to control the copying and distribution of the work? Probably not.
That would be a pretty bad deal for a lot of people. So, practical
or legal considerations aside, I think an author can reasonably
claim that their publishing of a thing was contingent on a belief
that they had a moral right to control its copying and
distribution, and that failing to respect that is a breach of a
moral duty.
In practical terms, I think an author may be forgiven for believing
that posting a handful of stories on a website that publishes
THOUSANDS of stories every year (and one that has a robots.txt
file) might provide the author with a certain amount of anonymity
and therefore, to some extent, allow the author to avoid the curse
of the "Nuclear Genie." The degree to which the author turns out to
be wrong may be a surprise (and, in some cases, a pretty unpleasant
surprise) to pretty much everyone.
|
From: Carlsbad
, 118 months, post #10 |
I respectfully disagree with poster #9. I do not believe that every
author is motivated by the ability to control his or her work. Some
authors, artists, sculptors, etc. create simply out of a desire to
create, irrespective of any property rights assigned or withheld.
In fact, many authors- not all, mind you, considering the attitude
of some- create works with the intent that as many people as
possible consume them. Some have even gone to great lengths to see
their works distributed even in the absence of control or
compensation.
Copyright is a legal fiction created in the 18th century, with the
original goal of suppressing dissent against the crown by
controlling access to the printing press. Over time, democratizing
influences reshaped copyright into a legal mechanism to incentivize
the creation of new works, and to prevent anyone from unjustly
profiting from the work of someone else. When the production of
copies of works was inherently a capital-intensive venture, this
system made a great deal of sense; no one, save for an author,
would invest the time and money to copy a work unless motivated
primarily by profit.
Recognizing the importance of rewarding content creators, the
Second Congress of the United States passed the Copyright Act of
1790. Under that law, the term of copyright in the United States
was 14 years, renewable for another 14 by the author. The
comparative brevity compared to today's work is because the early
statesmen recognized the importance of a public domain, a body of
thought and literature unencumbered by private restrictions. An
author could sell his or her work under a limited monopoly for 28
years, after which the work would revert to the public, for anyone
to print, sell, read, or share with friends.
Over the years, the interests of those who create content have come
to outweigh those of the public in copyright legislation. The term
of copyright has been extended long past the lifespan of the
author; exceptions for fair use have been whittled away; and
requirements such as registration and deposition have effectively
been waived. I think that this is a bad trend, for many reasons. In
part, it enables entities entirely unaffiliated with creativity to
exert control over new works; it reduces the corpus of material
which may be successfully adapted or reused; and it perversely
inhibits the creation of new works which may borrow elements from
older ones. But to me, one problem stands out above others.
Copyright as it stands no longer makes sense in a world where
distribution is free. I don't need to own a printing press in order
to share a story; therefore I can share a piece of content without
needing to "recoup" any investment, and thus without a profit
motive. This is great news for my own works, but it raises a hairy
legal situation for those of others. If I do not profit from
sharing a piece of copyrighted content, then my distribution is not
earning money that should justly go to the creator; and yet, such
an act is still unlawful under copyright law. This might make sense
in the case of a creator who is attempting to sell his or her work,
and whose efforts at monetization are being thwarted by the
widespread availability of a free alternative. But I fail to see
the harm, economic or otherwise, of sharing something that is not
available from the creator, nor from any authorized source. A
person who burns down his toll bridge out of spite has no right to
complain when someone builds another one further downstream.
Ideally, I would like to see people creating works, stories, books,
poems, etc. because they want to share their work with the world,
not because they want to build a fence around it and charge
admission. Something less like a jukebox, and more like a guy
playing guitar with his case open. I might be too idealistic here,
assuming that people would throw him any change without any threat
or coercion. But I'd like to see him at least try before selling
the guitar and going back to pumping gas.
|
From: cj
, 118 months, post #11 |
"A person who burns down his toll bridge out of spite has no right
to complain when someone builds another one further downstream."
Apples and oranges. This isn't about someone creating a derivative
work (building another bridge further downstream).
What you were asking is if the creator (builder) had a right to
remove that bridge (not burn it down, remove), and to prevent
someone else from sharing that bridge. The answer is still yes -
the right to do that is up to the creator / builder / owner. Now if
someone else wants to build
another bridge, that's fine - it would be someone else's work...
but if you want to take my bridge (copy my story) without my
permission, I'll likely get irate. Especially so if I didn't want
to share my creation (for whatever reason).
I thought you weren't going to refer to copyright? :-)
"Ideally, I would like to see people creating works, stories,
books, poems, etc. because they want to share their work with the
world, not because they want to build a fence around it and charge
admission."
Ah, wouldn't that be a lovely world.
I do wonder though... I recall at least a couple authors who pulled
all their stories for reasons other than monetary or compensatory.
I believe one didn't want the association... and another had second
thoughts, felt that his/her stories were too "dark" IIRC. So, there
are certainly legitimate reasons, other than money, for wanting
one's stories to disappear.
|
From: guest (AJJ)
, 118 months, post #12 |
"I do not believe that every author is motivated by the ability to
control his or her work. Some authors, artists, sculptors, etc.
create simply out of a desire to create, irrespective of any
property rights assigned or withheld."
I imagine the second class of authors would be able to to identify
themselves as such. Meanwhile, you seem to be implying that the
first class of authors- the ones who wouldn't have published their
stuff unless they knew they had a right to control reproduction and
distribution -are somehow morally inferior to the second class of
authors and therefore don't DESERVE a copyright. It's an
interesting catch 22, but unless the author in question was aware
of it ahead of time (which would also, btw, have given said author
a chance to opt out by not publishing at all) it smacks of
convenient solipsism on your part.
"A person who burns down his toll bridge out of spite has no right
to complain when someone builds another one further downstream."
This is an interesting argument. Someone else pointed out it's
apples and oranges, because you are, of course, free to write and
publish your own work, but that doesn't actually seem to be the
bridge you're talking about. You seem to be suggesting that the
story- the WORK -is the destination, and that the bridge is just
the right to copy and distribute.
Here again, it seems to me that you're going out of your way to
ignore the realities of actually producing art. The land beyond the
bridge isn't just any open field. It's a field where the author has
plowed, and built, and toiled, and made significant improvements
under the belief (among many, if not among the altruists you seem
to feel are the only ones deserving of respect) that he or she owns
the land. Declaring that "property is theft!" or something only
AFTER the author has made those improvements to the land seems,
again, like a singularly convenient bit of sophistry.
The second part of the bridge argument is basically a repetition of
your initial argument: by saying "out of spite" you're saying that
the author's motives are bad, and that he or she does not therefore
DESERVE to have a copyright. I would probably have a problem with
that kind of logic even if the author had explained him or herself,
and the explanation was in fact "bad" in some way.
But an author who refuses to explain his or her reasons may simply
have some very strong personal reasons for taking down a story-
personal reasons that would be made worse by talking about them.
The idea that this would open the door for someone to then claim
that the author's reasons are "bad" (unless the author gives us an
explanation that satisfies our curiosity and morality) and that we
should all ignore his or her wishes and rights and take what is not
freely given seems, to me, extremely sad. And morally questionable.
Most mostly sad.
|
From: Carlsbad
, 118 months, post #13 |
Copy-pasted from a thread on FictionMania. Some names and metaphors
have been changed to protect the innocent:
I hadn't considered the fact that your reasons for removal might
involve issues with your real life identity. I've written some
really fucked up stuff that I would want to see erased if it were
ever connected to my identity in real life. From the tone of your
response, I'm getting the sense that you pulled your stories, and
want to keep them down, because it was affecting you personally
somehow. Maybe a relative, a significant other, or an employer
discovered, or came close to discovering, your authorship of TG
stuff. It may even be that you made the mistake of using your real
life name as your handle; I had assumed that the name you
originally posted your stories under was a pseudonym, but the fact
that you are posting only with the handle "AJJ", and avoiding
registering a nickname, makes me think that you really don't want
that name to visibly appear.
I guess it's a case of not understanding why you wanted to erase
what you created, when you had many fans who wanted to continue
enjoying what you had produced. But if the availability of those
stories compromised your safety, or the stability of your
interpersonal relationships, then I think you are totally justified
in not wanting your works to be circulated. Enjoying a bit of fic,
no matter how well-written, should never come at the cost of
ruining someone's life.
I hope that at some point, possibly in a few years, the personal
issues that have kept your works out of circulation will be
remedied. Maybe you'll get that visa to move out of Iran, or that
curmudgeonly old aunt will kick the bucket and won't be able to
disinherit you any more, or you'll win that custody battle with
your wife/husband and not worry about the judge deeming you "unfit"
because you write erotica online.
I can't speak for you, or take your place, or know what the
circumstances of your life are. But I suspect that the people who
ask for copies of your stories number at most in the dozens; there
are not multitudes out there, just a few very vocal TG enthusiasts
with a bit of an entitlement problem. I would not think that
allowing a few copies to circulate via email, without being posted
to a permanent repository, would be especially harmful. But I am
not you, and you may have your reasons for being justifiably
paranoid. If you offered, I would gladly pay you a sum of money
over paypal for copies of your writings, and agree not to
distribute them to anyone else. But I can understand not wanting to
do so, since readers have, from your perspective, betrayed your
trust. Once bitten, twice shy and all that.
I think that people might be more willing to respect your wishes if
you said something like "these stories are affecting my personal
life. I pulled them for a very good and important reason. I hope I
can repost them someday, but the circumstances in my personal life
aren't right for that yet. If you have any respect for me or my
writing, please hold off on sharing any copies you do have." I
would respect that more than this "I hate all of you for ruining my
life. Go to hell, you entitled brats!" tone, which positions you as
the readers' adversary, rather than both you and your audience as
victims of a circumstance beyond your control. Going back to the
bridge analogy, maybe the builder burnt the bridge because the city
was going to charge him a "bridge fee" if he kept letting people
cross the river; or worse, his spiteful neighbor littered the field
on the other side with landmines, and the burnt bridge is out of a
desire to protect rather than a feeling of spite.
Even if you don't believe it, I earnestly wish you the best, AJJ. I
hope you keep writing, even if you can't share it with us anymore.
If you ever want to talk, my email is carlsbad.almond@yahoo.com
|
From: guest (Brayn)
, 118 months, post #14 |
Not to mention the Streisand effect. The more you insist people
don't see something, the more they insist they must see what all
the fuss is about. So authors who want to see their content gone
draw more attention to it by insisting it be removed.
|
From: guest (Kara)
, 117 months, post #15 |
The author has a right - morally, legally, etc. - to restrict
distribution however they want and for any reason whatsoever. There
is no contract in place preventing them from doing so. As mentioned
above though, they don't have the ability to enforce this right and
rely on others to respect their wishes. I would like to have seen
RJ continue to write but I respect his reasons.
|
From: greendoubleaught
, 117 months, post #16 |
Your ideal world of authors and artists supplying you with free
material would only work if every other profession did the same. It
reminds me of a joke:
An engineer is asked to consult on the building of a dam. He comes
to the valley to examine the site, looks around, and draws an X on
the ground. "Start here," he says, and presents a bill for $10,000.
The foreman objects and asks for an itemized bill. The engineer
complies, and the itemized bill reads, "$1, marking the X. $9,999,
knowing where to put it."
Any profession could say the same, but also artists. You're not
paying for a single piece of paper, or the time it took to draw it;
you're paying for a lifetime of acquired skill necessary to produce
it. Many professions put in thousands of hours of work: call it
vocational training, practice, rehearsal, or schooling. Sure, some
artists have more of this than others, and consequently create
works of greater value.
So it's not just about the guitarist selling his guitar and going
back to his day job. He's giving up not just an instrument but
years of practice, and starting over in a new skill set. If you
want to hear that guitarist play, you have to appreciate what it
took to pick up those skills. It doesn't happen overnight.
|
From: guest (nuk)
, 117 months, post #17 |
The creator of any artform can do what ever they wish with it
|
From: guest
, 117 months, post #18 |
Suppose an author "gets religion" and thinks that his stories might
lead others to sin. He might then feel a duty to make them
unavailable, simply to avoid what Catholics might still call
"causing scandal."
One might think he's being overly scrupulous, but, hey, it's his
conscience and he's got to live with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add a New Message to This Thread
Posting Guidelines
Primary
- ANY POST(s) MAY BE REMOVED at the discretion of moderators
for violation of this website's guidelines/rules or any law
applicable to this website.
- All discussions must be transformation related OR of interest to
the transformation community.
- Please try to keep posts appropriate for younger teenage eyes to
view (Things you'd be comfortable sharing with a 13 year-old).
- Do not 'attack' other posters. You may attack an individual's
comments but not the individual.
- Be polite, courteous, and respectful. Please keep the conversations
civil.
- While use of an online alias is ok. Do NOT pretend to be another
(or registered) user.
Intellectual Property
- Do not post direct links to complete copyrighted works. Links
provided by (or approved by) the copyright holder may
be exempt.
- Links to content hosted on websites that have a clear, and easy to
find, process for dealing with infringement(s); and a known
reputation for following through with said process, may
be allowed.
- Please read this site's views on copyrighted content on the FAQ
page.
- Do not plagiarize. Credit your sources.
Helpful
- For posts and material that are not safe for viewing in a workplace
or with younger eyes, please mark the thread or post as either, "MATURE CONTENT", "ADULT CONTENT",
or "NSFW".
- Please post clear SPOILER warnings if you intend to give away
details that would spoil the story for those who have not yet seen
the material, preferably by using the spoiler
tags (don't forget to close the spoiler text with the end tag),
like so: <spoiler>Text to be "hidden"
</spoiler>
-- For additional help, please see: HOW TO: Use Spoiler tags
message thread.
- When starting a New Message Thread, please include details about
your topic of discussion or request in the Subject
field to help draw in readers who are interested and avoid wasting
the time of those who are not. Also helpful in searching for the
topic/thread later.
- If you post a link, please provide some detail as to what it is.
Identify the material if possible.
- Please post in English, or include an English translation, when
possible.
- If seeking material / information, include the results of your own
efforts so that others can offer better help (and avoid wasting
time and effort on redundant searches).
- When starting a new thread to request material or information,
please begin the subject with "REQ:"
or "REQUEST".
Etiquette
- Do not post messages in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
- Do not attack a user for improper spelling and/or grammar. Not all
of our community uses English as their native language.
- Please do not stray (far) from the topic of the original post.
- If a poster provides their contact information for any reason, do
NOT clutter the Message Board by asking them to contact you. They
gave out their contact information for a reason.
- No begging. Ask nicely.
- Do not feed the trolls and spammers. Please ignore them.
- Do not keep asking for clips after others have already posted
information on where to obtain the material.
- Please have some patience. Not everyone visits the board daily.
Your post may not be seen (by someone with the correct information
or idea) for several days or weeks.
- No bumping. Bumping will be treated as intentional spamming.
Advertising
- Do not post advertisements.
- One exception is for products or services that relate to entries on
this site. And even then, only post an announcement once. You
should add links or content to the appropriate database entries. Do
not repeat this information to the message board. Doing so will be
considered spamming.
Miscellaneous
- This list is neither all-inclusive or all-exclusive in nature, and
is meant to guide everyone on appropriate content for and conduct
on this Message Board.
- The purpose of this Message Board is to share information about
transformation-related content, news, ideas, etc. Also acceptable,
are conversations that are of interest to the transformation
community.
- Moderation of posts for reasons not listed above are at the
discretion of the Trusted Users who moderate this website, for the
purpose of keeping things within the "spirit" of the owner's wishes
and the website's purpose.
- If you disagree with a moderation decision, please make an argument
as to why it should be reinstated. Use the posting guidelines to justify your point.
Do not attack the moderator.
[Edit this Page] | |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|