Metamorphose.org
A Catalog of Transformations, Plus Reviews and Alerts
Request an Account
age
animal
female
furry
gender
inanimate
male
mythical
size
were
MSG Board
170   Female twin replacin
2173   List of some female
3   People acting like a
2   Daily Show - Gender
51   X-men 97 New Animate
14   Scenario: shapeshift
125   Share a list of movi
Should an author be able to "take back" a story?
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
Nickname:
Captcha
6
3
0
9
To prove you are not a spambot,
enter this number

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]