Fan Fiction vs. Copyright - Q&A with Rebecca Tushnet

"It takes a big studio to make The Avengers, but it doesn't necessarily take a big studio to write a piece of Avengers fan fiction," says Georgetown University law professor and fan fiction advocate Rebecca Tushnet. "Big content companies largely recognize that fan activities are really good for them because they engage people."

The growing popularity of fan fiction, a genre in which fans create their own stories featuring characters or settings from their favorite works of popular culture, raises thorny copyright issues. "Given how broad copyright is now, it's now possible to say fan fiction is an infringing derivative work," Tushnet explains. "In order to deal with that...we now talk about fair use, which allows people to make fair, limited uses of works without permission from the copyright owner."

As a member of the Organization for Transformative Works, Tushnet works to defend fan fiction creators caught in the legal debate between protected intellectual property and fair use.

Nick Gillespie sat down with Tushnet to discuss copyright law, fan fiction, and why media companies should embrace fan-created works.

Approximately 7.34 minutes.

Interview by Nick Gillespie. Camera by Meredith Bragg and Joshua Swain. Editing by Swain.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

• Category

  News & Politics

[Meapzilla]

Im so confused. I have never taken credit for the original ideas for the stories inspired by it when i write, so am i still doing something illegal?

[iamstrate]

Fanfiction isn't illegal because its non profit. So the copywrite laws can suck it. Me reading fan fiction actually makes me want to see the original

[mylifeandabeat yaz]

Personally fan fiction is not bad i allways give my writes to the author and plus I allways dedicate it to them as well

[Siegetower]

Damn Utube comment disappearance. It was a good argument too. Too busy working to re-write it now.

[AndyAce83]

"What about 1984?" You said I did doublespeak, a reference to 1984. Of course I do not have enough cases to justify or unjustify any law. I dont do a lot of research before every comment, thats why I started with saying i was not an historian etc. The point is that you take a bit for granted that removing IP is the only reasonable conclusion, when even the lecture you gave reference to say that libertarians believe more than one conclusion in this matter is reasonable. Its not that simple.

[Siegetower]

2. But the users of other peoples work are not producers. Someone file sharing my friends' band did not produce that music, he likely stole it and the people that download it stole it too - they're not producing anything. Furthermore to mirror the fashion example No one is stopping a band using the same guitar riff, hairstyle or production level as another. But they can't sell a song imitiating Slayer and calling themselves Slayer. Use the same cloth/riffs/styles,but not intellectual property.

[Siegetower]

Im listening to Part1 of the lecture now. Tucker uses fashion as his example and evidence. He states that reproducing and selling an fashion jacket is not illegal, which is true. But you cannot use the same label stating 'Armani' when it is not produced by Armani. A retailer can sell the same appearing jacket using the same cloth/cut, yes, but sell a fake Armani suit and they're charged. His argument is all about the producers of product.

[Siegetower]

No, I haven't taken the time to read your reference. But let me say straight out that the musicians I know want to retain their intellectual property. Even the ones that will sell a few hundred copies of their work in their lifetime while they go to their day job in a guitar store.

So that they will make something for their time, effort and creativity, however meagre. Rather than nothing if everyone just downloads or itunes.

Property is property and it must be protected like physical property.

[AndyAce83]

Do you really think that all great art was made for buttons and twigs back before big business came in and commercialized everything? People need to live. To create something is a living and they need money. That´s how it works. Instead of saying IP is a "bogus concept" you could criticizes it in part, and then recognize its function as well... that artist need to get fed like anyone else and some projects take more than half an hour to make.

[AndyAce83]

By dim, I hope you dont been slow-witted but bleak? I am not a historian of IP, & lifes of artist prior to copyrights but this I know: There where compensations back in the day to & no fear of copying (before Gutenberg). Mozart was hired, Poe the same. They earned money, and never feared other people would get it for free. Poe died in a gutter poor as hell. I wrote free not as in price but in not steered by government. You do know you are on a libertarian video right? Also 1984 was copyrighted.