Fandom

[poliphilo]

Fandom- I don't get it.

Why would you want to mess with someone else's characters when you can create your own?

Does J.K. Rowling take pleasure in badly written stories about her characters having sex?  I doubt it.  Why- If you admire and enjoy her work - would you want to disrespect her so? 

Isn't "fan" a bit of a misnomer?

But lets move from the general to the specific. An artist just got banned by LJ because of an image she posted of Harry and Snape.

Only the banning seems ineffective because she's bounced back and the image is viewable. (I'm not giving links. I don't want to give her any more publicity than she's getting already).

I clicked. I was expecting an image of them kissing. Boy, was I in for a surprise.

The characters were clearly modelled on Daniel Radcliffe and Alan Rickman. Isn't this defamation of character or libel of something?

Even more to the point:  British comedian Chris Langham is about to go to prison for downloading images which (I assume ) are comparable to this. 

So- forget morality- LJ needs to guard itself against prosecution.

But I don't want to forget morality. You take characters from a beloved children's book and you produce an image of them that any paedophile would be proud to own (you can quibble over whether Harry looks underage or not if you want to be legalistic and miss the point) and  I can't think of any grounds on which I'd be prepared  to defend you.

A lot of fans are up in arms and banging on about censorship.  I just watched a video of a girl give a little self-righteous speech then attempt to burn her LJ shirt with a blow torch .  Fine. Off you trot to some less scrupulous site and good luck to you!  As it happens, I'm perfectly happy to see you go.

Comments

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

You're right. LJ should be magnanimous. "We can't go on hosting your blog but, here, have a refund".
At the moment they're not doing very much to win friends. I haven't checked for an hour or two, but last time I looked they still hadn't offered any explanation for their actions. I guess they've got their lawyers running around putting something together.

[kaysho.livejournal.com]

I don't think Six Apart understand the idea very well that they need to win friends. Most web hosts can simply delete a user account and be done with it if that user uploads Potterporn or the like to their server. Deleting a user's LJ account is removing someone from a community, almost like a homicide in the village ... and the community reacts with understandable concern about the fairness of that act.

I have no particular interest in defending Potterporn or other such assaults against "fictional public figures" like Harry Potter (although isn't this the most wonderful publicity this insignificant artist could ever have received?), but I do want Six Apart to be a "good cop".

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Six Apart doesn't seem to understand the nature of the property it owns. Yes, we're a community- a network of communities. Twitch one corner of the web and we all feel it.

I've shifted my position quite a bit since this thread began. I still think Six Apart was right to protect itself by removing that image, but I can't see why they couldn't have negotiated their way to a conclusion that would have kept everyone on side.