Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2] ] |
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: What do you mean by RPF? -- mouse, 19:44:26 06/18/02 Tue
Thank you, Fay Jay. I can see that I need to add a third option to the poll. I do hope that the folks who have already voted do not get too annoyed with me. One should never view things as simply black or white. Thank you for pointing that out.
>Ditto. Incorporating real people into the fiction is
>all well and good if they are treated with a
>reasonable level of dignity. Pornographic RPF, on the
>other hand, I find very distasteful. 'Course,YMMV - if
>there are readers subscribing to the list who like
>NC17 RPF, then so long as it's clearly marked as such
>I wouldn't stress about it getting recc'd. I wouldn't
>go dashing off to read it, but I wouldn't stress
>unduly.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: What do you mean by RPF? -- Kate, 05:50:08 06/22/02 Sat
>Of course Twinkledru has a right to write "She's So
>Lucky," and to rec it or archive it wherever it's
>accepted. But I don't think that place needs to be
>here.
But then you're imposing your viewpoint onto a group of people who have other viewpoints -- you're saying "Well, it might be good, and it might fit within the requirements for it to be rec-ed to BetterBuffyFics, but I feel that the content is morally wrong, and, therefore, it shouldn't be posted here."
Which isn't right to me, because much of what is recommended to the list could be construed as "morally wrong" -- heck, ask Marti Noxon what she thinks of most of the fic, and you'll see a woman who's actually concerned about some of it.
You say it crosses a line for you personally. And that's fine. I say that your personal line shouldn't be enforced on other people on a list that is supposed to be open to all tastes.
Also, you say that "It's based on how much the fic hews to the living person's public image." Being that "She's So Lucky" is about Britney being a "goddess of the people," I would assume that it is about her public image (based in part on her "Overprotected" video, where she engages in rather risqué dances with her female dancers). The Britney on the screen is not the Britney in real life. We're writing about the Britney that is presented to the world publicly, and if she's dancing naughtily with girls on our tv, it's not that big of a leap to say that she'd sleep with one too.
In other words, we all have public constructs that we put out towards the world -- the person that the world sees and not the person that we really are. If a person chooses to explore your public construct and play with the image of you -- it happens. It's not the real you, it's their image of you. You can either accept it and move on, or you can sit there and be afraid of the world around you.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Ignore that last one! (NT) -- Kate, 13:20:46 06/20/02 Thu
I am on crack and misread messages.
Sorry, Smash. I will leap before I look again.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
::jumps in with an Intentional Tort!!:: -- angela, 21:40:43 06/19/02 Wed
My turn to address a few points!
>
>Technically, RPF is less illegal than FPF, because
>we're not breaking copyright, and we're not committing
>libel or slander, either. We're not claiming it's
>true, and no reasonably person would believe it's true.
>
Technically, an author of RPF can be sued for posting a story. There is an intentional tort referred to as Publication of Facts Placing Plaintiff in a False Light, and it's a sort of branch of Invasion of Privacy. For a Plaintiff to win such an action, they must prove that: 1) Defendant's conduct is objecitonable to a reasonable person standard; 2) A false impression of the Plaintiff was presented; 3) Statements were made knowing that it was false, or with a reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity; and, 4) Wide disemination (publication) was made of the false impression.
If that doesn't work, there is always Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.
>>And a fiction that enters the life of a real person in
>>a significant way, and purports them doing things that
>>they didn’t do, cannot remain under the blanket of
>>fiction.
>
>Bullshit. It's not true, it's explicitely labeled as
>not being true, therefore, it's fiction. It *is* that
>simple.
It doesn't matter if it is knowingly false. See above.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: ::jumps in with an Intentional Tort!!:: -- Kate, 00:53:50 06/20/02 Thu
>Technically, an author of RPF can be sued for posting
>a story. There is an intentional tort referred to as
>Publication of Facts Placing Plaintiff in a False
>Light, and it's a sort of branch of Invasion of
>Privacy. For a Plaintiff to win such an action, they
>must prove that: 1) Defendant's conduct is
>objecitonable to a reasonable person standard; 2) A
>false impression of the Plaintiff was presented; 3)
>Statements were made knowing that it was false, or
>with a reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity;
>and, 4) Wide disemination (publication) was made of
>the false impression.
Does that mean I can sue the people who made the movie "Enigma" because they chose to omit Alan Turning from the movie? And the people who made "U-571" because they made it seem as if the Americans found the Enigma device? And Jerry Bruckheimer for "Pearl Harbor" because he included fictional characters at a historical event?
Are you getting what I'm trying to say? These are movies that are distributed to millions, sold all over the world, and yet I don't see people suing them for portraying them in a false light.
And why not? Because people see that they are movies. There's a little disclaimer at the end of them saying that this particular piece is fiction and, therefore, it's okay to publish it.
They have disclaimers. RPF writers have disclaimers. Same thing. Same standing.
And, actually, the legality of RPF isn't the topic being debated. It's whether or not you can post a recommendation of a "Buffy"/RPF story to a list that says on its main page "Any kind of story/pairing/universe is fine (even smut if it’s well written) but it’s got to have a good plot, good characters… you get the picture. "
Call me horribly irrational, but the "any kind of story/pairing/universe" pretty much tells me that anything goes. And setting a limit on that seems completely and utterly against the nature of the list.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: ::jumps in with an Intentional Tort!!:: -- joan the english chick, 07:27:09 06/20/02 Thu
At the risk of going off on a completely irrelevant tangent, it's my understanding that people who make movies about Real People and real events take pains to get consent first. For example, the people making "A Beautiful Mind" got consent from John Nash. Now if you were to write to Britney Spears and say "may I write a sexually explicit story about you in a lesbian relationship with a vampire slayer," and she said yes, I would probably be fine with that.
And I think the difference between putting fictional characters into a real event, and putting a real person into fictional situations, should be obvious. The former does no harm to anyone. The latter does harm to the subject, and, one could argue, the audience as well. But that's a WHOLE nother debate. So I'll shut up now.
-joan the english chick
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: ::jumps in with an Intentional Tort!!:: -- Melle, 06:49:54 06/20/02 Thu
Okay, first of all, thank you. No, really, no sarcasm there. I've been having this discussion for the better part of three years, and this is the first time I've heard an argument I hadn't seen before. :) Anyway.
Hm, well I'm not all that sure RPF would qualify for either 1) or 4), but you do have a point. However, that legal risk is for us to take. I own what is possibly the biggest geared-towards-hosting-RPF domain out there, and I *know* I'm taking a risk. But that's my risk to take.
Reccing a story to someone does not put that someone in danger. Hell, I have serious doubts that even *reading* said story would put people at risk, but I'm not a lawyer. Like Kate said, it's not really about (the legalities of) RPF, but about whether people are allowed to impose their moral standards on everyone else on a *recc list*.
(I also have serious doubts anyone would ever sue over RPF, if only becuase it would give the story more publicity. But that's me.)
>It doesn't matter if it is knowingly false. See above.
Not in this case, no, but relating to the post I was replying to, it did. :)
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: ::jumps in with an Intentional Tort!!:: -- angela, 11:42:33 06/20/02 Thu
Seriously not sarcastic?
I mean, what would you say if we allowed RPF, but then said it wasn't going to be archived, no matter how many people loved a particular story? That's still pretty biased against RPF. I don't know. Sigh. What's the saying? You can please some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: ::jumps in with an Intentional Tort!!:: -- Melle, 09:09:31 06/24/02 Mon
>Seriously not sarcastic?
Seriously. ^_^
>I know you said you
>run a RPF archive and you're aware of the legalities,
>but I'm not sure if our host would be willing to take
>that risk, and I don't know if I'm prepared to ask her
>to do so.
And I'm not saying you should. I mean, yeah, I've got a huge (150+ MB) domain, mostly full of RPS, but that's me. I'm not exactly known for my carefulness, and also, I'm Belgium, our webhost is Brazillian, and most celebrities are American, so I honestly don't even know which laws we'd fall under.
Er, point: whether or not to have RPF on your website is a decision that's, presumable, made mostly for legal reasons. It's not necessarily discriminating, but mostly just a rational decision. But if you have a recc list, and you say people can recc *any*thing, regardless of BDSM/rape/death content, *then* it's discrimination to say "You can recc anything, except *that*."
>I mean, what would you say if we allowed RPF, but then
>said it wasn't going to be archived, no matter how
>many people loved a particular story? That's still
>pretty biased against RPF.
Well, yes, I'd feel that way. But you know, at least that's an actual compromise. "Only RPF without smut" isn't a compromise, it's discrimination not only against RPF, but also against smut. It somehow gives the impression that smut is bad, or worse, or. Something.
(Not entirely clear-headed right now, sorry. If I'm confusing, just make me repeat this. :)
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: ::jumps in with an Intentional Tort!!:: -- joan the english chick, 07:29:38 06/20/02 Thu
Angela, thanks for the interesting info about legalities of RPF. Purely out of curiosity, would you say that this makes RPF more, or less, legally questionable than regular fanfic about the characters?
-joan the english chick
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
hmm... -- angela, 12:02:33 06/20/02 Thu
>Purely out of curiosity, would you say that this makes RPF more, or less, legally questionable than regular fanfic about the characters?
FOr me, it's more of a matter of "which type of fiction has a viable defense." In my opinion, RPF would be much more difficult to defend than a regular fan fiction. To my knowledge, RPF usually has a disclaimer saying that it isn't true, but I really don't think that's enough if defamation or privacy based torts were brought. At least with regular fan fiction, you can play around with the fair use clause in the Copyright act. Also, RPF has more civil options for a suit than FPF does - FPF is pretty much limited to copyright violations, whereas RPF can run the gamut of tort law. Then again, the torts that RPF would be brought under are much more difficult to prove and win than a copyright violation...
I guess my answer, Joan, would be that I don't know. :) My gut instinct would be that RPF is more illegal, but only because there is a *real* victim to it. Imagine that you were a juror - would you be more inclined to feel sorry for an actress, crying on the stand because people are writing stories about her having sex with other people and being very graphic in describing her body and emotions, etc., or would you feel more sorry for a corporate executive who owns a fiction character that people are writing about? Most of the issues above for RPF come down to whether there was something that a reasonable person would find objectionable. If that reasonable person was asked to step into the actress's or executive's shoes, what do you think they would find more objectionable?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: hmm... -- Dara S., 19:22:46 06/20/02 Thu
(Sorry, I know it probably looks like I'm picking on your posts, but it's nothing personal.)
>FOr me, it's more of a matter of "which type of
>fiction has a viable defense." In my opinion, RPF
>would be much more difficult to defend than a regular
>fan fiction. To my knowledge, RPF usually has a
>disclaimer saying that it isn't true, but I really
>don't think that's enough if defamation or privacy
>based torts were brought.
See my other post. The disclaimer just might be what *does* save your butt with RPS, since the cornerstone of a libel complaint is the idea that an untruth is presented as truth. Story disclaimed as fiction == no false claims of fact.
>At least with regular fan
>fiction, you can play around with the fair use clause
>in the Copyright act. Also, RPF has more civil
>options for a suit than FPF does - FPF is pretty much
>limited to copyright violations, whereas RPF can run
>the gamut of tort law. Then again, the torts that RPF
>would be brought under are much more difficult to
>prove and win than a copyright violation...
Exactly.
>I guess my answer, Joan, would be that I don't know.
>:) My gut instinct would be that RPF is more illegal,
>but only because there is a *real* victim to it.
>Imagine that you were a juror - would you be more
>inclined to feel sorry for an actress, crying on the
>stand because people are writing stories about her
>having sex with other people and being very graphic in
>describing her body and emotions, etc., or would you
>feel more sorry for a corporate executive who owns a
>fiction character that people are writing about?
It doesn't matter. If a jury lets sympathy for a teary-eyed victim lead them to ignore the law in their judgement, it will be thrown out either by the presiding judge, or on appeal. Such was the case with Kim Pring, a former Miss America contestant who sued Penthouse for printing a story wherein a character with more than a coincidental resemblance to her performed sex acts on stage at the Miss America competition. A jury awarded her millions in damages, and an appeals court subsequently threw out the verdict on the grounds that the story couldn't be reasonably understood to describe real facts about Ms. Pring. Likewise, a story clearly presented as fiction would be unlikely to meet that libel standard, either.
Also, for purposes of the case, both sides agreed that Pring was a private citizen. And if a private citizen can't get a libel verdict against a publishing house, a celebrity's chances against a rinky-dink webmaster are pretty slim.
>Most
>of the issues above for RPF come down to whether there
>was something that a reasonable person would find
>objectionable. If that reasonable person was asked to
>step into the actress's or executive's shoes, what do
>you think they would find more objectionable?
If they're the type to object to slash, I can't imagine they'd be much less sympathetic to a teary-eyed author complaining that her beloved characters were turned into gay BDSM sex fiends, if it ever came down to that.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: ::jumps in with some further legal information!!:: -- Dara S., 16:32:23 06/20/02 Thu
Sorry, I'm a bystander, too, but I can't let this slide. Disclaimer: what I say here applies only to the U.S., and I'm talking about the law as it applies to celebrities. There are different standards for private citizens.
>Technically, an author of RPF can be sued for posting
>a story. There is an intentional tort referred to as
>Publication of Facts Placing Plaintiff in a False
>Light, and it's a sort of branch of Invasion of
>Privacy. For a Plaintiff to win such an action, they
>must prove that: 1) Defendant's conduct is
>objecitonable to a reasonable person standard;
"Reasonable person standard" is a fairly fluid concept, if I'm not mistaken. A vanilla slash story might be horrifically offensive to someone from the Bible Belt, but not so much to someone from San Francisco. In this day and age, it's by no means a given conclusion that everybody on the planet finds gay content offensive. If you're talking about the "reasonable publisher standard" recognized in some states, professional publications have published RPS/RPHet/RPF without consequences, so it isn't unheard of.
>2) A
>false impression of the Plaintiff was presented; 3)
>Statements were made knowing that it was false, or
>with a reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity;
>and,
But these are both open to debate. If a story is clearly disclaimered "This is fiction!" has a false impression really been presented? Likewise, if the author *has* taken care to ensure that readers don't take it as a statement of fact (i.e. by using said disclaimer), they haven't exactly shown reckless disregard, have they?
>4) Wide disemination (publication) was made of
>the false impression.
Define "wide dissemination". Does a website with less than 10,000 readers count? Not in at least one case. An author of hockey player slash of my acquaintance was narc'ed on to a players' association, and their response was that her site was so low-traffic, it wasn't even worth bothering with. The publicity from a libel suit would, in most cases, do more to put the RPS in the public eye than the original website did.
>If that doesn't work, there is always Intentional
>Infliction of Emotional Distress.
Not for celebrities in the U.S., there isn't. See Falwell v. Hustler. No less than the Supreme Court ruled that celebrities don't have the same right to be free of emotional distress as private citizens do. (The libel complaint was thrown out by the original jury, as they concluded that the "Falwell's [literally] a motherf**ker" ad parody couldn't reasonably be understood to describe actual facts.)
>Plus, both
>actions can give you punitive damages!
So can copyright infringement, unless I'm mistaken.
I'll reiterate what I've said elsewhere: if you're *that* worried about legal action, stick to original characters.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
Response to Melle (and Kate) -- DeepaD, 07:34:44 06/20/02 Thu
Thank you for sharing. I can see many of the points you are trying to make.
For the record, I am not trying to impose my views on anyone else. Neither am I asking people to adhere to principles that i cannot myself. Everyone's freedom to do pretty much everything is defended on the net.
This is a private community, and we are merely decided ehat we'd like. A Spike/Buffy list isn't curtailing anyone's freedom if they refuse to accept Angel/Buffy stories on their list. They're simply deciding what rules they want to work by. And that's what we're doing.
Our mods, if you'll note, didn't make a unilateral discision. We are voting on something that a lot of poeple feel strongly about.
And the vote isn't - yes, i think you should ban RPF, or no -i support everyone's freedom of speech. It's about "what i would like/not/like on my list"
As far as my post goes, I really wasn't trying to 'convert' anyone, merely explain the rationale behind my descion.
And as for RPFs starring me, well, i have seen fics written by authors for their friends starring them, and i can understand why they are enjoyed. Thats fine. But i seriously doubt whether Britney Spears would enjoy reading the kind of fic that was recced on our list. And i like to think that our list should be as friendly for her, as it has been to me and everyone else on it.
Deepa D.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: Response to Melle (and Kate) -- Melle, 08:41:23 06/20/02 Thu
The point is, though, that by saying "I don't like these stories, and I don't want to be on a list where people are allowed to reccomend stories like that," you *are* effectively imposing on the freedom of those who don't mind RPF and would read good stories containing RPF if it's recced to them.
On theflip side, what harm is there in being on a list that allows people to reccomend RPF stories? They're not imposing on your freedom not to read those stories.
[>
The actors. -- bl, 13:31:59 06/22/02 Sat
For a while stories were appearing on FF.net that portrayed the actors on Buffy, sometimes in RL situations, sometimes in the Buffyverse. One I found particularly offensive started with a couple of fans knocking out James Marsters and kidnapping him. Thank goodness FF.net put such fanfictions on the forbidden list. I could understand if the actors, who have given no one permission to put them in their fiction, might get upset about such things.
[> [>
Re: The actors. -- Kate, 17:11:26 06/22/02 Sat
>I could understand if the actors, who have given
>no one permission to put them in their fiction, might
>get upset about such things.
Based on the one previous occurence that I know about -- "Visit To A Weird Planet," a story where William Shatner and cast were beamed on board the Enterprise -- it seemed that the actors minded the fiction about them *less* than the fiction about their characters.
Of course, "Visit To A Weird Planet" was decidedly general in nature, so while actors might be offended by some of the more...racier stories out there, I highly doubt it would be any more or less so than many authors are over people abusing their characters, as Marti Noxon has said about fanfiction.
Also, recently, Eddie Izzard, the British comedian, was handed a few pages of a story written about him on a talk show. He was read the story aloud, and, essentially, laughed and said that if they wanted to write that, they could write that.
So not every person feels the way you do. So it would be nice to tolerate it. It's out there, you may not like it, but other people do, and it's not your duty (unless you're running a site/list/etc.) to tell people what they can and can not read.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
Re: The actors and a ramble. -- lanie, 17:56:42 06/22/02 Sat
>and it's not your duty
>(unless you're running a site/list/etc.) to tell
>people what they can and can not read.
Well even if you are running a site/list/etc. it still isn't someones duty to tell anyone what they can or can not read.
Which, and really I'm not trying to ruffle feathers, I'm feather ruffle free girl on this one, but that's not so much the topic as far as the list goes. They(list mods) aren't saying you can or can't read it, they aren't even saying you can or can't rec it yet-which is what the issue is. I'm sure the list mods don't really care what we read.
At this point I don't even care if you wanna' rec graphic* RPF anymore. Just rec it clearly. I still think using the actors from the show is you know...not right, cause weird(operative word being 'I'). But otherwise...just rec it clearly. I'll avoid it. Just like a lot of you will avoid my W/S recs. Because, yeah, not a popular ship(though I think you're missing out).
It looks like the vote is going to the moderates anyways. I still think my thoughts on people pointing out their graphic RPF in an unofficial capacity is a so-so compromise, I wonder perhaps if this wouldn't be allowed as a way to perhaps somewhat satisfy some people?
In the end, we're all gonna' be offended by something at sometime, right?
lanie
*graphic being sexual
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Re: The actors and a ramble. -- Kate, 22:18:28 06/22/02 Sat
>>and it's not your duty
>>(unless you're running a site/list/etc.) to tell
>>people what they can and can not read.
>
>Well even if you are running a site/list/etc. it still
>isn't someones duty to tell anyone what they can or
>can not read.
Well, if you're running the site/list/etc., you kinda are, 'cause you're saying that they can post/rec/etc. only what you want to see. Like how on CordySlash, I only allow posts with Cordelia and slash. No ads for other sites, no other fic, etc. Just focused on the topic at hand. So I am controlling what people read on that list.
>At this point I don't even care if you wanna' rec
>graphic* RPF anymore. Just rec it clearly. I still
>think using the actors from the show is you know...not
>right, cause weird(operative word being 'I'). But
>otherwise...just rec it clearly. I'll avoid it. Just
>like a lot of you will avoid my W/S recs. Because,
>yeah, not a popular ship(though I think you're missing
>out).
And this is all that I've been asking for. I don't want to be told that I can't rec something just because other people think it's wrong. I want to be able to rec whatever I think is good.
And of course it'd be properly labelled. I'd be a damn fool not to have it properly labelled. It'd be just like if you were going to say "Oh, there's slash" and "Oh, there's graphic torture" and "Oh, there's hardcore sex".
It's just another thing to make sure people know. You're trying to sell the damn story as one of the best out there, so why not make sure everyone knows what to expect?
That's all I want. The ability to rec whatever *I* think is good. Much like how you will rec whatever you think is good. I don't want my recs limited by some rules expressing other people's morality. That's just wrong to me.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
My position -- Werrf, 17:38:44 06/23/02 Sun
First things first, apologies for the two msgs of mine on this subject that appeared on the list long after the mods told us to stop - I had actually sent them before that, but for some reason they got tangled up. So...sorry.
Now, my position...
I don't like RPF. The way I see it, if someone wrote a story about me, telling the story of how I went to a bar, picked up another man and slept with him, I'd feel offended, disgusted, violated, and lots of other bad things ending in -ed. So I just don't feel comfortable being part of a group that condones and helps the spread of such things.
Pro: It's only a recommendation.
My answer: It helps spread something I find repugnant. It may be 'only a recommendation', but it's still helping it spread. A recommendation for a site that shows pictures of children being raped is still helping such sites proliferate.
Pro: It's still good writing.
My answer: A photograph taken with a telephoto lens or pinhole camera of a celebrity without their knowledge or consent may be extremely technically competent, may look great, but that doesn't make it any the less an invasion of their privacy.
Pro: Freedom of speech.
My answer: Well, aside from all the points about how this doesn't infringe your freedom of speech...I'm sorry, I'm sure this is likely to offend people, but I have a real problem with people trumpeting their rights around. When your rights infringe on someone elses rights - like, say, your right to free speech meaning you making up stories that invade the privacy of real people - that's time to back off on your rights and take a look at your responsibilities.
I don't like RPF. I wouldn't like it if it was me, so I can't support it if it's someone else.
Toodle Pip,
Werrf
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: My position -- Kate, 08:39:02 06/24/02 Mon
>I don't like RPF. The way I see it, if someone wrote
>a story about me, telling the story of how I went to a
>bar, picked up another man and slept with him, I'd
>feel offended, disgusted, violated, and lots of other
>bad things ending in -ed. So I just don't feel
>comfortable being part of a group that condones and
>helps the spread of such things.
>
>Pro: It's only a recommendation.
>
>My answer: It helps spread something I find repugnant.
> It may be 'only a recommendation', but it's still
>helping it spread. A recommendation for a site that
>shows pictures of children being raped is still
>helping such sites proliferate.
I really highly doubt that a recommendation holds such weight in the world.
I mean, I could recommend that everyone who seems to have such a bug up their ass about this go take some valium and settle the fuck down 'cause it ain't doing anyone harm, but it's just a recommendation. Is anything doing that? No. Obviously.
A recommendation is just that. One person likes it, suggests to another person that they check it out. It's up to the other person to decide FOR HIM/HERSELF if s/he wants to. It's not up to your mommy. It's not up to listowners. It's up to YOU. And if you can't handle that responsibility, then maybe you should go back to a place where you don't have to make those decisions.
>I don't like RPF. I wouldn't like it if it was me, so
>I can't support it if it's someone else.
And that's your opinion, which is entirely valid as your opinion.
My opinion is that RPF is just what it says -- FICTION. It can't be an invasion of privacy because IT'S NOT REAL.
If people were writing stories that they knew to be false and passing them off as true (as in, say, The National Enquirer or any particular good tabloid paper), then that would be an invasion of privacy. That would be libel.
But no one is saying these stories are true. No one is even remotely trying to pass off these stories as true.
Fiction. And if said fiction takes place in the Buffy universe, as the stories we were attempting to recommend were, then, well, it's the same as other BtVS fiction. Just another genre to be recommended on a list devoted to recommending all forms of Buffy fiction.
It doesn't matter what the content is -- it's people recommending stories that take place in the Buffy universe. So, yeah, if you're told "Well, you can recommend any story in the Buffy universe, except for those, 'cause those are WRONG," then, yes, it IS a freedom of speech issue.
You think they're wrong. I don't think they are. Who are you to tell me that I shouldn't recommend them?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: My position -- Amatia, 09:31:20 06/24/02 Mon
Regarding the libel/slander issue, RPF is actually less of a legal issue than actual tv or movie-based fanfiction. Speaking STRICTLY from the legal standpoint, RPF is not illegal because the fiction is normally adamntly disclaimed as _fiction_, whereas BtVS fic is infringing on a copyright.
As Kate said, no one is passing off fan_fiction_ to be true, and if anyone has, most of the RPF/RPS community hasn't heard about it.
[>
Isn't it buffy? -- Donut, 08:27:04 06/24/02 Mon
Isn't this a buffy rec list? So wouldn't RPF be considered off topic because they don't pertain to buddy and pertain to the writers instead? As such, to me, this isn't a freedom of speech issue, legal issue, taste issue but an issue of having the list conform to the intent for its creation, to rec buffy stories.
[> [>
Re: Isn't it buffy? -- Kate, 08:31:05 06/24/02 Mon
>Isn't this a buffy rec list? So wouldn't RPF be
>considered off topic because they don't pertain to
>buddy and pertain to the writers instead? As such, to
>me, this isn't a freedom of speech issue, legal issue,
>taste issue but an issue of having the list conform to
>the intent for its creation, to rec buffy stories.
Yeah, but if you had been paying attention to the argument, it's not about RPF stories, it's about Real People in Buffy stories.
Like Cordelia working on the set of a Britney Spears video and going out for drinks with her later. Or Angel Investigations having to solve a case at the Staples Arena with the L.A. Lakers. Or Spike in a nightclub with Brecht and Weill.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [>
shh... -- DeepaD, 10:08:41 06/24/02 Mon
oy, Kate!
Don't be too harsh - not everyone has been following this as passionately as you!
;)
Deepa D.
Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.