OMFG. That cover? That’s a literal screengrab from P&P, the ’95 version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. This is Darcy and Elizabeth, walking through Pemberley, during her visit (to the estate) with the Gardiners (prior to her younger sister’s debacle). Literally, a screengrab. See how Darcy is toying with the ring on his left hand?
YUP. Every P&P fan that ever took a breath remembers that specific scene. UNfrackingbelievable, to lift that one. Only another million feet of film (or video, whatever), and they pick the one that EVERYONE will know?
Wendy’s a sot
For releasing this rot
Beige is wickedly cool
If you’re a bloody fool.
-Azuriel
Adrienne
8 years ago
This might be a stupid question, but can you really even sell Fan fiction? I’ve written a lot of it myself for fun, but I thought since the characters and stuff aren’t your property, that you can’t make money from it.
I could possibly be wrong, though…
I think it also depends on what the status of the copyright is and whether the copyright holder is diligent about going after infringements. For instance, Disney is very diligent about protecting their trademarks and copyrights and Paramount has sent cease and desist letters to Star Trek fan filmmakers. But you can be certain that Jane Austen is dead and her copyrights are public domain by now, so Jane Austen fanfic is up for grabs.
1. Even “fanfic” is non-legal work. Most TV shows, popular movies, etc., have decided to embrace it, if it’s done on forums, places like Goodreads, etc. If someone attempts to sell it, well…that is a no-fly zone.
2. As Phil mentioned, Austen is completely up for grabs, as her stuff went out of copyright a very long time ago.
3. However, that scene–the one above–isn’t from Austen, per se. It’s from A&E’s and BBC’s joint production of P&P, 1995.
4. Now, I doubt that A&E or the Beeb will come after her, but I have seen studios go after an author for using a screengrab of a movie, made-for-TV movie, TV show, etc., even if the stolen image is sitting atop perfectly legal derivative fiction. (A story created from someone else’s copyrighted book/movie, etc.)
5. I’d say that this particular situation is pretty interesting, from a legal standpoint. You could arguably say that the scene was inspired by the P&P production, and really–what could anyone do?
I keep wondering–like all of you guys, I’d imagine, I see all sorts of Photoshop, AI, etc., filters and doodahs that create various effects. I wonder if they actually DID do a screengrab, and then manipulate it, in Photoshop, so that it took on the appearance of a…I don’t know? Colored pencil, pastels, or…? drawing?
First off, well spotted! I just watched the miniseries a few months ago and I didn’t notice any resemblance at all.
Anyway, yeah, this is fascinating!
I just scrubbed through that entire sequence, and since the exact shot (ie pose and framing) shown on the cover never occurs, I’m pretty sure it has to be a composite of at least two screengrabs. Also, based on the unnatural stiffness and position of Darcy’s legs when he’s supposed to be walking, I would guess that it’s probably a [bad] manual redrawing of the composite elements. Also of course the original background has been removed and replaced with green and purple clouds or vegetation or whatever those smudges are supposed to be.
Bottom line is that yes, the subjects (ie Jane and Darcy) have clearly been taken from that sequence. IMO (IANAL) even though the original has been ‘transformed’, it’s the wrong kind of transformation to qualify as fair use. I don’t think the substantiality argument cuts much ice here either. So on balance I’d say that this usage would still be infringing. Or at the very least, dangerously close to it.
Also in any case it’s a shitty rendering and a lousy cover that should never have seen the light of day in the first place.
That’s okay, I once said or typed something _very_ similar, like “Elizabeth and Dancy,” or some horses**t.
That hand placement is definitely Colin Firth, he plays with his cuffs throughout.
They’ll most likely never chase her (probably not enough $$$ in it). But I will say, it’s a creative way of capitalizing off of an emotion that would probably have been invoked for those who saw it, and like you, didn’t quite “click” on it. Still probably stirred something, though–eh?
Some authors are not so much concerned about fan-fic infringement as fan-fic that uses characters out-of-character or go in directions contrary to the franchise. Good fan-fic writers respect the original authors’ requests to stop or back off.
Azuriel
8 years ago
There are authors who forbid fanart(Heinlein), the expired(E.E. Smith) and those who tolerate canon fanart but no slash.
OMFG. That cover? That’s a literal screengrab from P&P, the ’95 version with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle. This is Darcy and Elizabeth, walking through Pemberley, during her visit (to the estate) with the Gardiners (prior to her younger sister’s debacle). Literally, a screengrab. See how Darcy is toying with the ring on his left hand?
YUP. Every P&P fan that ever took a breath remembers that specific scene. UNfrackingbelievable, to lift that one. Only another million feet of film (or video, whatever), and they pick the one that EVERYONE will know?
Hope the damn book is more inventive.
Wendy’s a sot
For releasing this rot
Beige is wickedly cool
If you’re a bloody fool.
-Azuriel
This might be a stupid question, but can you really even sell Fan fiction? I’ve written a lot of it myself for fun, but I thought since the characters and stuff aren’t your property, that you can’t make money from it.
I could possibly be wrong, though…
I think the cardinal rule among fan fiction writers is no sale for profit.
I think it also depends on what the status of the copyright is and whether the copyright holder is diligent about going after infringements. For instance, Disney is very diligent about protecting their trademarks and copyrights and Paramount has sent cease and desist letters to Star Trek fan filmmakers. But you can be certain that Jane Austen is dead and her copyrights are public domain by now, so Jane Austen fanfic is up for grabs.
Actually:
1. Even “fanfic” is non-legal work. Most TV shows, popular movies, etc., have decided to embrace it, if it’s done on forums, places like Goodreads, etc. If someone attempts to sell it, well…that is a no-fly zone.
2. As Phil mentioned, Austen is completely up for grabs, as her stuff went out of copyright a very long time ago.
3. However, that scene–the one above–isn’t from Austen, per se. It’s from A&E’s and BBC’s joint production of P&P, 1995.
4. Now, I doubt that A&E or the Beeb will come after her, but I have seen studios go after an author for using a screengrab of a movie, made-for-TV movie, TV show, etc., even if the stolen image is sitting atop perfectly legal derivative fiction. (A story created from someone else’s copyrighted book/movie, etc.)
5. I’d say that this particular situation is pretty interesting, from a legal standpoint. You could arguably say that the scene was inspired by the P&P production, and really–what could anyone do?
I keep wondering–like all of you guys, I’d imagine, I see all sorts of Photoshop, AI, etc., filters and doodahs that create various effects. I wonder if they actually DID do a screengrab, and then manipulate it, in Photoshop, so that it took on the appearance of a…I don’t know? Colored pencil, pastels, or…? drawing?
Youse guys is de artists. Anyone know? If what I wondered is possible? It’s just that it is SO close to that image…this is a minute or so, before that exact moment, in the mini-series–you can see, they didn’t even change the damn clothes: https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYzNM7QplyvLq9FDNr2es7YDm9WmD7yb5XtkSTS2V1imV8ny6Mmw
First off, well spotted! I just watched the miniseries a few months ago and I didn’t notice any resemblance at all.
Anyway, yeah, this is fascinating!
I just scrubbed through that entire sequence, and since the exact shot (ie pose and framing) shown on the cover never occurs, I’m pretty sure it has to be a composite of at least two screengrabs. Also, based on the unnatural stiffness and position of Darcy’s legs when he’s supposed to be walking, I would guess that it’s probably a [bad] manual redrawing of the composite elements. Also of course the original background has been removed and replaced with green and purple clouds or vegetation or whatever those smudges are supposed to be.
Bottom line is that yes, the subjects (ie Jane and Darcy) have clearly been taken from that sequence. IMO (IANAL) even though the original has been ‘transformed’, it’s the wrong kind of transformation to qualify as fair use. I don’t think the substantiality argument cuts much ice here either. So on balance I’d say that this usage would still be infringing. Or at the very least, dangerously close to it.
Also in any case it’s a shitty rendering and a lousy cover that should never have seen the light of day in the first place.
* Elizabeth and Darcy, not Jane and Darcy. Doh!
That’s okay, I once said or typed something _very_ similar, like “Elizabeth and Dancy,” or some horses**t.
That hand placement is definitely Colin Firth, he plays with his cuffs throughout.
They’ll most likely never chase her (probably not enough $$$ in it). But I will say, it’s a creative way of capitalizing off of an emotion that would probably have been invoked for those who saw it, and like you, didn’t quite “click” on it. Still probably stirred something, though–eh?
🙂
Some authors are not so much concerned about fan-fic infringement as fan-fic that uses characters out-of-character or go in directions contrary to the franchise. Good fan-fic writers respect the original authors’ requests to stop or back off.
There are authors who forbid fanart(Heinlein), the expired(E.E. Smith) and those who tolerate canon fanart but no slash.