MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1813936749

Kidnapped and Counterfeit Characters: Eighteenth-Century Fan Fiction, Copyright Law and the Custody of Fictional Characters

2009· article· en· W1813936749 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth F. Judge

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalityCopyingLiteratureAnachronismIntellectual propertyOrder (exchange)HistoryArtLawPolitical sciencePolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analyses of the intellectual history of eighteenth-century copyright typically focus on unauthorized printed editions (that is, the entire copying of another author’s works verbatim) and the associated copyright case law in the literary property debates, such as Millar v. Taylor and Donaldson v. Becket, which tested the status of authors’ common-law rights. This chapter turns to eighteenth-century fan fiction, to import today's term for referring to newly written fiction by fans featuring fictional characters created and made famous by another author, and especially online publication of fan fiction, in order to examine the early relationship of readers and authors to fictional characters, rather than to printed works, and the ongoing custodial interests that both readers and authors felt toward fictional characters in this period. While seemingly an anachronistic pairing to speak of “fan fiction,” which has been so strongly associated with the internet, and the eighteenth century, the characteristics that define internet fan fiction appositely describe the eighteenth-century phenomenon, excepting the medium of dissemination. As with fan fiction today, which has been at the locus of cultural and legal debates around the meanings of authorship, originality, interests, and rights, fan fiction in the eighteenth century was a focal point for unresolved and evolving views on those same issues, especially the nature of authorship, and originality, the integrity of fiction, and the reader’s role. This chapter examines the cultural discourse around fan fiction in the eighteenth century in order to shed light on eighteenth-century interpretations of originality and imitation, and the extent to which copyright law shaped (and was shaped by) cultural perceptions about the ownership and care of fictional characters and how competing interests in fictional characters contributed to the debate on copyright law. It re-considers the role that author’s rights, in the sense of moral rights and the droit d’auteur tradition played in English copyright history. Well-documented examples of extensive reader response to fictional characters that became cultural phenomena, including Samuel Richardson’s Pamela and Clarissa and Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, spawning numerous unauthorized sequels in novels, plays, and short stories, lively correspondences between fans and the author, satires by rival established authors, and character merchandising, illustrate how appealing fictional characters who reach iconic status within a culture are subject to competing claims of ownership as well as competing affections. The chapter focuses especially on when and why popular, creative, and often even affectionate inclusions of these eighteenth-century fictional characters into works by other people were, more often than not, treated by the original authors as akin to legal wrongs against a person - ravishing, counterfeiting, and kidnapping - and treated analogously to the word-for-word copying of entire works that was condemned as “pirating,” despite the lack of legal foundation in eighteenth-century English copyright law to underlie these assertions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicDigital Games and MediaFrench-language works237,207