neadods | It's Different Because They're *People*!

Entry tags:

fandom,
rant

It's Different Because They're People!

I joined

metafandom because it posts interesting links to fannish happenings around LJ, and hey - if

fanthropology is good, than more of the same must be better.

We'll see how long I last now that my first post has led me to Sprat's commentary on Real Person Slash: "I know this is a sensitive area in fandom, and I know there are a lot of people for whom this is, like, A Really Major Deal--not just a personal squick, but an actual ethical issue having to do with the right to privacy of the actors in question. And the thing is, I honestly do not understand why."

Because they're people, that's why!

I commented in the thread, and I tried to keep my tone reasonable, but I am one of those folk with "an actual ethical issue" about this, and it's very simple to explain why - whether the actors in question know it or not, whether they read it or not, whether they care or not, real person fiction demotes a human being to the same level as a fictional character.

There are levels of this, some not all that offensive. For instance, obligatory disclosure, I once wrote a real person fic. I put a fictional character on a Julia Childe cooking show, which necessitated having Julia Childe in the story. But I don't feel that I denigrated her because I showed her doing her doing her job. And I've read plenty of fanfics where the actor gets sucked into the character's world, or vice versa. When the real person is written in a situation dealing with their job, and written in a manner that fits their character as known, then - well, you can argue that a line is crossed, but it's harder to argue that a person has been damaged or insulted.

But when you start talking about private issues - love, sex, family - in a public fiction, then you start treating people not just as moderately fictional, but as dancing meatpuppets. Real person slash - particularly slash about het humans (I get the impression that Sprat is writing about Paul Gross, who is married) depersonalizes the subjects even farther into breathing sex toys. Sex toys that are getting their workout not in the confines of someone's skull, but right out there in public for the amusement of the masses.

How can you not see that as ethically creepy?

There appear to be two arguments in favor of RPS. First, that the actors are attractive and sell their sexuality in their work. But just because they're selling the sizzle, it doesn't mean they're signing away their rights to control the steak. Where is the ethical line between saying "if actors wanted privacy they wouldn't be actors" and "if women don't want to be raped, they shouldn't wear miniskirts"? Because from where I'm standing, I can't see that line at all. RPS may not be as violent or violating as an actual rape, but it springs from the same mindset - that anyone that attracts is responsible for slaking the sexual arousal - regardless of that person's opinion, interest, or even intent. The same can be said for stalking. It's a fine, fine line between just writing about fantasies with someone and making those fantasies real.

And y'know what? Even if you NEVER plan on making said fantasies real, if you publicly post something torrid about an actor and then go see them, what is it going to look like - to the actor, to the authorities, even to the rest of the fandom? Better pray nothing happens to that actor when you're around, because you've made yourself public suspect #1 without ever banging more than your keyboard.

Second, is the argument that "what they don't know won't hurt them." Well, yeah. The odds of someone finding a specific story about themselves are pretty low. BUT - that doesn't mean it won't happen, not with the global, lingering nature of the Internet. Plus, while the odds of a single person finding a single fic might be low, what about the widening pool of people associating with that person? Their spouse, their children, their friends, their parents - is it really safe to assume that none of these people will trip over the story? Equally important, is it safe to assume that because the story is not about them personally that they won't be hurt/shocked/upset/appalled? Do they deserve to be hurt just because you wanted to get your ya-yas off with a person instead of a character, and wanted to do so in a semi-public forum?

Not to mention that just because they don't say anything directly to you doesn't mean that they don't know. If you suspected someone of stalking you, would your first impulse be to talk to them, or to gather up your information and quietly talk to the authorities? Particularly if they might be going somewhere, say, a convention, where you might attend and they were worried about their safety? (I work conventions, I've been in fandom for decades. I am so not joking here. It only takes one stalker scare for a fan club to lose their star or for a previously wonderful guest to stop coming.)

Is it really all worth it just to be able to write a story about a real person? A person you don't know anyway? Trust me, no matter how friendly they are, how many interviews they give, you don't actually know them.

Think they're hot? Think they ought to be with someone of your choosing? For the love of sanity, write about their character and you can safely bang 'em like a gong. Fictional people doing fictional things is a victimless crime. But for heaven's sake, if you're attracted to an actual person then grant them the dignity of treating them like people!

And no, the golden rule doesn't apply if you wish people were writing torrid RPS about you. Get a sex life of your own!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Well, that's the thing. RPF uses a real person's name and characteristics, and often uses them in intimate situations.

I've seen a lot of people arguing not that it's good, but that they can get away with it, or why it's really not that bad. No one seems to want to actually defend it and say it's great and so forth. Why? Because there's that essential lack of consent on the part of the person in the story. Fiction at least makes the effort to protect people who've been fictionalized. RPF takes exactly the opposite approach.

Legally speaking the use of long-dead historical characters is an accepted practice. One can't write about the Civil War and leave out Robert E. Lee. You'll notice that it's extremely rare of Lee's biographers to write porn about him, or to put him in fictionalized stories which portray him doing things he didn't in fact do. There's a certain respect there. That basic respect is what's lacking in RPF.

It should also be noted that parody and satire are specifically excluded from libel/slander laws, which is something else RPFers like to try and argue. Not saying you said that, but it's something else that could be headed off at the pass.

It's fiction. Doesn't matter if somebody fictionalized a real person---by concealing certain features---like their name, for God's sake----they're still trying to protect that person. The writer is making the effort. The RPFer is not.

No one seems to want to actually defend it and say it's great and so forth.

Actually, if you go back to Sprat's page, you'll find comments to me saying that RPS is good because it celebrates and personalizes the celebrities. Which kinda bleeps over the point about them having been persons in the first place. I tried to say that, but the person and I are arguing from mind sets that are not only out of each other's zip code, but so far separated that we can't even feel each other's gravitational pull.

So....The best way to show appreciation to someone is to invade their privacy and turn them into a barbie doll you can use?

So what about mainstream RPF? And I'm not talking about long dead historical figures.

Charlie Kaufman didn't have permission from John Malkovich when he wrote Being John Malkovich. There was a time when that was floating around Hollywood, a fiction involving John Malkovich in intimate situations with the HOPE that John Malkovich would read it and become involved. Is it different and acceptable because it was a screenplay? Charlie didn't know John Malkovich but wrote a fiction using the publicly known information about him. Should he have written a screen play titled "Being __________" and just let anyone actor take the part despite the fact that the story relied on John's publicly available persona? Is it ok because after the fact of writing it, John agreed to star in it?

What if it had shown up as a short story in a collection or on the internet rather than as a movie actually starring JM?

What about "based on true story" movies where they don't change names but do create fiction, including romances that didn't exist? There was a movie called "Haven" a few years ago on CBS. It was about the Jewish refugees taken in by the United States and, even more so about Ruth Gruber, the woman who helped get them here. In order to make the story more dramatic, they added a completely fictional love interest. They kept real names but made the characters composites, they created fictional events. And many of the people who they did this to, including Ruth were still alive to see the movie. They were not consulted.

What about writers who don't conceal, who write fictionalizations that use the real name? It happens all the time, but you don't notice because you don't know the people it's based on.

You want someone to argue that it's good? Why should we? Fiction of any kind is not morally good or bad. It's fiction. I take three or four nuggets of truth and then toss in ten thousand things that are complete fiction and call it fiction and you call me immoral because the "truth" i used was names and jobs. But if I take ten thousand things that are true and toss in a fake name, suddenly I'm within the bounds of good ethics again?

What if the subjects have given permission? The members of Franz Ferdinand gave an interview in which they said they understood the desire to write real people fic and "do pretty much the same themselves" in their songs.

The fact is that the reason you don't see people arguing that RPF is good isn't because no one wants to but because the argument is always couched in a way that forces us to try to prove that no one is hurt by it. You can't prove a negative. But, I could sit here and argue it on the merits of creative expression and fantasy until I'm blue in the face. It wouldn't matter. People who are squicked are never going to be unsquicked and they will never understand why others don't have the same issues. But your squick does not define the boundary of universal morals and ethics of right and wrong.

1. Being John Malkovich could be desribed as satire.
2. Based on a true story also falls under the heading of history. Also? It's disingenous to conflate a true story that was simplified to fit into a two-hour format with an RPF story, which makes up events for the gratification of its writer.
3. Cite examples.
4. Who gives a shit about Franz Ferdinand? You cannot argue that because some people give the okay, that everyone else has to toe that line as well, too. Unless the person has gone on record as saying that they have no problem with it, you don't know--and you don't have consent.
5. People who are squicked...The people who are squicked have presented arguments why they are squicked, to which the response has been...."Well, we can get away with it. And by not asking for consent, we can say that they didn't say no."

And you know what the people who are squicked can do? Close the browser window. You know, a lot of people have problems with homosexuality, and try to force their view of what's "right" (i.e. that homosexuality is evil) on others, ignoring the fact that for those others, homosexuality isn't evil or good -- it just is.

I think something similar (though not identical) applies here -- RPF writers aren't saying RPF is better than FPF or whatever; it just exists, and whether you think it's evil or not is more or less beside the point. You might think it's illegal, but a lot of people don't, and until we have a definitive case involving a piece of real-person fanfiction (not this National Enquirer business) being deemed illegal, we're just going to keep doing what we're doing. So y'all can just move along, because ranting about RPF? Just makes y'all look like lunatics to us RPFers.

So y'all can just move along, because ranting about RPF? Just makes y'all look like lunatics to us RPFers.

Because, of course, "moving along" means specifically travelling to the LJ of someone who objects to it and posting some more. And any ethical or legal questions, or even any historical illustrations of how slash stories have hurt previous fandoms such as Blake's 7 don't actually have any, oh, validity or anything.

Move along, move along, don't look, we're just gonna do our thing over here and any concerns you have about moral issues or personal rights or past precedents don't have anything to do with it at all...

Yeah. Real convincing argument there. So unconvincing, in fact, that you couldn't follow it yourself and just close the window to my LJ and move along.

And any ethical or legal questions, or even any historical illustrations of how slash stories have hurt previous fandoms such as Blake's 7 don't actually have any, oh, validity or anything.

And here I'm coming back to my homosexuality analogy. Because in a lot of states, gay marriage is illegal. Has been for a long time. Lots of people have ethical problems with it. Does that mean all that stuff has any validity? HELL NO. Because all the homophobes' concern with "moral issues or personal rights or past precedents" is all bullshit -- gay marriage should (and, in my view, will, eventually) be legal. And you know what? It's quite similar for RPF -- just because people didn't like it in the past, or get squicked by it, doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to write it. Now, if someone wants to go to court over some RPF, and it becomes crystal clear that RPF is illegal (which, currently? clear as mud), then I'm pretty sure RPFers will quit (or, you know, at least f-lock things so they can't get caught). I know I would.

Your personal concerns over RPF? That's fantastic, and I applaud you for knowing where you stand on it. But I seriously doubt your contention that RPF will kill fandom forever or whatnot (I'm unfamiliar with Blake's 7, so the example you're using doesn't have any context for me -- what exactly happened?) -- in fact, it has created several fandoms, especially in the pop culture arena. And you're always free not to read.

I'm here because

lovelypoet linked it, and I was simply trying to help her out -- y'all have some pretty high horses over here, and I'm a little surprised at how harsh y'all have been.

Problem with your homophobic analogy is that....it doesn't fit, which has been stated elsewhere. RPFers are trying to do something to an unknowing group of people; gay people are trying to obtain rights they have been unfairly denied due to a facet of their existance over which they have no control. Homophobia is the denial of rights; RPF is no one's right.

I would argue that writing a person's public persona is not the same as writing that person; in general, RPFers I know treat the person's public persona as a character, and since y'all aren't railing against FPF, I don't much see the difference. But that's probably just me.

I would argue that writing a person's public persona is not the same as writing that person;

really? what constitutes their persona? Where is the line between their persona and them as a person?

in general, RPFers I know treat the person's public persona as a character, and since y'all aren't railing against FPF, I don't much see the difference

Wait - you don't see a difference between fictional people and real ones? Or is that you think a "public persona" is the same thing as a fictional character? Both seem based on the idea that public figures are always "performing" or "on". OK, I don't agree with you but I'll play along. Let's say for the sake of argument that the person and the persona are NOT the same. That the persona is a fictional creation.

Does the person (the creator) have no right to control the use (and potnetial misuse) of that persona. Aren't they simply the same thing as an author with a copyright?

But that's probably just me.

No, I've seen this same argument many time so it's not just you. But no matter how many times I see it - it's still a specious argument.

(I'm unfamiliar with Blake's 7, so the example you're using doesn't have any context for me -- what exactly happened?)

What happened was that one of the actors found out about slash fiction about his character, threw a fit, told the magazine that hired one of the fic authors that they had to fire her (which they did) and encouraged his fans to narc out the rest of the slasher (which they did, to their bosses.) It was a very ugly fan war and people lost their jobs.

Also, if you bothered looking at my info page, you would see that I work conventions and therefore know what I'm talking about when I talk about stars who stop coming or are suddenly afraid of the fans.

So sorry, the gay analogy doesn't cut it. "I think gay is wrong" (I don't) does not equal "I know people who have lost jobs over fanfiction, I know fandoms who have suffered over fanfiction, so you're damned right I think that the good of the many outweighs your right to publicly post certain types of fanfiction that are known to upset people unless you know FOR SURE that the person involved doesn't care."

Another point where the gay analogy fails, badly. Denying gay marriage denys the basic human rights of the gay people involved. Just as writing RPS denys the basic human rights of the real person being slashed against their knowledge! I was quite clear that I think that RPS is a violation of human dignity. I have yet to see a clear rebuttal of that. I've been told that the people don't care, I've been told that the people don't know, I've been told that the people ask for it, I've been told that it's not "really" about the people, but I have yet to see an argument that convinces me that publicly posting sex fantasies about a living person without their knowledge doesn't devolve them down the level of dancing meatpuppet sex toy.

So, wait, you're saying that nobody should write slash fiction at all? Because that's what it sounds like -- the slash fiction you mention was about his character not himself (though I'm sure as homophobic as he probably was, either would have been equally bad), and this caused massive problems. So for this guy, it was the fact that he could be traced to it at all that he had a problem with, nevermind the whole FPF/RPF debate.

(BTW, "a con chair" in your profile is supposed to tell me all the stuff you said it should? It didn't. Maybe that's me and my total lack of con experience, but I think you're giving me (as a reader of your personal info) more credit than you should.)

And I don't think the gay analogy (which, BTW, I never implied that you think homosexuality is wrong -- it was just an analogy) is wrong on your first point -- people lose jobs, friends, and even family over their sexual orientation. I seriously doubt that the amount of life devastation experienced by gay folk is less than that of fandom.

Your second point I simply have to disagree with based on values. You think it's a violation of someone's human rights to write about him/her. I don't. And I'm not sure anyone could rebut you on that, since it's your own personally held value (I could probably try, but would most likely fall flat on my face). I don't think that people don't care, or that writing slash turns someone into a "meatpuppet sex toy", but then, I see the difference between public and private personas and see the public persona as just a character. I like writing about characters, and frankly? Since peoples' public personas are usually *not* their private personas, that means their public personas are characters that I have no problem writing about. And that might make me an Evil Mean Degrading person (at least, to you), but that's what I think -- public /= private, and the public stuff is up for grabs.

I'm saying that fannish activites have real world consequences, and ignoring a branch of fannish activity doesn't make those consequences go away.

I'm saying that even if you discount moral objections, there already is a precedent of stars taking exception to what fans write about them and there already is a legal precedent of people suing over RPF and suing for crossing the line between public and private. To say that there hasn't been a specific lawsuit over RPS yet is disingenuous. All of the elements have already happened. If it doesn't happen in Fandom A, it will inevitably happen in Fandom B or C.

I'm also saying that the stars have no clue who is writing this stuff for fun and who are the freaky people, so fandoms are already losing out when stars get frightened of their own fandoms.

You might think it's illegal, but a lot of people don't, and until we have a definitive case involving a piece of real-person fanfiction (not this National Enquirer business) being deemed illegal, we're just going to keep doing what we're doing.

well, you'll likely keep doing it and that is, of course, your perogative. But in addition to mere people thinking it's illegal, some courts have come to the same conclusion

New Times, Inc. d/b/a Dallas Observer v. Isaacks:
Judge Darlene Whitten successfully sued over use of her persona and name in a fictional piece published in the Dallas Observer news paper. FYI: The paper disclaimed it as fiction as still lost.

KIMBERLY BRYSON, Appellant, v. NEWS AMERICA PUBLICATIONS, INC.,
Not a public figure - a private citizen. Sued and won on appeal. This case is often cited as the basis for similar cases such as 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals case of Robert E. Muzikowski v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, et al.

Bindrim v. Mitchell
Agatha Christie v. Ballantine - yes THAT Agatha Christie and yes the suit was files and one after her death
Spahn v. Julian Messner Inc.
Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co

Of course, I suppose an objection will be that these are original fiction and not fanfiction but if anything - I'd say that put fanfiction on even shakier legal grounds as it is already in violation of copyright laws (which I don't think any one disputes, do they?)

In any case - I don't imagine this information will change anyone's mind but someone at some point want to have this information - so I offer it up for whoever is interested.

Oh and none of the rulings (almost all of which are available online in their entirety in case you'd like to double check) hinged on profit motive. Libel and false light were the basis of the rulings.

Those are very interesting. I may check them out. One tiny technical point -- copyright infringement isn't really an issue with RPF, since real people (including their public personas) can't be copyrighted.

They can be trademarked, if they're a "persona" and if they're just a person, then slander, libel, and defamation rules all come into play.

In short, even without copyright, they aren't your property.

yes, I know. I refered to copyright when talking about the bulk of fanfiction in general.

At no point in any of the cases cited above was the issue of copyright ever argued. It was always defamation (or rather libel as defamation), false light invasion of privacy and infringement on the right of publicity (intellectual property dealing with image and persona)

So, you're okay with being sued? Or do you just believe you won't be? I can't tell from the way you phrased that.

And isn't that the last line of defense? I mean, if the actor expressed disgust/hurt/confusion over it, but hadn't filed a suit (yet) would you stop writing it? I'm assuming you would, but again, I'm trying to get clear exactly where the boundaries are here.

I do think the rape analogy is flawed, but it is a kind of harassment, if the actors don't want it. I'm kinda confused on what RPF'ers get out of this if they suspect the actors won't like it. (We'll leave aside the ones who are okay with it. Then it's just a matter of personal taste, I think.)

Also, RPF doesn't just "exist." People create it. Yeah, it's out there now. No one's going to (or wants to, I'm assuming) erase every RPS site out there. But for the future, where do you see this going? Everyone writes this until they get sued, the sites get shut down, and a fandom gets a bad rep? Or, everyone keeps writing, and eventually the actors are aware of it, and okay with it? Which do you think is more likely?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's Different Because They're People!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject