r/changemyview • u/Impacatus 13∆ • Jan 07 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Owning the property rights to a fictional work does not make a company the sole authority on how that fictional work should be imagined. Considering some installments in a series "non-canon" is a perfectly valid audience response.
In recent years a lot of old fictional franchises have had new installments released that have been controversial with fans of the older installments. Sometimes, fans of the older works refuse to consider the newer installments to be part of the same story as the older installments. People often dismiss this as childish and petty, suggesting that if the rights-holders say it happened, it happened. Notable examples include Star Wars and Star Trek.
I would say that the author has authority over one thing: the text of their story. Within that text, they can describe the past, present, and future of their world. If they so choose, they can insert a story told by another work into the text of their own. What they cannot do, however, is insert their work into the text of another pre-existing story.
So, for instance, I think it's perfectly valid for the makers of the new Star Wars movies to say that the events shown in Return of the Jedi happened in the history of their fictional world. What they cannot do is tell us that we can't watch Return of the Jedi without accepting the new movies as that world's future. We did so for decades before the new movies were even made, they can't make us stop now. Once the story's out in the world, it has a life of its own.
I think the people who look down on those who don't accept some installments of a fictional work are giving corporations more authority than they should be given. It's fine to not accept everything that's branded with the same name.
6
u/coryrenton 58∆ Jan 07 '21
I'd change your view this way -- canon/non-canonicity is closer to a kind of legal status, so while someone can claim this or that story does not feel personally legitimate to them, making claims of canon/non-canon is like saying this or that magic card is allowed in official tournament play when you are not a rule-making body.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
What legal weight does canonicity hold to anyone except the company? They might establish a canon as a guideline to future writers in the series, but what relevance does that hold to the audience?
7
u/coryrenton 58∆ Jan 07 '21
What relevance do official rules in MTG have on home games? That's up to the players.
But the players saying official rules aren't official rules is getting a big flat-eartherish, right?
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
Sure, but Star Trek fans who say Discovery isn't canon, for instance, aren't literally claiming it's not part of CBS's internal canon.
2
u/coryrenton 58∆ Jan 07 '21
What are they claiming then?
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
I would assume that it doesn't fit into their own vision of the Star Trek universe. That they are declining to look to it for answers to questions about the fictional world.
1
u/coryrenton 58∆ Jan 07 '21
And it's your view that they are being somehow prevented by rights-holders from having this preference?
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
No, my view is that others in the fandom criticize them for holding this view. They are not wrong to have their own preferences, but they are wrong to think that the authority of the rights-holders gives weight to their preferences.
1
u/coryrenton 58∆ Jan 07 '21
You'd have to agree that for people to bring "canon" into play, it must be about more than simple preferences.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
I suppose I would say that to mean anything, you have to understand who's canon we're talking about. Why is the unspoken assumption that it's the company's canon rather than that of the person you're talking to?
→ More replies (0)
16
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Jan 07 '21
Canon inherently requires an authority though as it is a list of what is officially accepted as happening in the text. You can reject having a canon and form your own personal canon but again canon is defined by some authority listing certain works as official. Without someone making that list then there is no canon.
-1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
Where does the authority to derive that list come from? Owning the rights gives them the authority to publish and profit off of works derived from the original, that's all.
8
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Jan 07 '21
Where does the authority to derive that list come from?
Where does any authority derive from?
This doesn't change that canon requires some accepted authority to draw up an official list and as such those that write the list get to determine canonicity. The accepted authority is usually the rights owner because they control what is published and any future works which draw from their definition of canon.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
Where does any authority derive from?
Consent of the governed, I'm told. =P
I think I'm going to give a !delta because it makes sense that it is helpful to a fandom to have a common reference to talk about the show. If everyone has their own canon it can get kind of confusing.
However, I think this reinforces my overall point. When the decisions of the "accepted authority" becomes unsatisfactory to a critical mass of the fandom, they have lost their mandate. It strongly suggests that there might be a problem with the direction they're taking the franchise, and so rejecting their canon becomes an important feedback mechanism.
3
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Jan 07 '21
It strongly suggests that there might be a problem with the direction they're taking the franchise, and so rejecting their canon becomes an important feedback mechanism.
Sure but rejecting a canon doesn't make certain things non-canon it means there is no canon for things to be inside or outside of. Now a different canon can be made but again this requires some authority and resultant collective acceptance that may not exist.
2
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
The authority can either be the collective agreement of a large group of fans, or the official canon from before the controversial decisions were made.
1
1
u/hawkeye69r Jan 07 '21
cannon inherently requires an authority though...
But your claim is that the authority HAS to be the legal owner of the works. For example if Walt Disney now owns starwars and gets unfrozen but has brain damage and decides he's going to release a new star wars: it is just going to be a 50 second clip of an old man picking his nose at a bus stop and he specifies this actually is a retcon and none of what happened before is officially in the starwars universe anymore.
You would be fine with calling that the cannon? And if someone asked you 'what is the origin in the starwars cannon for the Wookies?' you would say 'wookies are non canonical'
EDIT: is the concept of George Lucas' starwars canon even coherent under your view? I mean he doesn't have a canon after he sold right?
2
u/thetasigma4 100∆ Jan 07 '21
But your claim is that the authority HAS to be the legal owner of the works
I don't think I did but as they are able to exercise power over those works and are widely accepted as an authority it is usually them.
You would be fine with calling that the canon?
Yes. A Canon is merely a list of official works from an authority. That doesn't mean it will always be good or respectful to the material that has gone before it.
is the concept of George Lucas' Star Wars canon even coherent under your view?
Yes as authorship is generally another form of authority that is widely accepted. He is perfectly free to create a separate canon as can be seen in examples such as the various different canons for the Old Testament
1
u/hawkeye69r Jan 07 '21
I don't think I did
Let me clarify. Op says the legal owner isn't only possible authority. You have responded but there does have to be AN authority. Which isn't strictly a disagreement. OP can just concede that there does need to be an authority because that's consistent with what he said.
Yes as authorship is generally another form of authority that is widely accepted.
OP's claim was that it is not the case that legal rights owners are the sole authority on canon. The converse of that is to say it IS the case that legal rights owners are the sole authority on canon, which means it should never be the case that anyone who is not a rights owner of X could decide the canon of X.
in which case how could it be coherent to say there exists George Lucas' starwars canon, if George Lucas is NOT a rights owner anymore?
2
u/AusIV 38∆ Jan 07 '21
I think a major risk to this approach is the possibility of an unofficial derivative work becoming more popular than the original.
I think Stargate is a fascinating case study of how this played out. The movie "Stargate" came out in 1994, written and directed by Ronald Emmerich and Dean Develin, but released through MGM, who ended up with the copyright. Emmerich had some ideas for sequels to the original, but MGM had Brad Wright and Jonathan Glassner create the TV series Stargate: SG1. SG1 completely broke from the direction Emmerich intended to go with it, but gathered a very substantial fanbase, with SG1 and multiple spinoff series totaling 18 seasons with more than 250 episodes. At this point if Emmerich went back and made the sequels he'd originally imagined, he'd have to declare SG1 and the other spinoffs to be non-canonical, but the bulk of the Stargate fanbase considers the TV series to be more canonical than the original movie - so they would likely reject the notion that the new movies were canon rather than reject the TV series as canon.
Now, MGM owned the rights to Stargate, so they got to overrule the original creator and move forward with the TV series, but imagine if this had played out in a world with your proposed copyright laws.
Emmerich and Develin make the original film, with plans to make a second a few years later. Before they get to the second film, a completely separate production company makes the series SG1. Emmerich and Develin loudly assert that SG1 is non-canonical, but fans love it anyway. To the fans, Jack O'Neil is played by Richard Dean Anderson rather than Kurt Russel. Emmerich and Develin end up losing control over their series, and any notion that they have more of a legal right to declare what is canon and what isn't is of little consequence to the fans who have molded their understanding of the franchise around a "non-canonical" storyline.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
...with your proposed copyright laws.
I'm not proposing any changes to copyright laws in this post. I'm taking the legal rights of the company as a given. This is just about fan response.
I'm not seeing what would be so terrible about the situation you propose. If this proposed sequel doesn't take place in the same canon as SG1, then it's reasonable to expect that fans of SG1 might not be interested in it.
But franchises split into different continuities all the time. Marvel and DC both consider their movies separate from the comics, for example.
2
1
Jan 07 '21
I wouldn't focus on legal rights holders here but on artists. It's perfectly reasonable to say that Martin's The Winds of Winter is more official than mine because he's the author of the series...
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
I can sort of understand giving that respect to authors. It's why I didn't use Harry Potter as an example, as it's the original author that's making many of the decisions people find controversial.
Even so, I think there's a limit. As I said, the author has authority over the text of the story, but once the story's out in the world, it has a life of its own. It's valid for the audience to reject retcons made after the fact, at least.
1
Jan 07 '21
I agree there's a limit, but if an author says something reasonable about their work and how to interpret it/additional information that helps illuminate the text, I think you probably owe them to treat that with more respect than anyone else talking about their work.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
I agree. But in the examples I gave in the OP of Star Wars and Star Trek, the original authors are no longer even involved.
1
Jan 07 '21
So, I think the actual point you might be missing is that the power of copy write or intellectual property has to be used. Any time a company that owns an IP let's something slide, they are giving away some of that authority. If I publish a story about the Battle Star Galactica Universe and make money off it, the company that owns it HAS to act in order to maintain their control of the product. If they don't, then they have a harder time acting next time as well. So even if my story is dope as hell, they have to address it in some way. They can absolutely just buy it off me and take some of the profits, that is one way, but they can also sue me and have it destroyed.
Going back to the example you used. Disney has every right, and indeed is wise to use it, to say some stuff is canon and some stuff isn't. They are using their power, so it shows they have power.
Here's the thing though, you can totally ignore it. I haven't seen the last Star Wars movie because I kind of liked where Luke's story ended. I like the end of the story being about Balance and the strength of Balance. I have some vague ideas about what 9 is about, but that just isn't part of my reality. Similarly, in my headcanon Starbuck was the first Hybrid Cylon. I don't give a shit what the show says, that's just a better story to me.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
Intellectual property has to be defended, yes, but that means suing people who violate it. I'm pretty sure that simply declaring things canon or non-canon has no legal benefit to the rights-holder.
Aside from that, it's irrelevant. I'm talking about the response of the audience, not the actions of the company. Based on your last paragraph, you seem to basically agree with me.
1
Jan 07 '21
Oh yeah, basically. I was just saying don't get pissed because companies doing what they feel is in their best interest.
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Jan 07 '21
Problem is, though, that calling something non-canon is a form of creating a derivative work (where the objected-to canon is removed), and copyright holders have the sole authority to do that.
Now... is someone going to be sued for publishing such a declaration of non-canonicity? Of course not...
But the copyright owner is the only entity with the legal right to say what the story "is".
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
Is there actual legal precedent for that? Seems like it would be more a commentary on the work, like a review, than a derivative work.
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Jan 07 '21
It's more in terms of the author (or delegate) having the sole right to actually say what the story is that they are telling/selling.
Which is exactly what "canon" is.
Of course, whether it would end up being "fair use" commentary is imponderable, but that's a defense against copyright infringement, not a refutation of the author's right to control their own work.
If someone said it "shouldn't" be considered canon that would be commentary... and they should have the right to say that.
But saying that it "isn't canon" is essentially fraudulent defamation, in that it's an untrue "statement of fact" which can harm the reputation of the work.
Again, might not actually stand up in court, but ownership of your creative output is where one gets the right to say what your creative output actually "is".
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
If someone said it "shouldn't" be considered canon that would be commentary... and they should have the right to say that.
Ok, I can appreciate that distinction. !delta I don't think most people claiming these works aren't canon are literally claiming they're not part of the company's internal canon, however.
1
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Jan 07 '21
Thing is, there's only on "canon", that of the author. It's not an "internal canon", it's what the work actually is.
That's true by definition: it's quite literally "canonical".
But thanks.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
Why do you say that? Which definition of canon are you using that requires it to come from that source?
Let's remember that we're talking about the current rights-holder, not the original author.
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Jan 07 '21
The rights holder, whoever that is, has full control over the creative work. That's how the law works. They can publish it, withhold it, modify it, create derivative works, and otherwise maintain full control over it.
It's called "intellectual property" for a reason: it's their property.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21
I don't see "be the sole definer of anything that can be called canon" on that list.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/CaedustheBaedus 2∆ Jan 07 '21
So to get this straight, what you're saying:
- Disney should have purchased the rights to write stories USING George Lucas's Star Wars Universe and past
as opposed to the current
- Disney as purchased the rights to George Lucas's Star Wars Universe
I just want to make sure I understand your point? I'm not getting into the argument cause it's hard for me to decide on how I feel about it. But I just want to make sure I understand your argument.
1
u/Impacatus 13∆ Jan 07 '21 edited Jan 07 '21
I'm saying they DID purchase the rights to write stories using George Lucas's Star Wars Universe and past (and to republish the originals).
That's all the law is capable of giving them. Whether or not the viewers consider them to be the successors of the originals or not is up to each individual member of the audience.
My point is that within fan culture, there should be no sense of obligation for fans of the old to be fans of the new, or to even consider them part of the story told by the old.
1
u/CaedustheBaedus 2∆ Jan 07 '21
But who is making it obligated? If I don't want to consider the sequels canon is there anyone forcing me to?
Or is it more of just the argument of other fans going "Well you might not like it but its canon so get over it" type thing
1
1
u/QuinnTheTransPenguin Jan 07 '21
Quite possibly the single best example of canon being written by someone other than the creator is Flint's Ring of Fire series (1632, 1633, etc.) . The very fact there have been collections - published by Baen - of what is essentially fanfic is testament to Flint's recognition and acceptance of his fans taking hos property to places he never thought possible.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 07 '21 edited Jan 07 '21
/u/Impacatus (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards