Not a law review article, but a long and thoughtful legal analysis: the extended discussion at C. E. Petit's Warped Weft (Fan Fiction]. I'll defer to others on how this might best be referenced on the page proper, but I very much recommend the content. --djonn 19:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
page title could use some context
maybe Legal Analysis of Fanwork? --msilverstar 22:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'd expect a page titled "Legal Analysis of Fanwork" to discuss the legal issues raised/discussed in individual fanworks (as, for instance, the degree to which the courtroom scenes in a certain Yuletide Boston Legal story are realistically written). If the page is intended to be a bibliography of traditional-format law review articles, the title should specifically reflect that -- say, "Bibliography of Law Review Articles Concerning Fanwork".
- The frustration for me is that such a narrow structure seems to me unnecessarily restrictive, because there's no place in it for Web resources such as the one I cited further up this discussion page quite some time ago. I'd like to see a page for "Legal Context of Fanworks: Resources" that included both traditional law review articles (such as those cited on the present page) and useful Web resources (such as Warped Weft). That, however, would necessarily involve rearranging the existing content in order to create an index-structure that would accommodate the more varied nature of the linked/referenced materials. --djonn 00:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think "legal analysis" has a specialized meaning, though we should probably rename the page to something like Bibliography of Legal Analysis, Legal Analysis Bibliography, or Bibliography of Academic Legal Analysis. And then create another page for Legal Issues in Fanworks or Fanworks and the Law to collect all the discussion and links that don't fit here. We have some related pages to link to: Cease & Desist, TPTB's Involvement and Interference.--æþel 17:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- First, as (mostly) non-lawyers writing (primarily) for non-lawyers, we ought not be bound by the conventions of legal writing, such as they may be. Second, even under those conventions (at least to the extent that the Wikipedia article defines them), I'd argue that the "Warped Weft" commentary I mention at the top of this page IS legal analysis -- it just isn't legal analysis that happens to be published in a law review.
- This is not, certainly, true of all Web resources discussing fanfic-related legal issues. But I think my original point remains valid -- namely, that as a Web resource ourselves, we ought to inclusive rather than exclusive in compiling a reference of this kind. It probably is appropriate to have two compilations of links/citations, one for more formal legal analysis and one for resources of a more practical kind. But the first of these should not be limited by the conventions of a community to which this wiki emphatically does not belong. (In any event, "Bibliography of Legal Analysis" is a problematic title -- it fails to answer the question "legal analysis of what?" Logically, such a bibliography should include every law review article and academic paper in the immediate universe.) --djonn 19:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Needs lots of love
This page needs more citations from recent years, preferably via Web Citation so they don't go stale.
It would be really good to get non US links.
For the links that are already stale, we should check archive.org to see if there are archived versions.
Also, I fixed the problem where the HTTP links were in brackets without anything visible so they were a weird combination of footnote-type numbers and offsite links. That is both against the "Bluebook" citation format and against Fanlore practice and was very disconcerting.
And finally, this still needs a new name, I propose "Legal Analysis of Fanworking - Bibliography"