Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aesthetic Monk" data-source="post: 2848765" data-attributes="member: 40091">Interpretation in this sense, though, is beside the point. We're not talking about a general &quot;thick skinnedness.&quot; No one's questioning whether someone's got the right to like or not like B5, to love Season 5 or think it was a big letdown, to write B5 fanfic, or just in general to have a different aesthetic sensibility. What we're closer to talking about is ownership and canonicity. I don't think that JMS has questioned anyone's right to interpret B5 as he or she sees fit; it's a question mostly of whether you can label your interpretation as canon.Messing around with something you buy for your own private enjoyment (or vandalism) is one thing. But I doubt your friends would be OK with someone fingerpainting on the painting then getting it hung in a different gallery and claiming that it's an &quot;authorized interpretation&quot; of the original painting based on the fact that it contains elements of the original.I suspect we won't convince each other on this. I know how I'd want to be treated were I the creator, which in some philosophical systems suggests the presence of a moral/ethical issue.I have no idea what the licensing agreements look like, and I wouldn't be qualified to interpret them anyway even if I had seen them. The issue may ultimately be legal as much as anything else. I do see a moral/ethical issue here, at least in the abstract.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aesthetic Monk, post: 2848765, member: 40091"] Interpretation in this sense, though, is beside the point. We're not talking about a general "thick skinnedness." No one's questioning whether someone's got the right to like or not like B5, to love Season 5 or think it was a big letdown, to write B5 fanfic, or just in general to have a different aesthetic sensibility. What we're closer to talking about is ownership and canonicity. I don't think that JMS has questioned anyone's right to interpret B5 as he or she sees fit; it's a question mostly of whether you can label your interpretation as canon. Messing around with something you buy for your own private enjoyment (or vandalism) is one thing. But I doubt your friends would be OK with someone fingerpainting on the painting then getting it hung in a different gallery and claiming that it's an "authorized interpretation" of the original painting based on the fact that it contains elements of the original. I suspect we won't convince each other on this. I know how I'd want to be treated were I the creator, which in some philosophical systems suggests the presence of a moral/ethical issue. I have no idea what the licensing agreements look like, and I wouldn't be qualified to interpret them anyway even if I had seen them. The issue may ultimately be legal as much as anything else. I do see a moral/ethical issue here, at least in the abstract. [/QUOTE]

Verification