Cosmic Debris Etc Inc vs Marjorie Weinman Sharmat and Marc Simont, Complaint for Declaratory Relief, United States District Court, Northern District of California, 18 May 2009, at para 5.
2.
Marjorie Weinman Sharmat and Marc Simont vs Robert Reger, Nathan Carrico, Cosmic Debris et al, Complaint, United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 4 June 2009, at para 33.
3.
‘Emily The Strange And Nate The Great Creators Resolve Dispute’ 12 August 2009, <EmilyStrange.com> at 10 September 2009.
See, eg, RichardsonMeganTanDavid, ‘The art of retelling: Harry Potter and copyright in a fan-literature era’ (2009) 14Media & Arts Law Review31; SchwabachAaron, ‘The Harry Potter Lexicon and the World of Fandom: Fan Fiction, Outsider Works, and Copyright’ (2009) 70University of Pittsburg Law Review (forthcoming); TushnetRebecca, ‘User-Generated Discontent: Transformation in Practice’ (2008) 31Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts101.
7.
JenkinsHenry, Textual Poachers, Television Fans & Participatory Culture (1992), and JenkinsHenry, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (2006).
8.
Section 36 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
9.
Warner Bros Entertainment Inc and JK Rowling v RDR Books F Supp 2d 513 (SDNY 2008). See further, Richardson and Tan, above n 6, and Schwabach, above n 6.
10.
Dr Seuss Enterprises v Penguin Books USA Inc 109 F 3d 1394 (9th Cir 1997).
11.
S 107 Copyright Act (US) permits fair use of a copyright work, subject to four factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use (2) the nature of the copyrighted work (3) the importance of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. These factors are often cited as being more open than the equivalent Australian law of fair dealing.
12.
Dr Seuss Enterprises v Penguin Books USA Inc at 1401, citing Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music, Inc 510 US 569 (1994) at 580.
13.
Sections 41A (works) and 103AA (subject matter other than works) Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
14.
Dojinshi may be further broken down into ‘original’ stories and ‘aniparo’ stories based upon well known manga series, see SabuccoVeruska‘Guided Fan Fiction: Western Readings of Japanese Homosexual-themed Texts’ in BerryChrisMartinFranYueAudrey (eds) Mobile Cultures: New Media in Queer Asia (2003), 71.
15.
LessigLawrence, Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity (2004) 25–28
16.
KinsellaSharon, ‘Japanese Subculture in the 1990s: Otaku and the Amateur Manga Movement’ (1998) 24.2Journal of Japanese Studies289.
LessigLawrence, Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (2008) 79. See also HatcherJordan, ‘Of Otakus and Fansubs: A Critical Look at Anime Online in Light of Current Issues in Copyright Law’ (2005) 2.4SCRIPT-ed514, 515.
20.
Pink, above n 17.
21.
Kinsella, above n 16.
22.
Ibid.
23.
Ibid300.
24.
SchodtFrederik, Dreamland Japan: Writings on Modern Manga (1996) 38.
25.
Pink, above n 17, and Kinsella, above n 23.
26.
It may also have a more sexualised and cruder meaning, see McLellandMark, ‘The World of Yaoi: The Internet, Censorship and the Global “Boys' Love” Fandom’ (2005) 23Australian Feminist Law Journal <http://ro.uow.edu.au/artspapers/147> at 20 October 2009.
27.
Kinsella, above n 16, 301.
28.
Jenkins, above n 7, 219.
29.
McLelland, above n 26.
30.
MehraSalil, ‘Copyright and Comics in Japan: Does Law Explain Why All the Cartoons My Kid Watches are Japanese Imports?’ (2002) 55Rutgers Law Review, <http://ssrn.com/abstract-347620> at 10 September 2009.
31.
Ibid33.
32.
KeltsRoland, Japanamerica: How Japanese Pop Culture has Invaded the US (2007) 45.
33.
MansfieldEdwin, ‘The Speed and Cost of Industrial Innovation in Japan and the United States: External vs Internal Technology’ (1988) 34Management Science1157–1168 and ItoKiyohikoRoseElizabeth, ‘Innovations and geographic focus: A comparison of US and Japanese Firms’ (1999) 8International Business Review55–74.
34.
Schodt, above n 24, 42.
35.
See MurikamiMaki Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maki_Murakami> at 28 October 2009, and NodaNathaniel, ‘When Holding On Means Letting Go: Why Fair Use Should Extend to Fan-Based Activities’ (2008) 5University of Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal64 <http://ssrn.com/abstract-1376223> at 30 October 2009.
36.
Lessig, above n 15, 27 and Mehra, above n 30, 41.
37.
Pink, above n 17.
38.
Mehra, above n 30, 34.
39.
Ibid. See also Noda, above n 35, 16–17.
40.
LeonardSean, ‘Celebrating Two Decades of Unlawful Progress: Fan Distribution, Proselytization Commons, and the Explosive Growth of Japanese Animation’ (2005) 12UCLA Entertainment Law Review189; Hatcher, above n 19, 514.
Kinsella, above n 16, 294. ‘Otaku’ generally means ‘geek’ and has been applied both to dojinishi fans and Japanese youth generally. It has now been picked up in the West as referring to a fan of manga and anime or perhaps Japanese culture more generally. In Japan it has had a more negative connotation.
