Authorship and ownership sound pretty similar in their ways. You "author" your writing and you "own" your text. Although it seems that way, there is a challenge with the words itself. Authoring a text would mean that you are writing out your ideas, thoughts, realities through your words. How those words are interpreted after they are written is up to the reader. Even when putting the effort to use language that could try to imitate how the author is personally feeling as he or she is writing their piece; the reader will not understand that text the same way. In that same way, the reader may have an idea that would build off the work(s) of the author and create a new piece. A form that would replicate that theory is fan-fiction or a re-genre project that would build off the works of the author but have a completely different interpretation or a whole new story line altogether. Ownership is a way of claiming the work as their own. When writing, is the idea really owned by you? When the text is complete and read by the individual who did not write it, is their interpretation really owned by them?
Fan-fiction is when a work of an author is recreated in some way that has the idea of the author, but is not the same interpretation as the author. This genre of writing challenges those notions of authorship and ownership through the perception/interpretation of the reader. When viewing authorship and ownership, an example could be "Man in the High Castle." The idea of living in a Communist and Fascist world came from the historical views of Hitler and the Japanese. Even though Hitler and the Japanese came up with a way of ruling the world, another individual came up with a story line for a television show on how that world would look. The story line of the television show does differ in some of the opinions, but it is rather similar. Now, since the idea was originally conceived by Hitler and the Japanese, can the creator of that show take claims on his or her authorship or ownership? Can the creator really say that he or she authored/wrote that show, or that he or she even owns that show? Or is the author and owner of that idea Hitler and the Japanese? Moving forward, that example could apply to the "original" creator of that show, and the fans who wrote fiction that built off of it. Would the fans really own their work if the idea of that show came from the creator, and they only "authored" it? In this way, it sets a diverse complexity as to who really has authorship or ownership over their pieces, especially with the modern day writing diversity.
Fan-fiction is when a work of an author is recreated in some way that has the idea of the author, but is not the same interpretation as the author. This genre of writing challenges those notions of authorship and ownership through the perception/interpretation of the reader. When viewing authorship and ownership, an example could be "Man in the High Castle." The idea of living in a Communist and Fascist world came from the historical views of Hitler and the Japanese. Even though Hitler and the Japanese came up with a way of ruling the world, another individual came up with a story line for a television show on how that world would look. The story line of the television show does differ in some of the opinions, but it is rather similar. Now, since the idea was originally conceived by Hitler and the Japanese, can the creator of that show take claims on his or her authorship or ownership? Can the creator really say that he or she authored/wrote that show, or that he or she even owns that show? Or is the author and owner of that idea Hitler and the Japanese? Moving forward, that example could apply to the "original" creator of that show, and the fans who wrote fiction that built off of it. Would the fans really own their work if the idea of that show came from the creator, and they only "authored" it? In this way, it sets a diverse complexity as to who really has authorship or ownership over their pieces, especially with the modern day writing diversity.