Shane said:
Don't you think they'd _love_ to know about slash art?
Of course they do--there've been articles about slash in several newspapers and magazines, quite apart from at least three books that I know about.
Fiinally, supposing an actor found out about slash art and was angry enough
to complain to his/her agent? That agent might very well refuse to let the actor have anything to do with fans at all. Agents can't "refuse to let actors" do anything. A sensible actor who was upset about slash art would complain to the artist, and then negotiate future con appearances based on a guarantee that slash art would not be sold there, or would be subject to display restrictions.
As I said, they don't need to. Journalists need to sell papers, and so
regardless of whether or not the site does show anything factual, they'll write it up. If a journalist did find a fan site with slash art, chances are the headline would read NUDE PICTURES OF [ACTOR X] SHOCKER, and the fact that these were faked up or sketched will be buried somewhere in the fine print. This _did_ actually happen at least once, with Doctor Who and the Sun newspaper. Even a journalist can tell the difference between a fan's sketch and a photograph that is presented as a factual depiction of an actor.
And what I'm saying is, there doesn't have to be confusion as to the
actors being involved in fan art for a fan, a spouse or, worst of all, a journalist, to assume that the actors give their tacit approval to this sort of thing. Actor X: "My, what a lovely sketch. It certainly shows the affection that the artist has for my character. And the other bloke. And the eight-tentacled alien. And the hoover. But, of course, nobody asked me before drawing this. I certainly didn't pose for it! And, some of my best friends and all, but personally I'm a happily married man. So, gals, do me a favor: next time, just leave me out of it, eh? Just call the picture Apollo and whatzisname, not my character and some other fella." That should clear up any confusion.
-(Y)