Re-written stories (other authors work)

[scouries]

ACE - Nope. It's not your choice to make… It's not a "general feeling." It's a law.

APPLE - and you're a cunt.

CW - To be perfectly honest, I'm tempted to report him right now… it sucks to be you.

OR - Why did you even bother to ask if it would be OK, If you were going to post the plagarized work anyway?... Even asking for permission is an insult to the original author.

RJ - According to the law, you have created a derivative work of another's copyright protected material without a license from the original owner to do so. Not only is it plagiarism, but it is a violation of copyright law and the original owner would be entitled to make a claim against you for violation of the his/her rights.

DCL - Not okay. Got it?

PF - If you want to post something, write it yourself. Otherwise, keep reading and maybe be a bit grateful someone else is doing the work.

KM - Rewriting someone else's work is not creating a derivative work, it's paraphrasing. A derivative work is a new work based on someone else's work, characters, settings, etc. A paraphrased work is altering the sentence construction, that is putting it your own words, and leaving the same work intact, as the original poster indicated has happened. This is out and out plagiarism, not a fair use derivative work.

TN - We seem to be dealing with a mindless ego here: …I'll be kind, and presume that it arises from his innate sense of guilt for his transgressions.

DCL – Reminds me of the youtube people who re-edit Star Wars and ask for comments on "their" movie.

[size=+2]A lot of hostility towards this guy. At least polynices and ReCo tried to bring a little balance to the thread.

But it was our friend Dixie from GBland who made the most telling post (although inadvertently) when he mentioned u-tubers. The reality of this internet generation is they don’t give a shit about author rights (or musicians or movie producers).

Dixie mentions movies (Star Wars) but an even better example is popular music. Go to utube and search for any popular song and you’ll find a hundred covers of it.

The whole napstar thing just highlighted the fact that the public is quite prepared to take product without paying for it.

Or the fact that the day after a highly awaited movie opens you can buy a pirated dvd of it.

Governments around the world have scrambled to fill the holes in the law but not because their electors want them to. They do it because lobby’s drown them in cash to get “pro industry” laws. ace says, “it’s the law”. The public is increasingly saying, “fuck the law”.

The worlds changed and is continuing to change. And a lot of it, even if it does cost some authors, has benefited the majority.

In many ways LITEROTICA disproves so many of the arguments made for artist protection. The fact is that one little site can attract 400,000 stories over 10 years from some 35,000 different authors while attracting millions of monthly readers demonstrates that there’ll never be a shortage of written material in the internet world.

And this even though 20 years ago erotic/xxx/porn writing had almost disappeared from circulation. Done in supposedly by the VCR.

So if the chengny wants to utube some LITEROTICA stories I say good for him.[/size]


[size=+2]james r scouries esq.
Multiple A.I.R. AWARD winner[/size]

 

[michchick98]

Even pussies from AHland found this post of Dixies funny!

And with the amount of posts you have there under all your alts, scouries, you're as much of an AHer as the rest of us. So I guess that makes you a pussy, too.

Oh and by the way, "Dixies" should be "Dixie's"

But then, you being the uber great writer you are *gag*, you already know that, right?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I've really gotten under his skin, haven't I?

 

[ReCo10]

Too much copyright is killing us

ACE, APPLE, CW, OR, RJ, DCL, PF, KM, TN, DCL

All these authors seem to cling to supposed 'rights' as if they would loose something if someone else finds their story so remarkable that he tries to continue, alter or improve it.

I fear these authors have become victims of the propaganda that more copyright would be of advantage for us authors.

In truth boundless Copyright in many cases means great disadvantages to the authors.

In its article 'Explosion of knowledge' SPIEGEL ONLINE is just reporting the results of a scientific study comparing the effects of 'modern' Copyright in England versus no copyright in Germany during the century 1800-1900. The main result was:

In 1800
England was a modern industrial state already
whereas Germany still was a backward agricultural country.

By the year 1900
Germany had caught up
whereas England had kept its 1800 position only.

'Modern' Copyright was the reason for a lost century in England.
Lack of Copyright was the reason for an explosion of knowledge in Germany.


As the author of the study explains on Telepolis

Im Nachdruckzeitalter konnten die Autoren in der Regel
ein viel höheres Honorar durchsetzen als nach Einführung des Urheberrechts.

Translation:
Without copyright the authors could usually enforce a much higher fee
than after the introduction of copyright (in Germany).

This effect was caused by the monopolistic (=negative) effects of copyright.

For this reason the Supreme Court started to create the 'Fair Use' restrictions judge Pierre N. Leval suggested in his article cited above.

The Supreme Court will go on doing so till the law is back in line with public opinion and the majority no longer needs to say 'fuck the (copyright) law'.

This will be a big advantage for us, the authors, even if some authors have not yet understood, that 100x selling their story for $3,89 is less than 1,000,000x giving it away for $ 0,002 advertisement fee.

 

[sr71plt]

This will be a big advantage for us, the authors, even if some authors have not yet understood, that 100x selling their story for $3,89 is less than 1,000,000x giving it away for $ 0,002 advertisement fee.

What adverstisemnt fee (collected by the author)?

I can tell you haven't done much for-profit writing and publishing as an author.

Besides which, this thread isn't about money, it's about someone stealing the creative work of another and republishing it slightly altered/distorted without the original creator's permission.

 

[scouries]

QUOTE ace Besides which, this thread isn't about money, it's about someone stealing the creative work of another and republishing it slightly altered/distorted without the original creator's permission.

That may be how you define this thread but you’re not the THREADMASTER are you?

And others clearly don’t agree with you. In fact your initial posts about breaking the law seems to have been repudiated by ReCo10. Which does make me wonder why you used such a pejorative term as “stealing”.

You also introduced “slightly altered/distorted” which was never mentioned by the threadmaster.

Clearly this is another case where your self-proclaimed “dispassionate, honest approach to issues” is exposed as nothing but hyperbole.

[size=+2]james r scouries esq.
Multiple A.I.R. AWARD winner[/size]

 

[PacoFear]

ace In fact your initial posts about breaking the law seems to have been repudiated by ReCo10.

It may have "seemed" that way to you but it wasn't. Pull up the USSC case and read it. You are an esq. aren't you?

And to clarify, I don't give a rat's patootie what butchery Chengny enjoys inflicting on anyone's stories in the privacy of his own home. To each their own. I start looking for something heavy and blunt right about the time he starts posting his "work." You should too.

-PF

 

[michchick98]

QUOTE ace Besides which, this thread isn't about money, it's about someone stealing the creative work of another and republishing it slightly altered/distorted without the original creator's permission.

That may be how you define this thread but you’re not the THREADMASTER are you?

And others clearly don’t agree with you.

Actually, more of your poor reading comprehension shines through again, scouries. Most of the authors who have posted here agree with the pilot.

It's wrong to alter the work of another author and post it without permission. Period. How would you feel if someone took one of your stories, re-worded a few things and re-posted it? You'd be pissed. You know you would. Hell, you cry foul when someone imitates your name. You claim your name is copyrighted (huh?) and worry people will confuse that name for you, when you know most people will see it's clearly an imitation. And gee, if you do a search, all those names are still there. Laurel didn't do a damned thing about it, even after all your whining and cry-babying about it.

But I bet she'd be much quicker to act if someone "altered" the work of another author here and posted it without permission, regardless if the someone gave credit or not.

Sure, it may not be "against the law" but it goes against everything ethical and against the rules of Literotica. And we know how you're a stickler for rules, scouries.

In fact your initial posts about breaking the law seems to have been repudiated by ReCo10. Which does make me wonder why you used such a pejorative term as “stealing”.

What part of "using without permission" do you not understand? Again, you'd be screaming just as loud if someone took one of your precious stories and did the same thing. You'd be throwing a hissy fit and posting everywhere about how unfair it is and on and on...

You also introduced “slightly altered/distorted” which was never mentioned by the threadmaster.

No, the OP may not have used "slightly altered/distored" but he did say this:

What is the general feeling on this subject?

I have taken some 30-40 stories that piqued my interest (most deal with incest) - some a few years back - and kind of cleaned them up and customized so that they more accurately reflect my fantasies. I feel that they are quite well written and highly erotic. I would like to share them.

Would it be okay to post a cross-section of my files, provided of course that I do not claim credit for the initial story?


Chengny

More of your poor reading comprehension skills, huh?

Clearly this is another case where your self-proclaimed “dispassionate, honest approach to issues” is exposed as nothing but hyperbole.

[size=+2]james r scouries esq.
Multiple A.I.R. AWARD winner[/size]

And clearly, with the esq. after your name, you can see the legal aspects of all this right? I mean, after all, esq. indicates you're a lawyer or have a fairly good knowledge of law. Otherwise, why would you put the esq. after your name, other than to make yourself seem more important than you really are?

 

[Lars69]

I have taken some 30-40 stories that piqued my interest (most deal with incest) - some a few years back - and kind of cleaned them up and customized so that they more accurately reflect my fantasies.

I think there is a vast consent that changing some words and republishing isn't desirable/allowed/legal.

Another question is, if someone who thinks having changed some words only but in fact produced a new creative result should be supported to publish his new 'version' of the story.

I see two fractions.

The fraction of sr71plt who argues I'm the author and any reuse of my story is robbery of my property.

And the fraction of ReCo10 who argues interdicting new creative versions is robbery of public wealth.


If the copyright would be created by God/Nature the sr71plt fraction would be right: The author is the owner of the story by God's decision - without the author's permission nothing is allowed. Period.

But copyright is created by human society. Not God or Nature, but our society granted a right of ownership to authors because our society was convinced that this privilege creates more publications (= more public wealth).

Thus nobody else than our society has to decide on the content and the limits of that right, decide for example on the protection time of 70 years.

That means not the opinion of ReCo10 or sr71plt or anybody else but the opinion of our society matters. If our society got the impression that copyright destroys public wealth everybody has to accept reasonable exemptions, even sr71plt has to.

That's the necessary basis of any rational discussion and thus we have to discuss how much new creative content, how much transformation is needed to qualify the new version as 'Fair Use' in terms of judge Leval's above mentioned article 'Towards a Fair Use Standard'.

Within this basic frame different opinions are possible.

My opinion is, that authors publish on Literotica without any payment thus the key content of copyright to get money doesn't contribute to a higher number of publications. That means in this case copyright didn’t contribute to public wealth as the same 190,000 stories would have been published without copyright.

The same applies to paid publications as authors tend to sell their copyright to some monopolistic editor. Interdicting rewritten versions wouldn't increase the number of originals created.

In consequence there is no reason to grant the original authors the privilege to interdict any rewritten version which is of interest for the public.

So, to my opinion, only primitive rewritings should be interdicted.

The honor of being referenced as author of the original should be enough privilege.

And all people who don't agree should see that it's not 'Period'. It's their task to convince the public. As long as they don't succeed to convince the majority that more copyright doesn't mean a lost century they are wrong.

 

[sr71plt]

First, this isn't up for vote. Folks aren't free to clear their conscience on their theft and then it becomes OK. This is a matter of copyright law.

On this particular web sight, all an original story author would need to do is point to a subsequent story preponderately riding piggyback on theirs, and the reposted story would be gone (and most probably the reposter banned). If you want to test that supposition, do it, and see what happens.

Second, my views are being misinterpreted and pushed to an edge beyond fair representation. I think derivative works that creatively take off from an existing work and create a work with a whole new center are fine--I've done it myself. Examples of this are the play Rosencrantz and Gildenstern Are Dead and all of Gregory Maguire's takeoffs on classic fairtales.

I stated the difference from the get go. These derivative works play on the concepts; they don't regurgitate most of the words. The latter, which is what the OP is proposing, is copyright infringement and sleazy, lazy stealing of someone else's work.

 

[Epmd607]

It certainly isn't against the law and it's not even distasteful to re-work someone's story on your word processor for your own amusement. Dissemination is necessary to be morally bankrupt. Sharing is wrong without permission, but the act and endeavor itself is perfectly fine. It's like taking a movie on VHS and cutting out the parts you don't like for your own enhanced entertainment. You can only control so much when you choose to share something artistic with other people. At some point you have to let the reader put some of themselves into your work and thereby accept them as part creator and storyteller.

 

[Epmd607]

... But that doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't have done this project to begin with. It's like being curious to see how long a human can live if you rip their heart out of their chest, and then killing people under clinical conditions to find out. Useful information? Yes, arguably... but the ends don't justify the means.

These are not your stories. If you want to write your own, write your own. If you want to modify somebody else's, get their permission first. If you can't, it sucks to be you.

Oh yeah, I was mainly replying to this. Aesthetic thought police.

 

[sr71plt]

It certainly isn't against the law and it's not even distasteful to re-work someone's story on your word processor for your own amusement. Dissemination is necessary to be morally bankrupt. Sharing is wrong without permission, but the act and endeavor itself is perfectly fine. It's like taking a movie on VHS and cutting out the parts you don't like for your own enhanced entertainment. You can only control so much when you choose to share something artistic with other people. At some point you have to let the reader put some of themselves into your work and thereby accept them as part creator and storyteller.

Agreed, and a useful distinction to make--although it is separate from the thread topic.

 

[dudea4]

Hmmm

Hey, I'm new to this site, and I enjoy the quality feedback and more thoughtful comments then I've seen on other sites.

But I'd take it a little easy on the guy. If he was trying to steal, he (or she) wouldn't have posted the question. Maybe they don't know the laws, maybe they don't know the etiquette. They asked, they didn't just chop it up and post the story as their own.

You all have more knowledge than I do about this topic, for sure. But if you jump on people too hard, people will just act first and not want to ask you all questions. They might just keep on their project out of spite, and post elsewhere. Or, they might go, "hmm, that is true, I am stupid/evil and should just shoot myself now" (but I doubt it will be the latter of the responses).

Anyways, your posts were all informative, thanks, but the tone was kind of .... eh.

But that's just my two cents.

 

[BonnevilleFlats]

A good percentage of the stories posted here are a re-working of the same scenarios that have been around at least as long as the Penthouse Forum letters I remember reading as a thirteen year old back in the 70's. Nothing wrong with that, btw. They are tried and true "quick stroke" scenarios and occassionally the writing is good enough that I give the author some kudos for taking something that has been done hundreds of times before and making it their own. As I've said before, there are dozens of stories posted everyday on this site and there is room for all kinds of writers.

What this poster is suggesting, however, seems to be different. He is taking the more memorable and unique characters, plots and scenarios and expanding on them. If an author who hasn't posted on here in some time or has an unfinished serial gives permission for someone else to expand on his or her work, that is fine provided credit is given. But to do this without permission? It doesn't fly with me.

 

[dudea4]

Re

No, I feel you, totally. Getting permission is, at the very least, the most polite way to handle the situation. I think that is what he (she?) was asking though. I just think the best way for such a conversation to go down is like this, basically:

Question: Should I do this?

Answer: No, probably not, for this, this, and this reason.
Second Opinion: Yeah, sure, go ahead, because of this and this reason
Rebuttal: No, you really shouldn't, because of this, this and this.

Possible Conclusion #1: Yeah, I'm not going to do this, and everybody else is happy.
Possible Conclusion #2: Yeah, I'm going to do this anyways, and possibly get booted off the site.

I mean, if they were being honest in asking, which I think they were simply because they asked, this is probably the most reasonable way to deal with the situation. But if people really are emotionally invested in the issue, then I won't judge them for getting passionate. I'd just caution it as being unwise, in my opinion.

 

[Tyro999]

Did y'all realize this is a two-year old thread, started on 8/10/10 and last posted in on 8/13/10 until dude4a dredged it up again?