I Feel Like Starting An Argument: Writing a fanfiction based on ANY story you've ever read is perfectly fine***

[Plathfan]

Meh. Legality and commercialisation aside, why are the feelings of authors' relatives at all relevant?

Desperate times call for desperate excuses.

 

[KeithD]

Put it to action? I've obviously said I was kidding about making a story using other's characters.

Look, I have a question for you. Do you follow the letter of the law in everything you do? Do you ever drive even a little bit over the speed limit? Do you let the government dictate your morals and ethics?

Just curious

Your fifteen minutes on this with me. Up. As I said, I haven't the slightest doubt that if you exercised your (very) minority position on this and snatched at my portfolio for a remake of your own here, one message to Laurel and your story would be gone. Since you obviously are steeped in self-absorption, I think that will resonate with you concerning what your opinion on this is worth here.

 

[AlinaX]

I bet you've spent more than 15 minutes on this thread.

 

[Bamagan]

Meh. Legality and commercialisation aside, why are the feelings of authors' relatives at all relevant?

More generally, why are anyone's feelings ever relevant to anyone else? (Asking for a friend!)

Their feelings may or may not be relevant in a general sense, but the deceased's heirs still own the copyrights, so the legality can't just be hand-waved away. They have the right to litigate potential infringements if they believe their inherited properties are being abused, whether because of monetary damages or simply disturbing their memories of their dead relative.

 

[KeithD]

I bet you've spent more than 15 minutes on this thread.

But anything over fifteen minutes is not quality time. You may be right. I finished what was on my production plate yesterday and am dragging my feet to pick the next thing up. (Hence a thread I started today. I rarely start threads here.)

 

[MediocreAuthor]

Your fifteen minutes on this with me. Up. As I said, I haven't the slightest doubt that if you exercised your (very) minority position on this and snatched at my portfolio for a remake of your own here, one message to Laurel and your story would be gone. Since you obviously are steeped in self-absorption, I think that will resonate with you.

Dude, I'm convinced you hardly read a thing anybody else says. I've told you I was kidding several times, (and I thought it was pretty obvious from the start) but you're threatening to run to Laurel?

Your choice to ignore the very people you're talking to is actually really frustrating (this isn't even the first time you've done this).

Please go have a nice day some where else.

 

[AlinaX]

I guess you could argue that the heirs might choose to commercialise what the author allowed people to read for free, and that other authors adding to that work will somehow harm the commercial potential, but... really?

 

[AlinaX]

Once the original author dies, any additions to the story are effectively fan fiction, even if written by close family.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

Once the original author dies, any additions to the story are effectively fan fiction, even if written by close family.

OMG, that's a fantastic point.

 

[KeithD]

I guess you could argue that the heirs might choose to commercialise what the author allowed people to read for free, and that other authors adding to that work will somehow harm the commercial potential, but... really?

Well, not for a Literotica work, unless formal copyright had been obtained. At least not in the United States.

But if the application is being reduced to Literotica placement, I'm sure that if someone objected to a story, claiming they were the relative of the original author, Laurel would delete the story. She's prone to doing that with very little evidence to go on. Just deleting anything anyone objects to, which is her right to do.

 

[Bamagan]

I guess you could argue that the heirs might choose to commercialise what the author allowed people to read for free, and that other authors adding to that work will somehow harm the commercial potential, but... really?

The point, I believe, is that it is their decision to make regarding the proper way to show respect to the deceased and their works, whether by allowing homages and authorized sequels or demanding that they remain unaltered and in their original form at least until such time as they become cultural property.
No one else can or should be allowed to decide what to do with their bodies. (By which I mean 'bodies of work' and 'bodies of their deceased relatives', obviously.)

 

[MediocreAuthor]

I feel like since this is ultimately a question of courtesy, ethics, and morals, rather than anything else, it isn't something we are all likely to agree on.

That's fine. Differing ideologies are a healthy part of a functioning society.

If someone loves your story so much that they want to add to it, I think you should take that as a compliment, and perhaps ask to read it. But of course, that's just my opinion.

 

[Bazzle]

If she steals/borrows/is loaned one of @Bazzle's characters, she can do both.

But the character needs a nice merlot as they exhale the smoke

 

[AlinaX]

The point, I believe, is that it is their decision to make regarding the proper way to show respect to the deceased and their works

Legally, yes, but... morally?

 

[AlinaX]

If a rich man hoards his wealth, is it morally acceptable for his heirs to continue hoarding it?

 

[RoperTrace]

Put it to action? I've obviously said I was kidding about making a story using other's characters.

Look, I have a question for you. Do you follow the letter of the law in everything you do? Do you ever drive even a little bit over the speed limit? Do you let the government dictate your morals and ethics?

Just curious

I follow the +7 MPH speeding tolerance limit. Yea, right.

 

[ThatNewGuy]

I just don't see the harm in it, and I think that people who care so deeply should do the bare minimum of making their feelings known in their bio or whatever

With respect, this is what rubs me the wrong way. You're putting the onus on the creator to make their feelings known, otherwise you get to do what you want.

You're saying, "I want to do this thing." You know this thing will be against some people's wishes. And your position is that unless people make their wishes known to you in advance, or unless they respond to your inquiries about what their wishes are in a reasonable period of time (a period that you yourself get to define), then you get to do your thing.

That's problematic, especially when the "thing" you want to do is take someone else's creation and use it for your own purposes.

The onus here is on you.

 

[Bamagan]

Legally, yes, but... morally?

Yes. Obviously there's a lot of latitude by which one can define or describe moral behavior, but nearly every culture I'm aware of pays at least some amount of respect to the dead and to those bereaved by loss. If they say that the deceased would prefer certain funeral arrangements, or certain dispositions of their goods and property, I think you should respect those statements, legally and morally, unless you happen to have firm evidence to the contrary, or compelling reasons not to comply (a request for a Viking funeral in the local park, for example, is not necessarily reasonable).

And I'm not sure if the hoarding question was directed at me or the world in general. I concede that there's probably a point at which the amount of wealth itself constitutes a compelling reason to ignore a certain amount of the deceased's wishes regarding its disposition (as inheritance taxes are designed to do). The case is much more straightforward when applied to money, material goods, real estate, chattels, etc., or any existing licenses to intellectual property. But in the case of the rights to the IP or any other art they created, I don't think there's any convincing reason that the heirs should be deprived of the decision of what to do with them going forward. I also don't think the word 'hoarding' is particularly apt to describe the retention of the right to decide how or if a story should continue, although I do love the fact that libraries were once known as bookhoards.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

With respect, this is what rubs me the wrong way. You're putting the onus on the creator to make their feelings known, otherwise you get to do what you want.

You're saying, "I want to do this thing." You know this thing will be against some people's wishes. And your position is that unless people make their wishes known to you in advance, or unless they respond to your inquiries about what their wishes are in a reasonable period of time (a period that you yourself get to define), then you get to do your thing.

That's problematic, especially when the "thing" you want to do is take someone else's creation and use it for your own purposes.

The onus here is on you.

I don't know how much of this thread you've read, but I have stated this several times:

If you want to write a fanfic, you should always seek the original creator's approval. It is only when you have exhausted all attempts to learn their feelings that you continue to the next step of doing what you want, and asking for forgiveness if you've made a mistake.

Check out this silly little false equivalency that I wrote up for @SimonDoom which represents my feelings on the matter:

You and I are metaphorical kids on a playground, and I find an abandoned toy.

Me: "Someone left this a long time ago. I'm gonna play with it."

You: "That's somebody else's! You're stealing!"

Me: "No, they abandoned it! They wrote their name on it though... but no contact info." *At the top of my lungs* "HEY, ANDY! IS THERE AN ANDY HERE? YOU LEFT YOUR TOY HERE! IF YOU COME OVER HERE, YOU CAN HAVE IT BACK!! I'm just gonna play with it until he shows up... if ever."

You: "Playing with that toy is theft, and it's icky and wrong!"

Me: "But I couldn't find the original owner! I haven't taken anything from them!"

You: "You can see from my reaction that others disagree with you. You're making unwarranted assumptions about the original owner of that toy. AND I'm telling!"

Me:

---

(PS: that was not a serious argument, I'm just trying to explain how my mind equates the idea)

↑ In this goofy analogy, calling out for the original owner represents a serious attempt to reach the original creator for their permission.

Copyright law was created to protect profits. Plagiarism takes someone else's ideas and pretends they are yours.

Writing fanfiction has nothing to do with either of these things.

 

[AlinaX]

And I'm not sure if the hoarding question was directed at me or the world in general. I concede that there's probably a point at which the amount of wealth itself constitutes a compelling reason to ignore a certain amount of the deceased's wishes regarding its disposition (as inheritance taxes are designed to do). The case is much more straightforward when applied to money, material goods, real estate, chattels, etc., or any existing licenses to intellectual property.

Not specifically to you, and it was a bit of a trick question. I'm not sure hoarding wealth is ever morally correct, but it's the wealthy who write the laws.

But in the case of the rights to the IP or any other art they created, I don't think there's any convincing reason that the heirs should be deprived of the decision of what to do with them going forward. I also don't think the word 'hoarding' is particularly apt to describe the retention of the right to decide how or if a story should continue, although I do love the fact that libraries were once known as bookhoards.

But... the heirs didn't write the story. They didn't create the world and its characters. It's possible they have some insight into what these things meant to the author, but just as likely they don't care what the author wanted. I certainly don't think my family members should by rights decide what to do with my creations.

If there were some sort of revenue stream associated with them, then that would be different.

 

[Bamagan]

But... the heirs didn't write the story. They didn't create the world and its characters. It's possible they have some insight into what these things meant to the author, but just as likely they don't care what the author wanted. I certainly don't think my family members should by rights decide what to do with my creations.

If there were some sort of revenue stream associated with them, then that would be different.

Generally speaking, in the absence of any alternate disposition, I would assume that the heirs are more likely to know and care about what the deceased wanted, certainly moreso than some random person who happened to read and enjoy the dead person's work. It will not always be true, but as a matter of policy, it's the simplest and most practical choice.

If you don't want your family to decide what happens to your work, all you have to do is bequeath the rights to someone else. Your heirs don't have to be your family or blood relatives. Or I guess there are some places where that's not true. Probably the kinds of places where your characters would be your husband's property as soon as you wrote them. But I believe most countries that observe copyright law make it possible to bequeath IP to a trust, allowing the author to determine what is and is not allowed, and who the beneficiaries are (if any).

 

[ThatNewGuy]

If you want to write a fanfic, you should always seek the original creator's approval. It is only when you have exhausted all attempts to learn their feelings that you continue to the next step of doing what you want, and asking for forgiveness if you've made a mistake.

I know you have said you should always seek permission first. My post acknowledged that. What troubles me is that you are making it the creator's responsibility to make their wishes known, otherwise you get to do what you want. If you try for a reasonable amount of time to obtain their permission and you don't get it, then you just wash your hands of the matter and move forward with using their work.

Edit: Also, in your scenario, you, not the creator, get to define what constitutes a reasonable effort and a reasonable amount of time.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Yes. Obviously there's a lot of latitude by which one can define or describe moral behavior, but nearly every culture I'm aware of pays at least some amount of respect to the dead and to those bereaved by loss. If they say that the deceased would prefer certain funeral arrangements, or certain dispositions of their goods and property, I think you should respect those statements, legally and morally, unless you happen to have firm evidence to the contrary, or compelling reasons not to comply (a request for a Viking funeral in the local park, for example, is not necessarily reasonable).

And I'm not sure if the hoarding question was directed at me or the world in general. I concede that there's probably a point at which the amount of wealth itself constitutes a compelling reason to ignore a certain amount of the deceased's wishes regarding its disposition (as inheritance taxes are designed to do). The case is much more straightforward when applied to money, material goods, real estate, chattels, etc., or any existing licenses to intellectual property. But in the case of the rights to the IP or any other art they created, I don't think there's any convincing reason that the heirs should be deprived of the decision of what to do with them going forward. I also don't think the word 'hoarding' is particularly apt to describe the retention of the right to decide how or if a story should continue, although I do love the fact that libraries were once known as bookhoards.

Note to self; change library to bookhoard in my litrpg.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

If you try for a reasonable amount of time to obtain their permission and you don't get it, then you just wash your hands of the matter and move forward with using their work.

Using it, while admitting my story is a fan work?

Yep. 100% I have no shame in this.

If I write a story, and then later on they find it and hate it, how does what I've done hurt them? It doesn't.

How could it? How could it possibly hurt them?

"OH NO! SOMEONE WROTE A STORY BASED ON MINE, BECAUSE THEY LOVED MY STORY, AND THEY USED ALL MY CHARACTERS! AND I DON'T LIKE THE STORY! NOW I AM GOING TO DIE FROM
nothing... actually. I'm fine because I haven't been hurt in any way."

 

[Bamagan]

"I don't want

Using it, while admitting my story is a fan work?

Yep. 100% I have no shame in this.

If I write a story, and then later on they find it and hate it, how does what I've done hurt them? It doesn't.

How could it? How could it possibly hurt them?

"OH NO! SOMEONE WROTE A STORY BASED ON MINE, BECAUSE THEY LOVED MY STORY, AND THEY USED ALL MY CHARACTERS! AND I DON'T LIKE THE STORY! NOW I AM GOING TO DIE FROM
nothing... actually. I'm fine because I haven't been hurt in anyway.

This is a rather facile argument, considering that in your scenario you describe them as hating something enough to devolve into an ALL CAPS TANTRUM. You can't just walk back from that kind of anger!
Here's another ridiculous scenario, since you enjoy NC content...
"Nearly everyone loves babies! Pregnancy is perfectly natural! You should be flattered that I found you attractive enough to deposit my sequel in!"