Continuations by people other than the original author/creator aren't worth getting worked up about.

[SimonDoom]

No loss, no gain... so why get worked up about it?

Does the existence of Wicked somehow lessen the value of "A Wizard of Oz"? Of course not.
Yet they took L Frank Baum's characters and massively changed them.

How many versions of "A Christmas Carol" are there? Does the existence of Scrooged or A Muppet Christmas Carol lessen the value of any of them? Nope...

Frankly, you should be flattered that someone is invested enough in the world you created to want to write about it, to want more stories from those characters. That's why fan fiction exists in the first place.

You're comparing apples and oranges. The Wizard of Oz entered the public domain long before Wicked was written. A Christmas Carol was in the public domain when Scrooged was produced. The expiration of copyright explains why it's perfectly OK to write derivative works based on them, without concern. The issues are completely different with respect to works that are still within their copyright term. Under this system, authors have a reasonable expectation of being able to maintain a substantial degree of exclusivity concerning the use of their works. That's true whether or not they are profiting from them at the moment.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

You're comparing apples and oranges. The Wizard of Oz entered the public domain long before Wicked was written. A Christmas Carol was in the public domain when Scrooged was produced. The expiration of copyright explains why it's perfectly OK to write derivative works based on them, without concern. The issues are completely different with respect to works that are still within their copyright term. Under this system, authors have a reasonable expectation of being able to maintain a substantial degree of exclusivity concerning the use of their works. That's true whether or not they are profiting from them at the moment.

My statement and question had nothing to do with copyright. The question was does the existence of those other works diminish the value of the original works? The answer is no.

Similarly, if someone wanted to write a sequel to one of your stories it would in no way diminish the value of your story.
Thus, you are not being harmed in any meaningful way.
If those actions aren't harming you in any meaningful way, then doing so isn't unethical (as many here have tried to claim."


I'm not comparing apples and oranges. Every time this issue comes up you play this same tired game.
People are not making a LEGAL argument that using someone else's characters is wrong. They are making moral and ethical arguments.
If it is unethical or immoral to borrow someone else's characters... then it's unethical. Law and ethics are two distinct things. Something can be ethical and illegal, and something can be unethical and perfectly legal.

 

[MelissaBaby]

What if, and hear me out here, having Hawkeye be a legally distinct character from Green Arrow or George of the Jungle being a legally distinct character from Tarzan doesn't enrich our culture at all? What if the arbitrary distinctions Copyright demands don't make Sword of Shannara different from Lord of the Rings in any way that improves our mythology or our lives?

That's a really reductive argument. There is a lot more to culture than comic books and fantasy novels.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

That's a really reductive argument. There is a lot more to culture than comic books and fantasy novels.

Suppose for a moment that Laurel came down from Mount Smut with a stone tablet engraved "Thou Shalt Be Allowed to borrow other people's characters, continue other's stories, and write fan fiction for anything you damn well choose."

Do you suppose that all the new original content would dry up from Lit? That suddenly everyone would be writing stories about the same characters and all originality would be lost?

Of course not. A TINY number of people seem to be interested in doing it. It would be a drop in the bucket in terms of content on Lit.
Just like the explosion of Fan Fiction that came with the internet hasn't harmed the output of actual new material in the world.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Suppose for a moment that Laurel came down from Mount Smut with a stone tablet engraved "Thou Shalt Be Allowed to borrow other people's characters, continue other's stories, and write fan fiction for anything you damn well choose."

Do you suppose that all the new original content would dry up from Lit? That suddenly everyone would be writing stories about the same characters and all originality would be lost?

Of course not. A TINY number of people seem to be interested in doing it. It would be a drop in the bucket in terms of content on Lit.
Just like the explosion of Fan Fiction that came with the internet hasn't harmed the output of actual new material in the world.

My post discussed copyright in general. It was not specific to Lit, it was about the effect of copyright in the commercial marketplace for which it was designed.

There is not a bit of doubt in my mind that in absence of copyright protection, we would have a much less creative culture. The incentive to produce innovative work would be diminished if the creators did not have any guarantee that they would have the opportunity to profit from their work.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

My post discussed copyright in general. It was not specific to Lit, it was about the effect of copyright in the commercial marketplace for which it was designed.

There is not a bit of doubt in my mind that in absence of copyright protection, we would have a much less creative culture. The incentive to produce innovative work would be diminished if the creators did not have any guarantee that they would have the opportunity to profit from their work.

But "not being able to profit from it" and "preventing derivative work" are entirely different concepts.

As was mentioned earlier, copyright has been around for a rather short period of time compared to art in general.

All of Charles Dickens major works predate the Berne Convention, as do most of Mark Twain's. Didn't seem to stifle their creativity.

If anything it may encourage creativity. If everyone is making derivative work, then originality can command a premium.

For the record, I am in favor of copyright protections, and agree with your premise that corporations have perverted their intent. It's absurd that Disney profits from characters created by someone dead for 50 years.

But to the core of OP's post, fan fiction, "borrowing" other's characters, etc... don't really lessen the creative output of the world in a meaningful sense.
And, I note the Lit (and many people arguing against borrowing character's from other Lit works) allows fan fiction. It's laughable to say, "you can borrow George Lucas' characters, but you can't borrow mine". It just makes you a hypocrite.

 

[MelissaBaby]

And, I note the Lit (and many people arguing against borrowing character's from other Lit works) allows fan fiction. It's laughable to say, "you can borrow George Lucas' characters, but you can't borrow mine". It just makes you a hypocrite.

For the record, I don't approve of borrowing George Luca's characters, either.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

For the record, I don't approve of borrowing George Luca's characters, either.

Understood, but both Lit, and plenty of people arguing against borrowing character's from stories on Lit, do approve of that.

Either it's ethical to borrow other people's character's or it isn't. And, the law is a separate matter.

 

[AwkwardMD]

For the record, I don't approve of borrowing George Luca's characters, either.

I did that, and my one piece of Star Wars fanfic is probably the reason George Lucas is still getting bounced around in this thread.

I'll just say that I feel fine writing something as culturally pervasive as Star Wars where nobody is gonna get into my work and have a lot of confusion about which parts are mine and which parts are George's. I do not feel the need to prove how creative I am with every work.

However, if I was to write a story about Jeremy and Esmerelda and witchcraft, I bet 50% of my audience wouldn't really pay attention to the notes at the top crediting @Kelliezgirl . They'd just say Wow, you write such great characters! This is so interesting! and they wouldn't click through to see the source. I'd be getting attention/credit/plaudits for work someone else did, and that's if I was diligent about crediting KG.

This is a thing I know for certain because it's happened to me, and it leaves a sour taste.

EDIT: Clarification: I do not think my one piece of Star Wars fanfic is so important or widely read that it inspires conversation. I think that I used it as an example much earlier in the thread, and that example kept getting brought up until it more or less had its own momentum within the thread.

 

[SimonDoom]

If those actions aren't harming you in any meaningful way, then doing so isn't unethical (as many here have tried to claim."


I'm not comparing apples and oranges. Every time this issue comes up you play this same tired game.
People are not making a LEGAL argument that using someone else's characters is wrong. They are making moral and ethical arguments.
If it is unethical or immoral to borrow someone else's characters... then it's unethical. Law and ethics are two distinct things. Something can be ethical and illegal, and something can be unethical and perfectly legal.

I agree with you that law and ethics are different things, and the meaningful argument here concerns what "should" one do rather than what the law will allow you to do.

But IP is an area where the contours of the law inform moral sensibility. Not for everyone in the same way. You may think differently.

If I hop the fence and trespass on your property and then hop back over, I may have caused you no harm. But still, what I've done may be a legal violation, and, apart from that, I think many or most people would say it's wrong to do that even if no harm is caused and even if no harm is reasonably foreseeable. We have a sense that the law puts up boundaries that we have a right to believe will be respected, and I do you wrong if I break those boundaries, even if there's no harm. Under a different legal regime, the boundaries could be totally different, or they could be abandoned altogether. But boundaries, whatever they are, create expectations, both legal and moral, about what we should do.

If you were to choose to write a sequel to another author's story without getting the author's permission, you would run a very high risk that in the event the author found out the author might feel offended and would feel wronged, that the author would regard you as having done him at the least a discourtesy, if not a moral wrong.

You and I may feel differently about this. I think that risk is something to treat seriously even if, deep down, I don't feel the same way about taking another person's work. My own feelings aren't all that come into play. I would defer writing the sequel of a Literotica author because of the risk that the author would regard it as discourteous. It's not up to me to judge whether it's reasonable for authors to feel a proprietary sense about their works and exclude others from using them. This is, in fact, what many, and maybe most, authors feel to some degree or another, whether I like it or understand it or not. Failing to take that into account seems discourteous to me.

 

[IWroteThis]

People are not making a LEGAL argument that using someone else's characters is wrong. They are making moral and ethical arguments.
If it is unethical or immoral to borrow someone else's characters... then it's unethical. Law and ethics are two distinct things. Something can be ethical and illegal, and something can be unethical and perfectly legal.

Actually, we are talking about law. To be specific, we're talking about copyright law. Yes, it's law.

To plagiarize copyright.gov:

The United States copyright law is contained in chapters 1 through 8 and 10 through 12 of Title 17 of the United States Code. The Copyright Act of 1976, which provides the basic framework for the current copyright law, was enacted on October 19, 1976, as Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541.

 

[MajorRewrite]

One of my stories was continued (unauthorized) by another author. I wouldn’t have cared if it was good, but predictably it was crap.

I left a stern comment on his story.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I did that, and my one piece of Star Wars fanfic is probably the reason George Lucas is still getting bounced around in this thread.

I'll just say that I feel fine writing something as culturally pervasive as Star Wars where nobody is gonna get into my work and have a lot of confusion about which parts are mine and which parts are George's. I do not feel the need to prove how creative I am with every work.

However, if I was to write a story about Jeremy and Esmerelda and witchcraft, I bet 50% of my audience wouldn't really pay attention to the notes at the top crediting @Kelliezgirl . They'd just say Wow, you write such great characters! This is so interesting! and they wouldn't click through to see the source. I'd be getting attention/credit/plaudits for work someone else did, and that's if I was diligent about crediting KG.

This is a thing I know for certain because it's happened to me, and it leaves a sour taste.

EDIT: Clarification: I do not think my one piece of Star Wars fanfic is so important or widely read that it inspires conversation. I think that I used it as an example much earlier in the thread, and that example kept getting brought up until it more or less had its own momentum within the thread.

My reference to Star Wars was simply from the perspective that on a long enough timeline all Lit threads will eventually mention Star Wars, and that it's widely known enough globally to reference.

That said, if someone wants to use my characters, it's not terribly important to me if they credit me or not.

I understand that some people feel differently, but, to OP's point, I don't see it as an issue that's worth getting worked up over.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Actually, we are talking about law. To be specific, we're talking about copyright law. Yes, it's law.

To plagiarize copyright.gov:

The United States copyright law is contained in chapters 1 through 8 and 10 through 12 of Title 17 of the United States Code. The Copyright Act of 1976, which provides the basic framework for the current copyright law, was enacted on October 19, 1976, as Pub. L. No. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541.

Thanks for the mansplaining, and completely missing the point.

For example here's what old_prof had to say.

I'm not going to step into the legality of doing this.

To me, the ethics of doing this is also critical. What ever your feelings on fanfic for big name material, I think there is little justification for doing so to someone's work published here, unless you have their explicit permission. Yes, you're not going to sued for it, but that threat should nt be your only restraint on your behavior.

So, again, many people here are making ETHICAL arguments.
From a LEGAL standpoint I can absolutely make derivative works from your stories. You missed some of the relevant law.

17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use​

 

[YmaOHyd]

I did that, and my one piece of Star Wars fanfic is probably the reason George Lucas is still getting bounced around in this thread.

I'm also working on a Star Wars piece, and I think it pretty clearly falls within fair use: non-commercial, does not use substantial portions of the existing work (every character who appears is original), has no effect on the market for Star Wars. Ethically, Lucasfilm and now Disney have a long-standing policy of tolerance for non-monetized fan-works. I have no ethical qualms here. I wouldn't write Dragonriders of Pern smut (partly because I don't care about the IP) but also because the author asked that people not do it.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Thanks for the mansplaining, and completely missing the point.

For example here's what old_prof had to say.


So, again, many people here are making ETHICAL arguments.
From a LEGAL standpoint I can absolutely make derivative works from your stories. You missed some of the relevant law.

17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use​

I'm only making an ethical argument.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I did that, and my one piece of Star Wars fanfic is probably the reason George Lucas is still getting bounced around in this thread.

I'll just say that I feel fine writing something as culturally pervasive as Star Wars where nobody is gonna get into my work and have a lot of confusion about which parts are mine and which parts are George's. I do not feel the need to prove how creative I am with every work.

However, if I was to write a story about Jeremy and Esmerelda and witchcraft, I bet 50% of my audience wouldn't really pay attention to the notes at the top crediting @Kelliezgirl . They'd just say Wow, you write such great characters! This is so interesting! and they wouldn't click through to see the source. I'd be getting attention/credit/plaudits for work someone else did, and that's if I was diligent about crediting KG.

This is a thing I know for certain because it's happened to me, and it leaves a sour taste.

EDIT: Clarification: I do not think my one piece of Star Wars fanfic is so important or widely read that it inspires conversation. I think that I used it as an example much earlier in the thread, and that example kept getting brought up until it more or less had its own momentum within the thread.

Just making a note here- I don't recall Lucas giving Akira Kurosawa a credit on Star Wars.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Just making a note here- I don't recall Lucas giving Akira Kurosawa a credit on Star Wars.

Or Michael Anderson.

 

[IWroteThis]

Thanks for the mansplaining, and completely missing the point.

Thanks for the sexist reply, hypocrite.

For example here's what old_prof had to say.

So, again, many people here are making ETHICAL arguments.
From a LEGAL standpoint I can absolutely make derivative works from your stories. You missed some of the relevant law.

17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use​

First of all, fair use is an affirmative defense. It is not a right, nor a blanket permission.

The first step in claiming fair use is to admit that you violated copyright. Then, the burden is on you to prove that you were justified in that violation. Much like involuntary manslaughter is still manslaughter, fair use is still a copyright violation. It's just another reminder that "Not Guilty" and "Innocent" are not the same thing.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Thanks for the sexist reply, hypocrite.


First of all, fair use is an affirmative defense. It is not a right, nor a blanket permission.

The first step in claiming fair use is to admit that you violated copyright. Then, the burden is on you to prove that you were justified in that violation. Much like involuntary manslaughter is still manslaughter, fair use is still a copyright violation. It's just another reminder that "Not Guilty" and "Innocent" are not the same thing.

We are all familiar with copyright law, everyone is aware of it's existence.

And again, lots of people in this thread are making ethical arguments, not legal ones.

Also, read up on Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. with regards to "affirmative defense". Things are more complicated than you are making them out to be.
So no, you don't have to admit guilt before you can ask for fair use.

"Because 17 U.S.C. § 107[9] created a type of non-infringing use, fair use is 'authorized by the law' and a copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification under § 512(c)."

 

[IWroteThis]

We are all familiar with copyright law, everyone is aware of it's existence.

You could have fooled me, what with your previous comments indicating otherwise.

And again, lots of people in this thread are making ethical arguments, not legal ones.

Perhaps, but ethical arguments have their place in discussions. After all, a lot of law is intended to replicate ethics and are written by people who are sworn to follow a code of ethics.

Also, the comment of yours that I replied to was the one where you claimed there were no legal arguments being made. I was pointing out the untruth of that particular bit, not claiming that all of the arguments were strictly legal in nature.

Also, read up on Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. with regards to "affirmative defense. Things are more complicated than you are making them out to be.

That's kind of funny, as I was pointing out to you that fair use is more complicated than you were making it out to be.

 

[Bramblethorn]

All of Charles Dickens major works predate the Berne Convention, as do most of Mark Twain's. Didn't seem to stifle their creativity.

Mark Twain, you say?

Unauthorised editions were so much a problem for him that he travelled between the USA, UK and Canada to secure copyright for his works in each country. Think about the trouble and expense of having to make a trans-Atlantic trip every time you wanted to publish a book. Think of what more he could've written instead of faffing around establishing copyrights in multiple continents.

Piracy caused him so much grief that he considered giving up writing books.

Instead, he ended up lobbying legislatures in the USA and UK to establish international copyright laws, and was later recognised by the American Bar Association as "so greatly responsible for the laws relating to copyrights which have meant so much to all free peoples throughout the world".

https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2014/09/mark-twain-copyright/

Dickens was also outraged by American piracy of his works; he advocated for international copyright laws during his US tours, and Nicholas Nickleby features a speech where Nicholas denounced piracy.

https://foleyhoag.com/news-and-insi...nd-copyright-law-five-things-you-should-know/

Experiences like theirs are precisely why the Berne Convention exists.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

You could have fooled me, what with your previous comments indicating otherwise.


Perhaps, but ethical arguments have their place in discussions. After all, a lot of law is intended to replicate ethics and are written by people who are sworn to follow a code of ethics.

Also, the comment of yours that I replied to was the one where you claimed there were no legal arguments being made. I was pointing out the untruth of that particular bit, not claiming that all of the arguments were strictly legal in nature.


That's kind of funny, as I was pointing out to you that fair use is more complicated than you were making it out to be.

Which previous comments of mine indicated I wasn't aware of the existence of copyright?

As I've said, people here are making ethical arguments. Not legal ones. I can absolutely use your characters under fair use.
And I don't have to admit guilt to anything to do so.

Whether or not I SHOULD do that is an ethical argument, which is what we are having here.

Your presumption seems to be if I don't write a 5000 word law review article with citations then I must not know about something is a ridiculous standard. We are having a broad based, general conversation here. The fact that people don't go into particular (and in this case often irrelevant) details doesn't mean they aren't aware of the existence of that information.

And, as I have said previously, there is nothing to be gained by having a legal argument about this topic, legally you can do it. That's pretty cut and dried or the whole Fan Fic section wouldn't be here.
The question is one of ethics.
So, if you want to argue about law... good luck with that.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Mark Twain, you say?

Unauthorised editions were so much a problem for him that he travelled between the USA, UK and Canada to secure copyright for his works in each country. Think about the trouble and expense of having to make a trans-Atlantic trip every time you wanted to publish a book. Think of what more he could've written instead of faffing around establishing copyrights in multiple continents.

Piracy caused him so much grief that he considered giving up writing books.

Instead, he ended up lobbying legislatures in the USA and UK to establish international copyright laws, and was later recognised by the American Bar Association as "so greatly responsible for the laws relating to copyrights which have meant so much to all free peoples throughout the world".

https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2014/09/mark-twain-copyright/

Dickens was also outraged by American piracy of his works; he advocated for international copyright laws during his US tours, and Nicholas Nickleby features a speech where Nicholas denounced piracy.

https://foleyhoag.com/news-and-insi...nd-copyright-law-five-things-you-should-know/

Experiences like theirs are precisely why the Berne Convention exists.

But it didn't stop either of them from writing.
So, my point stands.

I'll just assume you missed the part where I said I was in favor of copyright, since you were in such a hurry to try and prove someone wrong.
Good effort though.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

this is an important conversation and it was about time we had it.