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

[calmlikeabomb]

Based on the kinds of things you've been putting up over the last couple of hours, you're not improving that discourse much.

If you need to explain all your posts as the product of drunkenness and anti-depressants, you shouldn't be posting.

I disagree. The discourse usually is bleh anyway.

And last time I checked, there was no law by the INTERNET POLICE that you couldn't post while high.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Based on the kinds of things you've been putting up over the last couple of hours, you're not improving that discourse much.

If you need to explain all your posts as the product of drunkenness and anti-depressants, you shouldn't be posting.

Username checks out.

 

[RocketGrunt]

It's weird how sometimes puritanical sanctimonious bullshit means not wanting people to steal your work.

I'm still waiting for anyone on team anti-continuation to actually say that Wicked was unethical. People seem to be able to pontificate on a lot of things, but it seems to me that this is literally the clearest case there is. It's a continuation that was not forbidden by law, yet obviously went against the wishes and character designs of the original creator.

Anyone who can't put their hands on the table and say that was unethical and bad doesn't actually believe anything they are saying about continuing other peoples' works.

 

[Voboy]

I'm still waiting for anyone on team anti-continuation to actually say that Wicked was unethical. People seem to be able to pontificate on a lot of things, but it seems to me that this is literally the clearest case there is. It's a continuation that was not forbidden by law, yet obviously went against the wishes and character designs of the original creator.

Anyone who can't put their hands on the table and say that was unethical and bad doesn't actually believe anything they are saying about continuing other peoples' works.

I wouldn't have written Wicked. I haven't read it. I don't know whether it's completely consistent with Baum's story or not.

I do know that Oz was heavily adulterated already, years ago. I know that the publisher kept churning out book after book as soon as Baum's body was cold; when they exceeded the capabilities of that first replacement author, they found others. There are forty canonical Oz books, and Baum wrote just fourteen of them. I also know that Baum styled himself not as "the creator of Oz," but as "the historian of Oz;" his conceit was that there were many, many OZ stories to be told, and he was merely relating some of them.

When his publisher continued the story, they "appointed a new historian" and, in that way, somewhat continued Baum's ideas. Within his meta-narrative, not to mention the publishers' actual narrative, there seems to be a clear tacit acceptance on Baum's part that his universe could continue. I don't know for sure, but I find it unlikely his publisher would have so blithely continued his work if he'd made it clear he didn't want them to. Perhaps you know the answer to that, and I'd appreciate hearing it.

So I don't think the Oz case is quite as clear-cut as you seem to think it is. I think a good argument can be made that Wicked was simply the latest in a long line of ancillary tales.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm still waiting for anyone on team anti-continuation to actually say that Wicked was unethical. People seem to be able to pontificate on a lot of things, but it seems to me that this is literally the clearest case there is. It's a continuation that was not forbidden by law, yet obviously went against the wishes and character designs of the original creator.

Anyone who can't put their hands on the table and say that was unethical and bad doesn't actually believe anything they are saying about continuing other peoples' works.

Anyone who makes sweeping statements about what others can't say or believe should check their statements and premises.

It's like this. While the law and the ethics of using another's work are not exactly the same, there's overlap, and legal boundaries inform ethics.

When the copyright in your work expires, it's no longer yours. It's public domain. It's for the world to use, free. You have no cause for complaint that others use it.

Analogize it to patent law. When the patent on an invention expires, people are free to use it. No sane person argues that it is unethical to use another person's idea when the patent expires. On the contrary, technological advances require that sort of sharing: it's a GOOD thing, after the patent expires, to be free to use another's idea.

The same principle applies to creative expression. Your legal right to claim exclusive ownership and use only lasts for a limited term, and so does your ethical right. You have no cause to complain that your work has passed into the public domain and others are free to use it without a guilty conscience.

The subjective wishes of the original creator don't determine what is ethical. An original creator has no right, legal, ethical, or otherwise, to demand more than what the law allows him. He publishes knowing full well that his work will fall into the public domain eventually, and he has no cause for complaint when others use his work afterward.

 

[calmlikeabomb]

Anyone who makes sweeping statements about what others can't say or believe should check their statements and premises.

It's like this. While the law and the ethics of using another's work are not exactly the same, there's overlap, and legal boundaries inform ethics.

When the copyright in your work expires, it's no longer yours. It's public domain. It's for the world to use, free. You have no cause for complaint that others use it.

Analogize it to patent law. When the patent on an invention expires, people are free to use it. No sane person argues that it is unethical to use another person's idea when the patent expires. On the contrary, technological advances require that sort of sharing: it's a GOOD thing, after the patent expires, to be free to use another's idea.

The same principle applies to creative expression. Your legal right to claim exclusive ownership and use only lasts for a limited term, and so does your ethical right. You have no cause to complain that your work has passed into the public domain and others are free to use it without a guilty conscience.

The subjective wishes of the original creator don't determine what is ethical. An original creator has no right, legal, ethical, or otherwise, to demand more than what the law allows him. He publishes knowing full well that his work will fall into the public domain eventually, and he has no cause for complaint when others use his work afterward.

Well said.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm genuinely curious about how this affects non monetizable, non copywritable content, like much of the stuff that's posted on this site or on fan fiction forums..

Afterall, wasn't most of 50 shades inspired by Twilight?

 

[sirhugs]

Well said.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm genuinely curious about how this affects non monetizable, non copywritable content, like much of the stuff that's posted on this site or on fan fiction forums..

Afterall, wasn't most of 50 shades inspired by Twilight?

just what do you mean by "non copywritble content". Work does not to be for profit to be subject to copyright.

 

[old_prof]

I'm genuinely curious about how this affects non monetizable, non copywritable content, like much of the stuff that's posted on this site

Things on this site are generally copyrightable (and the copyright belongs to the author). I'm not sure why you think it wouldn't be.

I also wish people would understand that an author's choice to not monetize a work does not negate its copyright. Monetizing a work is a right controlled by copyright, but not the only one.

 

[SimonDoom]

Well said.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm genuinely curious about how this affects non monetizable, non copywritable content, like much of the stuff that's posted on this site or on fan fiction forums..

Afterall, wasn't most of 50 shades inspired by Twilight?

It depends on what you meant by "how this affects."

The reality is that fanfiction, and what we do here, exists in a kind of bubble where the law theoretically applies the same way it applies everywhere, but where as a practical matter the law rarely intrudes. This is so for two reasons. One, we're all anonymous, or pseudonymous, and my guess is almost none of us take steps to register or protect our copyrights. And two, we're not making any money, so big published authors don't care what we do, most of the time.

So, as a practical matter, you probably have almost nothing to worry about when you publish fanfiction stories at Literotica. If you publish a continuation of another Literotica author's story, your story will get pulled if the author complains to Literotica, but it's unlikely that author will sue you.

I would guess the odds are vanishingly small that any well-known mainstream author would file a lawsuit against a Literotica author that wrote fanfiction based on that author's work. But that doesn't mean they couldn't do it, or that they wouldn't have a chance in court.

 

[calmlikeabomb]

just what do you mean by "non copywritble content". Work does not to be for profit to be subject to copyright.

Yeah, exactly. My opinion might be skewed but most of the stuff here is in some way fanfiction. Does that qualify?

An author has been unresponsive for more than a decade. Does that qualify?

I understand this is a quagmire of good intentions vs actual enforced laws, and I just don't know where is the line?

There is a horrifying Harry Potter fanfic called my immortal. It's absolute trash, but interesting in the same way a car crash is. What's the socially acceptable rules there?

I mean no disrespect, I just don't know what's the clear line between go and no-go.

 

[Voboy]

My opinion might be skewed but most of the stuff here is in some way fanfiction.

...no. Just no. Many works here are fanfiction. "Most" are not, by a very wide margin.

 

[calmlikeabomb]

It depends on what you meant by "how this affects."

The reality is that fanfiction, and what we do here, exists in a kind of bubble where the law theoretically applies the same way it applies everywhere, but where as a practical matter the law rarely intrudes. This is so for two reasons. One, we're all anonymous, or pseudonymous, and my guess is almost none of us take steps to register or protect our copyrights. And two, we're not making any money, so big published authors don't care what we do, most of the time.

So, as a practical matter, you probably have almost nothing to worry about when you publish fanfiction stories at Literotica. If you publish a continuation of another Literotica author's story, your story will get pulled if the author complains to Literotica, but it's unlikely that author will sue you.

I would guess the odds are vanishingly small that any well-known mainstream author would file a lawsuit against a Literotica author that wrote fanfiction based on that author's work. But that doesn't mean they couldn't do it, or that they wouldn't have a chance in court.

Thank you for that. I guess we have a tendency to take ourselves more seriously than we should. But i recognize there is a real harm to a person if I take there characters and twist them into something they are not, but at the same time, If in my mind I'm honouring a forgotten author by continuing their legacy, then am I in the wrong?

Reena Kanwar and her works were a definitive part of my sexual awakening. So were the works of cuterani69 (posted on some Indian forums, not here). Most of their works are lost. I want to make some people feel the same way their works made me feel. With similar themes and characters.

Are we holding ourselves back too much? Where do we draw the line?

I know I'm asking questions to which there may never be clean answers, but erotica has been a big part of my life, and in my own vanity, I like to think my own work so far has a throughline from people who inspired me.

There are so many of you who are more experienced in erotica than I am (though I dare say I have more experience than most of you in traditional publishing, seeing as how I led Kindle eBooks for a while) and I genuinely want to rely on your wisdom than my own judgement in this.

Apologies if I'm offending someone. I'm just being an honest asshole.

 

[SimonDoom]

Thank you for that. I guess we have a tendency to take ourselves more seriously than we should. But i recognize there is a real harm to a person if I take there characters and twist them into something they are not, but at the same time, If in my mind I'm honouring a forgotten author by continuing their legacy, then am I in the wrong?

Reena Kanwar and her works were a definitive part of my sexual awakening. So were the works of cuterani69 (posted on some Indian forums, not here). Most of their works are lost. I want to make some people feel the same way their works made me feel. With similar themes and characters.

Are we holding ourselves back too much? Where do we draw the line?

I know I'm asking questions to which there may never be clean answers, but erotica has been a big part of my life, and in my own vanity, I like to think my own work so far has a throughline from people who inspired me.

There are so many of you who are more experienced in erotica than I am (though I dare say I have more experience than most of you in traditional publishing, seeing as how I led Kindle eBooks for a while) and I genuinely want to rely on your wisdom than my own judgement in this.

Apologies if I'm offending someone. I'm just being an honest asshole.

You're not offending anybody. These are great questions.

Here's my answer. It may not be other people's answer. Let your own conscience decide.

This is how I personally navigate this. I don't expect others to feel the way I do.

I would have no hesitation whatsoever about writing a kinky fanfiction Oz story, assuming Lit would be satisfied enough that it didn't violate the under-18 rule that they would let it be published. My view is that the Oz stories are in the public domain for both legal and ethical purposes. We are all free to share them, as we see fit.

Regarding popular mainstream authors whose works still enjoy copyright, I have mixed views. I think much fanfiction probably, if challenged, would constitute copyright infringement. But there's an industry expectation that seems to allow it. I published an erotic fanfiction story based on Tolkien's LOTR in which Sam and Frodo have sex with an elf on their way to Mount Doom. I decided that it was a weird enough twist on the original work story that it might be a transformative work. But if the Tolkien estate came after me I'd drop it like a hot potato.

Unlike some, I regard fanfiction based on Literotica stories quite differently from the way I regard fanfiction based on the works of popular mainstream authors. I would never write a derivative work based on a Literotica author's work without that author's express permission. That courtesy strikes me as part of the implicit pact we all enter when we become fellow authors here, and it's also what Lit's express rules require.

 

[RocketGrunt]

Well said.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm genuinely curious about how this affects non monetizable, non copywritable content, like much of the stuff that's posted on this site or on fan fiction forums..

Afterall, wasn't most of 50 shades inspired by Twilight?

50 Shades was Twilight Fanfiction. An alternate universe Twilight Fanfiction called "Master of the Universe" where Edward and Bella worked in publishing together.

In order to make it monetizable it was IP scrubbed. Edward and Bella got new names, as did other characters in order to make it so that no material owned by Stephenie Meyer would be in the version sold for money.

IP Scrubbing is something that you can do to avoid the legal infringement of another person's work. That does not change the ethics of it at all. You're still "paying homage" if people approve and "ripping off" if they don't. That hasn't changed at all.

 

[MelissaBaby]

An author has been unresponsive for more than a decade. Does that qualify?

J.D. Salinger was a recluse for more than 40 years. Did that make Catcher in the Rye fair game?

 

[MelissaBaby]

It depends on what you meant by "how this affects."

The reality is that fanfiction, and what we do here, exists in a kind of bubble where the law theoretically applies the same way it applies everywhere, but where as a practical matter the law rarely intrudes.

So, sort of like dealing weed. It's technically illegal at the federal level, but nobody bothers to do anything about it.

 

[calmlikeabomb]

J.D. Salinger was a recluse for more than 40 years. Did that make Catcher in the Rye fair game?

I have no fucking clue. I'm naive. I know very little. Please educate me.

Lovecroft's mythos was used by several people after that. I don't see why I can't put my own spin on Reena_kanwar's stories.

I may be wrong, but I would like to know why.

 

[StillStunned]

I don't see why I can't put my own spin on Reena_kanwar's stories.

Send a message to Laurel (may she live forever) and ask what she says.

 

[calmlikeabomb]

Send a message to Laurel (may she live forever) and ask what she says.

I am too much of a coward to do that. @Laurel and @Manu are mythics entities to me, and I am but a feather on the wind. I float and I scream silently, but I am a coward.
That's why I am here with a of you.

 

[Voboy]

I am too much of a coward to do that. @Laurel and @Manu are mythics entities to me, and I am but a feather on the wind. I float and I scream silently, but I am a coward.
That's why I am here with a of you.

Lol.

Not a single one of us can give you an answer. We can spend 12 pages pondering it; she could give you an accurate, binding response in about two minutes.

She's just a person. Message her.

 

[RocketGrunt]

Lovecroft's mythos was used by several people after that. I don't see why I can't put my own spin on Reena_kanwar's stories.

Lovecraft's Mythos was created as a shared and shareable collaboration within his lifetime and was also used by a number of other writers (including the author of Conan). It's public domain, but we also have absolute evidence that the original authors wanted others to build on it and take it in different directions. They said so explicitly.

Derivative works made later may still be legally protectable, and some authors even try to turn their works into walled gardens within the creative commons. However, most of the notable Mythos creators shared Lovecraft's vision of collaboration and cooperation. When I asked Brian Lumley for permission to use his works back when he was alive, he gave it happily.

So it's absolutely ethical to build upon Lovecraft's work. And it's also legal to build off Lovecraft's work. But there's other stuff that's built off of Lovecraft's Work which it is therefore ethical to continue further build upon, but which the intermediate author has *not* given permissions and whose intellectual property rights are still in force. So for those it can be ethical but not legal.

Now that Brian Lumley is dead, he doesn't have a say in his intellectual property anymore. Someone else owns the rights now. So even though I know for an absolute fact that he'd be cool with you writing your own Shudde M'ell stories, it's not up to him anymore and it may no longer be possible to get the legal permissions to do so.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I have no fucking clue. I'm naive. I know very little. Please educate me.

Lovecroft's mythos was used by several people after that. I don't see why I can't put my own spin on Reena_kanwar's stories.

I may be wrong, but I would like to know why.

I'm not familiar with Reena_kanwar, but Lovecraft is something of a special case. There are reasons why people might think it's okay to use Lovecraftian settings even if they're not generally okay with fanfic.

We can be pretty sure that HPL would have been at least in-principle okay with people borrowing his work, because he borrowed quite a lot from other authors and encouraged others to borrow from him. A lot of what we think of as "Lovecraft's mythos" or "Cthulhu Mythos" wasn't his invention, but rather borrowed from earlier and contemporary authors (Chambers, Howard etc.) or added by later authors. Sometimes the borrowing was mutual, e.g. Lovecraft and Bloch went back and forth killing off fictional versions of one another. It's really a kind of collaborative project, a bit like SCP albeit with HPL as a central figure in that collaboration.

Lovecraft was also a guy who expressed certain ~controversial attitudes~ through his work, and some of the later authors to play in that mythos have been doing so with the intention of challenging those attitudes. Both LaValle's The Ballad of Black Tom and Emrys' Innsmouth Legacy stories challenge HPL's racial attitudes (among other things) to a degree that might qualify them as "transformative work".

For these reasons I would be (and have been) much more blasé about writing a Lovecraftian story than about some pseudonymous erotica author who hadn't expressed willingness to let others borrow their toys.

 

[Britva415]

last time I checked, there was no law by the INTERNET POLICE that you couldn't post while high.

The point was so high it went way over your head

There's no law that says if you pick your nose in front of the whole 5th grade class, you have to wear the nickname "Booger" till you move away, either, but 5th graders gonna 5th grade.

Likewise, blaming one's weird and regrettable posts on intoxication will get regrettable reactions because internet gonna internet. It's not so much a de jure law as a de naturalis one. No police involved.

 

[Katie_Mae]

This thread is developing predictably. Like it always does.

Do what your conscience and temperament dictate. If anyone has a problem with it here? Laurel will judge.

The thing is, this thread was actually about us authors considering if we should allow other people to make fan works of our writings, and, if so, to consider a blanket permission statement in our profile.

Well, fanfiction, and specifically continuations. However I use fan works as that's the permission I give. Would anyone not be okay with a fanfic of their work, but okay with a fan art etc? I was about to say "I don't think so," but, knowing this place, probably.

But it wasn't really about suggestion people should make fanworks without the author's permission at all. But that's what the majority of this thread focused on. Like you said, predictably.

---

12 pages in, I still don't see any issue with me allowing others to make fan works of my work, should they be motivated to do so. It's not a big deal (in the negative sense), so I allow it. I don't see how I lose anything, how it harms me. I get that some other authors feel differently, of course. As the opening post states, it's up to each individual author to decide. But, considering I've given permission, how is it a legal or ethical issue?

And lets face it, most of us aren't going to be overwhelmed with fan works anyway. Do I know authors here who have fandoms, who get together and discuss theories, draw art, write fanfics? yes. But, I don't think that's a common occurrence. While I have had a fanwork made of one of my stories, I don't expect it to be a common occurrence, or even repeated. It felt big-headed to even put a note in my profile, but threads like this demonstrate why it's important.

 

[Voboy]

...majority of this thread focused on. Like you said, predictably.

Yes indeed. Same as it ever was.

12 pages in, I still don't see any issue with me allowing others to make fan works of my work, should they be motivated to do so. It's not a big deal (in the negative sense), so I allow it. I don't see how I lose anything, how it harms me. I get that some other authors feel differently, of course.

I've got ZERO problem with any writer (or any other kind of artist) giving anyone else blanket permission to use their stuff. I only wish I could be that selfless.