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

[Kelliezgirl]

My take was that the showrunners wanted to tell a particular story that could just as easily have been told in Pern, or Oz, or Arendia, or Discworld, or Prydain, or Whateverland. They had their fixed ideas, and were willing to adapt them to whatever IP Bezos could lend them. I don't get the sense they had any respect at all for JRRT's intent in his stories.

I think they think they're brilliant storytellers, and I doubt they'd listen to the reasons why they're not. They remind me of George Lucas, who at least built his own world instead of piggybacking on Tolkien's.

I think this is the biggest problem with most of these modern "reimaginings".
They aren't people who love and respect the original stories. They just want to wear it as a skin suit and demand respect.
Then when the audience doesn't go for it, it's because of some moral flaw in the audience.

I'm not a Witcher fan but everything I've heard coming out of that is how the showrunners and writers basically shit on Henry Cavill every chance they got for wanting to be consistent with the lore of the series.

 

[SimonDoom]

True and at this point I'd even be fine with animated.

Am I the only one who remembers this? It wasn't bad at all, ROP can't even hold a candle to this

I recall that. If I recall, it only took the story half way through, and they never made a follow up movie to complete the tale.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I recall that. If I recall, it only took the story half way through, and they never made a follow up movie to complete the tale.

So, if I made an AI generated sequel....


(I kid, I kid).

 

[SimonDoom]

So, if I made an AI generated sequel....


(I kid, I kid).

Let's not go there!

 

[Britva415]

we're increasingly treated to reheated sequels to decades old media properties

Not without millions of dollars at stake, though.

And I'm not even talking about the actual revenues and contracts. Millions are spent on lawyers just to negotiate that stuff.

The fact that Lit authors aren't in any kind of commercial arrangement doesn't dilute their rights or enhance any of our justifications when one of us wants to trample on them.

 

[lovecraft68]

So, if I made an AI generated sequel....


(I kid, I kid).

Do you kid? We'll be watching.

 

[Britva415]

Who really cares if someone writes a free conclusion to a free and unfinished story?

Maybe you don't, and maybe you don't think anyone else should either, and you're free to think that. But if you really feel that, then you must not object to going ahead and doing it even when the original author has in fact said "no" to giving their blessing or said "just don't," to put it in even stronger terms.

Encouraging other writers to tread this slippery slope is not "conduct becoming of an author," in my opinion.

 

[gunhilltrain]

That is one of the sites I was thinking of.

On SOL, as an author, you can always add more chapters if the urge strikes you. I have an inactive series on there because the muse hasn't struck me of how to go on. However, I don't think another author can jump into your stories. (They are called serials over there.)

 

[SavannaT]

The amount of stories ive wanted ti continue from the original authors but realize id just be dragged lol … i don’t wanna make The Cursed Child of mid-erotica

 

[Bramblethorn]

This is a separate issue to the one I'm raising here and a much more irksome one. I'm assuming the new author isn't making any money and is writing all their own text.

It's not the same thing, but both of them come from an attitude of "the author's permission doesn't matter".

In a world without thieves, maybe it'd be fine for me to come through your door without knocking and borrow your stuff, because I'm going to return it. In a world with thieves, even the non-thieves need to modify their behaviour if they want to be courteous.

And in between them, there's a grey area of stuff that the original author might consider repugnant even though the "fan" doesn't see a problem. In addition to the example @THBGato already provided:

When I wrote Red Scarf, I wanted to push back on some tropes in fiction about sex work (recently mentioned over in another thread), and to assert that aromantic people are worthy of respect and friendship, and to say something about how sometimes relationships end and that hurts but it's part of life. I had an ending planned from the start, and I knew some readers weren't going to like it, because some readers want to read the same story over and over again. (And comfort reading is also fine and good! I have comfort stories here that people are welcome to re-read! But it doesn't mean I'm obliged to make every story I write a comfortable narrative.)

Some readers disagreed vehemently with the way I ended it. One of them basically demanded that I tack on another chapter which would turn it back into a romantic HEA Pretty Woman narrative that's been done a thousand times already.

From their perspective, they're a Good Guy trying to fix a story that the author didn't know how to complete. From mine, that addition would be shitting on sex workers and aromantics, for the sake of a tired cliché.

Rules that are based on "it's okay to do this if you're one of the good guys" are not workable.

 

[lc69hunter]

The topic of someone wanting to continue a unfinished and apparently long abandoned story by another writer is one that rolls around weekly on this forum, and inevitably it seems to bring near universal condemnation. At the same time, within mainstream media, we're increasingly treated to reheated sequels to decades old media properties - a new Lord of the Rings anime, a new Star Wars trilogy, half a dozen new Star Trek spins offs, apparently a new Murder She Wrote TV series. All these green-lit by companies which own the rights but which are written and made by teams who often had no involvement in the originals.

I think there is an assumption, certainly that Disney had, that when they brought the rights to Star Wars that, in some way, they were also buying the fandom that came along with it. A common saying amongst sci-fi affictionardos is that 'No one hates Star Wars more than Star Wars fans'. For myself, I feel like I'm very easy to please - I just want a movie that is equally good as one of the best sci-fi movies ever made. If you bought a two-star Michillin restaurant the expectation would be that you wanted to continue serving food at two-star levels. Not that you would keep the names of the dishes and most of the decor the same.

About two decades ago, a few years after the Star Wars prequels were made, I found myself watching TV and thinking to myself. "Wow, Battlestar Gallactica is now a better science fiction series than Star Wars. Who could have predicted this when I was a child?"

Then, about a decade ago, midway through the release of the Star Wars sequel trilogy, I found myself watching TV with my six(ish) year old daughter and genuinely thinking "Wow, My Little Pony is now a better epic fantasy series than Star Wars. We truely are in a through the looking glass world here."

The place I've reached is that why should I care about or give any creedence to derivative works that are not created by the original authors. If someone asks me these days if I'm a Lord of the Rings fan, I'll be careful to say that I'm a J.R.R Tolkien fan. Beyond that, any new Middle Earth spinoffs get exactly the same benefit of the doubt that any new generic fantasy series would get (possibly slightly less as I'd have more patience for understand what was special about the newly created property.) As an example, I watched the LotRs Rohirrim anime for about fifteen minutes on a recent flight and then turned it off and didnt feel any of my usual 'completionist' anxiety about it. I didnt like what I saw, but I also wasn't offended by its existance. The impact it has on J.R.R's legacy is less that a tadpole's fart in the Atlantic Ocean.

But, and this is where it gets controversial, this attitude also carries over to Literotica. Who really cares if someone writes a free conclusion to a free and unfinished story? That person wasnt the original author, and the original author is still perfectly free to come back and finish the story if they want to. As long as it is disclosed that it is a derivative, unofficial and non-cannon work, I don't see a whole lot of harm to it.

I know people feel strongly about this topic and I'm well aware of the legal and ethical arguments. I also feel like as a community which is producing (mostly) free and (somewhat) taboo-breaking content, it would be nice if there was more of a 'hippy' attitude towards it. People will say its down to each individual author, and indeed it is and it must be. I don't know that I've much on here worth borrowing from (although I have been approached for permission for one derivative work) but I am edging towards including some kind of blanket release for what I write and encouraging others to do the same (if they want to, of course.)

Asimov's Foundation Trilogy was a seminal work. There have been, I believe, four or five derivative works which take us into a future of the trilogy. All have been adequate, but without the brilliant touch of the original author.
As for Lit, I have been given permission by two authors to take their story in a new direction, and a hell no by another. I have not done so on any of them, as again, the question is, can I do them justice?

 

[SkyBubble]

The topic of someone wanting to continue a unfinished and apparently long abandoned story by another writer is one that rolls around weekly on this forum, and inevitably it seems to bring near universal condemnation. At the same time, within mainstream media, we're increasingly treated to reheated sequels to decades old media properties - a new Lord of the Rings anime, a new Star Wars trilogy, half a dozen new Star Trek spins offs, apparently a new Murder She Wrote TV series. All these green-lit by companies which own the rights but which are written and made by teams who often had no involvement in the originals.

You posted the key phrase here in your first paragraph: "All these green-lit by companies which own the rights"

Many, if not most, of the continuations by others here on Lit are without that consent. There are numerous threads on these boards from people complaining that they want to continue a series or story from another author, couldn't reach the author, did it anyway, and got zotted for doing so.

The question is do you have the original author's consent?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

You posted the key phrase here in your first paragraph: "All these green-lit by companies which own the rights"

Many, if not most, of the continuations by others here on Lit are without that consent. There re numerous threads on these boards from people complaining that they want to continue a series or story from another author, couldn't reach the author, did it anyway, and got zotted for doing so.

The question is do you have the original author's consent?

Well, if the standard is the original author's consent, Amazon doesn't have Tolkien's consent. He's been dead for 52 years.
They got permission from people who are selling off his legacy.

 

[SkyBubble]

Well, if the standard is the original author's consent, Amazon doesn't have Tolkien's consent. He's been dead for 52 years.
They got permission from people who are selling off his legacy.

They got permission from the people who control the rights. If you want to produce a musical by Rodgers and Hammerstein, since neither of them is alive, you go to the people to whom they left control of their work, the Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization.

You don't just go ahead and do it, even if you tried to get the author's consent and couldn't find the author.

The rules are pretty clear about this.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Maybe you don't, and maybe you don't think anyone else should either, and you're free to think that. But if you really feel that, then you must not object to going ahead and doing it even when the original author has in fact said "no" to giving their blessing or said "just don't," to put it in even stronger terms.

Encouraging other writers to tread this slippery slope is not "conduct becoming of an author," in my opinion.

It's not the same thing, but both of them come from an attitude of "the author's permission doesn't matter".

I think both of these posts are missing that I'm not encouraging 'continuing' authors to continue a story, I'm encouraging (or at least chewing over the idea of) general authors being more relaxed about these things. Clearly a lot of people disagree, but I think most of us are writing as a hobby, for fun and not for monetary gain and on that basis, I'm thinking it's okay to be chill.

I haven't read Red Scarf, but hypothetically suppose you did let someone write this suggested epilogue. One of three things happen - A) Nearly everyone agrees that the new section is a failure, completely unnecessary and if anything, come back to the story with a fresh appreciation of what you were trying to say B) People mostly like the new ending better. This is a bit of a kick in the teeth because it means that message you were trying to get across with the story largely went unappreciated. Finally, C) you end up with both versions 'pleasing some of the people some of time'. If you want to see this as the high-brow appreciating you and the low-brow not, fine I guess. I suppose there's also a slim chance of D (again haven't read the source material) where the new writer produces an ending that doesn't shit on sex-workers and which you come to appreciate as improvement. Could happen.

My point, or my gut reaction, is that whatever happens this 'epilogue' remains as a curio. It's not a part of the story, you don't have to acknowledge it and however good or bad it is, for most people it's going to be irrelevant. Your story is going to be presented as complete under your profile without the additional material and few people are even going to be aware of its existence. The worst that happens is that it's urksome and possible, if you are writing as a hobbie and to get better, you might learn something from people's reaction to it, good or bad.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think both of these posts are missing that I'm not encouraging 'continuing' authors to continue a story, I'm encouraging (or at least chewing over the idea of) general authors being more relaxed about these things. Clearly a lot of people disagree, but I think most of us are writing as a hobby, for fun and not for monetary gain and on that basis, I'm thinking it's okay to be chill.

I think one can be "chill" on this issue while still be very clearly in the camp that permission is required. I understand some disagree, and I don't get excited about it or bear them any personal ill will. But I'm clear where I stand and I say so when these issues come up because some newer authors, and some more experienced authors, don't seem to know what the rule is or about the underlying reasons for not doing it.

For me it boils down to:

1. We should all care if permission is given or not. If the author does not give permission, that must be honored. Period.
2. Permission should not be presumed, either by the original author's departure from the site, or after a long time since the last installment. This to me seems the right position, even if none of us knows for certain what that particular author was thinking and even if none of knows for certain how Lit authors, collectively, feel about this issue. Enough authors in this forum do feel strongly about having their rights respected and their permission not presumed that those considering writing sequels ought to take that into consideration as evidence that many authors obviously do care about this very much.
3. That being the case, if you are weighing your own desire to write the story against the serious possibility that the original author would object, the right thing to do is not to write it.
4. Regardless, the site has stated its rule, and we should follow it.

 

[Cacatua_Galerita]

They got permission from the people who control the rights. If you want to produce a musical by Rodgers and Hammerstein, since neither of them is alive, you go to the people to whom they left control of their work, the Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization.

You don't just go ahead and do it, even if you tried to get the author's consent and couldn't find the author.

The rules are pretty clear about this.

I believe we (in AH) generally agree that you need to obtain permission before publishing a follow-on story of another author’s creative work. (Just as Laurel has stated.)

However, not all of us believe it is as simple as:

IF continue story AND no approval from creator THEN set Asshole to true.

There are some exceptions and nuance involved.

What if the to-be-continued story is “Mom Sits on Son’s Lap”? Who is the original owner of that creation? Is the earlier story original or creative enough to earn such protection from derivative works?

Can I ethically pick-up Cinderella where the fairy tale left off? Flesh-out the ‘happily ever after’ bit? The folk tale that Cinderella is based upon is traceable back two millennia, so it is morally okay to continue it(?)… but it may be legally risky, since Cinderella™ is now an ongoing Disney franchise.

Many authors here seem to have an IT background. (Or an ICT background, if you prefer UK wank-words.) Computer programmers are always looking to the edge-cases – testing the boundaries of logic for such generalizations – and we see exceptions. (Parody works, public domain works, generic/unoriginal tropes, etc.)

You’ve given the simple answer that’s right 99% of the time (and used clearly copyright-protected works as an example to support it).

The boolean-logic-brained pedants among us can’t ignore that last 1% without commenting.

--

Regarding site changes; I don’t agree with archiving or deleting ‘unfinished’ series. Don’t change anything like that. However, when we submit a story, allow us to add one of the Creative Commons license options to the site’s story metadata.

https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/

So, if you have a muse that needs to be push-started, then you’ll know which stories are ‘fair game’.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I believe we (in AH) generally agree that you need to obtain permission before publishing a follow-on story of another author’s creative work. (Just as Laurel has stated.)

However, not all of us believe it is as simple as:

IF continue story AND no approval from creator THEN set Asshole to true.

There are some exceptions and nuance involved.

What if the to-be-continued story is “Mom Sits on Son’s Lap”? Who is the original owner of that creation? Is the earlier story original or creative enough to earn such protection from derivative works?

If somebody wants to write yet another "mom sits on son's lap" story, knock yourself out, it's a cliché that's not the property of any one author.

If they want to write a continuation to some specific MSoSL story, and it has enough distinctive elements that it's recognisable which MSoSL story it's continuing - or the continuation-author feels the need to label it as a sequel - then that starts to feel like they should be asking permission.

Can I ethically pick-up Cinderella where the fairy tale left off? Flesh-out the ‘happily ever after’ bit? The folk tale that Cinderella is based upon is traceable back two millennia, so it is morally okay to continue it(?)… but it may be legally risky, since Cinderella™ is now an ongoing Disney franchise.

If you're not using Disney-specific elements, sure, knock yourself out.

If you are using elements that distinguish it as specifically Disney, well... ever since Disney decided to hoist the black flag at the expense of authors who were owed royalties, I'm not sure they're owed much consideration ethically. But good luck with their lawyers.

However, when we submit a story, allow us to add one of the Creative Commons license options to the site’s story metadata.

https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/

So, if you have a muse that needs to be push-started, then you’ll know which stories are ‘fair game’.

This is something I'd support. I probably wouldn't license my own stories this way, but if it was added as an optional selection at the time of story posting, that'd be a good way for authors to indicate their wishes.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think both of these posts are missing that I'm not encouraging 'continuing' authors to continue a story, I'm encouraging (or at least chewing over the idea of) general authors being more relaxed about these things. Clearly a lot of people disagree, but I think most of us are writing as a hobby, for fun and not for monetary gain and on that basis, I'm thinking it's okay to be chill.

I haven't read Red Scarf, but hypothetically suppose you did let someone write this suggested epilogue.

Are we talking about me allowing it, or giving it my blessing? I feel like there's some equivocation happening between those two things.

(Also, to be clear, I'm pretty cool with people writing just about anything; it's publishing where it becomes an issue.)

"Let" is an allowing word. But in practice, my power to disallow something like this is virtually zero; I can probably get it taken down off this site, but anywhere else on the web it's probably not feasible for me to get it taken down.

If they want to do it without me thinking they're an asshole, though, asking permission is necessary.

My point, or my gut reaction, is that whatever happens this 'epilogue' remains as a curio. It's not a part of the story, you don't have to acknowledge it and however good or bad it is, for most people it's going to be irrelevant. Your story is going to be presented as complete under your profile without the additional material and few people are even going to be aware of its existence. The worst that happens is that it's urksome and possible, if you are writing as a hobbie and to get better, you might learn something from people's reaction to it, good or bad.

I think where we're at cross purposes here is that you're looking at this solely in terms of whether the 'epilogue' gets written, and if so, how good/bad it is. But to me, "was permission obtained?" matters independent of how the epilogue turns out.

I think you're absolutely right in saying that most of the time these epilogues/continuations are going to be read by very few people and probably don't make much difference to the world, even by the standards of the average Literotica story.

But if somebody walks into my house without knocking, it doesn't excuse it for them to say that they were only there for an insignificant purpose. If anything, that just leaves me thinking "so you disrespected my boundaries and it wasn't even for any important reason?"

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

I think both of these posts are missing that I'm not encouraging 'continuing' authors to continue a story, I'm encouraging (or at least chewing over the idea of) general authors being more relaxed about these things. Clearly a lot of people disagree, but I think most of us are writing as a hobby, for fun and not for monetary gain and on that basis, I'm thinking it's okay to be chill.

You seem to have fallen outside the AH Clique of Acceptance, so most everything you say will be considered insignificant by the Masses.

Welcome to my world.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Ch 01 is mine
Ch 02 is mine
Ch 03 is Bob's
Ch 04 is Carol's
Ch 05 is Ted's
Ch 06 is Alice's

No posessiveness.

No big whoop.

Consider it a chain story.

 

[Omenainen]

What I find annoying about this thread is the “let me extend my morals to everyone” angle.

I don’t follow any sports, but I know better than to go to sports bar and say, “I don’t think it’s that much of a deal which end of the field the random ball (or random oval-ish object for the Americans) is, I think we should just all be chill about it.”

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

I know.


It's terrible when people have different opinions.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

They got permission from the people who control the rights. If you want to produce a musical by Rodgers and Hammerstein, since neither of them is alive, you go to the people to whom they left control of their work, the Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization.

You don't just go ahead and do it, even if you tried to get the author's consent and couldn't find the author.

The rules are pretty clear about this.

So, they got permission from someone who likely never met Rodgers or Hammerstein and whose only interest is making money. Nobody in charge at Disney these days ever met Walt, and they seem to have zero interest in his intent.


The point of copyright was so an artist could benefit from her work, not so a corporation could make money in perpetuity.
The exceptions for parody make it clear that an author's feelings aren't really part of the equation either.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I believe we (in AH) generally agree that you need to obtain permission before publishing a follow-on story of another author’s creative work. (Just as Laurel has stated.)

However, not all of us believe it is as simple as:

IF continue story AND no approval from creator THEN set Asshole to true.

There are some exceptions and nuance involved.

What if the to-be-continued story is “Mom Sits on Son’s Lap”? Who is the original owner of that creation? Is the earlier story original or creative enough to earn such protection from derivative works?

Can I ethically pick-up Cinderella where the fairy tale left off? Flesh-out the ‘happily ever after’ bit? The folk tale that Cinderella is based upon is traceable back two millennia, so it is morally okay to continue it(?)… but it may be legally risky, since Cinderella™ is now an ongoing Disney franchise.

Many authors here seem to have an IT background. (Or an ICT background, if you prefer UK wank-words.) Computer programmers are always looking to the edge-cases – testing the boundaries of logic for such generalizations – and we see exceptions. (Parody works, public domain works, generic/unoriginal tropes, etc.)

You’ve given the simple answer that’s right 99% of the time (and used clearly copyright-protected works as an example to support it).

The boolean-logic-brained pedants among us can’t ignore that last 1% without commenting.

--

Regarding site changes; I don’t agree with archiving or deleting ‘unfinished’ series. Don’t change anything like that. However, when we submit a story, allow us to add one of the Creative Commons license options to the site’s story metadata.

https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/

So, if you have a muse that needs to be push-started, then you’ll know which stories are ‘fair game’.

You can do all the Cinderella you want. There are plenty of other versions.

The people that made Wicked didn't get L. Frank Baum's permission (or that of his estate) to make it. Didn't have to.

Now, if you want to use ruby slippers things get more complicated, since they are part of MGM's copyright for the 1939 film.

Of course per the AH logic neither Wicked, the Wiz, The Tin Man, or a host of other books and movies should exist because they were all done without L Frank Baum's permission.

Now, none of those violated copyright law (for the most part, there have been several lawsuits) but many people in this thread have claimed it's unethical.

Was it unethical of Gregory Maguire to write Wicked? Would we pillory him here in the AH for daring to add to someone else's story without permission?
Does it violate some author's code of ethics?