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

[SkyBubble]

Writing your own take on an idea is fine. Picking up where someone left off without their permission, is not.

That's it exactly.

 

[TiberiusPrime]

I'm not going to read through all the comments to give my opinion. So here it goes: Absolutely no one can use any of my characters in their stories. Period. Nor are they allowed to continue one of my stories. If anyone emails me and asks if they can do it, the answer will always be NO. My characters are MINE. If I decide I want to see stories featuring any of my characters, then only I will write it.

As I have posted on my profile: NOTE: All my work is copyright by me. It is mine and mine alone. Absolutely no one has permission to use any of MY characters or stories for their use in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Absolutely everyone one can use any of my characters in their stories. Absolutely. And anyone is allowed to continue any of my stories.

All my work is free for use by anyone. It is anyone's and everyone's. Absolutely everyone one has permission to use any of MY characters or stories however they wish.


(Though if you make a million dollars off of them, I'd like a piece.)

 

[Voboy]

How about if we knock off the legal angle and copyright law and whatever else lawyers and legislators have gotten us all tangled up in.

Agreed.

If L. Frank Baum were here and now and a Litser, how would any of you feel about his story being taken over by others?

This is a very fair question, except that L Frank Baum wasn't a Litster. He wrote for money, and he made plenty. I also think that if he'd still been alive when Maguire thought about writing Wicked, the whole tale surrounding the development of that book would have been much different: Baum would have likely allowed it to go ahead while demanding a royalty, because Baum had a long history of selling his IP to film studios and other authors.

It's worth noting, in this context, that Baum's own publisher reached out to Ruth Thompson for 21 more "Oz" books after L Frank was dead, meaning the owner of the copyright made the most of its ability to capitalize on Baum's imagination.

So I think the context is different enough to make Baum a problematic example. But to be honest, I'm not sure what I think of Maguire, ethically. I do think it makes a difference that he was far from the first to adapt Baum's IP, and I also think it makes a difference that Baum would have found a way to be happy with Maguire's work.

Honestly, if I was to write a piece that had Baum's cultural impact, I'd probably feel differently about that piece than I feel about my existing catalog. All I know is what I know for myself: I don't want anyone "completing" my completed stories, and in the absence of something to the contrary, I'd assume every other writer would think like me... not because I'm projecting, but because I think erring on the side of caution is wise in situations like these.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

This is a very fair question, except that L Frank Baum wasn't a Litster.

That's why I said 'if'. Hypothetical.

Would the replies from the rest of the AHers vary?


Suppose Mary Shelley was here and posted a story about creating a monster in SciFi or Erotic Horror.

Then some guy named Mel Brooks comes along and posts a version of it in Humor and Satire.

How would the AH respond?

Yes, I'm being silly because that's what these threads often become.

 

[Voboy]

That's why I said 'if'. Hypothetical.

I get that, of course, but for many reasons, I think that particular hypothetical is problematic.

I'm also mindful of what someone else pointed out earlier in this thread: people who post This Same Kind Of Thread are not really talking about being a Gregory Maguire, writing their own self-contained story. They're talking about a situation where Baum stopped at the Poppy Fields and didnt't finish his story.

 

[caleb35]

When a writer/author posts a work, they are sharing it so that others may read it. They are not fucking conceding their ownership of their own work. And yes, they do own their own creation.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Looking at it from the standpoint of general ethics, there isn't much difference between using some author's work one month after their death or 70 years later, when it "legally" enters the public domain. It's just an arbitrary line, but we hold on to it, lacking other options. Something being legal doesn't mean it's ethical, and vice versa.

In the "continuing a story on Literotica" context, I'd agree. In a more commercial context, the rationale for copyright extending some time past death is that authors have families and want to be able to pass something on to them. (But 70 years is way too long IMHO; I'd probably set it more like 25 years after death.)

 

[MelissaBaby]

Walt would roll over in his grave at what's been done with his company

I'm not sure I am buying that. I think Walt would say, "It made how much? Let's make more shit like that."

 

[TheRedChamber]

Bolded changes are mine, not the OP's.

Encouraging other people to be chill about injustice is literally encouraging people to STFU and chill about injustice.

In what world is that not literally part of the injustice? In what world does that not embolden injustice?

You can't say you aren't condoning it while simultaneously saying "I'm totally chill about it, can't you all just be as chill as me about it?"

I don't really see this. Is there a whole horde of racist fans of your work waiting patiently just outside the gates for permission to ethically adapt your work? If they did, is it likely that anything they would produce would be better or be more popular than your own work? If the answer is yes, then genuinely, that's fine. It's best to keep your work closed. For the average Lit work, I think the chances of anyone producing anything distasteful enough to sour the whole enterprise is fairly slim. And if someone really wants to publish your work and they have diametrically opposed values to you, it's very easy to do it under the fig-leaf of parody anyway (though not necessarily on Lit).

 

[Katie_Mae]

I don't write fan fiction. But, I'm of an age that when I was a teen/ young adult that creating fan works was part of showing you were part of a fandom. Like, if you didn't dedicate some of your time to creating something inspired by something, were you really a fan? I'm not saying this is right, just the attitude. By fan works I mean any fan works, like fanart, fanfiction, role-playing, cosplay, poems etc).

Anyone that did fanworks also had the ability to do their own original content and, from memories, pretty much everyone did.

Eg, I drew characters from Lord of the Rings, but I also drew art based on my own stories and art that wasn't based on stories at all. The reason I drew fan art wasn't because I couldn't think up my own stuff to draw. I invented worlds I drew maps for. I invented languages I designed writing for. I drew random pictures of fairies and a village of tree-houses.

More recently, an author here asked me to read her story prior to publication. I did, and enjoyed it so much, I drew a fan art of two of her characters for her. The point is, I stopped working on my own shit to take the time to create something which wasn't even mine, and then went back to working on my own ongoing project after. Why? Was it really because I couldn't think up my own stuff to draw? Given I had projects on-the-go, that's doubtful.

Often when the question of "why would you do fan fiction" comes up, the question of "why would you do that rather than create something of your own?" is asked. Sometimes the implication (or stated outright) is that people who write fanfiction are "incapable" of writing their own stuff, or that they "don't have a creative bone in their body." And to that end, the question becomes not a genuine question, but more of an insult. "Why can't your write your own shit?" aimed at people like you who can and do.

I guess this is a long winded way of me musing that I do think it's interesting why people choose to write fanfiction, but I understand that this thread (and the AH in general) isn't a place where people might ever feel comfortable discussing the reasons why they write it.

_____

When I was a teenager, nobody (I knew) gave much thought to ethical considerations of fanworks. If someone drew a picture of Aragorn and Legolas kissing, who would see it? The girls they sat with at lunch? Later, maybe the small handful of people who followed their my space or deviant art page?

As an adult I think about these things more. And the internet has far more reach than it used to. There are some mainstream authors who are fine with fan works. There are some mainstream authors who are not, and like most of you (including the op) I think that should be respected.

And, the same here. As stated, Laurel requires lit writers to gain permission prior to publishing work inspired by another lit author. And, call me a hippy, but I don't think it is a big deal for me to give permission. Fan works can't change what I've written. Maybe them they'll suck, maybe they'll be stupid, maybe they'll be better than anything I've ever done and be infinitely more popular. But, my work is still here. Whatever I say is cannon. The drawing or writing or whatever doesn't change what is cannon. Fan works are non- commercial, so I'm not losing on potential earnings. I'm credited etc.

Basically, if someone wants to write a story where David (who is straight) and Mark fuck, it doesn't mean that actually happened in cannon. It doesn't change/impact my story. That's why it's no big deal for me to allow fan works.

For those of you who don't prefer people to draw pictures, sing songs, write stories or whatever based on your work, that's fine to. According to the rules, we're not allowed to without your permission. If someone did go against your permission, that is a big deal, and Laurel and the whole of the AH would have your back.

For reference, this is the note in my bio re fanworks which I placed there back in May:

A note about fan-works:

Fan works are non-commercial, creative pieces, like stories, art, or audio, made by fans inspired by someone else's original work. They take a lot of time and effort, and are done out of passion for the source material.

If you ever find yourself inspired by something I’ve written, you’re absolutely welcome to create and share fan works.

I never expected that anyone would want to make fan-works from my writing. But I wanted to make a statement for two main reasons:
1) Some authors here are very negative towards fan-works and I didn’t want someone willing but too-shy to ask, and
2) Well, someone did want to!

I’m genuinely humbled and honoured that anyone even reads and enjoys the little fantasies I post here. Times this by a million if I’ve ever inspired you to create something. All I ask is that it’s non-commercial, credits the original work, and is transformative (i.e. not just a copy-paste of my text).

 

[TheRedChamber]

I don't write fan fiction...

A very nice post that expresses what I was trying to say better than I did myself.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Often when the question of "why would you do fan fiction" comes up, the question of "why would you do that rather than create something of your own?" is asked. Sometimes the implication (or stated outright) is that people who write fanfiction are "incapable" of writing their own stuff, or that they "don't have a creative bone in their body." And to that end, the question becomes not a genuine question, but more of an insult. "Why can't your write your own shit?" aimed at people like you who can and do.

Quite a few professional authors started out with fanfic. Some even managed to sell it - Flashman, Anno-Dracula, Wide Sargasso Sea, to name just a few. It doesn't appear to have stunted their writing skills.

 

[SkyBubble]

I'm not sure I am buying that. I think Walt would say, "It made how much? Let's make more shit like that."

The people who run Disney have a very different worldview than Walt did.

 

[SkyBubble]

In the cases you cited, permission was obtained. That makes all the difference.

Yes, and when I die, who controls my stories?

 

[ChuckWolf]

If, by some remote chance, others want to continue my stories, send me a PM and we'll work something out.

 

[SkyBubble]

I never really understand those who object that doing so somehow breaches the ethics of the site - the idea that people can do this is surely built into the very structure of the site.

The rules explicitly state that you need to get the original author's permission. You may disagree with that rule, but it's the rule set by the owners of the site. When you post on Lit, you follow their rules. And then if you must, complain here. But follow the rules.

 

[SimonDoom]

Yes, and when I die, who controls my stories?

Your heirs. A copyright is like any other property. It passes to your heirs.

If you don't tell your heirs that you have literotica stories, then your heirs have a property right they don't know exists. But it's still theirs, not the site's, and not anybody else's at the site.

 

[SkyBubble]

my country had something like 50,000 people record their religion as "Jedi" on the census, and while I'm sure many of those are doing it for the lols, it only became a thing because there are quite a few people for whom Star Wars really is the closest they get to a holy text*

I have a good idea what spiritual text Lucas was using as a major inspiration for the Jedi.

 

[THBGato]

"I never really understand those who object that doing so somehow breaches the ethics of the site - the idea that people can do this is surely built into the very structure of the site." The rules explicitly state that you need to get the original author's permission. You may disagree with that rule, but it's the rule set by the owners of the site. When you post on Lit, you follow their rules. And then if you must, complain here. But follow the rules.

That was a quite a spectacular piece of taking a clipped quotation from a longer post entirely out of context and making it sound like I'm advocating something I'm not.

If you read my full post, I make it clear that I'm not interested in this.

Not that I'm interested in writing sequels for others' stories. And if somebody wrote a story in which all my lesbian characters suddenly decided they were straight after all, I'd probably be a little bit sick in my mouth.

My point was that:
- Literotica permits fan fiction. There's a category for it, it's allowed under Lit rules;
- by using Literotica, we are tacitly agreeing to those rules;
- continuing somebody else's story is the very definition of fan fiction;
- thus, while I have little skin in the game myself here, I find it a bizzare piece of cognitive dissonance when some posters express the idea that writing fan fiction of other literotica authors' work to be a hideous breach of site etiquette YET they have no issue with the idea of fan fiction itself*
- I understand there is a separate rule of the site stating we must seek permission of other literotica authors to use their worlds/characters. But in my opinion, that's an example of the site's rules being incoherent. Either they allow fan fiction, or they don't; if they do, then the same rules re: permission should be applied to all authors, regardless of whether they are published on Lit or not.


*Emily made the distinction between fan fic that uses the setting and that which uses the characters, and I get that.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Yes, and when I die, who controls my stories?

Your heirs and your executor, as with other assets you might leave behind. If you have any strong feelings about what's done with your stories after you die, or if they're likely to have any significant monetary value, it'd be a good idea to explicitly specify that in your will; some authors appoint a separate literary executor for that purpose.

 

[ElectricBlue]

In the "continuing a story on Literotica" context, I'd agree. In a more commercial context, the rationale for copyright extending some time past death is that authors have families and want to be able to pass something on to them. (But 70 years is way too long IMHO; I'd probably set it more like 25 years after death.)

25 years isn't very long though.

I'm thinking of Jim Morrison's literary/poetry content, all of which went into print fifty years after his death - basically as a consequence of no will when he died, his estate went to Pamela Courson who similarly died not long after, also intestate. Then there was a long-standing legal debate between the Courson family, other interested parties (including Manzarek, Krieger and Densmore), a woman who claimed to have married Morrison in a Wicca ceremony, and Morrison's sister, Anne.

His latest material is a joint estate copyright IIRC, published in 2021. Roughly half had been published previously, I'd say, but there's a lot of notebook material that's "new".

 

[Bramblethorn]

25 years isn't very long though.

I'm thinking of Jim Morrison's literary/poetry content, all of which went into print fifty years after his death - basically as a consequence of no will when he died, his estate went to Pamela Courson who similarly died not long after, also intestate. Then there was a long-standing legal debate between the Courson family, other interested parties (including Manzarek, Krieger and Densmore), a woman who claimed to have married Morrison in a Wicca ceremony, and Morrison's sister, Anne.

His latest material is a joint estate copyright IIRC, published in 2021. Roughly half had been published previously, I'd say, but there's a lot of notebook material that's "new".

I think that says less about how long copyright terms ought to be than it does about the importance of making a will (and including intellectual property in that will). Any time somebody that valuable dies intestate and without a clear heir it's going to be a mess. (If the term had been shorter, would there have been incentive for interested parties to sort it out a bit sooner and publish that material earlier? I dunno.)

My feeling that terms should be shorter is motivated by cases like that of Sherlock Holmes. Doyle published the first story in 1887, the last in 1927, and died in 1930. He had five children but none of them had surviving issue; the last of them died in 1997 at which point the rights passed to a bunch of nephews and nieces once removed, a step-great-grandson, and so on.

I'm not going to dig up all the different versions of copyright law that have applied to ACD's works, but the latest of those stories didn't enter public domain in the USA until 2023. Even though the earlier ones had long since passed into the public domain everywhere, the Doyle Estate continued to use their rights over the later stories to extract a cut from anybody selling stories about Holmes and Watson - I recall one of their arguments was that Holmes only started displaying emotion in the later stories, so anything that showed Holmes displaying emotion infringed on their copyrights. Ludicrous, but it was enough to deter publishers until Leslie Klinger got tired of paying the protection money and finally beat them in court in 2014. At that point, 127 years after "A Study in Scarlet" was first published and 84 years after ACD's death, Holmes and Watson finally became available to anybody who wanted to write about them. (And the Doyle Estate still maintained ownership over the material that actually was novel to the last few stories, until 2023.)

I guess there's a broader argument to be had here about inherited wealth but it's hard for me to see that a bunch of people who had never even met Doyle, who became heirs only through the lucky accident of five different people dying childless, should've been able to keep a lock on those characters for well over a century. That feels positively parasitic. They had plenty of time to make their money and invest it.

(Obviously long copyright terms weren't the only problem there either, but they certainly didn't help matters.)

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I think that says less about how long copyright terms ought to be than it does about the importance of making a will (and including intellectual property in that will). Any time somebody that valuable dies intestate and without a clear heir it's going to be a mess. (If the term had been shorter, would there have been incentive for interested parties to sort it out a bit sooner and publish that material earlier? I dunno.)

My feeling that terms should be shorter is motivated by cases like that of Sherlock Holmes. Doyle published the first story in 1887, the last in 1927, and died in 1930. He had five children but none of them had surviving issue; the last of them died in 1997 at which point the rights passed to a bunch of nephews and nieces once removed, a step-great-grandson, and so on.

I'm not going to dig up all the different versions of copyright law that have applied to ACD's works, but the latest of those stories didn't enter public domain in the USA until 2023. Even though the earlier ones had long since passed into the public domain everywhere, the Doyle Estate continued to use their rights over the later stories to extract a cut from anybody selling stories about Holmes and Watson - I recall one of their arguments was that Holmes only started displaying emotion in the later stories, so anything that showed Holmes displaying emotion infringed on their copyrights. Ludicrous, but it was enough to deter publishers until Leslie Klinger got tired of paying the protection money and finally beat them in court in 2014. At that point, 127 years after "A Study in Scarlet" was first published and 84 years after ACD's death, Holmes and Watson finally became available to anybody who wanted to write about them. (And the Doyle Estate still maintained ownership over the material that actually was novel to the last few stories, until 2023.)

I guess there's a broader argument to be had here about inherited wealth but it's hard for me to see that a bunch of people who had never even met Doyle, who became heirs only through the lucky accident of five different people dying childless, should've been able to keep a lock on those characters for well over a century. That feels positively parasitic. They had plenty of time to make their money and invest it.

(Obviously long copyright terms weren't the only problem there either, but they certainly didn't help matters.)

I agree, it's always seemed ludicrous to me that if you make a life saving drug you get patent protection for 20 years.
If I write a book about you making that drug I get copyright protection for life and beyond.

 

[TheLobster]

I agree, it's always seemed ludicrous to me that if you make a life saving drug you get patent protection for 20 years.
If I write a book about you making that drug I get copyright protection for life and beyond.

I think it makes sense. Tangible inventions usually have inherent benefits that make them eminently marketable, and it’s typically just about the first mover advantage anyway that allows you to dominate the market early on.

Works of fiction have no such inherent traits, and aren’t even subject to physical limitations when it comes to resources needed to replicate them. It makes sense that legal protections around them are stronger.