Morality of Writing Fan Fiction Based on Literotica Stories

[Plathfan]

"It would be an act of kindness to my neighbor to jump over the fence into his backyard and take his tools to work on my home project, because I know he will get pleasure from my doing so,"

LOL. The neighbor in that analogy is dead! You’re jumping over the fence into his backyard to tend to his garden because otherwise, it would wither and die!

 

[Plathfan]

That would be plagiarism unless name & setting changes are significant.


There is no contrast. This is potentiially plagiarism and copyright infringement as long as the material remains under copyright.

US law is that copyright extends for 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter for anonymous works, pseudonymous works, or works made for hire, published since 1978.

Claims that it is somehow respectful or preservation or promoting the work are irrelevant.

So, assuming Otto26 really goes through with this, you can theoretically file a complaint with the Copyright Department in the following manner:

"Fake alias Writer61 wants to report fake alias Otto26 for whipping up an unauthorized sequel to fake alias XXX's smut masterpiece. The original story hit the free adult content scene 13 years ago, and sadly, XXX has been MIA ever since."

Keep it simple--no need for graphic details. Just a quick summary or tags like anal, mom-son, swallow, big boobs, giant cock, etc., for context.

Mentioning that attribution was given and there was no shady intent is completely optional.

Oh, and don’t forget to send a copy to fake alias Plathfan. I’ll definitely want to see it.

 

[StillStunned]

When did this discussion shift from morality to legality?

 

[Omenainen]

When did this discussion shift from morality to legality?

When it was, once again, brought to general attention that not all people have morals.

 

[SimonDoom]

When did this discussion shift from morality to legality?

My view--some obviously see it differently--is that on the subject of copyright and plagiarism the two overlap. I believe as an ethical matter I should respect the author's copyright, even if I think I can get away with violating it and the site will let me do it. As a realistic matter, nobody here is going to get sued. But discussion of the law on this subject provides a useful guide for what we "should" do even if getting into legal trouble is not on the table.

 

[Writer61]

So, assuming Otto26 really goes through with this, you can theoretically file a complaint with the Copyright Department in the following manner:

No, I don't hold copyright.

Regardless of which he would be acting against the rules of this site, in a way that most people consider unethical, and expose himself to the risk of legal action by the copyright holders.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

When it was, once again, brought to general attention that not all people have morals.

This was unwarranted. If someone's moral views differ from yours that doesn't mean they don't have them. We are certainly not discussing life and death here but some gray area things where different takes are to be expected.

 

[Otto26]

When I created this thread I had already read through the site rules, I had done some research in the corpus of Fan Fiction stories published on the site, and I believed that what I was considering was not forbidden by the site. I posted in here to check the zeitgeist of the people who populate the site, because custom and tradition often carry more weight than law.

I have appreciated all the discussion on this subject. All of it. I agree with some of you, disagree with many of you, and that's fine. I'm not going to write the fan-fiction sequel because the site owners have clearly stated that such is not allowed. Well, I'm not going to publish it. The story's in my head and I'll get it out by laying down the outline of the plot and a few details for my own peace of mind. I'm very grateful to Katie_Mae for turning up that post that I didn't find in my search.

This thread was, in many ways, already kicking a dead horse and I think we've reached the point where it's well and truly abusing the poor corpse. So I suggest we let it lay and move on. Scholars and lawyers, mostly lawyers, will continue to argue and define the legality of the issue and philosophers and writers will have to accept that our opinions on the morality of the issue are deeply personal and, in many ways, not really subject to rational argument. We feel the way we feel.

So, thank you all.

Addendum: It is in my nature to question everything. Show me a set of rules and I will instantly prod the limits. Besides being in my nature it has been the foundation of my career. So when I ask questions, there's no conscious ill-intent behind them, I'm just prodding. And the flip side of that coin is that I don't break the rules and have a nearly autistic compulsion to follow them, within the boundaries I have established by prodding the limits. Thanks for your patience.

 

[Plathfan]

This was unwarranted. If someone's moral views differ from yours that doesn't mean they don't have them. We are certainly not discussing life and death here but some gray area things where different takes are to be expected.

This was unwarranted. Attack the moral side, and they invoke the law. Challenge the law, and they defend morals. Letting certain people make fools of themselves is the best part.

 

[StillStunned]

This was unwarranted. Attack the moral side, and they invoke the law. Challenge the law, and they defend morals. Letting certain people make fools of themselves is the best part.

I believe you were the one who brought up plagiarism and profit. Before that, the entire discussion had been about right and wrong.

 

[Plathfan]

I believe you were the one who brought up plagiarism and profit. Before that, the entire discussion had been about right and wrong.

If only you were a believer...

 

[MillieDynamite]

Then I saw her face, now I'm a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind
I'm in love
I'm a believer, I couldn't leave her if I tried

 

[Writer61]

This was unwarranted. Attack the moral side, and they invoke the law. Challenge the law, and they defend morals. Letting certain people make fools of themselves is the best part.

As far as I can see posters have simply been addressing the points raised in your posts.

 

[SimonDoom]

As far as I can posters have simply been addressing the points raised in your posts.

I agree. As with most threads, people are expressing opinions in good faith. If you see it as an opportunity to get snarky and take pleasure from others allegedly "making fools of themselves" then it says more about you than it does about them.

 

[Plathfan]

When I created this thread I had already read through the site rules, I had done some research in the corpus of Fan Fiction stories published on the site, and I believed that what I was considering was not forbidden by the site. I posted in here to check the zeitgeist of the people who populate the site, because custom and tradition often carry more weight than law.

I have appreciated all the discussion on this subject. All of it. I agree with some of you, disagree with many of you, and that's fine. I'm not going to write the fan-fiction sequel because the site owners have clearly stated that such is not allowed. Well, I'm not going to publish it. The story's in my head and I'll get it out by laying down the outline of the plot and a few details for my own peace of mind. I'm very grateful to Katie_Mae for turning up that post that I didn't find in my search.

This thread was, in many ways, already kicking a dead horse and I think we've reached the point where it's well and truly abusing the poor corpse. So I suggest we let it lay and move on. Scholars and lawyers, mostly lawyers, will continue to argue and define the legality of the issue and philosophers and writers will have to accept that our opinions on the morality of the issue are deeply personal and, in many ways, not really subject to rational argument. We feel the way we feel.

So, thank you all.

Addendum: It is in my nature to question everything. Show me a set of rules and I will instantly prod the limits. Besides being in my nature it has been the foundation of my career. So when I ask questions, there's no conscious ill-intent behind them, I'm just prodding. And the flip side of that coin is that I don't break the rules and have a nearly autistic compulsion to follow them, within the boundaries I have established by prodding the limits. Thanks for your patience.

Before you leave, at least share the story with us.

 

[Otto26]

https://www.literotica.com/s/playing-the-succubus

 

[M_K_Babalon]

On what @SimonDoom said. The practical reason (or one of them) is that most Fan Fiction for major properties doesn't detract (or add to) the actual universe you're the fan of, but might, and often does, promote the original work. In other words, Disney will make more money with fan fic allowed than spending money to squash it.

Fanfiction is rather a grey area with copyright and such. The gist of it is if it's transformative or not, which protects it to a degree, as well as protects it as free speech.

Star Wars isn't, or wasn't a good example, maybe it is since Disney owns it, but Lucas basically allowed what one could basically call fanfiction, which is why there are so many novels. There was a term for those, and Disney also has a term, since they--at least originally said that all of the fan made stuff is nolonger canon.

But these laws are also why the book Wicked, that last Wizard of Oz, and the Wonka movie exist, as well as all the Pinnochio movies that came out in the last four years. And I guess you could throw in some of those non Disney live action movies of properties Disney stole, like that Beauty and The Beast, that one of the Olsen Twins were in.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

As an author of a piece of Star Wars fan fiction I can weigh in on this with regards to the choices I made. My story features entirely original characters who spend most of the story on space ships I made up and a planet I concocted entirely, as well as two planets from Bioware's Old Republic setting.

The most prominent things I borrowed were aesthetic concepts like The Force, Jedi and Sith, hyperspace and lightsabers.

I then used these elements to tell an entirely original story where, from at least one point of view, a Jedi was the bad guy, and this was the point. I wanted to write a story where the good guys and the bad guys were very clear in the beginning and less clear later on. I started working on it after seeing The Force Awakens, and being very underwhelmed by that movie's refusal to do anything interesting with the premise, and before The Last Jedi went so hard on *subverting expectations* that I cringe using those words even now.

I attempted to do something transformative with my work, which puts my usage under Fair Use copyright protection (whether I succeeded is up for debate). I'm not trying to monetize it, and I made mention at the beginning that familiarity with Bioware's Old Republic setting was important. Anyone nerdy enough to be that deep in Star Wars lore would likely understand which parts are original and which aren't, because really it's about credit. To drill down further, the parts I borrowed were created by George Lucas and Drew Karpyshyn, two creatives whose work was bought by one of the largest corporations in the world.

In other words, (functionally) nobody is going to take my work out of context and think it's all me.

I agree with Simon's position from a class consciousness position. Don't steal or borrow from anyone who uses Lit as their primary platform. We're all very small. If you're gonna steal, steal from the rich. They can afford it.

The thing about Star Wars, at least when Lucas owned it, he was fine with people doing things with the IP. I believe he coined the phrase; expanded universe for anything he didn't have a hand in, and considered it canon to somewhat.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Nope. If I write fan-fiction based on some work a Lit author wrote then I'm going to point everyone to that author and urge them to go read the inspiration. That's just a version of plagiarism. Yes, I recognize this as a widely accepted mechanism for avoiding copyright infringement in fan-fiction but it rubs me the wrong way.

Legally Plagiarism is defined as directly copying somebody's work, especially if one seeks profit from it. Paradoy, satire, and other all transformative works(which is what most fanfiction is), is not plagiarism, and that's not just opinion or common sense... that's stated by the law. Which is why variety shows and Weird All can legally do what they do.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Weird Al gets permission. Michael Jackson sang back up a few of those off his songs.

Legally Plagiarism is defined as directly copying somebody's work, especially if one seeks profit from it. Paradoy, satire, and other all transformative works(which is what most fanfiction is), is not plagiarism, and that's not just opinion or common sense... that's stated by the law. Which is why variety shows and Weird All can legally do what they do.

 

[SimonDoom]

Legally Plagiarism is defined as directly copying somebody's work, especially if one seeks profit from it. Paradoy, satire, and other all transformative works(which is what most fanfiction is), is not plagiarism, and that's not just opinion or common sense... that's stated by the law. Which is why variety shows and Weird All can legally do what they do.

That's copyright infringement, not plagiarism. Plagiarism is failing to give credit to others when you use their work or their ideas in your own work and pass it off as your own. Plagiarism is mostly a matter of academic ethics. In the US, there's no such thing as plagiarism law. Copyright, on the other hand, is a matter of law. Title 17 of the US Code.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Weird Al gets permission. Michael Jackson sang back up a few of those off his songs.

I believe that's more for the beats. Music has slightly different copyright laws, than other things do. That's why you can't legally put song lyrics in your works. The closest thing to fanfiction that music has, is probably samples. Tracy Chapman is like the Anne Rice of music; she doesn't want anybody sampling anything of her work. At all. So that would make DeeJay's the music version of fanfic writers, lol.

Bands have gotten in trouble for making a beat that sounds anywhere near close to anothers. Music beats, lyrics, and band names are the only thing they can copyright, if I recall. Years ago when Six Flags still owned Kentucky Kingdom, they were sued by Dee Snider, because their dualing coaster was called Twisted Sisters. They were forced to rename it Twisted Twins. Now it still operates, but as another coaster, with one of the tracks removed.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Fanfiction is rather a grey area with copyright and such. The gist of it is if it's transformative or not, which protects it to a degree, as well as protects it as free speech.

Star Wars isn't, or wasn't a good example, maybe it is since Disney owns it, but Lucas basically allowed what one could basically call fanfiction, which is why there are so many novels. There was a term for those, and Disney also has a term, since they--at least originally said that all of the fan made stuff is nolonger canon.

The Star Wars spinoff novels and other commercial properties were licensed. If you attempt to publish a Star Wars novel for profit without permission, you can expect to be sued.

But these laws are also why the book Wicked, that last Wizard of Oz, and the Wonka movie exist, as well as all the Pinnochio movies that came out in the last four years. And I guess you could throw in some of those non Disney live action movies of properties Disney stole, like that Beauty and The Beast, that one of the Olsen Twins were in.

These are in a different position to fanfic. AFAIK, all of those were either based on works that were no longer in copyright, or the makers paid for the rights to use that material.

Legally Plagiarism is defined as directly copying somebody's work, especially if one seeks profit from it.

I think you may be confusing plagiarism with copyright violation.

I'm not aware of a law defining plagiarism, but the academic and common-use definitions I'm familiar with look like this one: an important part of the definition is passing off somebody else's work as one's own, and it needn't be an exact copy. Even if paraphrased heavily, it can still be plagiarism.

Paradoy, satire, and other all transformative works(which is what most fanfiction is), is not plagiarism, and that's not just opinion or common sense... that's stated by the law.

Which law?

FWIW, there is a legal difference between "parody" and "satire", with parody being more likely to get a fair use exemption to copyright.

Parody is transformative work that adapts material from another work in order to say something about that work. If I write a version of Lord of the Rings that pokes fun at Tolkien's literary style and gets into the moral implications of having inherently "evil" races, that's parody.

Satire adapts material from another work in order to say something about something else. If I take Britney Spears' "Toxic" and change the words to make it about smog, that's satire, and it's much less likely to qualify as fair use, because I'm using Britney's work to make a statement about something that has nothing to do with Britney.

Which is why variety shows and Weird All can legally do what they do.

FWIW, Weird Al always asks for permission from the original writers, even when he might not be legally required to do so. (The one exception I know of was his Coolio parody, "Amish Paradise"; IIRC he thought Coolio had okayed it, but he hadn't, and there was some friction before Coolio eventually got over it.)

 

[Bramblethorn]

I believe that's more for the beats. Music has slightly different copyright laws, than other things do. That's why you can't legally put song lyrics in your works. The closest thing to fanfiction that music has, is probably samples. Tracy Chapman is like the Anne Rice of music; she doesn't want anybody sampling anything of her work. At all. So that would make DeeJay's the music version of fanfic writers, lol.

Bands have gotten in trouble for making a beat that sounds anywhere near close to anothers. Music beats, lyrics, and band names are the only thing they can copyright, if I recall. Years ago when Six Flags still owned Kentucky Kingdom, they were sued by Dee Snider, because their dualing coaster was called Twisted Sisters. They were forced to rename it Twisted Twins. Now it still operates, but as another coaster, with one of the tracks removed.

Band names are unlikely to be protected by copyright; much more likely to be a matter of trademark law there.

 

[MillieDynamite]

A little tidbit: The Zombies broke up in the late '60s, and two bands in America took the name. One was near Chicago, and the other was a Texas band. Both bands got calls and Cease-and-desist letters from the record label. The one north did so at once, and the one in Texas flirted with a new name, Zombie Zombie, but settled on ZZ-Tops. Good move, don't cha think?

Band names are unlikely to be protected by copyright; much more likely to be a matter of trademark law there.