Morality of Writing Fan Fiction Based on Literotica Stories

[Otto26]

I believe what has been suggested was creating new characters, situations, and a new plot and writing their own story. But I can see how you'd take that as just changing names.

Yes, Britva suggested that the accepted method for not violating copyright in writing fan-fiction was to simply change the names and so on and don't make any reference to the original author or story. I'm not clear on which post they were referring to. stillstunned mocked that approach.

I rejected that idea because part of my intention was to pay homage to the original story. Writing an 'original' sequel stripped of all reference to the original isn't plagiarism but it feels wrong to me. If someone inspired me I want them to know that. This isn't about catching on to their coat tails and capitalizing on their success.

Anyway, I've clarified my position, tried to throw some oil on these waters, now I'm going to withdraw and do some writing. Y'all please feel to continue your discussion.

 

[Britva415]

Britva suggested that the accepted method for not violating copyright in writing fan-fiction was to simply change the names and so on and don't make any reference to the original author or story

I didn't suggest that it was "accepted," that's really reading between the lines and finding something which wasn't there.

But I suppose I can see how you took my meaning that way, especially since I didn't spell out:

I intended to respect that representing your work as somehow associated with someone else's (even if just "inspired by") is not accepted, if you don't have their buy-in.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

You act as if we're required to agree with you. Has it occurred to you that YOU may be the one that is on the wrong side of this?

When you have arrogant conviction...

 

[lovecraft68]

This topic has been beaten well past death, but still has 152 replies.

People like to hear themselves talk.

 

[lovecraft68]

You act as if we're required to agree with you. Has it occurred to you that YOU may be the one that is on the wrong side of this?

I agree with @Plathfan. If you're using another writer's characters/setting etc... to add to the story and take it further, its not your story.

It's your story when you have created everything yourself. The fact you, and every other person here, can and does write their own original stories makes it hard for me to understand why other people can't see this.

If I took one of your stories and added to it you would consider it my story?

 

[Katie_Mae]

Regardless of what any of us thinks as a matter of ethics or courtesy, the Site has made its policy explicitly clear, as cited above by Katie Mae, even if it can be faulted for not always following it: Don't write derivative works based on the works of other Lit authors without their EXPRESS PERMISSION. That could not be clearer.

It could be made clearer. The site could make this its official policy by putting it in the rules, rather than sending authors to AH where they are expected to dig through years threads like this where peoole spend more time arguing amongst themselves and belittling someone for asking something than they do actually quoting the site's secret policy.

The op read the rules prior to even starting this thread, if the above rule was included in the actual rules then this thread would never have started and we wouldn't be here arguing about it.

Fo the record, the below is the official rules on fanfiction:
To that end, we DO NOT publish works of any type featuring the following content:

• Celebrity stories or fan fiction in which the characters are artificially aged - that is, under 18 years old in reality or in the source material, but made to be over 18 for the story.
• Ravishment, nonconsensual, dubiously consensual, or consensual-nonconsensual fantasies involving real-life people, groups/organizations, or copyrighted characters. Literotica does not publish non-con fanfic

And... that's it. To reiterate, the quote I posted re getting permission from lit authors was a reply Laurel made to a forum thread back in 2017.

You could argue that the following applies to fanfic:
Copyrighted material for which the submitter is not the owner of the copyright, or for which the submitter does not have an explicit license from the copyright owner to publish the work at Literotica

However, the site DOES allow fanfic, so it seems unlikely that this rule is the "fanfic is allowed but not lit fanfic" intent.

I suspect the rule it falls under is:
We also reserve the right to reject or remove any content or work that the community finds disruptive (or that causes harm to the community or any member of the community) for any or no reason

But it could be a lot clearer. People should be able to find the rules in the rules, not in a reply to a forum post from 7 years ago.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Yes, but the thread turned from what is allowed or not allowed to what is moral or ethical. And morals and ethics aren't the same thing. Lawyers often have to ignore their own morals to follow legal ethics.

 

[SimonDoom]

It could be made clearer. The site could make this its official policy by putting it in the rules, rather than sending authors to AH where they are expected to dig through years threads like this where peoole spend more time arguing amongst themselves and belittling someone for asking something than they do actually quoting the site's secret policy.

The op read the rules prior to even starting this thread, if the above rule was included in the actual rules then this thread would never have started and we wouldn't be here arguing about it.

Fo the record, the below is the official rules on fanfiction:
To that end, we DO NOT publish works of any type featuring the following content:

• Celebrity stories or fan fiction in which the characters are artificially aged - that is, under 18 years old in reality or in the source material, but made to be over 18 for the story.
• Ravishment, nonconsensual, dubiously consensual, or consensual-nonconsensual fantasies involving real-life people, groups/organizations, or copyrighted characters. Literotica does not publish non-con fanfic

And... that's it. To reiterate, the quote I posted re getting permission from lit authors was a reply Laurel made to a forum thread back in 2017.

You could argue that the following applies to fanfic:
Copyrighted material for which the submitter is not the owner of the copyright, or for which the submitter does not have an explicit license from the copyright owner to publish the work at Literotica

However, the site DOES allow fanfic, so it seems unlikely that this rule is the "fanfic is allowed but not lit fanfic" intent.

I suspect the rule it falls under is:
We also reserve the right to reject or remove any content or work that the community finds disruptive (or that causes harm to the community or any member of the community) for any or no reason

But it could be a lot clearer. People should be able to find the rules in the rules, not in a reply to a forum post from 7 years ago.

You're right. The rule contained in that statement is clear, but they don't publicly post that. As I recall, Laurel messaged me with that statement, and I posted it in a thread at some point. But it's been a while.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You're right. The rule contained in that statement is clear, but they don't publicly post that. As I recall, Laurel messaged me with that statement, and I posted it in a thread at some point. But it's been a while.

There's also some grandfathered non-con content in Celeb/FF, unless it's been removed since I last saw it, which could also confuse people who read in the category before writing their own stories.

 

[Britva415]

Yes, but the thread turned from what is allowed or not allowed to what is moral or ethical. And morals and ethics aren't the same thing. Lawyers often have to ignore their own morals to follow legal ethics.

No, it started as what is moral or ethical (it’s right there in the title) and later we were told that that wasn’t what OP was interested in, they really did only care about the rules.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Well, whether it is allowed or not is never as big a discussion as moral or ethical. There are always conflicting opinions on right and wrong on anything and everything. Because life is full of gray areas, everyone also has something they believe is A-Okay that others don't.

No, it started as what is moral or ethical (it’s right there in the title) and later we were told that that wasn’t what OP was interested in, they really did only care about the rules.

 

[SimonDoom]

I agree with @Plathfan. If you're using another writer's characters/setting etc... to add to the story and take it further, its not your story.

That's not what Plathfan said. Plathfan said this:

A non-profit sequel cannot be considered plagiarism, as the characters you create--even if they share the same names--are your own, shaped from your inner world, with a voice only you can give.

Plathfan thinks it's perfectly OK to write a sequel to someone else's story without that person's permission. Others of us, including Shelby, disagree.

The reasons these conversations keep going on and on are that a) the Site is not as clear as it should be exactly what the rule is, creating confusion, and it gives some people reason to think it doesn't enforce the rules it claims to adopt, b) many people have absolutely no clue about copyright law and plagiarism rules, and c) It's an issue that people are keenly interested in because it can affect the stories they've written and the stories they want to write.

It's also an intellectually and ethically interesting subject.

Do people like to hear themselves talk? Sure, but that's true of every subject in this forum.

 

[Otto26]

No, it started as what is moral or ethical (it’s right there in the title) and later we were told that that wasn’t what OP was interested in, they really did only care about the rules.

That's not an incorrect point of view, but it's not how I view it. I was interested in discussing the moral issues attendant upon my proposed project because I already new what the rules were because I had read the rules. The rules didn't prohibit what I intended.

Then it was pointed out that the rules do, in fact, prohibit what I intended because they were amended in 2017 in a forum post. That amendment doesn't appear in the published site rules. Because I became aware of this prohibition my project was dead before it could get off the ground and further discussion of what is essentially opinion was counter-productive.

If it makes y'all happy to continue arguing the point then by all means continue. It is an interesting subject but I doubt anyone is going to change their mind as a result of the discourse.

 

[SimonDoom]

It is an interesting subject but I doubt anyone is going to change their mind as a result of the discourse.

It IS an interesting subject. And we don't have to look at it as a debate that somebody has to win. I have a pretty strong notion of how I feel about it, but I'm interested to hear other perspectives, too, and what they are based on.

Your prior confusion about the Site rules is understandable.

 

[Plathfan]

Plathfan thinks it's perfectly OK to write a sequel to someone else's story without that person's permission.

Not quite. I firmly believe permission should be sought whenever possible. However, if the original creator has been unreachable and inactive for a very long time, and the work has largely been forgotten, I would prioritize preserving it, perhaps by building upon it.

That said, even if someone did create a sequel without permission, the resulting work would still be fundamentally original. The plot would naturally diverge, introducing new characters and developments. Familiar characters, though sharing the same names, would inevitably think, act, and speak differently. Distinct narrative style, pacing, and themes would further distinguish it as a new creation.

On the other hand, replicating the original (if even possible) with painstaking precision would be forgery rather than creative writing.

Elements like names, settings, or backstories are relatively minor and can be easily modified. Many writers, inspired to craft sequels while reading existing works, end up creating standalone pieces with slight modifications, often without credit. I believe the right approach is to ask for permission and acknowledge the source.

If I took one of your stories and added to it you would consider it my story?

So, let me get this straight: if I reach out to you about creating a sequel to one of your stories, and you give me your blessing, after weeks of hard work, the end result would be... yours? Think carefully before you answer; something might jump out at you from the screen.

 

[StillStunned]

If I take a piece of fallow land, and I turn it into a beautiful park, planting trees in strategic places, leaving some parts wild and cultivating others, placing streams and waterfalls, introducing beautiful animals; and if I then build a house for people to come and visit my park, and admire the views, and enjoy my vision and hard work - it's my park. If you build another house on my park and invite people in, it's still my park their looking at. Not yours.

And that's me done with this thread. The people who agree with me don't need further convincing.

 

[SimonDoom]

And that's me done with this thread.

Famous last words.

 

[Plathfan]

If I take a piece of fallow land, and I turn it into a beautiful park, planting trees in strategic places, leaving some parts wild and cultivating others, placing streams and waterfalls, introducing beautiful animals; and if I then build a house for people to come and visit my park, and admire the views, and enjoy my vision and hard work - it's my park. If you build another house on my park and invite people in, it's still my park their looking at. Not yours.

And that's me done with this thread. The people who agree with me don't need further convincing.

Great, 'cause no one would build anything in your park. No one would seek to resurrect or preserve it. And that's the big irony: the regulars, who keep screeching "mine! mine! mine!" are the very ones from whom no one wants to take or share anything. They wouldn't be regulars otherwise.

 

[Omenainen]

My take is that as witnessed on this thread, there’s people who find writing sequels permissible and those who don’t. Without asking, one simply can’t know what someone else thinks of the issue, and without that knowledge, it’s presumptuous to think that “of course they’d agree with me.”

Imposing your own morals on others is overstepping. It’s akin to those who grope strangers in the public places and then say, “oh but they should be flattered that someone finds them attractive!” It’s just shitty behavior.

Unfortunately, shitty behavior is becoming more and more prevalent in the world. I find myself transforming into one of those old-timers that sits in a rocking chair going, the youth these days! Maybe my age is showing.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Seems to me that your way of discussing and arguing is beginning to catch, @Plathfan. Not that it ever took much for that to happen here.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I'd love to see @StillStunned's park, and it would be more enjoyable because you wouldn't be there to bring me down, and you wouldn't consider it worthy even to check out.

Great, 'cause no one would build anything in your park. No one would seek to resurrect or preserve it. And that's the big irony: the regulars, who keep screeching "mine! mine! mine!" are the very ones from whom no one wants to take or share anything. They wouldn't be regulars otherwise.

 

[Plathfan]

I'd love to see @StillStunned's park, and it would be more enjoyable because you wouldn't be there to bring me down, and you wouldn't consider it worthy even to check out.

You’d love to? You mean you haven’t? Then why expect me to? You just admitted you haven’t checked out his park, even after knowing each other for a year and a half, and he hasn’t checked out yours. How regular of you... ongoing satire...

 

[MillieDynamite]

He hasn't built it yet, numb nut! I worry about you since your reading comprehension doesn't work. He said, "If I take a piece of fallow land," so not yet.

You’d love to? You mean you haven’t? Then why expect me to? You just admitted you haven’t checked out his park, even after knowing each other for a year and a half, and he hasn’t checked out yours. How regular of you... ongoing satire...

 

[lovecraft68]

So, let me get this straight: if I reach out to you about creating a sequel to one of your stories, and you give me your blessing, after weeks of hard work, the end result would be... yours? Think carefully before you answer; something might jump out at you from the screen.

It's fan fiction, not an original story. You work as hard as you want on it, but in the end you had to take something from another author to create that story.

What's the big critique with modern cinema? That everything is a sequel or a reboot. They are taking 40 year old movies and doing this. The question is why, and the universal answer is they are creatively bankrupt. The comic industry is even worse. They have nothing new to offer.

Which is exactly what adding on to another person's story is. No matter how hard you work at it, it was not yours. If I write a 50k Star Wars spin off you're really going to say that's my story?

Most people have too many of their own ideas to have time to write a sequel.

Also, there is an insulting tone to it-especially in that trash pile of 'February Sucks" spin offs, and that's the new author thinking the original wasn't done to their satisfaction. Quite arrogant.

You need someone else to kickstart your muse, maybe you have a lame muse.

 

[lovecraft68]

I'd love to see @StillStunned's park, and it would be more enjoyable because you wouldn't be there to bring me down, and you wouldn't consider it worthy even to check out.

But then you have a park full of people who always agree with you. What fun is that? Hey, maybe they could call it Blue Sky....