COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Adopting Characters?

Voboy said:
There's another side of this: why would anyone who wants to think of themselves as a "writer" even WANT to use someone else's character? Isn't coming up with one's own characters part and parcel of any kind of creative writing?
Click to expand...

Some folk certainly do appropriate other people's characters just because they lack the imagination to create their own, but so do many well-known authors. For example:

Mark Twain, "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" (or various other titles depending on the edition). Twain draws most of his characters from Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur". So does Marion Zimmer Bradley's "The Mists of Avalon".

George MacDonald Fraser's "Flashman" series: the title character is borrowed from Hughes' "Tom Brown's Schooldays", and a couple of supporting-cast characters from Sherlock Holmes show up somewhere in the series.

Many many people have written Sherlock Holmes stories, including Mark Twain, Stephen King, Dorothy L. Sayers, Poul Anderson, Peter S. Beagle, Jeffery Deaver, Colin Dexter, Neil Gaiman, Michael Moorcock, and Anne Perry.

H.P. Lovecraft's Abdul Al-Hazred, Cthulhu, etc. etc. invoked by too many other authors to count. (And HPL in turn borrowed from Bierce, Chambers, and Wilde.)

Jasper Fforde's "The Eyre Affair" and numerous sequels involve characters exploring the world of various fictional classics.

Peter Carey's "Jack Maggs" is a sequel of sorts to Dickens' "Great Expectations".

Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead", obviously drawn from Shakespeare; also his "The Real Inspector Hound", from Christie.

Gregory Maguire's "Wicked" and sequels, from Baum's "Oz" books.

Kim Newman's "Anno-Dracula" series, borrowing from just about everybody (including a few still in copyright, although those tended to be cameos rather than major characters; even Snoopy makes a cameo in the second book).

Alan Moore's "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" series, again borrowing from all over.

Philip José Farmer, again, borrowed from just about everybody.

J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, along with many others, used Father Christmas.

...and plenty more. Not to mention the hordes of authors who use historical characters, which gives them even more source material to draw on.

They can't all be just unimaginative hacks!

There are many different ways to express creativity. Fleshing out characters is certainly one of them. So is world-building - but we don't look down on authors if they choose to set their story in the Napoleonic Wars or in modern-day New York instead of creating the setting from scratch.

Sometimes it's a stylistic challenge: can I write pastiche that captures the feel of the original? (Lots of Sherlock Holmes sequels are in this category, though not all of them succeed.)

Sometimes it's an inventive challenge: can I take a well-known character and get people thinking about them in a new way? ("Flashman" and "Wicked" are examples here: antagonists from the originals become sympathetic when seen from a new angle. Gaiman's "A Study in Emerald" does something similar.)

Sometimes it's a form of commentary/criticism. Twain's "Yankee" has some pointed things to say about the romanticisation of war.

Sometimes it's a way of condensing exposition. If you're writing a story that involves magic or futuristic tech, it can take a long time to satisfactorily explain the laws of the universe. That's a problem if you're trying to tell a short story. Using a setting/characters that readers already know is a way to abridge that explaining.

(And, yes, certainly sometimes it's laziness. Just not all the time.)
 
Bramble';s last two posts are excellent summations. Theft removes something from the owner's possession; and esteemed creators appropriate existing ideas and (hopefully) transform them.

Copying is appropriation, not theft. Too-close copying without citation is plagiarism; inspiration without acknowledgement may be tacky; but they ain't theft unless the creator is mind-wiped, dispossessing them of their ideas and expressions.

Remember, ideas can't be copyrighted, only their expression. Want to steal expressions? Shoplift books or DVDs. THAT is theft -- of objects, not ideas. Note that traditional art training has students attempting to make close copies of notable works. That's how we learn -- by copying. By appropriating ideas and making them our own. By building on what's come before. That's traditional.
 
Neither Hypoxia nor Bramblethorn has written a single word on this thread that justifies, excuses, or apologizes for copyright infringement, and it's unfair and inaccurate to accuse either of them of doing so, or to describe their positions as "asinine" or "bullshit." Many educated commentators on copyright law have questioned the applicability of the term "theft" to copyright infringement, for all sorts of reasons.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Blackmun said this about copyright infringement in Dowling v. United States, 73 U. S. 214-218 (1985):

" interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright, nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."

On the other hand, Justice Stephen Breyer, in the more recent MGM v. Grokster, 45 US 913, 961 (2005), said "deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. "

The term "theft" is a legal conclusion, or in some cases a metaphor. Different people can mean different things by it, or use it differently. There's nothing wrong with that. It's accurate to say that intentional copyright infringement can have the same harmful impact as common law theft in some cases, or perhaps that we should respond to it with similarly harsh penalties, but it's also fair and accurate to say that it differs in many respects from what we traditionally and historically have regarded as theft. That's the point Hypoxia and Bramblethorn are making, I think, and they're right.
 
Bramblethorn said:
Some folk certainly do appropriate other people's characters just because they lack the imagination to create their own, but so do many well-known authors. For example:

Mark Twain, "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" (or various other titles depending on the edition). Twain draws most of his characters from Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur". So does Marion Zimmer Bradley's "The Mists of Avalon".

George MacDonald Fraser's "Flashman" series: the title character is borrowed from Hughes' "Tom Brown's Schooldays", and a couple of supporting-cast characters from Sherlock Holmes show up somewhere in the series.

Many many people have written Sherlock Holmes stories, including Mark Twain, Stephen King, Dorothy L. Sayers, Poul Anderson, Peter S. Beagle, Jeffery Deaver, Colin Dexter, Neil Gaiman, Michael Moorcock, and Anne Perry.

H.P. Lovecraft's Abdul Al-Hazred, Cthulhu, etc. etc. invoked by too many other authors to count. (And HPL in turn borrowed from Bierce, Chambers, and Wilde.)

Jasper Fforde's "The Eyre Affair" and numerous sequels involve characters exploring the world of various fictional classics.

Peter Carey's "Jack Maggs" is a sequel of sorts to Dickens' "Great Expectations".

Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead", obviously drawn from Shakespeare; also his "The Real Inspector Hound", from Christie.

Gregory Maguire's "Wicked" and sequels, from Baum's "Oz" books.

Kim Newman's "Anno-Dracula" series, borrowing from just about everybody (including a few still in copyright, although those tended to be cameos rather than major characters; even Snoopy makes a cameo in the second book).

Alan Moore's "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" series, again borrowing from all over.

Philip José Farmer, again, borrowed from just about everybody.

J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, along with many others, used Father Christmas.

...and plenty more. Not to mention the hordes of authors who use historical characters, which gives them even more source material to draw on.

They can't all be just unimaginative hacks!

There are many different ways to express creativity. Fleshing out characters is certainly one of them. So is world-building - but we don't look down on authors if they choose to set their story in the Napoleonic Wars or in modern-day New York instead of creating the setting from scratch.

Sometimes it's a stylistic challenge: can I write pastiche that captures the feel of the original? (Lots of Sherlock Holmes sequels are in this category, though not all of them succeed.)

Sometimes it's an inventive challenge: can I take a well-known character and get people thinking about them in a new way? ("Flashman" and "Wicked" are examples here: antagonists from the originals become sympathetic when seen from a new angle. Gaiman's "A Study in Emerald" does something similar.)

Sometimes it's a form of commentary/criticism. Twain's "Yankee" has some pointed things to say about the romanticisation of war.

Sometimes it's a way of condensing exposition. If you're writing a story that involves magic or futuristic tech, it can take a long time to satisfactorily explain the laws of the universe. That's a problem if you're trying to tell a short story. Using a setting/characters that readers already know is a way to abridge that explaining.

(And, yes, certainly sometimes it's laziness. Just not all the time.)
Click to expand...


These are good points. Shakespeare himself adapted most of his plays and took most of his characters from preexisting sources. Neither he nor anyone else thought there was anything wrong with this.

It's essential, though, to distinguish preexisting sources for which the copyright has expired and those for which it hasn't. Copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. After that it expires and the work falls into the public domain. Anyone today can write a story based on Huckleberry Finn, or based on Sherlock Holmes, without risk of liability. But you can't write a story based on a character still protected by copyright unless a) you get permission, b) you're only using the "idea" of the character, and not the original, creative "expression" of the character, c) your story is a fair use under section 107, or d) you're willing to take your chances. Of course, in many cases, and especially in a setting like this one, the chances are small. Still, knowing you are likely to get away with something is not the same as knowing it's right.
 
Well, yeah, folks here are going to rationalize doing whatever they want to do. Doesn't protect them from being criticized for doing it when it's seen as bad behavior or someone doesn't want to mealy mouth what theft is.
 
SimonDoom said:
The term "theft" is a legal conclusion, or in some cases a metaphor. Different people can mean different things by it, or use it differently. There's nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
Theft as a metaphor gets tricky. Stealing my heart, or my breath, or my words, or my partially-formed ideas. Taking intangibles from me without my permission but leaving the takings behind -- copied, not stolen.

It's accurate to say that intentional copyright infringement can have the same harmful impact as common law theft in some cases, or perhaps that we should respond to it with similarly harsh penalties, but it's also fair and accurate to say that it differs in many respects from what we traditionally and historically have regarded as theft. That's the point Hypoxia and Bramblethorn are making, I think, and they're right.
Click to expand...
Intentional commercial copyright infringement certainly can take bread from the creator's mouth. Charles Dickens received not a penny of USA royalties because USA publishers merely swiped his work. (If asked, I'll rant about how nations with strong IP laws get their shorts eaten by those who don't.) Consider Mike Post, then a slimy record company (Verve) executive, later a slimy GOP politician. He didn't like that John Sebastian had released a record on another label (Reprise IIRC), so he had the record physically copied and released on his Verve label. Such copyright infringement is indeed straight-up theft -- of money, not of ideas.

Other infringement has rather less effect. Many LIT writers find their stories posted in part or whole on other sites without their permission. Some even bothered to appropriate *my* crud. [/me shakes head in disbelief] I posted my writings on a free-access site with no payment involved; I had no illusion they would remain here. Anything online is copied into users' systems -- that's how the Net works. If you don't want to be copied, don't post online.

Adopting existing characters and settings *can* be copyright infringement if a court is so convinced, but again, only an *expression* can be copyrighted. Copying a scene from STAR TREK infringes; writing Kirk+Spock GM fanfic likely doesn't. Neither (probably) does re-creating a STAR TREK scene with Lego characters or chess pieces or animated raisins... unless the re-creation threatens to generate lots of money. Then the lawyers will slither in.
 
SimonDoom said:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Blackmun said this about copyright infringement in Dowling v. United States, 73 U. S. 214-218 (1985):

" interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright, nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."

...

It's accurate to say that intentional copyright infringement can have the same harmful impact as common law theft in some cases, or perhaps that we should respond to it with similarly harsh penalties, but it's also fair and accurate to say that it differs in many respects from what we traditionally and historically have regarded as theft. That's the point Hypoxia and Bramblethorn are making, I think
Click to expand...

Nailed it. That Blackmun quote is pretty much my position.

SimonDoom said:
It's essential, though, to distinguish preexisting sources for which the copyright has expired and those for which it hasn't. Copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. After that it expires and the work falls into the public domain. Anyone today can write a story based on Huckleberry Finn, or based on Sherlock Holmes, without risk of liability.
Click to expand...

Careful there!

Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930, so his UK copyrights expired in 2000 under the life+70 rule. But in the USA some of his later stories are still under copyright under a publication+95 rule; the last of them will expire in 2023 if Congress doesn't decide to extend copyrights yet again.

Even though the stories that introduced Holmes and Watson etc. have long since come into the public domain, the Doyle estate has tried to use those late stories as an excuse to squeeze royalties out of writers using those characters. Their argument is roughly: even though most of the stories are long since in the public domain, Doyle continued to develop the characters until the last story, so if your story even mentions elements from the late stories you're violating copyright. They lost a court case over this in 2013 but apparently they were still trying it on in 2015; the latter case settled.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...mes-case-never-ending-copyright-dispute.shtml
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/conan-doyle-estate-sues-miramax-797696
https://variety.com/2015/film/news/mr-holmes-lawsuit-settled-sherlock-miramax-1201615091/

So be circumspect in what you use from Holmes, or wait another six years for it to lapse.

IMHO shenanigans like these do the copyright industry no favours whatsoever; it's absurd that authors still need to look over their shoulder before using a character who first appeared in 1887. But that's how it is.
 
Bramblethorn said:
Nailed it. That Blackmun quote is pretty much my position.



Careful there!

Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930, so his UK copyrights expired in 2000 under the life+70 rule. But in the USA some of his later stories are still under copyright under a publication+95 rule; the last of them will expire in 2023 if Congress doesn't decide to extend copyrights yet again.

Even though the stories that introduced Holmes and Watson etc. have long since come into the public domain, the Doyle estate has tried to use those late stories as an excuse to squeeze royalties out of writers using those characters. Their argument is roughly: even though most of the stories are long since in the public domain, Doyle continued to develop the characters until the last story, so if your story even mentions elements from the late stories you're violating copyright. They lost a court case over this in 2013 but apparently they were still trying it on in 2015; the latter case settled.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...mes-case-never-ending-copyright-dispute.shtml
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/conan-doyle-estate-sues-miramax-797696
https://variety.com/2015/film/news/mr-holmes-lawsuit-settled-sherlock-miramax-1201615091/

So be circumspect in what you use from Holmes, or wait another six years for it to lapse.

IMHO shenanigans like these do the copyright industry no favours whatsoever; it's absurd that authors still need to look over their shoulder before using a character who first appeared in 1887. But that's how it is.
Click to expand...

Good catch on the Holmes bit -- thanks for the correction. The estate's argument seems weak to me, but unsurprising.
 
Wow!
I'm sorry I asked!

OK. It's not a case of "I can't write my own characters", I just admire these ones so much.

Having said that, I have contacted PacoFear and, though flattered by my interest, has asked that I do not use these characters. I intend to respect that.

The great news is that he is planning to write more "Hero's Life" stories himself which is what I really wanted.

Thanks (I think) for all the comments!

IslandCove
 
IslandCove said:
Wow!
I'm sorry I asked!
IslandCove
Click to expand...

I'm not. This has been really educational. I knew zip about any of this so I'd just like to say thanks for asking the question and thanks to everyone that discussed this. I really did learn a lot :rose:
 
ChloeTzang said:
This has been really educational. I knew zip about any of this so I'd just like to say thanks for asking the question and thanks to everyone that discussed this. I really did learn a lot :rose:
Click to expand...

Literotica - adult learning when you least expect it!

Now there's a new slogan, a new marketing edge. Better copyri... wait, no. We could always trade mark it. Registered ®, anyone, or plain old ™?
 
electricblue66 said:
Literotica - adult learning when you least expect it!

Now there's a new slogan, a new marketing edge. Better copyri... wait, no. We could always trade mark it. Registered ®, anyone, or plain old ™?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Its not just this either. Recipes. Wine. Books. Writers I've never heard of. Australianisms and weird facts about australia and other foreign countries like Louisiana. Weird sex. You name it. Love it.
 
SimonDoom said:
...Many educated commentators on copyright law have questioned the applicability of the term "theft" to copyright infringement, for all sorts of reasons.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Blackmun said this about copyright infringement in Dowling v. United States, 73 U. S. 214-218 (1985):

" interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright, nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."

On the other hand, Justice Stephen Breyer, in the more recent MGM v. Grokster, 45 US 913, 961 (2005), said "deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. "...
Click to expand...

The problem is at its most acute in the case of sequels. If, for example, I write a successful sequel to Harry Potter with him triggering a nuclear war, readers may get very confused if JK Rowling then writes another book in the series as if nothing had happened. To that extent, I would be stealing the opportunity for JKR to develop the character in the way she saw fit.

That might be an unlikely scenario because most people would realise that my unauthorised sequel wasn't written by JKR and would take it with a pinch of salt but take a leading character in a popular TV show. How many people know who the writers are of TV shows? So, if I released a book in which that character was killed off, it might cause problems for future series of that show. In that sense, I am depriving the original authors of something highly tangible.
 
Green_Knight said:
In that sense, I am depriving the original authors of something highly tangible.
Click to expand...

Highly valuable, yes, but not tangible. You are depriving (maybe) the author of an expectation of future income. That's an intangible asset, not a tangible asset.
 
Zeb_Carter said:
Before you do, you might want to contact the author, if you can, and ask her/his permission to use his copyright material. Literotica looks down on using other authors work here on Lit without permission.

If Laurel finds out, she will delete the story.

It is also looked down by other authors to use their stuff without permission. I would look unkindly if I found someone doing what you describe.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

I had another author ask to use my characters in a story of his own. I was very flattered that he wanted to use the characters I had crafted as part of his own work but also felt a bit conflicted as if I was giving up control over the characters in a way.

I appreciated the flattery, not to mention the request for permission, too much to decline.

Ask the author first.
 
SimonDoom said:
Highly valuable, yes, but not tangible. You are depriving (maybe) the author of an expectation of future income. That's an intangible asset, not a tangible asset.
Click to expand...

The word tangible means, literally, touchable. It comes from the Latin verb tangere, to touch or to handle.

And the dispute about the meaning of the word theft is really a dispute between those who use the word in its legal sense and those who use it in the sense of common English. Both parties are right in the domains from which they argue, but the sense of common English is more applicable to the use of the word in this forum. In that sense, copying without permission is theft. But the more limited legal sense of the word is necessary at law, where it's important that everyone be precise. That's why lawyers get so uppity about the way they use words. (Not that the writers whose men put their arms around womens' wastes couldn't use a bit of precision. That particular image is anything but erotic!)
 
There is quite a lot of fan fiction about popular TV shows, movies and books around on the internet, both on Literotica and other non-erotic sites. I quite like reading fan-fiction but have never written any myself.

Could writing fan fiction possibly cause legal issues? As a hypothetical, let's say a fan of Everybody Loves Raymond and King of Queens wrote an erotic story on Literotica about the characters Ray, Debra, Robert, Amy, Doug and Carrie having a partner swap evening, pairing Ray and Carrie, Robert and Debra, and Doug and Amy together. Staying with King of Queens, say a fan of lesbian erotica wrote a story about Carrie and Doug having a big fight, and Carrie responded by getting into bed with (and into the panties of) Holly, the girl who walks Arthur. Or if a fan of the popular British sci-fi show Doctor Who wrote an erotic story about companions Ben and Polly (two very good looking companions in the 1960s) having wild sex in many different places in the TARDIS, trying to avoid the extremely suspicious and disapproving Doctor.

Could there be problems if the copyright holders of these TV shows discovered such works and were anything but happy about them?
 
RetroFan said:
There is quite a lot of fan fiction about popular TV shows, movies and books around on the internet, both on Literotica and other non-erotic sites. I quite like reading fan-fiction but have never written any myself.

Could writing fan fiction possibly cause legal issues? As a hypothetical, let's say a fan of Everybody Loves Raymond and King of Queens wrote an erotic story on Literotica about the characters Ray, Debra, Robert, Amy, Doug and Carrie having a partner swap evening, pairing Ray and Carrie, Robert and Debra, and Doug and Amy together. Staying with King of Queens, say a fan of lesbian erotica wrote a story about Carrie and Doug having a big fight, and Carrie responded by getting into bed with (and into the panties of) Holly, the girl who walks Arthur. Or if a fan of the popular British sci-fi show Doctor Who wrote an erotic story about companions Ben and Polly (two very good looking companions in the 1960s) having wild sex in many different places in the TARDIS, trying to avoid the extremely suspicious and disapproving Doctor.

Could there be problems if the copyright holders of these TV shows discovered such works and were anything but happy about them?
Click to expand...

Yes, there could be problems. There's no "fanfiction defense" to copyright infringement.

If the characters in the fanfiction are "substantially similar" to the characters in the TV series (that's the applicable test for copyright infringement -- substantial similarity to the copyrightable, expressive elements of the original work), then presumably the fanfiction story infringes the copyright of the TV show.

If the fanfiction story is a parody of the TV show, it might be a "fair use" and therefore not be infringement, despite the substantial similarity.

The reality is that stories published anonymously on a free site where no one makes money are unlikely to be the subject of a lawsuit. Fanfiction, though technically a copyright violation in many cases, is widely tolerated because it doesn't meaningfully hurt the author's ability to make money off his/her creations.
 
SimonDoom said:
The reality is that stories published anonymously on a free site where no one makes money are unlikely to be the subject of a lawsuit. Fanfiction, though technically a copyright violation in many cases, is widely tolerated because it doesn't meaningfully hurt the author's ability to make money off his/her creations.
Click to expand...

Note that fanfic of current authors can create legal problems in the other direction.

John Raymond Reuel Martin publishes a story "Lord of the Thrones" that introduces sympathetic sexy characters Don (with a Mysterious Past) and Jani.

Fanny writes fanfic where Don and Jani meet and fall in love, and the secret of Don's parentage is revealed.

John publishes a LotT sequel where Don and Jani meet and fall in love, and the secret of Don's parentage... is pretty much as in Fanny's fic.

Did John rip off Fanny's fanfic? Even though it's obviously a derivative work, the new elements may still be covered by copyright.

Or did Fanny just reinvent ideas that John had already planned out? (Perhaps he deliberately dropped clues in Book 1 about what was coming up.)

For this reason, even authors who encourage fanfic of their works generally avoid reading fic. Well-known sci-fi author and child molester Marion Zimmer Bradley appears to have run into problems of this sort, although the details are unclear.

Edit: There must be some interesting copyright issues associated with something like Game of Thrones, where the TV series has caught up to the books and they're now both writing their own version of what comes next. I expect the lawyers are doing well out of it.
 
Last edited:
Bramblethorn said:
Edit: There must be some interesting copyright issues associated with something like Game of Thrones, where the TV series has caught up to the books and they're now both writing their own version of what comes next. I expect the lawyers are doing well out of it.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the TV show producers obtained extremely broad rights to adapt the books as they see fit, including the right to make TV episodes for story lines past the narrative point for which the books have been written or published. And you can be sure GRR Martin is being compensated handsomely.

According to Martin in an interview, as the TV show began to catch up to the books he let the producers know where he was headed with the books, giving them broad ideas, but it's likely the books when they get published won't entirely track the TV shows.
 
SimonDoom said:
I'm sure the TV show producers obtained extremely broad rights to adapt the books as they see fit, including the right to make TV episodes for story lines past the narrative point for which the books have been written or published. And you can be sure GRR Martin is being compensated handsomely.

According to Martin in an interview, as the TV show began to catch up to the books he let the producers know where he was headed with the books, giving them broad ideas, but it's likely the books when they get published won't entirely track the TV shows.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, AFAIK it's all been worked out, but I'm sure there was plenty of money for IP lawyers in working out that arrangement.
 
Bramblethorn said:
Note that fanfic of current authors can create legal problems in the other direction.

John Raymond Reuel Martin publishes a story "Lord of the Thrones" that introduces sympathetic sexy characters Don (with a Mysterious Past) and Jani.

Fanny writes fanfic where Don and Jani meet and fall in love, and the secret of Don's parentage is revealed.

John publishes a LotT sequel where Don and Jani meet and fall in love, and the secret of Don's parentage... is pretty much as in Fanny's fic.

Did John rip off Fanny's fanfic? Even though it's obviously a derivative work, the new elements may still be covered by copyright.

Or did Fanny just reinvent ideas that John had already planned out? (Perhaps he deliberately dropped clues in Book 1 about what was coming up.)

For this reason, even authors who encourage fanfic of their works generally avoid reading fic. Well-known sci-fi author and child molester Marion Zimmer Bradley appears to have run into problems of this sort, although the details are unclear...
Click to expand...

Indeed. The applicable word is, of course, "copy". It is a defence if you can show that you have not read and therefore could not have copied the work in question. That, at least, is the situation in the UK and probably all of Europe. Dan Brown invoked that as part of his defence in the Da Vinci Code case. Difficult to prove, though, unless you can show that you were working on your sequel before the fanfic appeared.

The scenario you have described shows why a published author should sue a fanfic author such as Fanny for breach of copyright, even if the fanfic is on a free site, if there are grounds to do so, if only to prevent subsequent accusations of him/her copying the fanfic.
 
Bramblethorn said:
Note that fanfic of current authors can create legal problems in the other direction.

John Raymond Reuel Martin publishes a story "Lord of the Thrones" that introduces sympathetic sexy characters Don (with a Mysterious Past) and Jani.

Fanny writes fanfic where Don and Jani meet and fall in love, and the secret of Don's parentage is revealed.

John publishes a LotT sequel where Don and Jani meet and fall in love, and the secret of Don's parentage... is pretty much as in Fanny's fic.

Did John rip off Fanny's fanfic? Even though it's obviously a derivative work, the new elements may still be covered by copyright.

Or did Fanny just reinvent ideas that John had already planned out? (Perhaps he deliberately dropped clues in Book 1 about what was coming up.)

For this reason, even authors who encourage fanfic of their works generally avoid reading fic. Well-known sci-fi author and child molester Marion Zimmer Bradley appears to have run into problems of this sort, although the details are unclear.

Edit: There must be some interesting copyright issues associated with something like Game of Thrones, where the TV series has caught up to the books and they're now both writing their own version of what comes next. I expect the lawyers are doing well out of it.
Click to expand...

I hadn't really thought about this, but you're right.

I can imagine a fanfic "troll" writing multiple stories based upon the original author's ongoing series, with the goal of preempting all the likely plot outcomes (it's easy to imagine someone doing this for Game of Thrones, for example). Then, when the original author comes out with a new book, the troll claims the new storyline infringes his/her own and sues the original author, trying to shake the author down for money.

It puts the original author in an interesting dilemma. I'm not sure Green_Knight's solution will always be realistic, because policing fan fiction may be too cumbersome. Another solution may be to have a clear policy (maybe posted on an author's website) that no fanfiction is authorized or permitted. Or maybe to avoid reading any fanfiction. Still another solution for an author would be to take notes about one's work and document one's authorship to defend against claims that it's based upon fanfiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

8letters
Is I/T the only category where characters constantly cross and redraw lines?
Replies
20
Views
383
Abbafan
Abbafan
TheRedChamber
Monogamous Characters making the jump into non-monogamy (or not...)
2
Replies
30
Views
673
Djmac1031
Djmac1031
Inkent
Bssing characters on people you know?
2
Replies
42
Views
571
dadadadiox
dadadadiox
I
Depantsing
2
Replies
47
Views
406
Paul_Chance
Paul_Chance
8letters
Story Pace and Convolutedness
Replies
11
Views
255
HeyAll
H
Back
Top