Old 03-05-2011, 07:24 PM   #1
bigboy587
Virgin
 
bigboy587 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18
Celebrity stories

I have a couple of ideas round inclusion of celebrities in some sexy stories I'd like to write but just wondered about the legalities. Can anyone advise?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-14-2011, 04:00 PM   #2
estragon
Literotica Guru
 
estragon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,578
Check the celebrities story link. Relying on the Hustler case (Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell), you can lampoon a public figure, that is, one who places himself/herself in the public eye. In fact, Laurel and Manu have an automatic slugline at the beginning of each celeb story. Here's a sample:

DISCLAIMER:

The stories in the "Celebrity" section of Literotica are all fictional parodies - none are true, nor are they approved of by the celebrities named in the stories. Authors write these fictitious stories about famous people for the same reason that Larry Flynt made fun of Jerry Falwell, because they can. The Supreme Court of the United States, the country where this site is located, has ruled that parodies involving famous people are perfectly and totally legal under the United States Constitution. The specific case law on this was decided in the case of "Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell" in 1988. No harm is intended toward the celebrities featured in these stories, but they are public figures and in being so, they must accept that they are fair target for parodies by the public. We believe in the first amendment, and more broadly, in the basic principle of free speech and this section may push the boundaries of that principle, but the United States Supreme Court has approved of this type of material. We believe that the Supreme Court was correct in their decision.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2011, 09:34 PM   #3
bigboy587
Virgin
 
bigboy587 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18
celebrity stories

but I'm based in the UK - does that mean that if I use a UK celeb that I am subject to UK law?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-16-2011, 10:23 PM   #4
Auden James
Literotica Guru
 
Auden James is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ich bin hier drin.
Posts: 779
Cool don't worry

if you publish on a uk-rooted site: possibly.

if you publish on lit: (almost) d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y not.

who did you think of?
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-27-2011, 07:27 AM   #5
JuliaKhanam
Virgin
 
JuliaKhanam is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13
I saw on Celebrity Ghost Stories a scene with Fred Dryer in which he said he took his daughter to a private school in Washington CT. They had an "experience" at the indoor swimming pool and was told by the headmaster that 2 boys drowned there in the 1920's. Anyone know which school it was? Thanks!





OLYMPIA TOWN CAR

Last edited by JuliaKhanam : 03-29-2011 at 03:40 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2011, 04:19 PM   #6
estragon
Literotica Guru
 
estragon is offline
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auden James View Post
if you publish on a uk-rooted site: possibly.

if you publish on lit: (almost) d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y not.

who did you think of?
The problem with the Internet is that it goes world-wide as soon as you click "submit". Clearly no problem in the US under Flynt-Falwell. But what if a UK Court decides that the US forum (Literotica.com) extends into the UK (and how many UK authors and readers are found on this site? Hundreds? At least hundreds, if not thousands) and thus deems the story published in the UK and you are amenable to UK jurisdiction? Consult local counsel.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-02-2011, 06:19 PM   #7
bigboy587
Virgin
 
bigboy587 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18
thanks

I think i'll just play it safe - was going to use Cheryl Cole but think I'll leave it,


Thanks,
Bigboy
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-07-2011, 05:37 PM   #8
celebutante
Virgin
 
celebutante is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The Ghetto
Posts: 2
Just go ahead and write it. At the worst all that'll happen is Lit is forced to take it down. That 'Girls Aloud' hullabaloo happened because the writer was off his rocker and posted a really sick torture/snuff scenario. Be sane and you'll be fine.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2011, 01:25 AM   #9
Aellio
Really Experienced
 
Aellio is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 186
I had the same sort of question because I want to write a Dr. Who thing or Torchwood thing and have it here, not just on fanfiction or some such place. I'll just write it XD
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2011, 04:15 AM   #10
roomfor1more
Really Really Experienced
 
roomfor1more is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 310
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboy587 View Post
but I'm based in the UK - does that mean that if I use a UK celeb that I am subject to UK law?
In the US there is a difference in how the law treats public and private individuals. Celebrities, in the US, are treated as a public figure, which means there is more room to write about them without legal ramification. However in the UK celebrities are treated like regular individuals and Douglas v Hello! is a great example of celbrities forum shopping because of Britain's favourable treatment of celebrities by the courts and this case goes to show how far the courts will go to protect a celebrity when the defendant is a British with an American claimant. Campbell v MGN (Mirror News Group) is a good example of how far the courts will go to protect a celebrity's personal life. Personally, I would avoid writing anything about a celebrity in the UK, unless you work for a news organisation that has asked you to write a piece about them. This means I would not write a sex story about a celebrity on Literotica if you are from the UK.

Last edited by roomfor1more : 07-09-2011 at 04:27 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-21-2011, 05:25 PM   #11
Auden James
Literotica Guru
 
Auden James is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ich bin hier drin.
Posts: 779
. . .

"The British are crazy!"

I cannot believe Scotland Yeard really tried to prosecute that author. I mean, it's the 3rd millennium, and the British still censor the written word on an act half a century old? ... Anyway, as is written on the following site, the prosecutioners dropped charges: http://cyberlaw.org.uk/2009/06/29/gi...-first-hurdle/

I knew the story already, for I've really read a wide range of most many-faceted erotica, and hence I was shocked that ASSTR, where the story was originally published, did, in fact, withdraw the story. But since I despise any sort of censorship I rejoiced when I found that someone had, luckily, mirrored the story.

So, as the mods wish, do the search yourself. (The title is a good start.)

IMHO, I agree with that someone that the story is rather lower-quality and lesser-creative, but it more than compensates for that deficiency in officially giving anybody the chance to give censorship the finger!

Vive la liberté! Write (and read) putrid stories!

No boring male-female sex stories. Instead write at least about violence, rape, pedophilia, torture, snuff, cannibalism, necrophilia, and coprophilia to ensure that we're actually reading porn and full-fledged expressions of free speech and not some love story.

Give the enemies of freedom of speech a one-finger salute!

Pornography is political. Pornography is civic duty.
It's enforcing civil rigths!

Last edited by Auden James : 07-23-2011 at 09:11 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2011, 12:04 PM   #12
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
 
Pure's Avatar
 
Pure is offline
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: N.E. of US
Posts: 15,131
auden,

you're entitled to your views, but i do not want the link posted. let readers with an appetite sex-murder-snuff find it for themselves. do not try to evade the spirit of this caution.

thank you.

as to your directive, possibly tongue in cheek:

Instead write at least about violence, rape, pedophilia, torture, snuff, cannibalism, necrophilia, and coprophilia to ensure that we're actually reading porn and full-fledged expressions of free speech and not some love story.

writers may write what they please and face the laws of their respective countries, but several of those categories will not be postable at Literotica, and nor are links to them; in particular: extremes of violence and rape not permitted; pedophilia, torture, snuff, cannibalism, necrophilia, not permitted. so the only permitted category is coprophilia, subject to the owner's directions.
oh, and these policies, here, do not constitute censorship.

pure
moderator.
__________________
The ship that will not obey the helm will have to obey the rocks.

Last edited by Pure : 07-22-2011 at 12:14 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-25-2011, 02:13 PM   #13
Auden James
Literotica Guru
 
Auden James is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ich bin hier drin.
Posts: 779
On Censorship

A. The Publisher's Rights

a) First of all, I wholly accept that any publisher has the right to define which materials to accept and which not. Whith this right to define I mean to make explicit which guidelines and rules a submission has to meet to get published. These guidelines and rules may be (1) formal or (2) non-formal or (1+2) a mixture of both. In any case they need to be made explicit. Otherwise there'd be no ground on which the publisher could operate.

aa) In the case of LIT (online publisher in a sense) there's a mixture of (1) and (2) stated above. I analyze this mixture as follows:
1) Author: sole creator of submission, 18 years or older, legally able to write submission, giving LIT right to publish submission.
Submission: at least 750 words, without major spelling errors, broken into paragraphs, no links.
2) Submission: no sexual activity involving underage characters or bestiality.

b) These are the guidelines and rules defined by LIT as a publisher. As such they are the only grounds on which LIT ought to operate and thus only on these grounds authors ought to expect LIT to handle their submissions.

bb) If LIT does not cheat on its self-defined operating rules, then there's no censorship to be found at this point. True, (in fiction) both 1) zoophilia and 2) sexual activity involving minors are protected by freedom of speech. In fiction several works that deal with these themes can be named, for example:
1) William Shakespeare's “A Midsummer Night's Dream” (Titania loves donkey), Lucius Apuleius's “The Golden Ass” (man turned into donkey and woman), Balzac's “A Passion in the Desert” (soldier and panther) . . . .
2) Thomas Mann's “Death in Venice” (Gustav von Aschenbach and young Tadzio), Mark Behr's “The Smell of Apples” (Marnus' Dad sodomizing Frikkie), Paul Russell's “The Coming Storm” (25yo Tracy Parker and 15yo prep-school student Noah), William J. Mann's “All American Boy” (14yo boy Wally and adult Zandy) . . . .
However, according to a) above, LIT has legitimately laid down the publishing rule to not accept submission dealing with 2 themes protected by freedom of speech: 1) and 2). It's the same right that romance (or similar genre) publishers make use of when they turn down manuscripts that don't fit their generic requirements or when publishers of books by women turn down manuscripts by men (though they may readily cheat by imprinting a female pseudonym on the male author), etc.

B. LIT's Publishing Practice

a) According to my conclusion in A.b) above, there's nothing wrong if LIT rejects stories on non-formal grounds (see A.a) solely because of the correspondingly defined 2 conditions stated above (see A.aa): zoophilia and pedophilia. (And, of course, rejection on grounds of the defined formal conditions is equally valid.)
To decide if LIT cheats on its self-defined rules, i.e. rejecting submissions on grounds other then the defined publishing rules (see A.aa), a look on the actual publishing practice is called for. To decide this is also to decide if LIT is practicing censorship, for suppressing submissions on grounds external to the defined publishing rules means nothing short of censorship. The latter practice equals moral condemnation, but failing legitimate publishing business.

b) After all but then there's this notorious post by KillerMuffin which lists, inter alia, the following question to ask if your story was rejected by the site’s Editors/LIT:

Quote:
Was there excessive violence, snuff, or abuse of characters in your story?

Your story was too extreme for our guidelines. These judgments are subjective, and thus we can't give an exact definition of what exactly is "too much". Certain "violence" in a BDSM situation between consenting adults may be allowed, while the same "violence" between strangers in a non-consentual situation will not. Tone and respect for characters, as well as the "violent" scene within the context of the story, are what we make our judgments upon. If your story is rejected for this, feel free to send the story back with a polite request for an explanation and we will tell you why it was rejected. If you disagree with our assessment, you are more than welcome to publish your story elsewhere rather than alter it to our guidelines. We respect your rights as authors to write on whatever you like, however you like.
bb) Are the conditions stated here by KillerMuffin consistent with LIT's publishing rules (see A.aa)?
Compared against the latter it's clearly evident that KillerMuffin's stated conditions exceed the official submission guidelines by far. In fact, nothing stated by KillerMuffin here is anywhere to be found in the official rules laid down by the site owners, let alone even remotely corresponding to them (see A.aa). KillerMuffin's reference to "our guidelines" confuses LIT's publishing rules with her own (or some other Editor’s) moral feelings. That also provides an explanation of her strangely speaking of “too much”, emphasizing “subjective judgment”, or the arbitrary and, at least to my mind, also counterintuitive distinction of “allowed” violence in BDSM and non-consent, which are all merely her emotive expressions that miss to correspond to the defined terms on which publications ought to be handled on LIT (see A.aa).
Therefore the conditions stated by KillerMuffin here, i.e. “excessive violence, snuff, or abuse of characters,” are merely tacked on by her to the rules as they’re actually defined. And solely on ground of the latter LIT ought to operate. Hence KillerMuffin’s stated condition are not consistent with LIT’s publishing rules.
Nonetheless KillerMuffin makes explicit what is involved in the practice of LIT’s Editors who pre-check uploaded submissions. (The other and far more important check is done by the readers in giving a story their thumbs up or thumbs down.)

cc) Evidently, KillerMuffin implies that in practice stories are rejected for reasons that are not, I emphasize certainly not, part of the official submission guidelines. Hence, all other things being equal, submissions are rejected in the course of LIT’s publishing practice that actually accord with the LIT rules. These stories are not rejected on a legal basis (i.e. LIT’s publishing rules) but for “reasons” of a purely emotive conceit (i.e. KillerMuffin’s moral objections of "too much", etc.). A conceit that persuades itself into believing that it had the moral superiority to suppress submission deemed objectionable on purely subjective emotive grounds without taking notice of the contradictory facts (i.e. LIT’s publishing rules).

dd) Thus I strongly disagree with you, pure, that this “policy” stated by KillerMuffin does not constitute censorship. On the contrary it’s exactly that: censorship. For suppressing submissions on grounds external to the defined publishing rules constitutes censorship. And an Editor, or whichever position KillerMuffin holds or held, who illegitimately expands on the legitimate rules to align them with her own moral standards is performing the role of a censor and imposing censorship on a site that, measured against its (f)actual own rules, hitherto did not per se urge censorship.

c) Moreover KillerMuffin's statement about LIT's “respect [of] your rights as authors to write on whatever you like, however you like” in suppressing your writing by Editors (or isn't censors more appropriate?) who are over-expanding and thereby, in one sense, disregarding the rules they're ought to be bound to, and complimenting you to go fuck yourself and to deposit your unlovely rule compliant smut elsewhere but not on this isle of ‘free (lovely) speech’, all this “respect” is strongly akin to a mockery of the oh so respected writer and a travesty of LIT's self-proclaimed adherence to Free Speech, No Spam!.

C. Inherent Flaw?

a) As a result, there seems to be a grave inconsistency between LIT’s publishing rules (see A.aa) and practice (see B.dd), translating to censorship. However, KillerMuffin’s statement, which gave rise to the hypothesis about censorship in the first place, is linked to in the “Frequently Asked Questions” section. And since the FAQ are a part of the “officials section” where LIT gives visitors (and potential submission contributors) all the general information about LIT, including explanations of its operating procedures (“F.A.Q. - All your Literotica-related questions answered!”), the inference seems likely that the information given here is consistent with the site’s actual agenda, which first and foremost involves the publishing rules.
Therefore there are two possible solutions to this issue:

1) Despite the prima facie inconsistency KillerMuffin’s conditions are approved of by the site’s agenda. In this case, the defined publishing rules are only seemingly less precluding than KillerMuffin’s conditions but ultimately fragmentary because the “Submission Guidelines”, which are not part of the FAQ (!), were not updated since KillerMuffin’s post so that the (crucial) information about the grounds on which LIT’s publishing procedure operates are unintentionally missing from the defined guidelines and rules a submission has to meet to get published.
Result: There’s no true inconsistency. The true publishing rules consist of the “Submission Guidelines” + KillerMuffin’s conditions. Any prima facie flaw is unintended.

2) Since the “Submission Guidelines” are not part of the FAQ but instead of the greater category of “Writer’s Resources”, and in the light of the distance of time that lies between (i) the creation of LIT and its publishing rules in 1998 and the date of KillerMuffin’s post in 2003, and (ii) the time between the date of KillerMuffin’s post in 2003 and the (unadjusted) publishing rules today in 2011, the inference is natural that the prima facie inconsistency is a real inconsistency. For it were indeed illogical and inconsequential to not adjust the all-important and essential publishing rules all this time if there had (really) been any such substantial change to them like KillerMuffin’s post implies.
Result: There’s true inconsistency. The true publishing rules consist solely of the “Submission Guidelines”. Somehow sometime someone didn’t check different parts of the greater picture, LIT’s agenda that is. It’s an inherent flaw.

b) Of course, the decision between 1) and 2) also afflicts the decision concerning censorship. If 1) is true, then there’s (at least today) no censorship on LIT, although LIT would then unveil a rather ugly moral pointer fetish and suppressive, unfree face (and wholly failing its self-proclaimed mantra of “Free Speech, No Spam!”). On the other hand if 2) is true, then there’s censorship (at least implied) on LIT, which ultimately might not be the case if the supposed inconsistency is only a superficial lack of review of the whole “official” content site. Though, again, a grave flaw like that to be unnoticed for straight 8 years seems unlikely. Far more likely in this case is that the Editors took matters into their hands and unpacked the moral cudgel.

Decide the issue for yourself!

All the best,
AJ

Last edited by Auden James : 07-25-2011 at 02:17 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-27-2011, 04:28 AM   #14
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
 
Pure's Avatar
 
Pure is offline
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: N.E. of US
Posts: 15,131
note to AJ

I can't really comment on your whole tome (1700 words), but I will address its main point, as I see it.

AJ bb) If LIT does not cheat on its self-defined operating rules, then there's no censorship to be found at this point. True, (in fiction) both 1) zoophilia and 2) sexual activity involving minors are protected by freedom of speech.[...]

However, according to a) above, LIT has legitimately laid down the publishing rule to not accept submission dealing with 2 themes protected by freedom of speech: 1) and 2). It's the same right that romance (or similar genre) publishers make use of when they turn down manuscripts that don't fit their generic requirements or when publishers of books by women turn down manuscripts by men (though they may readily cheat by imprinting a female pseudonym on the male author), etc.

B. LIT's Publishing Practice

a) According to my conclusion in A.b) above, there's nothing wrong if LIT rejects stories on non-formal grounds (see A.a) solely because of the correspondingly defined 2 conditions stated above (see A.aa): zoophilia and pedophilia. (And, of course, rejection on grounds of the defined formal conditions is equally valid.)

------------

You're OK up to here.


To decide if LIT cheats on its self-defined rules, i.e. rejecting submissions on grounds other then the defined publishing rules (see A.aa), a look on the actual publishing practice is called for. To decide this is also to decide if LIT is practicing censorship, for suppressing submissions on grounds external to the defined publishing rules means nothing short of censorship. The latter practice equals moral condemnation, but failing legitimate publishing business.
-------------

[Pure] This starts to get odd, first, you say you'll look at actual practice, but you never do. I doubt you have much evidence about 'actual practice.'

Instead you look at an several-years-old post from Killer Muffin, who was a moderator here in SDC, but who is not precisely and officially enunciating Lit policies. Her understanding of the rules, and mine, do not differ substantially.

HOWEVER, assume KM was accurately describing the practice and that Lit disallowed certain violent stories, why is that 'censorship'? Surely it's defensible on the same grounds you gave above. Why is "no minors, no beasts", NOT censorship, but "no minors, no beasts, no extreme sexual violence" censorship? Admittedly it MIGHT be secret, covert, or an implied rule. MAYBE the Lit authorities should be more candid and explicit, BUT, IF we hypothesize they follow a 'secret' rule, it's still their right as publishers and not censorship. of free speech.

Later you say, making the same point a few hundred words later,


If 1) is true, then there’s (at least today) no censorship on LIT, although LIT would then unveil a rather ugly moral pointer fetish and suppressive, unfree face (and wholly failing its self-proclaimed mantra of “Free Speech, No Spam!”). On the other hand if 2) is true, then there’s censorship (at least implied) on LIT,


===
You're trying to make a point by rhetoric ["ugly moral" etc.] that still is NOT logical. I see no reason to say that "no bestiality" is a NON morality-based rule, whereas "no extreme sexual violence" is morality-linked. In any case, the site's owners are free to have SOME standards based in their tastes, some based in the law, some based in morality, some based on what Laurel's mother tells her-- whatever they damn well please.

Oh, in case you wondered, KM's ideas are NOT precise statements of official policies; but generally what she says about torture and murder likely causing rejection is correct.
__________________
The ship that will not obey the helm will have to obey the rocks.

Last edited by Pure : 07-31-2011 at 06:11 PM.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-31-2011, 06:08 PM   #15
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
 
Pure's Avatar
 
Pure is offline
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: N.E. of US
Posts: 15,131
Note to Auden and others. Lit policies. violence

Laurel posts the first para to authors who submit, and elaborated a bit, in the following para.

These rules hold in addition to the the basic prohibitions against underage sex and bestiality, and are applied as regards violence. The issues of "forced" (through cooperation or pre arrangement) or actually forced sex are mentioned.


Laurel:
Quote:
While we do accept submissions with graphic violence, we don't accept "snuff" - i.e. death & extreme torture with the aim of sexual titillation. We generally do not accept submissions of nonconsensual sex in which the "victim" gets absolutely no sort of thrill or enjoyment from the acts, or is seriously physically harmed/abused.

Basically, we allow ravishment, painplay, most BDSM situations – as well as situations one finds in horror movies. What we don't publish is stuff like castration and amputation written for sexual arousal (though we do allow a character to be castrated or have a limb amputated if the plot calls for it) and stuff like erotic cannibalism and "snuff" (graphic depictions of murder meant for sexual titillation).
__________________
The ship that will not obey the helm will have to obey the rocks.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-02-2011, 01:26 AM   #16
erotiquegirl
Experienced
 
erotiquegirl is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboy587 View Post
I think i'll just play it safe - was going to use Cheryl Cole but think I'll leave it,


Thanks,
Bigboy
Write it and see.

It's not like you're a UK publisher or anything. Worst they can do is request a takedown.

Writers should always test the free speech waters.
__________________
Rebecca

Stories: http://www.literotica.com/stories/me...ge=submissions
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:44 PM.

Copyright 1998-2013 Literotica Online. Literotica is a registered trademark.