Continuing abandoned stories? Whats the procedure?

[ChloeTzang]

Got to be careful here. I mean look at what HBO did to GoT in season eight, and they had permission...

Ouch!

 

[StillStunned]

The key word in copyright is copy. This means literally copying.

I hate to be a nitpicker*, but I'm pretty sure it refers to "copy" in the sense of "block of written text", not "reproduction".

* Not really. I love nitpicking.

 

[ChloeTzang]

I think reasonable people can have different opinions about what constitutes a "fair use" of a copyrighted work, and about the ethics of continuing a story.

But it should be clear to everyone that, whatever your personal views, it's obvious that many authors would NOT want their works to be continued without express permission. Given that fact, doesn't plain decency require that you defer to that possibility and decline to continue another author's story without the author's expression permission? I think so. If someone asked me if they wanted to write a sequel to one of my stories, I would probably say "yes." I'd probably be flattered that they wanted to do it. But I would want to be asked. And I think many, perhaps most, authors feel that way. Given that fact, it seems to me that regardless of what your personal feelings are on this issue that preference should be respected.

Now THAT I 100% agree with. Personally, I'd be quite okay with anyone picking up one of my stories or series and writing a sequel, or even rewriting as they like, as long as they ask for permission.

That said, if I ever do unexpectedly shuffle off this mortal coil, I'd like to explicitly state here for future reference that anyone can take my stories and run with them if I'm not around to say yay or nay. LOL.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I believe literotica could benefit from a less restrictive handling of continuation or alternative versions. It would enrich and deepen the community and provide many interesting new stories.

This misses the point that it's not down to Literotica to "allow" anything. The only person who can give permission to anyone to do anything with their characters in their particular story line is the original author. It's their story, no-one else's, and definitely not Literotica's. If the author doesn't grant explicit permission, no-one else can.

 

[MillieDynamite]

It could gain you a detractor rather than a supporter.

I think it would help if people would not hypethesize what copyright means when Wikipedia explains it in detail. The key word in copyright is copy. This means literally copying. Word by word of paraphrasing while keeping the structure and notions. And derivative work does not mean, any work that takes something from another story is derivative. If that were the case then any response to a forum post would be derivative work. Or any story based on the world of Gor, or the story of O would be derivative. Us copyright office states "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. " In this case copyrightable means it is a work in itself and not a derived work. A continuation usually reuses characters and the situation (e. g. conflicts) but little more. It does not reuse plot, because in the new story different things happen. We must also be aware, that copyright infringement not only occurs when stories or ideas of literotica are reused, but any published work. If you take a story from e. g. a religious monthly magazine, take the original text, but add wording to turn it into a sex story, then you might still be in trouble.

I believe literotica could benefit from a less restrictive handling of continuation or alternative versions. It would enrich and deepen the community and provide many interesting new stories.

 

[ElectricBlue]

But don't you think that it would also enrich and deepen the community if the original author and the person wishing to continue the story actually talked to each other, showed respect, and developed a correspondence? See, I truly believe that if two authors got to know each other, quite a few of us would be more than happy to lend out our characters, or our fictional worlds, or even do collaboration work together.

And that definitely happens, a mutual permission granted. I've done it with three different authors (collaborations), and one of those authors ran her own story with one of my characters. But neither of us would even think of doing it, "Just because I wanted to," without permission.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I hate to be a nitpicker*, but I'm pretty sure it refers to "copy" in the sense of "block of written text", not "reproduction".

* Not really. I love nitpicking.

Copyrights apply to plenty of things that aren't written text, though.

 

[alohadave]

I hate to be a nitpicker*, but I'm pretty sure it refers to "copy" in the sense of "block of written text", not "reproduction".

* Not really. I love nitpicking.

It does refer to reproduction. It's a time limited monopoly on works you create. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to determine how and where the work may be reproduced and distributed.

If the copyright holder doesn't want to allow others to make copies and distribute it, that is their right.

NB: Copyright holder may not be the one who created the work. Since it is a piece of intellectual property it can be transferred to someone else if desired.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think it would help if people would not hypethesize what copyright means when Wikipedia explains it in detail. The key word in copyright is copy. This means literally copying. Word by word of paraphrasing while keeping the structure and notions.

Wiki is a good starting point but not necessarily a complete source on complex topics. There's plenty of case law which establishes that copyright covers a lot more than mere paraphrasing.

For example, earlier I referenced the judgement on "Fellowship of the King". For the time being, you can see a lot of the text from Polychron's story via its Google Books preview, but I expect that will get taken down at some point, so I'll summarise:

- The story is a continuation of Tolkien's story, picking up some years after Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin return to the Shire.
- It's not a paraphrase of the original. (It does include 17 quotations taken from the original, approx. 1400 words total, but this doesn't seem to be a major factor in the judgement; it also recaps some of the events of the original.)
- It recycles some plot elements: e.g. opening with an Istari (not Gandalf this time) coming to the Shire to recruit a hobbit on the eve of her birthday to assist against a new Ring-related threat.
- It reuses many of Tolkien's characters.
- By the author's own admission, it aims to be a pitch-perfect continuation consistent with the Tolkien canon.

The judgement discusses the elements needed to prove illegal "copying", in the sense of copyright violation. One is showing that the defendant had access to the original material, which wasn't in dispute here. The other is "substantial similarity" to the original, which includes "articulable similarities between plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, and sequence of events in the two works" and "whether an ordinary, reasonable observer would find the works substantially similar in their total concept and feel".

In this case, the judge was confident enough that this sequel constituted copyright violation that he was willing to award summary judgement against the defendant. So we have legal precedent that a continuation can be held to be infringing.

And derivative work does not mean, any work that takes something from another story is derivative. If that were the case then any response to a forum post would be derivative work. Or any story based on the world of Gor, or the story of O would be derivative.

Yes, those would very likely be derivative works, unless the author had filed off the serial numbers to the point where the original inspirations were no longer identifiable.

Us copyright office states "To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. " In this case copyrightable means it is a work in itself and not a derived work.

I'm not sure if you're using "derived work" to mean something different from "derivative work", but just to be clear, "copyrightable" does not automatically imply "not a derivative work"; the whole point of the passage you're quoting is to explore the case of copyrightable derivative works.

A continuation usually reuses characters and the situation (e. g. conflicts) but little more. It does not reuse plot, because in the new story different things happen.

As per the passage I quoted above, plot, themes, setting, and characters are among the factors considered in establishing copyright violation. Even if new things are happening, a continuation is still likely to be referencing the plot of the original.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should.

 

[OverconfidentSarcasm]

- The story is a continuation of Tolkien's story, picking up some years after Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin return to the Shire.
- It's not a paraphrase of the original. (It does include 17 quotations taken from the original, approx. 1400 words total, but this doesn't seem to be a major factor in the judgement; it also recaps some of the events of the original.)
- It recycles some plot elements: e.g. opening with an Istari (not Gandalf this time) coming to the Shire to recruit a hobbit on the eve of her birthday to assist against a new Ring-related threat.
- It reuses many of Tolkien's characters.
- By the author's own admission, it aims to be a pitch-perfect continuation consistent with the Tolkien canon.

Holy. Shit. Dude!

Are you telling me, someone wrote Lord of the Rings fan fiction, registered a copyright for his fan fiction, and then tried to SUE THE TOLKIEN ESTATE AND AMAZON because he thought Rings of Power was infringing on HIS copyrighted fan fiction, that he SOLD on his own website!?

Some people have balls, man...

 

[Bramblethorn]

Holy. Shit. Dude!

Are you telling me, someone wrote Lord of the Rings fan fiction, registered a copyright for his fan fiction, and then tried to SUE THE TOLKIEN ESTATE AND AMAZON because he thought Rings of Power was infringing on HIS copyrighted fan fiction, that he SOLD on his own website!?

Uh huh. Really incredibly bad fanfic, too:

 

[SimonDoom]

Uh huh. Really incredibly bad fanfic, too:

View attachment 2300420

Oh, that is not good. That's the kind of thing that would make the Tolkien estate folks say, "We've got to sue."

 

[Voboy]

This misses the point that it's not down to Literotica to "allow" anything. The only person who can give permission to anyone to do anything with their characters in their particular story line is the original author. It's their story, no-one else's, and definitely not Literotica's. If the author doesn't grant explicit permission, no-one else can.

This. All the speculation about the legalities of this topic misses the point.

This is an ethical question. It is 100% unethical to take another person's creation and try to make it your own. Unless you have permission from that creator.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Uh huh. Really incredibly bad fanfic, too:

That's right up there with The Eye of Argon!

 

[StillStunned]

Oh, that is not good. That's the kind of thing that would make the Tolkien estate folks say, "We've got to sue."

I would be arguing for the author to be made to read the book aloud in public. "He is the writer. That is his crime, that is his punishment."

 

[M_K_Babalon]

How exactly are you going to defend your copyrights in court? By declaring, "I'm the real SimonDoom?"

Outside, if you post under pseudonyms, your publisher knows your real name. Your bank knows your real name.

You are active here, hence, you care. On the other side, if someone sends you an email, you will respond because you care.

If, God forbid, you disappear for years, it would mean that you either don't care anymore, or something terrible happened to you. Since you haven't given your oblivious relatives instructions on what to do with your content, your stories, like you, will eventually be forgotten.

Whenever someone credits a work, readers go check the original content, and thus the work is revived. No one takes away your rights; on the contrary, they only perpetuate your creation, and by doing so, they perpetuate you.

But maybe you don't really care about your legacy. Perhaps all you care about is your divine copyrights. "They're mine, mine! All mine!"

Probably the same way a person can be caught and convicted by use of [what a pen name/pseudonym is] their alias.

I dissapeared for a year or two. Didn't mean anything bad happened, or I didn't care, nor was it open season on finishing my unfinished shit.

For somebody who's been here four months and ain't written anything, you sure seem to have a lot to say.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Man... I remember years ago asking this same question about a story on asstr. That's the last time I've seen this asked.

 

[lc69hunter]

One option I have thought of. Open the story with the comment that I was inspired to write a story based upon one that I had read on here twelve years ago. The original one that inspired my was (link story) @author who sadly hasn't posted here for eleven years. You ought to read it

Then lead into the story.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

So, what about one of my less dominant personalities getting control for a few days and continuing one of my stories without me knowing? Does that violate the rules and senses of propriety?

Asking for a friend. No she's not. Yes she is, You two shut up, I'm writing over here.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

So, what about one of my less dominant personalities getting control for a few days and continuing one of my stories without me knowing? Does that violate the rules and senses of propriety?

Asking for a friend. No she's not. Yes she is, You two shut up, I'm writing over here.

I don't see a problem with that, as far as the question at hand. The board of directors in your head are still operating under ShelbyDawn Corperation. You should be more concerned about any of them taking action on their own without proper board meeting procedures. You don't wanna risk a scandal.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I don't see a problem with that, as far as the question at hand. The board of directors in your head are still operating under ShelbyDawn Corperation. You should be more concerned about any of them taking action on their own without proper board meeting procedures. You don't wanna risk a scandal.

You want scandal, you should come to one of those board meetings.

Just posting to illustrate the absurdity this thread has become. The OP got his answer and ghosted. Everything after that is one guy trying to convince one person, somebody, anybody, to agree with him. He jumped in at post 16 and hasn't given up yet. One persistent motherfucker, I'll give him credit for that.

 

[SimonDoom]

How exactly are you going to defend your copyrights in court? By declaring, "I'm the real SimonDoom?"

Outside, if you post under pseudonyms, your publisher knows your real name. Your bank knows your real name.

You are active here, hence, you care. On the other side, if someone sends you an email, you will respond because you care.

If, God forbid, you disappear for years, it would mean that you either don't care anymore, or something terrible happened to you. Since you haven't given your oblivious relatives instructions on what to do with your content, your stories, like you, will eventually be forgotten.

Whenever someone credits a work, readers go check the original content, and thus the work is revived. No one takes away your rights; on the contrary, they only perpetuate your creation, and by doing so, they perpetuate you.

But maybe you don't really care about your legacy. Perhaps all you care about is your divine copyrights. "They're mine, mine! All mine!"

1. We're talking about what's allowed here at Literotica. I don't have to go to court. I can just go to Laurel, and per her rules, she will remove the offending story.

2. I have enforced my rights outside Literotica. It wasn't necessary to go to court. I approached the platform where the infringing story was located, gave them evidence of my prior authorship, and demanded that the story should be removed. It was. Many people get accustomed to infringing without consequence, but when faced with a possible legal challenge will back down right away.

3. You are certainly free to have your attitude about YOUR stories. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, you don't have any. Most authors do not agree with your attitude, so it seems to me that the courteous thing to do is to decline to write a sequel without express permission.

4. There's nothing divine about copyright, but it is the law in nearly every country in the world, so that's a good reason to respect it, isn't it? Writing a sequel to a Literotica author's story, using characters and other specific elements of that story, without permission, is plainly a violation of the author's copyright, UNLESS it qualifies as a parody or a "transformative use", which most sequels will not. Giving credit to the original author shields one from a claim of plagiarism, but it is not a defense to copyright infringement. Plagiarism and copyright infringement are two different things.

 

[alohadave]

For somebody who's been here four months and ain't written anything, you sure seem to have a lot to say.

Attack the argument, not the poster. Aka as an Ad Hominem attack.

There is no requirement to have posted stories here to have or express an opinion in this forum.

Their history of posting stories has no bearing on the strength of their argument.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Attack the argument, not the poster. Aka as an Ad Hominem attack.

There is no requirement to have posted stories here to have or express an opinion in this forum.

Their history of posting stories has no bearing on the strength of their argument.

Or don't. The guy isn't going to listen to anything anyone says, and he's not even the OP. (Is there an emoticon for pulling your hair out?)