Continuing abandoned stories? Whats the procedure?

[M_K_Babalon]

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.

You're right. I do try to be decent, but it's not the first or last time, it has, or will happen. At least it was fairly nice as far as "attacking" another poster goes. Especially compared to several others who do more, or worse... unscolded mind you. Still I find it odd to come after me, dunno why, but it feels odd to me. As far as the rest, I'm well aware of it.

 

[SimonDoom]

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.

I agree with this and try to follow the "no ad hominem" principle rigorously, but in this case the fact that the commenter has no stories is significant because he purports to lecture those who DO write stories about the meaning of their actions, and that's discourteous. If he said, "This is how I would see things as an author," that would be perfectly fine. It's presumptuous for someone who doesn't write any stories to tell those who do what they mean by leaving an unfinished story up.

 

[Voboy]

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.

This has been suggested before. I agree that it's a better approach, and I think it meets the intent of what Lit tries to do when making these kinds of policies.

It's not something I would do, since I think it's shallow and uncreative, and since much of the fun of being a writer is worldbuilding. Devising the plots. Inventing the backstories. Actually setting the words down is just a part of this whole process, and not even the most creative part. The creative part happens in the mind and the memory, and I can't really understand why a writer would want to skip all that by piggybacking on someone else's work.

The best stories are the ones I wake up thinking about, so that I have to rush to my keyboard and set them down in an instant, enjoying the work my mind has already done before letting my fingers roam. There's a joy there that I can't really comprehend giving up by outsourcing to a former writer.

 

[KeithD]

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

This. Any writer who doesn't protect the writing of other writers as assiduously as they do their own is seriously self-possessed. And this is the Author's Hangout. I would expect posters here to be more protective of other writers than on some of the other boards here.

 

[Bramblethorn]

This has been suggested before. I agree that it's a better approach, and I think it meets the intent of what Lit tries to do when making these kinds of policies.

It's not something I would do, since I think it's shallow and uncreative, and since much of the fun of being a writer is worldbuilding. Devising the plots. Inventing the backstories. Actually setting the words down is just a part of this whole process, and not even the most creative part. The creative part happens in the mind and the memory, and I can't really understand why a writer would want to skip all that by piggybacking on someone else's work.

Piggybacking doesn't automatically preclude creativity; many of Shakespeare's plays piggyback on other people's work, and he still did okay. There's more than one way to be creative, and piggybacking is often a choice by a writer who wants to focus their creativity on some specific aspect of storytelling rather than a way of abrogating creativity. When Shakespeare takes his plot and characters from history or from somebody else's stories, he's still exerting creativity in the word-play, the details of characterisation, etc. etc.

In the same way, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" is a very creative play even though it's dependent on "Hamlet" for its characters, setting, and much of its plot. It looks to unpack events that took place largely offstage in the original.

I'm not saying every fanfic/continuation story is Shakespeare by any means, and many such works aren't particularly creative. But skilled authors can do a lot with it, and for less-skilled authors it can function as a form of "training wheels" that allows them to practice, e.g., plotting without needing to do years of worldbuiding and characterisation for something they might only use once.

(This is not the same question as whether it's ethical to do so.)

 

[8letters]

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.

Based on what has been published here, that is acceptable to do.

Here's the beginning of a story that I came across recently that adds to another author's story:

A few years ago, syd_v63, another author on this site, wrote a very good series called BANG BABY BANG. I found part 3 of the story to be the most exciting, but was disappointed that the ending stopped abruptly before getting to the action. Imagine my disappointment when part 4 picked the story up several days after part 3! So I forgot about it until I came across it today, and I thought, I bet I'm not the only person who wants to know what happened between Rachel, her son, and her husband in that kitchen. I have written it so that you can follow it easily without reading anything earlier, but if you would like more context to this story, read Part 3 of BANG BABY BANG by syd_v63 first. As a matter of fact, I recommend the whole series. But this is how I imagined that entire erotic encounter in the kitchen playing out.

(link)

I don't think there's any argument that it's within the site rules to use characters and settings from commercial copyrighted material (e.g. Wonder Woman or Star Wars). Based on what has been published, my impression is that Literotica offers the same protection it offers commercial copyrighted material to the copyrighted material published on Literotica by authors who no longer respond to messages from the site.

That being said, Laurel has not been clear in the communications on this issue that I've seen lately. The rules very well could have changed. Anyone considering adding a chapter to another author's work, I'd recommend contacting Laurel about doing it before sitting down to write.

 

[KachinaDoll]

We're not exactly discussing an unfinished entry for the Nobel Prize in Literature here. I appreciate that there are principles at stake, both moral and legal, but the story in question is, to put it bluntly, a piece of virtually unreadable crap. Far from being continued, it should be consigned to a dark corner of the site where it can inflict no further misery.

 

[ElectricBlue]

We're not exactly discussing an unfinished entry for the Nobel Prize in Literature here. I appreciate that there are principles at stake, both moral and legal, but the story in question is, to put it bluntly, a piece of virtually unreadable crap. Far from being continued, it should be consigned to a dark corner of the site where it can inflict no further misery.

Anti-cloning, in other words?

 

[Voboy]

No one disputes the necessity of explicit author permission, but the OP presented a unique case: a series abandoned by its author four years ago, with the author unreachable.

It isn’t unique here on Lit. Similar threads start about once every two months, with exactly the same questions and exactly the same replies.

 

[jhealy55]

Being honest - why would someone even consider it?

I've been as guilty as anyone here of loving someone else' creation at an irrational level. Wanting the story to continue, imagining where it would go, how it would change, etc. I've drawn my own comics, imagined my own movies, made my own lyrics and ranted against those who did a worse job with their sequels than I imagine I would have. I get all those feelings.

But as a creator myself, I never lose sight of the fact that those other creations ARE NOT MINE. I am entitled to my own opinion, but I honestly get no say in where they go as another's creation. Period. Full stop. Parody is protected, but impersonation or arrogation are not.

Part of the process of creating is making choices. Making good choices makes better creations. Staying true to them makes them better and earns the investment of those who end up loving them. Anyone who has struggled through this process develops a respect for what it entails.

If you are Brian Wilson or the Beatles, it never occurs to you to write a follow up to the others album. You are inspired to write the answer. In your own unique voice. You can pay homage. You can even write a diss track if you feel inspired. But adding a lean to or sprawling graffiti on the side of the empire state building to increase the number of views isn't paying homage to the ones who designed and built the thing that everyone has come to see.

As I see it, if you are using someone else' creation, in a way they never intended, and seeking the attention and approval of the same audience that the original creator did, you are doing this for all the wrong reasons. It is appropriation , which is a polite word for stealing. Its why we react so negatively to those who try to falsely associate themselves with the achievement of others, like Navy Seals. The message is the same. If you want the attention, admiration and respect you append to the original author, go back and do the work, from the beginning, just like they did.

Its okay to be inspired. Even to imitate. Certainly to accept an invitation to collaborate. But its never okay to appropriate. Especially if you are trying to draw attention to yourself by standing on the shoulders of someone who created their own audience for that work. If you are arguing that it is for any other reason, you aren't being honest. With yourself or others.

The truth is, some one who does this wants the story to continue, but with themselves in the position that they see the original author. I just don't think it will ever turn out the way they imagine. They aren't the creator and thus can never fully understand the place where the story came from. Namely the imagination of the one who created it.

My advice, take the inspiration and create your own story. In your own voice. Do the hard work of creating. Make good choices about the characters and the world they inhabit. Make something you love the same way others make the things they love. By putting in the time. Everything you are hoping to find is in that process.

 

[jhealy55]

I agree, and I'd add that some seem to be conflating principle with practicality. No one disputes the necessity of explicit author permission, but the OP presented a unique case: a series abandoned by its author four years ago, with the author unreachable. Given it's noncommercial, with a fan simply wanting to honor the series and its characters, some might argue it's a clear instance of fair use.

I get why some Lit authors might worry that even a nod to fair use could open the door to rampant copyright infringement beyond Lit, but let's not forget that the majority of Lit writers are just amateurs having fun with their smut, not taking it super seriously.

If I wish to prevent sequels to my work even decades later, the simplest way is to specify it in my bio.

Shouldn't need to be specified. Its assumed to be the case. Always. Unless the author has specified otherwise.

Quality of the work is irrelevant. Just as the current book value if the car someone is stealing or borrowing without permission doesn't matter. The value to the owner is the only thing that matters. The fact that they aren't around to object is not an excuse to use or take their property without permission.

Ever.

 

[Vintage_DM]

Wondering, if you created a parrel world to the first story and ran with storyline that goes further than the original story. would that be considered infringement?

 

[jhealy55]

I'm not a legal expert, so I'm not familiar with all the legal details, but Bramblethon gave a good example of how Shakespeare used existing content and characters in his plays. IMHO, creating a sequel with original ideas, plot, and style for non-commercial purposes might be considered fair use and may not need permission. Nonetheless, I can understand the stance of professional editors and writers who come out decisively against AI and fair use. 99.9% of Lit's writers are not professionals.

We all draw from life around us in creating. My argument is that if you need the other persons original work to support your own, you need their permission.

If the lean-to or graffiti wouldn't get any attention if it wasn't on the side of the Empire State Building there's your answer. Go build the Chrysler building or WTC if you want the same kind of attention. or build the shack or spray the graffiti in a place where no one cares and see if it generates any attention

Likewise, adding rims to a stolen car, even if it was a POS when you took it doesn't make it 'yours'. All you have is a set of rims if everything you "borrowed" goes back to the one who owns it. Doesn't matter if it sat in their garage or backyard for years untouched before you took it. You don't know the reason the person left it in the state its in or why they valued it the way it was.

You may be legally able to use someone else' work but it doesn't make it right. Just like you may be able to squeak through the AI detection and get published here.

But I seriously think this is the debate between 'makers' and 'influencers' in our current state. There are a whole host of those who want fame or attention without creating or building anything. They want to 'produce content' in famous places or popular events, with famous things or in proximity to famous people, but they end up looking like needy posers to anyone who is there to appreciate the real thing.

If you can't get anyone to pay attention to what you are doing without using the spillover attention from someone else' work it really shouldn't be out there in the first place. write it for your own enjoyment.

 

[MillieDynamite]

No, for you not to be in line for an accusation of plagiarism or copyright violation, there need not be any money involved. All Fan Fiction can be pursued in court if the copyright holder decides to do so. And if you add to the work of a copyrighted story that has paid the fee, you can find yourself in court with a monetary value of your violation determined by people not of your choosing.

I'm not a legal expert, so I'm not familiar with all the legal details, but Bramblethon gave a good example of how Shakespeare used existing content and characters in his plays. IMHO, creating a sequel with original ideas, plot, and style for non-commercial purposes might be considered fair use and may not need permission. Nonetheless, I can understand the stance of professional editors and writers who come out decisively against AI and fair use. 99.9% of Lit's writers are not professionals.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Yes, unless it is different characters and is not identifiable as having been lifted from another person's work. Simply saying your Superman isn't in any DC universe doesn't protect you. Though, I'm not sure how much longer the name of that character can be protected.

Wondering, if you created a parrel world to the first story and ran with storyline that goes further than the original story. would that be considered infringement?

 

[Bamagan]

Yes, unless it is different characters and is not identifiable as having been lifted from another person's work. Simply saying your Superman isn't in any DC universe doesn't protect you. Though, I'm not sure how much longer the name of that character can be protected.

Superman will be public domain in 2034... although the character has been reinvented so many times since 1938 that there's a reasonable chance that the later iterations might still have some degree of legal protection. Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse goes public in a few days, so we may get to see how that plays out with a property that has been continually developed and evolved for decades with regard to later versions, associated trademarks, and so forth.

 

[MillieDynamite]

What kind of Mickey-Mouse organization names their hockey team, Ducks!

 

[AwkwardlySet]

What kind of Mickey-Mouse organization names their hockey team, Ducks!

I know! Quacks would have been so much better...

 

[alohadave]

Superman will be public domain in 2034... although the character has been reinvented so many times since 1938 that there's a reasonable chance that the later iterations might still have some degree of legal protection. Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse goes public in a few days, so we may get to see how that plays out with a property that has been continually developed and evolved for decades with regard to later versions, associated trademarks, and so forth.

When Steamboat Willie enters the public domain, you can use the character, as depicted in that work. It doesn't make Mickey Mouse public domain.

In the US, some, but not all Sherlock Holmes books are PD, and you can use the depictions and characteristics from those PD books, but not those still covered by copyright.

This is why the recent Winnie the Pooh slasher movie had no red shirt. That shirt characteristic is still covered by copyright.

Disney has trademarked all their characters and will likely try to force people to not use Steamboat Willie on TM grounds, even though the Supreme Court has decided that trademark cannot be used as an end run around copyright. Disney will still try to do it. And with the current court, they may win.

 

[MillieDynamite]

The last works of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes copyright expired on January 1st this year.

 

[djrip]

I've been as guilty as anyone here of loving someone else' creation at an irrational level. Wanting the story to continue, imagining where it would go, how it would change, etc. I've drawn my own comics, imagined my own movies, made my own lyrics and ranted against those who did a worse job with their sequels than I imagine I would have. I get all those feelings.

But as a creator myself, I never lose sight of the fact that those other creations ARE NOT MINE. I am entitled to my own opinion, but I honestly get no say in where they go as another's creation. Period. Full stop. Parody is protected, but impersonation or arrogation are not.

This resonates with me. I've felt this way about books, movies, etc. Mainly when I was a teen, and full of simmering passion for those stories. These days I don't seem to get so worked up about things

Anyway harnessing this passion can be fulfilling. There is nothing wrong at all with writing such a thing, a work set in the setting or a continuation of the story, for your own fulfillment and keeping it in your drawer. I also don't think there is anything wrong with showing it to your friend who is also into the setting. Getting a bit more questionable if you post it online. That's fan fiction and it depends to some extent on the original author's attitude. For authors here, it's easy to make contact and I wouldn't support posting anything without permission, blanket or specific, but writing for your own fulfillment and not publishing is still completely fine.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm not a legal expert, so I'm not familiar with all the legal details, but Bramblethon gave a good example of how Shakespeare used existing content and characters in his plays. IMHO, creating a sequel with original ideas, plot, and style for non-commercial purposes might be considered fair use and may not need permission. Nonetheless, I can understand the stance of professional editors and writers who come out decisively against AI and fair use. 99.9% of Lit's writers are not professionals.

But Shakespeare used non-copyrighted materials. He relied on materials in the public domain. This is a completely different situation from a Literotica author using another Literotica author's story.

We can debate the legalities and ethics all we want, but I don't see how as a matter of basic courtesy one can defend doing this. If a Literotica author has not given you express authority to continue his or her story, don't do it. If you are enamored with the concept of the story, then take some of the basic ideas, to which nobody has an exclusive property right, and write your own story. That's the way to approach this with integrity.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm not a legal expert, so I'm not familiar with all the legal details, but Bramblethon gave a good example of how Shakespeare used existing content and characters in his plays. IMHO, creating a sequel with original ideas, plot, and style for non-commercial purposes might be considered fair use and may not need permission. Nonetheless, I can understand the stance of professional editors and writers who come out decisively against AI and fair use. 99.9% of Lit's writers are not professionals.

I don't think many professionals are opposed to fair use (they benefit from it too!) but they might have different ideas about exactly what qualifies.

By my non-expert understanding, the definition of fair use doesn't automatically exclude things like fan continuations, but it's not clear that it gives them much protection, and I'm not aware of much relevant legal precedent that would indicate just where the line is drawn. Fair use is more likely to cover work that aims to comment on, challenge, or transform the original, than something that's just "this is what I reckon the author would've written next".

 

[Bramblethorn]

But Shakespeare used non-copyrighted materials. He relied on materials in the public domain.

Tautologically so, since Shakespeare died almost 100 years before the first English copyright laws were passed. But one of his major sources was the 1587 edition of Holinshed's Chronicles, which was less than 20 years old at the time he used it for plays like Macbeth and Lear. (Younger than some of the stories on Literotica!)

My point wasn't about the legality, just that nobody accuses Shakespeare of being uncreative merely because he drew on other people's material.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I don't think many professionals are opposed to fair use (they benefit from it too!) but they might have different ideas about exactly what qualifies.

By my non-expert understanding, the definition of fair use doesn't automatically exclude things like fan continuations, but it's not clear that it gives them much protection, and I'm not aware of much relevant legal precedent that would indicate just where the line is drawn. Fair use is more likely to cover work that aims to comment on, challenge, or transform the original, than something that's just "this is what I reckon the author would've written next".

I've always considered "fair use" in its academic context, where one writer is citing another as part of their argument - which will be credited in a footnote or bibliography. Or in a review context.

But in the context of writing fiction, I don't think "fair use" is relevant at all. I've never seen a fictional book cite another writer's work in the way people are talking about here.

Something like Neil Gaiman's The Problem with Susan is going into that grey area of fan fiction, or is quasi-academic - he's critiquing C.S.Lewis as a writer and how he portrays characters, which is indeed "fair use".