Five_Inch_Heels
Unexpected
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2015
- Posts
- 2,760
I know.
It's terrible when people have different opinions.
It's terrible when people have different opinions.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They got permission from the people who control the rights. If you want to produce a musical by Rodgers and Hammerstein, since neither of them is alive, you go to the people to whom they left control of their work, the Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization.
You don't just go ahead and do it, even if you tried to get the author's consent and couldn't find the author.
The rules are pretty clear about this.
I believe we (in AH) generally agree that you need to obtain permission before publishing a follow-on story of another author’s creative work. (Just as Laurel has stated.)
However, not all of us believe it is as simple as:
IF continue story AND no approval from creator THEN set Asshole to true.
There are some exceptions and nuance involved.
What if the to-be-continued story is “Mom Sits on Son’s Lap”? Who is the original owner of that creation? Is the earlier story original or creative enough to earn such protection from derivative works?
Can I ethically pick-up Cinderella where the fairy tale left off? Flesh-out the ‘happily ever after’ bit? The folk tale that Cinderella is based upon is traceable back two millennia, so it is morally okay to continue it(?)… but it may be legally risky, since Cinderella™ is now an ongoing Disney franchise.
Many authors here seem to have an IT background. (Or an ICT background, if you prefer UK wank-words.) Computer programmers are always looking to the edge-cases – testing the boundaries of logic for such generalizations – and we see exceptions. (Parody works, public domain works, generic/unoriginal tropes, etc.)
You’ve given the simple answer that’s right 99% of the time (and used clearly copyright-protected works as an example to support it).
The boolean-logic-brained pedants among us can’t ignore that last 1% without commenting.
--
Regarding site changes; I don’t agree with archiving or deleting ‘unfinished’ series. Don’t change anything like that. However, when we submit a story, allow us to add one of the Creative Commons license options to the site’s story metadata.
https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/
So, if you have a muse that needs to be push-started, then you’ll know which stories are ‘fair game’.
Of course per the AH logic neither Wicked, the Wiz, The Tin Man, or a host of other books and movies should exist because they were all done without L Frank Baum's permission.
Now, none of those violated copyright law (for the most part, there have been several lawsuits) but many people in this thread have claimed it's unethical.
Was it unethical of Gregory Maguire to write Wicked? Would we pillory him here in the AH for daring to add to someone else's story without permission?
Does it violate some author's code of ethics?
Nobody is saying this. All of the stories at Literotica continue to enjoy an existing copyright. So referring to old works published outside Literotica that have fallen into the public domain has no relevance to what anybody is arguing here.
There is nothing ethically OR legally wrong about writing a work that is derivative of a work in the public domain. Nor is it in violation of Literotica's rules.
If you haven't learned by now, you'll never win that argument here because the points keeping moving around to fit the narrative.But several people have raised this as an ethical, not a legal issue. So, yes, some people are saying just that.
But several people have raised this as an ethical, not a legal issue. So, yes, some people are saying just that.
To my knowledge nobody has argued that writing a derivative work of a work in the public domain is unethical. This is a red herring argument.
In copyright, the law and the ethics overlap. There's no obviously correct ethical balance between protecting the rights of an author and allowing the use of the author's work for certain purposes. That balance has changed over time and it varies from one system to another. Our sense of what is "right" is informed by whatever the law is, because the law defines the parameters of what we regard as the author's proprietary right, and most of us have the notion that it's unethical to take another's property without permission.
There is no property right in a work that has fallen into the public domain, so most people, including the people who have argued in this thread, see nothing unethical about using such works without permission.
Now you are speaking for everyone in this thread?
I haven't seen anyone make the distinctions you are now making.
I suspect most people still consider the Wizard of Oz as L Frank Baum's work. It's still his world, his creation.
I mostly agree.I speak for myself: I think there's nothing unethical about writing a work based on a work in the public domain. Otherwise, it would be ethically wrong to write a story based on a fairy tale because the Brothers Grimm are dead and we can't get their permission. It's an absurd position, and nobody has advanced this view in this thread.
Wasn't there a bunch of stuff lined up and waiting to be released after Steamboat Willie went open?Looking at it from the standpoint of general ethics, there isn't much difference between using some author's work one month after their death or 70 years later, when it "legally" enters the public domain. It's just an arbitrary line, but we hold on to it, lacking other options. Something being legal doesn't mean it's ethical, and vice versa.
I mostly agree.
But since we are discussing this topic broadly, it's worth pointing out that some work becoming public domain is just an arbitrary line that lawmakers came up with. I mean, why is it not okay to use someone's work 69 years after their death, and it's suddenly okay after 70 years?
Looking at it from the standpoint of general ethics, there isn't much difference between using some author's work one month after their death or 70 years later, when it "legally" enters the public domain. It's just an arbitrary line, but we hold on to it, lacking other options. Something being legal doesn't mean it's ethical, and vice versa.
@TheRedChamber And you missed (or ignored) the point I was making about slippery slopes.missing that I'm not encouraging 'continuing' authors to continue a story, I'm encouraging (or at least chewing over the idea of) general authors being more relaxed about these things. Clearly a lot of people disagree, but I think most of us are writing as a hobby, for fun and not for monetary gain and on that basis, I'm thinking it's okay to be chill.
Bolded changes are mine, not the OP's.I think both of these posts are missing that I'm not encouraging 'racist' authors to continue a racist story, I'm encouraging (or at least chewing over the idea of) general authors being more relaxed about racism. Clearly a lot of people disagree, but I think most of us are writing as a hobby, for fun and not for world peace and on that basis, I'm thinking it's okay to be chill.
It won't be as many as you think, and what is the point if we're not mutually dulling brain cells along the way?I propose a new drinking game:
Since we get too wasted too quickly by just drinking when a new thread about the topic is started, drink every time THIS thread inevitably gets linked into future discussions asking how to rationalize continuing another author's stories without permission.
This is a false equivalence because the works we've been talking about in AH don't have the same copyright status as Baum's work.per the AH logic neither Wicked, the Wiz, The Tin Man, or a host of other books and movies should exist because they were all done without L Frank Baum's permission.
Yeah, that's right, OP would have us try to be chill, innit.It won't be as many as you think, and what is the point if we're not mutually dulling brain cells along the way?
But this is what I said before: our sense of what is ethical is informed by the legal environment. Suppose I own a piece of land. It's unethical for someone to infringe my rights to it, as well as illegal. But suppose through the process of adverse possession some other person comes into ownership of that land. It belongs to them. It's no longer my property. I have neither a legal nor ethical claim against that person for using that property that now belongs to them. Rights to land aren't a perpetual, mystical thing. They're limited by the laws.
Something like that applies here. It's only unethical to use somebody's story if it is somehow their property. But property rights are not absolute or perpetual. Once the property rights are gone, their ethical claim against you evaporates as well. There's no other way to do it, right? Especially in the case of intangible rights like copyrights.
That's why I gave the example of the Brothers Grimm. We all know at an intuitive level that it would be silly to say it's unethical to use their story to write your own story, don't we? Authors have always used old works to create their new works. Shakespeare did so, and he didn't bother either to ask permission or give attribution. We've never thought of it as unethical to do so. The original author's copyright is a limited exception to the broader rule.
This is a false equivalence because the works we've been talking about in AH don't have the same copyright status as Baum's work.
The fact that the authors we're talking about might not have the same vital signs as Baum's vital signs is also a factor, but that's not part of the false equivalence.
Sure. This is true.Plenty of things are lawful but unethical. As one of the attorneys I work with likes to say, "lawful but awful".
Similarly, things can be perfectly legal but unethical.
I don't care for Britva's analogy because I don't think there's any equivalence between copyright infringement and racial segregation ethically. But I understand the broader point that was being made.Since Britva brought racism into the discussion, it's worth pointing out that segregation was perfectly legal.
You haven't really responded to my point. There are no absolute ethical principles when it comes to using works or ideas developed by other people. Ethics in a sense follows the law-- that is, the law confers limited property rights, and then people develop the view that it is unethical to take those works WHEN there are property rights in them. Nobody, to my knowledge, argues it's unethical to rely upon public domain works. I've given an example that illustrates the absurdity of the idea.That's the whole reason we have concepts like civil disobedience. Law and ethics are separate concepts. They are certainly related, but they aren't the same.
People in this thread haven't been arguing, "you can't do it because it's against the law", they've been arguing from an ethical perspective.
So, if I were to collect the names of all the authors who are most outspoken in opposition to this and then write Parody stories based on their works and post them to Lit I would be completely within the law as far as copyright, and fair use were concerned.
I doubt they'd be happy about it or consider it ethical simply because it was legal.
Touché, but I didn't say they're equivalent. You're right, I did compare them - because ripping other authors off IS injustice, and so can be compared to other injustices.You compared the discussion to racism and injustice, let's slow the roll on accusing people of false equivalence.
As if that makes it "not unjust?"it's worth pointing out that segregation was perfectly legal
How about people stop that bullshit "game" altogether?Since we get too wasted too quickly by just drinking when a new thread about the topic is started, drink every time THIS thread inevitably gets linked into future discussions asking how to rationalize continuing another author's stories without permission.