Continuations by people other than the original author/creator aren't worth getting worked up about.

[Five_Inch_Heels]

I know.


It's terrible when people have different opinions.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

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.

So, they got permission from someone who likely never met Rodgers or Hammerstein and whose only interest is making money. Nobody in charge at Disney these days ever met Walt, and they seem to have zero interest in his intent.


The point of copyright was so an artist could benefit from her work, not so a corporation could make money in perpetuity.
The exceptions for parody make it clear that an author's feelings aren't really part of the equation either.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

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’.

You can do all the Cinderella you want. There are plenty of other versions.

The people that made Wicked didn't get L. Frank Baum's permission (or that of his estate) to make it. Didn't have to.

Now, if you want to use ruby slippers things get more complicated, since they are part of MGM's copyright for the 1939 film.

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?

 

[SimonDoom]

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.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

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.

But several people have raised this as an ethical, not a legal issue. So, yes, some people are saying just that.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

But several people have raised this as an ethical, not a legal issue. So, yes, some people are saying just that.

If you haven't learned by now, you'll never win that argument here because the points keeping moving around to fit the narrative.

 

[SimonDoom]

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.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

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.

 

[SimonDoom]

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 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.

 

[Erozetta]

Many of the people have said to take the premise and make it your own. Writing your own take on an idea is fine. Picking up where someone left off without their permission, is not.

I think the general argument is that if L. Frank Baum had never gotten the group past the poppy fields and someone else finished the work without his knowledge or consent.

There would be a different argument to make regarding taking the idea of a young girl being transported to a magical world, finding companions and going on an adventure toward character growth. For one with a similar feel, I'd recommend "The Girl Who Circumnavigated Fairyland in a Ship of Her Own Making" or if you wanna go back instead of forward, "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". All three are essentially a young girl in a fantastical world on a journey toward something she doesn't necessarily fully understand alongside companions of a sort, yet all three are vastly different stories due to the author who wrote them and how the tendrils were weaved together. They are not continuations, they are not even adaptations, just a shared basic premise.

A premise isn't tied to a single author. An actually written out storyline with fleshed characters and actions is. Take the idea, the premise, the bones of what you like about the story and make it yours, and carry on with your writing. No need to "finish" another author's work, whether abandoned or simply put aside. Turn your disappointment of an unfinished story with a great premise into a new beginning with a satisfying end of your own making using that same premise.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

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.

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.

That is why I have a somewhat different view from the purely ethical standpoint. And that is that motives and intent matter. If someone just wants to exploit some work for financial gain, even 300 years after the author's death, it still wouldn't be okay for me. But if someone does it because they cherish that work and want to contribute, and share it for free with other fans, then I would see it as okay regardless of what the law says.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

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.

Wasn't there a bunch of stuff lined up and waiting to be released after Steamboat Willie went open?

 

[SimonDoom]

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.

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.

 

[Britva415]

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.

@TheRedChamber And you missed (or ignored) the point I was making about slippery slopes.

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.

Bolded changes are mine, not the OP's.

Encouraging other people to be chill about injustice is literally encouraging people to STFU and chill about injustice.

In what world is that not literally part of the injustice? In what world does that not embolden injustice?

You can't say you aren't condoning it while simultaneously saying "I'm totally chill about it, can't you all just be as chill as me about it?"

 

[Britva415]

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.

 

[AwkwardMD]

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.

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?

 

[Britva415]

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.

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.

 

[Britva415]

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?

Yeah, that's right, OP would have us try to be chill, innit.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

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.

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. Since Britva brought racism into the discussion, it's worth pointing out that segregation was perfectly legal.
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.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

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.

You compared the discussion to racism and injustice, let's slow the roll on accusing people of false equivalence.

 

[SimonDoom]

Plenty of things are lawful but unethical. As one of the attorneys I work with likes to say, "lawful but awful".

Sure. This is true.

Similarly, things can be perfectly legal but unethical.

This is true, too.

Since Britva brought racism into the discussion, it's worth pointing out that segregation was perfectly legal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Speaking purely for myself, I'm not sure how I'd feel if you did this to my story. If it's a parody, it wouldn't be copyright infringement. But I might consider it discourteous to do so without my permission. If I complained to the site, I imagine they would take your story down as in violation of their rules because there does not appear to be a "fair use" exception to the principle that you have to get permission to use other Lit authors' works.

You have, IMO, four different analytical frames on this issue: the law, ethics, basic courtesy, and site rules. The law and the ethics are not wholly distinct; one informs our judgments about the other. Courtesy is a somewhat different issue. I think it's discourteous to use a Lit author's story without permission more than I think it's unethical, and I still wouldn't do it, and I would hope that all authors here would want to be courteous to their fellow authors. The site rules are what they are.

 

[Britva415]

You compared the discussion to racism and injustice, let's slow the roll on accusing people of false equivalence.

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.

The slippery slope between one injustice and another is nothing like the no-slope-at-all between two different legal distinctions.

Also - pointing out false equivalence isn't the same as accusation. If I had wanted to accuse you of it, I would have said out loud that I thought you had done it deliberately and in bad faith.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

How about if we knock off the legal angle and copyright law and whatever else lawyers and legislators have gotten us all tangled up in.

If L. Frank Baum were here and now and a Litser, how would any of you feel about his story being taken over by others?

 

[Britva415]

it's worth pointing out that segregation was perfectly legal

As if that makes it "not unjust?"

Is that really... ? I don't believe that that's what you mean, but

I'm utterly failing to understand what pointing this out contributes. It seems like rules-lawyering for the sake of rules-lawyering, not like any kind of real defense of the proposition ("be chill about abusing other people's work").

 

[AwkwardlySet]

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.

How about people stop that bullshit "game" altogether?
Sure, some topics get repetitive as new people show up and reopen them, but that doesn't make them less valid for them.
But most of all, let's stop pretending that the "drinking game" is about being tired of the same topics, and not about disapproval of some specific topics shown through that mocking "drink"? Go sift through many repetitive topics we have on AH and see which ones are getting a "drink."

That's outright bullying.