Could I get sued for copyright?

[warmAmber]

I have an idea for a series of stories based on a couple of reality based TV programs. If I state at the beginning that it is a parody or some such thing am I safe in continuing plotting my story? It may be unlikely anyone from those shows might read the stories or care about the similarities but I want to cover my bases.

Thanks for any thoughts those reading this may give me.

Amber

 

[NaokoSmith]

I have an idea for a series of stories based on a couple of reality based TV programs. If I state at the beginning that it is a parody or some such thing am I safe in continuing plotting my story? It may be unlikely anyone from those shows might read the stories or care about the similarities but I want to cover my bases.

Thanks for any thoughts those reading this may give me.

Amber

Hullo Amber
don't worry; there is a large collection of 'fanfic' stories like that on here, under 'Celebrities'. (The internet is full of such stories. I read a delicious one once in which Captain Kirk and Spock were marooned on a planet and had to have sex when pon farr came round. You can imagine him saying: "Gods, is it that time in the seven year cycle again?") As long as you say it's a parody and you don't make oodles of cash from it, you are fine.

There are moves afoot to change the name of 'Celebrities' in order to avoid people being confused about it, see this thread.

 

[FrankenCluster]

Hullo Amber
don't worry; there is a large collection of 'fanfic' stories like that on here, under 'Celebrities'. (The internet is full of such stories. I read a delicious one once in which Captain Kirk and Spock were marooned on a planet and had to have sex when pon farr came round. You can imagine him saying: "Gods, is it that time in the seven year cycle again?") As long as you say it's a parody and you don't make oodles of cash from it, you are fine.

There are moves afoot to change the name of 'Celebrities' in order to avoid people being confused about it, see this thread.

Can you sell stories like this though or do they have to always be free?

 

[slyc_willie]

I have an idea for a series of stories based on a couple of reality based TV programs. If I state at the beginning that it is a parody or some such thing am I safe in continuing plotting my story? It may be unlikely anyone from those shows might read the stories or care about the similarities but I want to cover my bases.

Thanks for any thoughts those reading this may give me.

Amber

Unless you're actually using the names and likenesses of contestants or staff members on the show, I wouldn't worry about it. The premises for such shows are pretty generic, after all; there's no copyright on environmental settings. I don't see any reason why you couldn't describe a situation similar to the basic plot of any reality show. And even if you use some of the same scenarios as are presented in such programs, I seriously doubt you would have to worry about someone's lawyer demanding the story be taken down.

Can you sell stories like this though or do they have to always be free?

Ask E.L. James . . . .

 

[NaokoSmith]

Can you sell stories like this though or do they have to always be free?

Hullo Franken ... cluster

I think they always have to be free, as otherwise you are benefitting from the artistic creation of someone-else. Then you are in breach of copyright. After a (very long) period of time, you can take someone-else's creations and re-use them without having to pay out large sums to the person or the people they left the copyright to, to adapt their work. Hence all the adaptations of Jane Austen's novels, etc - those have gone beyond the copyright period.

 

[NaokoSmith]

Unless you're actually using the names and likenesses of contestants or staff members on the show, I wouldn't worry about it.

Sorry! I was a bit sleepy and mis-read, I skipped on the 'reality' bit.

I think even if you use the names of real people, you might be OK, as long as you are saying it's a parody. Celebrities are drawn on all the time, so minor celebrities presumably are fair game too. One way you can do it is to change the names slightly so that people in the know, know who you mean but it's clear that you are writing a parody.

Like we were joking the other day how Shirley Bassey became affectionately known as Burly Chassis.

 

[Hypoxia]

Can you sell stories like this though or do they have to always be free?

If money is involved, lawyers will follow. Count on it. Solution: Don't rigidly plagiarize; change names. I recall a comedy team selling their STAR TREK parody as "The starship INTERCOURSE, thrusting its way through the galaxy!" Crew included Capt Smirk, Mr Smock, Lt Ubangi, Dr McCoon, Mr Zulu, and other non-PC identifiers. MAD used this legal approach, of course, all the way back to SUPERDUPERMAN and BATBOY & REUBEN. Mockery will save your ass.

 

[RejectReality]

You're really going to have to go out of your way to infringe on reality television. Keep in mind that half of these shows have copycats running on other networks anyway. Pawn Stars->Hardcore Pawn, Storage Wars->Auction Hunters, American Idol->The Voice

The list goes on and on.

If you're not using the exact names or very specific elements, there's no worry whatsoever.

I have a couple in this pen name. "Diggin' It" is a take off of Savage Family Diggers, and "Pickin' an' Grinnin'" pulls it's flavor from American Pickers.

 

[slyc_willie]

Hullo Franken ... cluster

I think they always have to be free, as otherwise you are benefitting from the artistic creation of someone-else. Then you are in breach of copyright. After a (very long) period of time, you can take someone-else's creations and re-use them without having to pay out large sums to the person or the people they left the copyright to, to adapt their work. Hence all the adaptations of Jane Austen's novels, etc - those have gone beyond the copyright period.

I think you're both right and wrong on this issue. The recent *success* of the whole 50 shades crapring is proof that fanfic can be published for pay while the original work is still under copyright. 50 Shades, after all, started off as Twilight fanfic, but the character's names were changed, as well as the overall plot and setting. In the end, it was only marginally reminiscent of the Twilight series.

The example you mentioned of a story involving Kirk and Spock is a different case. The term "slash fiction" initially arose from just such stories, as in Kirk/Spock (read as Kirk-slash-Spock), and were originally gay erotica featuring everyone's favorite melodramatic ship captain and his first officer. Since then, the term slash fiction has broadened considerably to include any stories in which characters from a well-known show mess around. Thus, there are Professor/Gilligan stories (a la Gilligan's Island), Luke/HanSolo (Star Wars) stories and even Giles/Xander (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) stories. Of course, not all slash fiction is gay, but it seems to me the trend for the term leans heavily in that direction.

Much older fiction is no longer copyrighted, which explains why there are numerous versions of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, for example. I've seen probably a dozen films based on the original story, one of which is a pornographic musical. Such works as those of Lewis Carrol, L. Frank Baum, Jane Austen, Ernest Hemingway, and Jules Verne have become more or less free and available for any enterprising author to use as background for a new story.

I did a very perverted take on The Wizard of Oz several years ago, calling it The Wizard of Fuzz. No one's demanded yet that I take it down.

So if it's fanfic based on a recent show, film or novel, change the names, alter the setting, and lead in a different direction. If it's based on something older, have at it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You shouldn't need the disclaimer either. Everything posted in the Celeb/fanfic category has the disclaimer added by Lit. Take a look at one of mine and you'll see what I mean.

ETA: I might be mistaken about that. I just looked and none of my stories had that paragraph, although they used to have it.

 

[FrankenCluster]

double post

 

[FrankenCluster]

Hullo Franken ... cluster

I think they always have to be free, as otherwise you are benefitting from the artistic creation of someone-else. Then you are in breach of copyright. After a (very long) period of time, you can take someone-else's creations and re-use them without having to pay out large sums to the person or the people they left the copyright to, to adapt their work. Hence all the adaptations of Jane Austen's novels, etc - those have gone beyond the copyright period.

The thing is I want to do a comic which would be a parody of a sitcom. But it's kind of ambitious to do for free. I am wondering if there is some way I can make something off it. The whole fun of it would be to make it really look like the show though so I don't know if I can do it.

 

[NaokoSmith]

50 Shades, after all, started off as Twilight fanfic, but the character's names were changed, as well as the overall plot and setting. In the end, it was only marginally reminiscent of the Twilight series.
...
So if it's fanfic based on a recent show, film or novel, change the names, alter the setting, and lead in a different direction. If it's based on something older, have at it.

OMG! I have been obliged to do some actual proper research on this now. Agggghrrggg.

Here is a link which outlines the periods of time for copyright in the United States. Basically, anything published before 1923 is regarded as 'within the public domain' so you can rip it off all you like. Anything without the copyright symbol on it is 'within the public domain' and can be used, abused and exploited all you like (thank you Laurel and Manu for just automatically putting this on all our stories.) Other than that, it's the life of the author plus 70 years, or sometimes 120 years from when it was created.

If you sufficiently alter a character or story to make it enough unlike the original, then courts will rule that you're not in breach of copyright. This is presumably how 50 Shades of Grecian 2000 gets away with it. I don't know much about Twilight or 50 Highlights, but I get the sense that you can easily argue in a court of law that they are different. I mean one is about werewolves and vampires, while the other is about billionaires and students.

So, you can rip something off if:
1) It is even older than me;
2) You subtly change it sufficiently to be able to argue in a court of law that it's clear it's not the same thing, even if it's recognisably a parody;
3) Particularly if you are not making lots of money from it - in which case, as Hypoxia says, the vampires ... I mean lawyers will be all over you like a rash. (Hullo Hypoxia, my dear! )

The thing is I want to do a comic which would be a parody of a sitcom. But it's kind of ambitious to do for free. I am wondering if there is some way I can make something off it. The whole fun of it would be to make it really look like the show though so I don't know if I can do it.

Pictorial images are more likely to be copyright, as they are usually quite detailed. It's easier to have a vague likeness to a prose description and to argue that it isn't exactly the same, than it is to do a picture that is strikingly similar to another picture and say it's not the same. Although if you are doing comic-strip drawings of real life tv, that may be easier to get away with.

Your main area of concern would be how to make money out of the thing at all. I don't know if you have a lot of experience in these matters, but it is surprisingly hard to make money out of writing!

 

[Hypoxia]

(Hullo Hypoxia, my dear! )

Ta, sweets.

Pictorial images are more likely to be copyright, as they are usually quite detailed. It's easier to have a vague likeness to a prose description and to argue that it isn't exactly the same, than it is to do a picture that is strikingly similar to another picture and say it's not the same. Although if you are doing comic-strip drawings of real life tv, that may be easier to get away with.

I've seen commercially-sold parodies, such as the MAD stuff I mentioned, with only slightly caricatured cartoons, or even staged photos with 'ringers' -- the persons shown are quite recognizable. Impersonation is not plagiarism.

Back to the OP question: Could I get sued for copyright? Well, yes. Anybody can be sued for anything at anytime if the effort seems worthwhile. A suit won't necessarily prevail, but it's a PITA anyway. Better to stay untraceable, or remain near a border with a valid passport and getaway money. (I used to live three minutes from Mexico. I was ready to hop.)

 

[sr71plt]

Anything without the copyright symbol on it is 'within the public domain' and can be used, abused and exploited all you like

Whoa. Not putting the copyright symbol on it doesn't make it free game. In fact, it hasn't even been legal in the United States to put the copyright symbol on a work you haven't obtained a formal U.S. copyright on since the U.S. Berne Convention Implementation Act in 1988 (not withstanding Literotica putting the symbol on the stories they post. I don't think of anyone at Literotica as an expert in copyright law--certainly not considering the stolen material they let be posted to the forum).

 

[jehoram]

In the case of MAD magazine, they were always running into copyright problems with their parodies in the early days. They won most of the cases that went to court, but it was an issue to the extent that they used to list their lawyer right on the masthead along with the editors.

As they got more popular in the sixties, the situation was reversed ... the studios sent them materials to help their cartoonists draw the characters, and they actually got offended if their show or movie wasn't parodied. It amounted to free publicity, and their ratings always got a boost after the parody came out.

 

[slyc_willie]

In the case of MAD magazine, they were always running into copyright problems with their parodies in the early days. They won most of the cases that went to court, but it was an issue to the extent that they used to list their lawyer right on the masthead along with the editors.

As they got more popular in the sixties, the situation was reversed ... the studios sent them materials to help their cartoonists draw the characters, and they actually got offended if their show or movie wasn't parodied. It amounted to free publicity, and their ratings always got a boost after the parody came out.

Weird Al Yankovic is a similar case. The man has made a career out of parodying popular music -- though he's also written numerous original (and hilarious) songs on his own -- and for many artists, including Don McLean, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Dave Grohl, and Lady Gaga, the fact that Yankovic has recorded a parody has been seen as a rite of passage.

Under the fair use provision of US copyright law, no one needs permission to record (or write) a parody of a copyrighted work. To Yankovic's credit, though, he nearly always sought out the approval of a particular artist before releasing a parody through his record label. In some cases (notably with Prince), approval was not given and Yankovic, though he could still have released the song under US law, decided not to do so.

That hasn't kept him from posting YouTube videos of such songs, because they were not released for profit, and he still performs them from time to time in concert.

Anyway, back to the literary discussion of "can I get sued?" As Hypoxia has pointed out, yes, you can be sued if you use copyrighted material in your own story. Will that suit automatically win? Mmmm . . . maybe. It all depends on how similar the work is to the original and how much money you stand to gain from publishing it. Oh, and, having crafty lawyers, of course.

There really is no tried and true answer. If you want to publish stories that borrow liberally from another published work and result in a range of behavior that the writers of the original would find objectionable, you might wind up in a maelstrom of legal rigamarole. But, if you just borrow a pinch here and a pinch there, you could argue that your work is different enough that it does not impact the original at all.

Many years ago, around the time the video game Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (SWKOTOR) came out, I wrote and posted a fairly lengthy series of SWKOTOR fanfic, with characters and backstories heavily borrowed from the video game, on a sci-fi fiction website. There were, if I remember correctly, seven installments, each around 20k words. I did include some adult content, bot nothing as detailed as what I have posted here.

Anyway, a few months after the first few stories were posted, I received an email from someone claiming to represent LucasArts, who told me I was going to be sued for "defamation of character" or some such if I didn't take the stories down. At first I was intimidated, but after some research I decided the email had come from a troll, and went ahead and posted the remaining parts.

The stories remained posted for three years before I voluntarily took them down. That was around the time I joined Literotica and thought about re-posting them with more explicit "naughty bits" included. I never did, though now, after this thread, I might rethink doing so.

 

[Bramblethorn]

FWIW: there is no simple yes-no test that determines whether a derivative work (i.e. one that draws on a previous work) is "fair use" under US law.

There are four factors that have to be taken into account:

the purpose and character of your use [e.g.: there's a lot of leeway for reviews]
the nature of the copyrighted work [e.g.: copying from a non-fiction reference is often easier to justify than copying from fiction]
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market

All four of those factors are weighed up together. So a non-profit work would have a stronger claim to fair use under the "purpose and character" point, and possibly also under "potential market". But it's still possible for for-profit work to be considered fair use, or for non-profit work to be considered a copyright violation, depending on those other elements.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/

 

[sr71plt]

Fair use is there for library and educational institution use, not for parodies. Parodies are protected under the Copyright laws, but on their own, not because of Fair Use.

 

[desertslave]

Much older fiction is no longer copyrighted, which explains why there are numerous versions of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, for example. I've seen probably a dozen films based on the original story, one of which is a pornographic musical.

ROFL Someone else knows about the porn Alice! That's one of the very first X films I ever watched. It was downright cute!

 

[elfin_odalisque]

There has been a load of nonsense posted here.

All works are automatically copyright whether they are published or unpublished. The US copyright office advises putting the 'C' symbol [sorry I 'm Stuck on an iPad] on all publishing? This gives complete copy right but doesn't, permit legal action.

There's loads more but just let me say that trademarks of characters are the biggest hurdle for fan fiction and others.

The only reason we poor souls get away with it is by only publishing on free sites. They know their legal costs would not cover the case.

 

[slyc_willie]

ROFL Someone else knows about the porn Alice! That's one of the very first X films I ever watched. It was downright cute!

Alice In Wonderland has always been one of my wife's favorites. The 1975 porn version is one we still watch now and then.

Based on that, on two past occasions now, my wife and I have gone to Hallowe'en costume parties dressed as Alice and the Mad Hatter.

 

[slyc_willie]

Fair use is there for library and educational institution use, not for parodies. Parodies are protected under the Copyright laws, but on their own, not because of Fair Use.

From the US Copyright Office:

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Although, note that the stipulation includes "some of the content." To parody an entire work -- and defining such could entail egregious amounts of legal work -- would apparently not fall under Fair Use.

. . . which explains why clever ol' Weird Al always went to the original authors of those songs before parodying them.

 

[FrankenCluster]

Pictorial images are more likely to be copyright, as they are usually quite detailed. It's easier to have a vague likeness to a prose description and to argue that it isn't exactly the same, than it is to do a picture that is strikingly similar to another picture and say it's not the same. Although if you are doing comic-strip drawings of real life tv, that may be easier to get away with.

Your main area of concern would be how to make money out of the thing at all. I don't know if you have a lot of experience in these matters, but it is surprisingly hard to make money out of writing!

The thing is though that people do sell art images of celebrities.. I am wondering if I do each page of the comic as art style prints in limited runs if I might be able to get away with it.

 

[slyc_willie]

The thing is though that people do sell art images of celebrities.. I am wondering if I do each page of the comic as art style prints in limited runs if I might be able to get away with it.

I'd say that's kind of a tough call. The use of actors in illustrative art seems a tricky thing to me. I remember the God-awful (but still, in a weird way, enjoyable) animated film Wizards, which cartoon-mapped footage from, for instance, Zulu Dawn and subsequent films. As far as I know, there was no mention of copyright infringement for the film.

If you're creating a comic, and using real life images as the basis for your resulting characters (in order, I assume, to increase the sale value), it seems to me you're skidding a very fine line.

Might want to wait and see how sr71plt checks in on this.