Need help on an ethics question

[Vandemonium1]

G'day Guys

I would like to write an alternate ending to someone else's story. I would like to use several pages of their work unadulterated, then remove whole pages and insert my own. I've tried to get the original author's blessing twice but got no answer. The work doesn't appear to be copyrighted. Seeking advice on the ethics, legal standing, morality and just plain friendliness of this.

Ta in advance.

The author known as Vandemonium1

 

[Weird Harold]

...The work doesn't appear to be copyrighted. ...

It is copyrighted. the copyright might not be formally registered, but it exists at the moment the work was created.

 

[loquere]

1.You cannot do this without the authors permission.
2. Do not do this.
3.You can use his or her work as inspiration, to create a uniquely different work, but you cannot even take a sentence of his or her creation.

G'day Guys

I would like to write an alternate ending to someone else's story. I would like to use several pages of their work unadulterated, then remove whole pages and insert my own. I've tried to get the original author's blessing twice but got no answer. The work doesn't appear to be copyrighted. Seeking advice on the ethics, legal standing, morality and just plain friendliness of this.

Ta in advance.

The author known as Vandemonium1

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Legally speaking, I doubt they'd try to enforce their copyright and some have argued the courts only defend them if they are registered - but that's NOT how the law is written, and legally you'd be entirely in the wrong.. If they do press charges, you could end up screwed in a variety of ways. At the very least, Lit will take the story down. So don't.

Ethically, you're violating a very reasonable and commonly upheld rule, which is intended to protect authors. As authors, we have a semi-professional interest in collectively honoring these laws, so ethics says no.

Morally, IF you could actually know that the other author won't suffer financial harm, and if you clearly note that yours is a copy and if you give him all the credit, it could be argued that there's no moral violation. But nonetheless, there is because if you do it, you'll encourage others to do it in less harmless circumstances. So morality says no.

In terms of personal interactions, if it's caught you're adding enmity to an already somewhat fractious community. At least I know I'd be annoyed, especially if your ending was better. So in the name of human decency, don't do it.

Plus his fans, if any, will hate you.

Learn to write your own stories. Nothing stops you from stealing every idea, character, and twist in his story, but you have to use your own words all the way through.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Warning: The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

 

[Delilah_Night]

Don't do it without their explicit permission.

 

[ElectricBlue]

What they all say. It's the author's work, not yours. Be inspired by it, sure, but don't steal it.

 

[JKendallDane]

Um, no.

Just no.

.

 

[sr71plt]

All of the above.

 

[Voboy]

I've tried to get the original author's blessing twice but got no answer.

I'd say that's your answer.

 

[Ewobbit]

Hello Vandemonium1.

Recently while I was in your house, I liked the little lamp statue just inside the door. I understand that it took you approximately forty hours of work which you will never get back to put together the money to buy it. However, I just don't think you fully appreciate how splendid it could be given the right lighting and background. For that reason, I am going to liberate it and place it in my home instead if I don't hear back from you. I will happily credit you with ownership should anyone see it in my house and ask.

Thanks in advance.

 

[sr71plt]

Nice example, but I imagine the OP gets the drift by now.

 

[HeyAll]

Isn't this sort of thing protected under Fair Use law?

My thought was, if you call it "fan fiction" and make zero profit, then it should be allowed. Tons of people write their own Star Wars stories or comic book stories, or stories based on celebrities.

If you put an adequate disclaimer and you're not making any money, I don't see why there would be any sort of legal problem.

 

[sr71plt]

Nope. Fair Use is meant for educational use--libraries and classrooms making copies, essentially. People have tried to blow it all out of proportion to cover anything they want to do. Erotica applications haven't made it to court, as far as I know. If and when they do, they'll get the judicial horse laugh, I'm sure.

Beyond that, that's a legal issue and this is an ethics question. Ethically, it's a sleazy thing to do no matter what legal backing you find for it.

 

[Serafina1210]

Isn't this sort of thing protected under Fair Use law?

I don't think so. Fair use covers limited use for educational purposes, criticism (e.g. quoting in a review), parody, and a few other things--I don't think taking great chunks of someone else's fiction and dumping it into your own counts.

Fan fiction may lift other people's characters and plot outlines, but not their prose.

What the OP is asking about qualifies as plagiarism, and while it's perfectly likely that OP wouldn't end up in the pokey or pay damages, it would still be unethical to do it without the author's explicit permission.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Here is the actual cite from Folsom v. Marsh, which sets up the four prong test:

"[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy ..."

The four prong test is:



"17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[4]"

So, as everyone has pointed out - in the OP's example it's probably not allowed...but...and there is always a but, you could probably do it and not face any legal repercussions due to:

"A U.S. court case from 2003, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., provides and develops the relationship between thumbnails, inline linking and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for summary judgment, Arriba Soft's use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba Soft's image search engine was found not to be fair use. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued that it was fair use.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favour of the defendant, Arriba Soft. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the statutory four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution as the original artwork was. Second, the photographs had already been published, diminishing the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase the exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement."

Loads of fun - personally I wouldn't do it from an ethical POV.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors

 

[Bramblethorn]

Recently while I was in your house, I liked the little lamp statue just inside the door. I understand that it took you approximately forty hours of work which you will never get back to put together the money to buy it. However, I just don't think you fully appreciate how splendid it could be given the right lighting and background. For that reason, I am going to liberate it and place it in my home instead if I don't hear back from you. I will happily credit you with ownership should anyone see it in my house and ask.

If I take your lamp, you don't have it any more and can't use it. If I make a *copy* of your lamp, your original will go on shining just the same.

I'm not defending the OP's proposal here, but I don't think equating copying of intellectual property to theft of a physical object is a helpful analogy. Often they're both unethical, but they're not the same type of wrong.

 

[sr71plt]

You have a point, but the ethics of doing this sort of thing is really pretty clear. I don't see why we need to draw out and beat up a simple "No, don't do it." As described, the OP's description in this instance is a particular egregious form of doing it.

 

[Paul_Chance]

If you take someone's physical property and you possess it for a period of time, they know of it, and make no effort at recovery or reporting as a crime, it does become yours, legally.

Under copyright, there is a whole line of defense based on the same principle as derived from common law.

It doesn't make it ethical - but it can remove the unlawfulness of it. One way to lose your copyright is to allow someone else to use the material - over time your claim to the copyright is diluted to the point a court won't uphold it. Case law there has mostly derived out of shared works and divorce, LOL. (Spouse 1 writes a book. The book is published under Spouse 2's name. Spouse 1 does not assert copyright until a later period of time and in the intervening period of time they had full knowledge of the use by Spouse 2 - isn't divorce law wonderful?)

 

[lovecraft68]

The right way and only ethical way to do this.

This link is to a story written based on one of my stories with an alternate ending. Below the link is the authors description of why he did it and calling out to the readers it was with my permission. I found it very flattering, but had I found this on my own and never been contacted about it, I would have been pissed.

https://www.literotica.com/s/moms-christmas-tradition-redux

What you will be reading here is the first piece of literature I truly wrote and wanted to send to someone else. I wrote this because the story it is based on got under my skin and moved me in a way I wasn't familiar with. I wrote this almost accusatory alternate ending and sent it to LC68 and immedeitely sent an apology for being a jerk! I got a heartfelt reply telling me what I wrote was sound, and very much appreciated!

This blew me away since, well, I didn't feel it was very good. LC told me that an author ALWAYS appreciates getting an emotional response from their writings since it lets them know they have done their job to make people think.

Of course...then I was told that my form sucked and my work was filled with typos, and spellchecker was a requirement not an option and I needed an editor then I should probably post it and see what others think!

I never posted it since I had another story in mind to write, but I think now would be a good time to post this small work that made someone say to me, "Hey, you ever think about writing?"

So...this ones for you LC, thanks for all your encouragement.

The original story can be found at this link, you may want to read it first. Or else nothing is going to really make any sense.

http://www.literotica.com/s/moms-christmas-tradition

Mom's Christmas Tradition (Alternate Ending)

You know (I know Pilot will get this little inside joke) that almost makes me sound, I don't know, influential?

 

[sr71plt]

If you take someone's physical property and you possess it for a period of time, they know of it, and make no effort at recovery or reporting as a crime, it does become yours, legally.

Under copyright, there is a whole line of defense based on the same principle as derived from common law.

It doesn't make it ethical - but it can remove the unlawfulness of it. One way to lose your copyright is to allow someone else to use the material - over time your claim to the copyright is diluted to the point a court won't uphold it. Case law there has mostly derived out of shared works and divorce, LOL. (Spouse 1 writes a book. The book is published under Spouse 2's name. Spouse 1 does not assert copyright until a later period of time and in the intervening period of time they had full knowledge of the use by Spouse 2 - isn't divorce law wonderful?)

For that matter, if someone copies something from here and files a formal copyright on it and the original author hasn't, it belongs to the person who filed the formal copyright.

But why are you dancing around looking for reasons it's OK to do this shit?

 

[Paul_Chance]

For that matter, if someone copies something from here and files a formal copyright on it and the original author hasn't, it belongs to the person who filed the formal copyright.

But why are you dancing around looking for reasons it's OK to do this shit?

Sheer intellectual curiosity. You could also conceivably mount a legal defense under a theory of abandonment, though the case law is unsettled. It would have been settled in the whole Google Books fiasco of a few years ago, but they went to settlement and so the question is still open if the doctrine of abandonment applies to intellectual rights under copyright law.

You could also mount a successful defense under the transformation prong of existing copyright law - that the end product is sufficiently transformed into a new work at the end of the day. I'm thinking here of the whole issue around the novel "Come Before Christ And Murder Him" as well as the work of the Canadian artist Michael Q. Both were dismissed by the US courts under the significantly transformed prong. Art - and I am thinking of creative writing as a form of art - is often very good at pushing legal boundaries.

 

[Vandemonium1]

Thank you

Messages read loud and clear. Apparently, the author in question rarely answers anyone.

 

[sr71plt]

Messages read loud and clear. Apparently, the author in question rarely answers anyone.

The message there is that it's wholly up to the one wanting the permission to obtain it. The owner of the material has no obligation even to answer a request. When they don't, the answer becomes "no."

 

[GoldenMaia]

The work doesn't appear to be copyrighted.

http://www.wikihow.com/Protect-Your-Written-Ideas-and-Stories

See point #2 'As soon as your written work is put down on paper, it is copyrighted from that moment forward.'

You can take their idea (vampires or whatever) and use it in your own words but the moment you take their words and use them for your own you are crossing the line.