Adopting Characters?

[IslandCove]

Hi all
My first post here, though I'm an avid reader of the Literotica site.

I have a question. What is the feeling about another writer adopting the characters from an existing story and taking it forward?
I am fascinated by the stories of PacoFear and, though I've tried to contact him, I suspect he has stopped writing for this site.
I'd love for there to be development of his characters in "Hero's life" and would love to try it to see if I could ever match his storytelling skills.

Maybe you all think it's a daft idea but I wanted to ask.

Take care of yourselves

IslandCove

 

[Nezhul]

This is called Fanfiction - when you adopt either characters or the univers that you did not invent.

It's done. And is very popular, especially when we talk about well-known characters.

You generally want to give credit for the original author though.

Nothing's wrong in doing this for both bestseller novels or literotica stories.

 

[IslandCove]

Hi Nezhul

Thanks. I'd surely want to give credit. I'm so surprised no-one has already done it for these stories. Maybe, like me, other writers are a bit in awe of the original author.

IslandCove

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Before you do, you might want to contact the author, if you can, and ask her/his permission to use his copyright material. Literotica looks down on using other authors work here on Lit without permission.

If Laurel finds out, she will delete the story.

It is also looked down by other authors to use their stuff without permission. I would look unkindly if I found someone doing what you describe.

 

[Nezhul]

Before you do, you might want to contact the author, if you can, and ask her/his permission to use his copyright material. Literotica looks down on using other authors work here on Lit without permission.

If Laurel finds out, she will delete the story.

It is also looked down by other authors to use their stuff without permission. I would look unkindly if I found someone doing what you describe.

Quoting from the work is copyright material.
Using characters is not. It's not copyrighted and there's no way yo protect them unless you register a trademark on their name or something.
Even re-telling parts of the story in your own words - would be plagiarism, but not punishable by law.

That's why fanfiction never requires author's consent. And I think it's better that way.

 

[_Lynn_]

I wouldn't want anyone using the characters I took the time to create and I would never take characters from another author.

 

[CarlusMagnus]

…Even re-telling parts of the story in your own words - would be plagiarism, but not punishable by law…

Actually, I don't think that this is so. Copyright protects the expression of an idea—not the idea itself. And plagiarism consists of representing another's work as your own. If re-telling in your own words were plagiarism, no author could ever reuse a story line, and Shakespeare would be remembered as one of the world's most prolific plagiarists.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Quoting from the work is copyright material.
Using characters is not. It's not copyrighted and there's no way yo protect them unless you register a trademark on their name or something.
Even re-telling parts of the story in your own words - would be plagiarism, but not punishable by law.

That's why fanfiction never requires author's consent. And I think it's better that way.

I would at least consider it rude if someone decided to re-use my characters and I would leave nasty comments to that effect...I would also request that Laurel take it down. A for copyright, you maybe correct, but it's still unethical without my permission or a large cut of any profits.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Quoting from the work is copyright material.
Using characters is not. It's not copyrighted and there's no way yo protect them unless you register a trademark on their name or something.

This is widely claimed but it's not true. Characters can indeed be covered by copyright. See e.g. Gaiman et al. v. McFarlane et al. as discussed here: http://www.ivanhoffman.com/characters.html

 

[ElectricBlue]

There was a long thread on this not long ago. Someone might find it.

The general writer consensus is absolutely not. They are not your characters to do with as you will. I for one would be most unhappy (stronger than that, most pissed off) if anyone took one of my characters and tried to continue stories.

If you don't have permission from the original writer, my advice would be, don't.

You will get a lot of responses here that you legally can blah blah blah. It's not a question of legalities, it's a question of ethics.

Please, just write your own characters.

 

[Voboy]

This:

I wouldn't want anyone using the characters I took the time to create and I would never take characters from another author.

And, of course, this...

I would at least consider it rude if someone decided to re-use my characters and I would leave nasty comments to that effect...I would also request that Laurel take it down. A for copyright, you maybe correct, but it's still unethical without my permission or a large cut of any profits.

Or, to put it another way,

There was a long thread on this not long ago. Someone might find it.

The general writer consensus is absolutely not. They are not your characters to do with as you will. I for one would be most unhappy (stronger than that, most pissed off) if anyone took one of my characters and tried to continue stories.

If you don't have permission from the original writer, my advice would be, don't.

You will get a lot of responses here that you legally can blah blah blah. It's not a question of legalities, it's a question of ethics.

Please, just write your own characters.

How is this not common sense? If some other guy's characters are so great, adapt them and give them new names. It's still plagiarism, though, unless you go through the hard work of laying the foundations for these characters yourself.

Anyone can write the fun stuff. It's harder to do the exposition and make it interesting.

 

[Dream_Operator]

You could always write it for yourself and not publish it. When I first started writing and was struggling for ideas, I would often take someone else's story and rewrite it as my own, to see if and how I could improve it. I never posted any of my rewrites, but it did help me improve my writing skills and how I viewed my own original compositions.

Fanfic is copyright infringement, but the original authors seldom pursue it, feeling it does no harm and strengthens the brand image and following. However, if you are writing Fanfic for profit it can be different. The Star Wars and Star Trek franchises keep a tight control on this, licensing the brand to other authors and have established guidelines that must be followed.

why-star-trek-makers-are-suing-fan-fiction-writers

I don't know what Lit's view on this is, but a quick glance at the Celebrities category reveals numerous stories based on characters from movies and TV shows.

 

[ChloeTzang]

I wouldn't want anyone using the characters I took the time to create and I would never take characters from another author.

Me neither, altho if another writer asked, I might consider it of it was a story I wasn't going anywhere with. I have to say, I've asked another author here on LIT if I could take one of their stories and rewrite it and they very graciously said "go for it" - and that I was free to post it without running it by them. But the author is someone I've talked with offline since I joined. I haven't finished reworking it, but I will. So yeah, you might get an author that's happy with you doing that. But ask.

 

[sr71plt]

Fanfic is copyright infringement,

Fanfic isn't ipso facto copyright infringement. It would more likely be trademark infringement before getting anywhere close to a copyright problem. You'd have to drop large segments of original-work phrasing in your work for it to have any copyright involvement. But the first thing it easily could become is sleazy and maybe even a stalking issue, if it involved real people.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You could always write it for yourself and not publish it. When I first started writing and was struggling for ideas, I would often take someone else's story and rewrite it as my own, to see if and how I could improve it. I never posted any of my rewrites, but it did help me improve my writing skills and how I viewed my own original compositions.

Fanfic is copyright infringement,

Probably true for some cases, but not all. In particular, some fanfic falls under "fair use" conditions; "fix-fic" may qualify as commentary, parody, and/or criticism, even when it's published commercially.

For example, a few years back Alice Randall published "The Wind Done Gone", which is a retelling of "Gone With The Wind" from a slave's perspective - effectively for-profit fix-fic. The court accepted that TWDG was parodying GWTW (specifically, its portrayal of slavery and race relations) and "that Randall chose to convey her criticisms of GWTW through a work of fiction, which she contends is a more powerful vehicle for her message than a scholarly article, does not, in and of itself, deprive TWDG of fair-use protection".

Neil Gaiman has a published short story "The Problem of Susan", which is essentially Narnia fix-fic addressing the way C.S. Lewis treated the character Susan Pevensie. That one hasn't been tested in court, but I assume he felt legally safe to publish.

but the original authors seldom pursue it, feeling it does no harm and strengthens the brand image and following.

I rather like Stross's take on this:

I am not a precious sparkly unicorn who is obsessed with the purity of his characters — rather, I am a glittery and avaricious dragon who is jealous of his steaming pile of gold. If you do not steal the dragon's gold, the dragon will leave you alone. Offer to bring the dragon more gold and the dragon will be your friend.

 

[sr71plt]

Fair Use is for public library and classroom copying--if a case of free-use erotica got to a court on a Free Use claim, the judge would laugh for days. Wind Done Gone is acceptable on the basis of satire/parody in fiction.

 

[Dream_Operator]

The Wind Done Gone case was settled out of court and never went to trial.

The estate of author Margaret Mitchell dropped its lawsuit against the publisher of a “Gone With the Wind” parody in exchange for concessions from the publisher.
The estate of author Margaret Mitchell has settled its copyright infringement lawsuit against the publisher of a parody of Gone With the Wind, Mitchell's epic Civil War novel.

The settlement, announced May 9, will allow publisher Houghton Mifflin Co. to continue to distribute The Wind Done Gone under the label "unauthorized parody." The Boston publisher also agreed to make a financial contribution to Morehouse College in Atlanta at the request of the Mitchell estate.

Both parties reserved their rights regarding future adaptations of the book, including movies, plays and sequels. The settlement also does not affect author Alice Randall's rights regarding adaptations of the book.

The lawsuit, filed in March 2001, stopped distribution of the book for a month. A federal district judge in Atlanta issued a preliminary injunction in April 2001 that prevented publication. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta (11th Cir.) lifted the injunction in May 2001 as an unlawful prior restraint and allowed the sale of the book.

However, the appeals court did not rule on whether The Wind Done Gone infringed on the copyright of Gone With the Wind. The appeals court remanded that issue for trial.

Link

 

[sr71plt]

Yeah, because it obviously was a case of parody, which has protections in copyright law (notice the word "parody" in the first sentence of what you posted). Copyright is a complex issue. I wish folks who didn't have experience working with it wouldn't mislead themselves and other folks by pretending they know how it operates.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Fair Use is for public library and classroom copying

...among other things. Fair use also includes parody.

See e.g. the SCOTUS judgement in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc (emphasis added):

Held: 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of § 107. Pp. 574-594.

(a) Section 107, which provides that "the fair use of a copyrighted work ... for purposes such as criticism [or] comment ... is not an infringement ... ," continues the common-law tradition of fair use adjudication and requires case-by-case analysis rather than bright-line rules. The statutory examples of permissible uses provide only general guidance. The four statutory factors are to be explored and weighed together in light of copyright's purpose of promoting science and the arts. Pp. 574-578.

(b) Parody, like other comment and criticism, may claim fair use.

--if a case of free-use erotica got to a court on a Free Use claim, the judge would laugh for days.

I agree that most erotic fanfic would be unlikely to fly as "fair use" if anybody cared enough to sue over it. But if the author put serious work into parody/criticism of the source material... well, it's not obvious to me that it would be any less "fair use" than 2LC's "Pretty Woman".

 

[Nezhul]

Those who are "pissed off" and "do not want their characters to be used" - say what you want. You may be pissed off as much as you like, but fantiction is a fair game, and is NOT a copyright infringement. As pilot said, parody is another game, but fanfiction is not punishable by law.

If someone decides to use your characters, you can indeed get them to be your trademark. And I never denied that. Well, do so, by all means, and post a disclaimer that your characters are protected by law.

Do you know why most authors don't do that? Not only because it's a major pain in the ass, but also because fanfiction is always a free promotion. If it's bad, no one will think badly of your story. But some people get interested and seek YOUR work, and read and buy your original books.

No, seriously, I do not argue attitude here. Whatever.
I really don't think Laurel will take a genuine story down because it re-uses your characters. If she does - that's her right to do, of course, but she is not doing so because of law but her personal opinion.

To OP - I say don't listen to them and just do it. Giving credit to the originals, so that the readers know your work is not canon.

 

[Dream_Operator]

Yeah, because it obviously was a case of parody, which has protections in copyright law (notice the word "parody" in the first sentence of what you posted). Copyright is a complex issue. I wish folks who didn't have experience working with it wouldn't mislead themselves and other folks by pretending they know how it operates.

The case never went to court, so you can't claim the fair use\parody claim was valid. At the end of the day the side with the deepest pockets usually wins.

And for the record, I worked in the publishing industry for over twenty years, so I have some knowledge of copyrights and trademarks, mainly through my involvement with due diligence on acquisitions.

 

[sr71plt]

We are at Literotica, a free-post-and-use erotica and porn story site. It's not helpful to send writers here off into realms of what they can count on that they can't, in fact, count on with what they post here--or on Amazon. Don't we go through this enough with the periodic "somebody stole my Literotica story and posted it to the Internet" threads here?

The reality is that there have been no/zip/nada/zero court cases on copyright protection of ownership rights of unregistered dirty stories posted under fake names for free on the Internet and then stolen and posted by someone else based in Timbuktu on the Internet (or packaged and sold on Amazon). None/zip/nada/zero. And no one here is going get that first case to court. It's not helpful to make them believe they are by citing the occasional rare case in the mainstream and with entirely different circumstances.

"Done Gone" didn't actually get to court because, in fact, copyright law is hazy and anticipations from both sides of someone contemplating making a court case of anything are extremely iffy and expensive. There's practically no history of copyright court law in the United States at all. The U.S. laws are purposely set up to make it nearly impossible to go to court in the United States even with a high profile mainstream issue.

Nobody here is going to be the first successful litigant for profit in a case in the United States protecting a story--or any aspect of a story--they posted here for free under a fake name.

Thus the answer to this thread is that it's unethical but you can probably get away with it if you lack that much creativity that you can't create your own worlds/plots/characters, in which case you probably should be taking up golf or bowling rather than pretend to be a writer.

 

[sr71plt]

The case never went to court, so you can't claim the fair use\parody claim was valid. At the end of the day the side with the deepest pockets usually wins.

Oh, God, you're really wandering off in the wilderness of "shouldn't be trying to know this topic," aren't you? Blather on.

 

[Dream_Operator]

Oh, God, you're really wandering off in the wilderness of "shouldn't be trying to know this topic," aren't you? Blather on.

Not sure why you have to be so argumentative. I've worked with IP attorneys in the past regarding copyright issues related to acquisitions. What real world experience do you have?

 

[Bramblethorn]

The Wind Done Gone case was settled out of court and never went to trial.

You're right that the parties involved did eventually settle, but not before some matters were explored in court. Suntrust took out an injunction against the publication of TWDG and Houghton Mifflin were successful in getting that injunction vacated: cf. Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F. 3d 1257 - Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2001.

As you say, the appeals court did not make a final ruling on whether TWDG infringed on GWTW's copyright. But they did rule that TWDG was entitled to a fair-use defense, based largely on its status as parody.

Having lost the injunction, Suntrust could still have sued for copyright violation after the fact, in the hope that some other court might decide the fair-use defence wasn't strong enough. But the nature of the settlement suggests that they didn't like their chances of beating a fair-use defense.

If this cover counts as SCOTUS-endorsed "fair use" parody, it's hard to see that DWDG would not.