Abandoned series.

[EmilyMiller]

You know you're the exception to the rule my dear.

I like being exceptional

 

[EmilyMiller]

This. People tend to forget that this is an anonymous, free, amateur platform for second-rate smut without any commercial aspirations. Creating a derivative, amateur sequel with no commercial value is the embodiment of fair use.

I really don’t think that’s true. Legally speaking. Of course you are correct that the consequences are unlikely to be severe, if anything. But why be a douche, just because there is no penalty for it?

Emily

 

[KeithD]

second-rate smut without any commercial aspirations. Creating a derivative, amateur sequel with no commercial value is the embodiment of fair use.

Your work might be second-rate smut without any commercial aspirations, but mine isn't and exists in the marketplace. This is just our opinion. And, no, it has not connection to the fair use concept.

 

[KeithD]

2. I don't think anyone should criticize an author for publishing something that's within the site rules

Site posting rules don't trump personal ethics as being ethical.

 

[SimonDoom]

This. People tend to forget that this is an anonymous, free, amateur platform for second-rate smut without any commercial aspirations. Creating a derivative, amateur sequel with no commercial value is the embodiment of fair use.

No, that's not the law, if you are suggesting that doing this would be recognized as a "fair use" within copyright principles. That's not so.

The fact that it's for a noncommercial purpose is one of four factors to consider, but it's not determinative. The kind of use you are describing almost certainly would NOT be regarded by a court as fair use. It's not for the purpose of criticism or comment, it's not transformative, it's not a parody. If the copyright owner came after you, they might not win damages, but they likely would succeed in getting an injunction to get it removed.

But law aside, isn't courtesy what matters most? You have your opinion, and that's fine for your own works. But given how many authors strenuously disagree with you, doesn't that give you a clue that there's a high probability that the author whose work you are "finishing" would be annoyed you did it without their permission, and as a matter of courtesy isn't that reason enough not to?

 

[Omenainen]

I disagree with a lot of SimonDoom's conclusion, but there's one that I particularly want to discuss:
I think you are doing the original author a favor by continuing the series
A series posted in 2007 is close to dead here. It's getting very few reads. By continuing the series, you are bring fresh attention to the original author's work. Many readers who would never have known that it existed will read it.

It’s pretty far fetched to assume that some rando, who doesn’t have enough imagination to create their own characters and stories, would somehow manage to even do justice let alone advance anyone else’s artistic vision.

This. People tend to forget that this is an anonymous, free, amateur platform for second-rate smut without any commercial aspirations. Creating a derivative, amateur sequel with no commercial value is the embodiment of fair use.

All the chatter about copyrights may be interesting in theory, but it holds no real consequences.

In any turd-filled sandbox, you'll likely find kids unwilling to share.

It is better to acknowledge and revive the original than to "borrow" ideas from its corpse.

It might be a second-rate amateurish smutty turd, but it’s my second-rate amateurish smutty turd, and most of us learn at the sandbox to not take others’ toys without permission.

 

[Omenainen]

Just added this to my profile to avoid any future misunderstandings of my intent in this regard. Might seem to be presumptive and petty to some, but totally worth it if I take a few years off and come back to find someone has used my characters/stories in a way that I never intended.

I strongly feel this should be the assumed default for all writers who haven't explicitly approved a continuation of their stories.

***Please note that I explicitly deny any and all requests in advance to reproduce, continue, pick up or extend any of my published stories or characters. Likewise any requests to link to my work for the purpose of promoting the work of another writer on this site or any other. I encourage everyone who is inspired by any of my work to create their own original stories, characters and settings and develop their own audience through the standard process that I and others used to develop their audience. There is no reasonable time limit after which this request will expire and failure to respond to any request to override should be considered a denial. Thank you for respecting the time, work and creativity that went into developing these original stories and characters.***

Like you, I’ve considered adding something like this, and like you, I’m pretty disappointed that it’s needed. Thank you for phrasing it and giving the permission to use your phrasing. I think I’ll just copy this as is to my profile.

 

[8letters]

There was a poster not too long back that found Celebrity stories to be illegal and completely immoral. He rode around on his high horse for quite some time. He had some good points, but, ultimately, he didn't win anyone over to his side (that I could tell) because Celebrity stories are within the site rules.

So, go ahead! Ride your high horses around some more! It doesn't fucking matter. Stories that are within the site rules will be published on this site whether you like it or not.

You know what I think is immoral? Lying to people. Telling them when they ask, "Can I do X?" that they can't when they can. If you don't know what the site rules are, don't tell people what the site rules are. If you aren't an expert on copyright law, don't tell people what's within copyright law (Laurel knows far more about copyright law than you do as her livelihood depends on it). Persuade people. Don't browbeat them with bullshit. Just my opinion.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Taking over somebody's series is like some other than Peter Falk playing "Columbo." It just can't be done. Well, other than the fact that Falk was the third actor to play Columbo. Therefore, my answer is, if you can get permission from the original writer, go for it. Otherwise, you'll to be cast in the part by someone of authority.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Probably a dumbass question, but is there any way within Literotica's rules, that I can finish a series begun (and now abandoned) by another author?

The series in question started in 2007 and the author has not been active on Literotica since 2009. I have my own ideas as to how the stories would progress but I don't want to just dive in and end up being banned or something. I tried to contact the author but there was no response and after 15 years, it's obvious he is no longer a member. Can anyone help?

If a writer is inspired by the work of another, there are several ways to embody, honor, and respect the original work without being unethical about it.

The first would be to allude to the original story. Allusion is when there is brief, indirect reference within a story to another work of art, person, or object not otherwise part of the story. Alluding to these other things can complicate or deepen a reader’s understanding of the story but maintain its integrity.

Exposition, preferably through character dialogue, can provide background information and details from another story. It should not be used as a frame story (prologue) but could be integrated into a flashback where a couple of new characters discuss what happened in another story as it relates to the plot of the new story.

The creativity it would take to build onto an unfinished story by another writer would be much more rewarding than just tagging on to what someone else wrote.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Site posting rules don't trump personal ethics as being ethical.

This

Emily

 

[Djmac1031]

I'm always fascinated whenever this debate comes up, because to me, the solution is obvious.

We recycle story ideas ALL THE TIME around here. Hell, porn videos don't even TRY to be original anymore.

If there's a series you like now languishing unfinished, why "continue" what another author has done when you can recycle the IDEA, change character names, locations, whatever, rewrite it from your own perspective and call it "original?"

I promise you most people won't know the difference and even if they did, they'd be less offended by that than you "adopting" another authors content.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I'm always fascinated whenever this debate comes up, because to me, the solution is obvious.

We recycle story ideas ALL THE TIME around here. Hell, porn videos don't even TRY to be original anymore.

If there's a series you like now languishing unfinished, why "continue" what another author has done when you can recycle the IDEA, change character names, locations, whatever, rewrite it from your own perspective and call it "original?"

I promise you most people won't know the difference and even if they did, they'd be less offended by that than you "adopting" another authors content.

I borrow plots from Dostoyevsky in my stories all the time .

Emily

 

[Omenainen]

In this metaphor, the sandbox has been abandoned for 15 years, and kids fear entering it because it's haunted by an echo from hell, calling, "Mine, mine, mine!"

Even if it’s abandoned it doesn’t make it yours.

I was highly discerning as a kid. I used to pity the kids with runny noses who soiled their pants and whined helplessly in the sandbox about their precious toys. Now that they've grown up, I see them as toys.

Yeah, sure. You sure sound like the coolest thing.

 

[SimonDoom]

You know what I think is immoral? Lying to people. Telling them when they ask, "Can I do X?" that they can't when they can. If you don't know what the site rules are, don't tell people what the site rules are. If you aren't an expert on copyright law, don't tell people what's within copyright law (Laurel knows far more about copyright law than you do as her livelihood depends on it). Persuade people. Don't browbeat them with bullshit. Just my opinion.

You're going overboard to accuse people of lying. Most people aren't answering whether one CAN do something, but whether one SHOULD. These are two completely different things, and for many of us the fact that the site will, as a practical matter, let people get away with doing things is not a sufficient condition that they SHOULD feel free to do so. You seem to take the position that if one can get away with something, then that ends the discussion and one shouldn't bother asking whether one SHOULD do it. I don't agree with that, and as you can see many other authors don't agree with that. From my point of view, a reasonable and courteous person, taking into account that so many authors obviously feel this way, would not insist upon their own personal moral assessment of the matter, and instead, as a courtesy to other authors, recognize that writing a sequel to a story without permission might be seen as offensive or wrong by the author. Putting aside, for a moment, what's legal or ethical, isn't it obviously discourteous to the author to presume without grounds what they would want?

Laurel has said what the site rules are, and I cited and quoted them. Her position is that you SHOULD get permission from the author first. How much clearer can that be? This site is wholly run by exactly two people and they let things get through the cracks, but that doesn't mean she hasn't been clear about saying what the rules are, and this is the preferred course of action, regardless of what you think you can get away with. I don't accept the idea that because you probably can get away with something it means that's what the "real rules" are or that the course of conduct is OK.

 

[KeithD]

If one wishes to keep their toys off-limits (though I highly doubt anything in this not-so-hygienic public sandbox is truly exclusive), one can simply say so. Assuming everyone is possessive like oneself is quite... childish.

That isn't how copyright law works (and it's arrogant to take such a position). The work belongs to the originating author until and unless use permission is explicitly given.

 

[ElectricBlue]

or rewriting someone else's story.

No, you just change the characters names, a little bit of dialogue, and use the other authors' text.

Mate, you really should NOT comment on any matter to do with what is ethical and courteous within a writing community, not with your proven track record of plagiarism. Do yourself a favour - shut up.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I disagree with a lot of SimonDoom's conclusion, but there's one that I particularly want to discuss:
I think you are doing the original author a favor by continuing the series
A series posted in 2007 is close to dead here. It's getting very few reads. By continuing the series, you are bring fresh attention to the original author's work. Many readers who would never have known that it existed will read it.

Not everybody here is so addicted to attention that they'd want to get it this way.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It might be a second-rate amateurish smutty turd, but it’s my second-rate amateurish smutty turd, and most of us learn at the sandbox to not take others’ toys without permission.

Even more so other people's turds.

 

[jhealy55]

Not sure if it's MULTs that keep posting these, but starting to wonder if we're just being trolled here. As many others have pointed out, it's been asked/answered a few times before.

I also just don't buy that someone is looking to post their first story here, on the one condition that they be allowed to stand on someone else' shoulders to get started. To me that feels like they don't just want to continue the story idea, they really want the audience and attention that the original author built/received.

If that's not what you are asking for, then write it for your own enjoyment and save it. Or use it as inspiration for how you'd extend/do it better in your own original story.

But don't show up asking for a hall pass if you've never even bothered to post an original story here. You're not asking to 'share' story ideas, characters and audiences if you've never put one of your own into the pot.

And yes, opinions vary based on whose story is being 'shared'. The axe forgets, but the tree remembers.

Lastly, if it's not protected, what's the incentive to leave stories up once you've got enough followers? If you get paralyzed in a car wreck, all your story ideas/characters are now free to get passed around and abused by anyone who wanders in here a few years later?

Otherwise, it becomes a place to gain followers and build interest, long enough to link to a paid site and pull the content down. It would kill what makes this place awesome.

 

[AwkwardMD]

You know what I think is immoral?

Plagiarism didn't make this list but lying does? Seems a bit hypocritical.

 

[8letters]

You're going overboard to accuse people of lying. Most people aren't answering whether one CAN do something, but whether one SHOULD. These are two completely different things, and for many of us the fact that the site will, as a practical matter, let people get away with doing things is not a sufficient condition that they SHOULD feel free to do so.

I think most of the posts have been CAN'T, not SHOULDN'T.

Let me give you an example of a great SHOULDN'T post:

A good idea would be to read the many threads here on this topic.

While a few people here think differently, I think it’s fair to say the majority of authors believe that the series and the characters belong to the original author and you shouldn’t use them without their explicit permission. “The dude didn’t reply,” is not explicit permission.

As I say, a minority take a different view and there are examples of the site tolerating it.

Best advice is to write an “inspired by” story. Not an explicit continuation. If you do, please acknowledge and provide a link to your inspiration, it’s only polite.

Emily

The post discusses both sides of the issue, sticks to the facts, and ends with personal advice.

On the other hand:

You’d need the permission of the original authors. They own the copyright.

You've inadvertently wandered into a minefield. The question often arises here, "Can I continue someone else's story?" and the answer is always, "Not unless you have explicit permission from the original author."

Even if they are dead or they've left Lit forever, if you don't have permission, don't do it.

A written work is the property of the writer.
For somebody else to continue, or rewrite then they would need the permission of the owner / original writer.

The short answer is don’t. If the author is not active on the site you can’t get their permission and that’s what would be needed. Write your own stories.

do not sound like SHOULDN'T posts to me. I pulled several of the posts from a thread earlier in the week on a similar topic. The majority of the posts I have seen in this thread and that one I would consider COULDN'T posts.

You seem to take the position that if one can get away with something, then that ends the discussion and one shouldn't bother asking whether one SHOULD do it. I don't agree with that, and as you can see many other authors don't agree with that. From my point of view, a reasonable and courteous person, taking into account that so many authors obviously feel this way, would not insist upon their own personal moral assessment of the matter, and instead, as a courtesy to other authors, recognize that writing a sequel to a story without permission might be seen as offensive or wrong by the author. Putting aside, for a moment, what's legal or ethical, isn't it obviously discourteous to the author to presume without grounds what they would want?

My opinion is that my opinion doesn't matter. More specifically, it only matters to me. Lovecraft68 posted that, given that the site appears to publish stories that are derivative of other Literotica authors' stories, it's up to individual authors as to what they will do. When I came across CB_Grl_Dani's Brady Family Tent Swap Pt. 01, I was shocked that someone would rewrite another Literotica author's story. I thought it was incredibly disrespectful to the original author. But after many other fights on the AH, I've come to accept that the only way to not get into endless pointless arguments was to accept that whatever the site published is fine.

Laurel has said what the site rules are, and I cited and quoted them. Her position is that you SHOULD get permission from the author first. How much clearer can that be? This site is wholly run by exactly two people and they let things get through the cracks, but that doesn't mean she hasn't been clear about saying what the rules are, and this is the preferred course of action, regardless of what you think you can get away with. I don't accept the idea that because you probably can get away with something it means that's what the "real rules" are or that the course of conduct is OK.

I found what Laurel said to be ambiguous. I read it as being consistent with what the site has been doing, which is that you should try to get permission from the author first, but if they don't respond, you are free to submit a story that is a derivative of theirs with the understanding that Laurel will take the story down if the original author complains.

One possibility is that Laurel has changed her mind and now requires explicit permission from the original author but is grandfathering all prior stories that didn't get the original author's permission. That's why I recommended to the OP to contact Laurel.

No, that's not the law, if you are suggesting that doing this would be recognized as a "fair use" within copyright principles. That's not so.

The fact that it's for a noncommercial purpose is one of four factors to consider, but it's not determinative. The kind of use you are describing almost certainly would NOT be regarded by a court as fair use. It's not for the purpose of criticism or comment, it's not transformative, it's not a parody. If the copyright owner came after you, they might not win damages, but they likely would succeed in getting an injunction to get it removed.

You are not a copyright law expert. Do you know who I think is a copyright law expert? Laurel, as her livelihood depends on getting it right. There's absolutely no point in you making pronouncements on copyright law that are contrary to what the site publishes. What you say about copyright law, to me, is incompatible with Literotica having Fan Fiction stories. I have tried to reverse engineer a legal explanation for why Literotica publishes what it does, but I know it's meaningless because I am not a copyright law expert. Whatever Laurel believes about copyright law trumps whatever you or I believe about copyright law.

 

[8letters]

Plagiarism didn't make this list but lying does? Seems a bit hypocritical.

Speaking of hypocritical, did you get Bioware's explicit permission to use their Old Republic setting for your "Dark Matter" stories?

 

[KeithD]

Not sure if it's MULTs that keep posting these, but starting to wonder if we're just being trolled here. As many others have pointed out, it's been asked/answered a few times before.

Not by 8Letters. These are the self-centered positions 8Letters takes.

 

[KeithD]

I think most of the posts have been CAN'T, not SHOULDN'T.

Let me give you an example of a great SHOULDN'T post:

The post discusses both sides of the issue, sticks to the facts, and ends with personal advice.

On the other hand:







You are not a copyright law expert. Do you know who I think is a copyright law expert?

I'm pretty sure you've got that the wrong way around. The site administrators here seem pretty much oblivious to their responsibilities (and vulnerabilities) on a few levels under copyright law.