How to rewrite Willy Wonka to get around the adultification issue?

[Bazzle]

I have written a smoking fetish version of Willy Wonka. Making it Willy Wonka and Cigarette Factory.

Quite rightly it got rejected for making what were originally children different characters and older.

Without a complete rewrite from the beginning can anyone think of clever way of getting around it?

As to me there isnt!

B

 

[Todger65]

If you mention Willy Wonka anywhere it is likely to get rejected, Thinking 'copyright'

 

[magic_rat]

If you mention Willy Wonka anywhere it is likely to get rejected, Thinking 'copyright'

Wally Wanka?

 

[Bazzle]

It was rejected because of in the original there are children.

Nothing to do with copyright!

 

[ElectricBlue]

It was rejected because of in the original there are children.

Nothing to do with copyright!

And you won't be able to get past that fundamental issue.

 

[Bazzle]

And you won't be able to get past that fundamental issue.

Yup, that is what I thought...

 

[AWhoopsieDaisy]

If you mention Willy Wonka anywhere it is likely to get rejected, Thinking 'copyright'

Copyright isnt an issue in the Fanfiction category so long as its not plagiarism. If Willy Wonka is off limits so is Sheldon Cooper which Sheldon Cooper is most definitely not off limits based on the popular tags in the Fanfiction category.

In general for something to count as copyright it has to meet one of two criteria

1) The infringing material has to be commercially available (as in the author has to be trying to make money)

2) The infringing material has to be competing with/offering a free alternative to the source material.

Because this website doesn't turn a profit from literature in the Fanfiction category and Charlie and The Chocolate Factory is in a genre that doesn't compete with erotica, the copyright is invalid here.

So in fact yes, you can use Willy Wonka in erotica and that is legal.

 

[AWhoopsieDaisy]

I have written a smoking fetish version of Willy Wonka. Making it Willy Wonka and Cigarette Factory.

Quite rightly it got rejected for making what were originally children different characters and older.

Without a complete rewrite from the beginning can anyone think of clever way of getting around it?

As to me there isnt!

B

See if the author wrote any kind of epilouge to the story that mentions Charlie and Co growing up. If I'm understanding the rules correctly child protagonists can be aged up if in the canon they're taken from has depicted them as being over 18 at any point in time.

For example Katara and Zuko from avatar are fair game despite being primarily known as children because they cameo as grown adults in the sequel series Legend of Korra. You just have to be very specific as to what point in the canon timeline your story is taking place.

And also write them like they're adults. Don't bring their parents on the tour, stuff like that.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Presumably you could write a story featuring Willy Wonka as the sole character in the story, as he's an adult in the book.
You can't age up the children, that clear.
If he ran a second golden ticket competition and the winners were all adults would that fly or would it be suspected that these replacements are just the same characters as before - maybe if you made them clearly functionally different in the story?
Alternatively Willy Wonka gets a visit from the very clearly adult and very clearly original Health and Safety Inspector Team who both horrified and eventually the victims of his many code violations.

 

[alohadave]

Copyright isnt an issue in the Fanfiction category so long as its not plagiarism. If Willy Wonka is off limits so is Sheldon Cooper which Sheldon Cooper is most definitely not off limits based on the popular tags in the Fanfiction category.

In general for something to count as copyright it has to meet one of two criteria

1) The infringing material has to be commercially available (as in the author has to be trying to make money)

2) The infringing material has to be competing with/offering a free alternative to the source material.

Because this website doesn't turn a profit from literature in the Fanfiction category and Charlie and The Chocolate Factory is in a genre that doesn't compete with erotica, the copyright is invalid here.

So in fact yes, you can use Willy Wonka in erotica and that is legal.

Neither of your statements are true. This is bad advice re:copyright and you should not be giving it.

Writing parody using the characters is what is legal. It's just not worth the effort for copyright holders to chase down everyone who uses their IP without permission.

 

[AWhoopsieDaisy]

Neither of your statements are true. This is bad advice re:copyright and you should not be giving it.

Writing parody using the characters is what is legal. It's just not worth the effort for copyright holders to chase down everyone who uses their IP without permission.

All fanfiction is technically parody. Its called transformative work for a reason.

 

[alohadave]

All fanfiction is technically parody. Its called transformative work for a reason.

No, it is not. While some fanfic is transformative, it's not automatic.

https://www.sidebarsaturdays.com/2020/06/13/https-wp-me-p7vddb-lb/

Besides that, you have no idea how copyright works in the first place. Profit seeking has no bearing on whether something is infringing on copyright. The copyright holder has sole discretion as to how their property is used, unless the use qualifies as Fair Use. Whether the fanfic author is trying to make money or not is immaterial legally.

Now, some authors and copyright holders will look the other way with fanfic if they are not trying to make money from the fanfic, but that is a courtesy, and doesn't change that the fanfic is legally copyright infringement. There was a situation several years ago with Paramount and Star Trek fanfic. They allowed fanfic to be published as long as there was no profit seeking. It worked fine, lots of people wrote and filmed their fanfic stories and videos. Until Axanar went and poisoned the well for everyone else.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-star-trek-fanfic-axanar-infringes-copyright/

Now, Paramount doesn't allow fanfic at all. Many copyright holders never allow it at all. People get away with it, because it's generally not worth their time and effort to seek out and force takedowns and/or sue slash writers.

 

[lovecraft68]

I imagine have the story be solely about him and stress anyone in the 'factory' is over 18.
But I do think the name alone is going to keep being an issue because its so closely associated with kids.
Just make up your own version as a satire instead of trying the original.

 

[Bramblethorn]

No, it is not. While some fanfic is transformative, it's not automatic.

https://www.sidebarsaturdays.com/2020/06/13/https-wp-me-p7vddb-lb/

Besides that, you have no idea how copyright works in the first place. Profit seeking has no bearing on whether something is infringing on copyright. The copyright holder has sole discretion as to how their property is used, unless the use qualifies as Fair Use. Whether the fanfic author is trying to make money or not is immaterial legally.

This is incorrect. Under US law, fair use is defined by 17 USC 107, which sets out the four factors to be considered in evaluating whether a given use is "fair use".

The very first of those four factors is: "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes".

For-profit use is not automatically disqualified from free use (cf. the 1994 "Pretty Woman" case) but it is less likely to be considered so, since it needs to make a stronger case under the remaining three pillars.

(Other jurisdictions have their own laws, but I think most have some kind of similar consideration on purpose/character.)

Now, some authors and copyright holders will look the other way with fanfic if they are not trying to make money from the fanfic, but that is a courtesy, and doesn't change that the fanfic is legally copyright infringement.

This is a very sweeping generalisation, and fair use law is complex enough that any such generalisation is unlikely to be reliable. To the best of my knowledge there is no case law establishing that fanfic is automatically copyright infringement. There have been individual cases, which depended on the characteristics of the individual works in question, but nothing to support such a general assertion.

So far, fanfic-related disputes have mostly been settled out of court, which doesn't establish precedents that might help gauge just where the line is.

 

[alohadave]

This is incorrect. Under US law, fair use is defined by 17 USC 107, which sets out the four factors to be considered in evaluating whether a given use is "fair use".

It is highly debated, and not nearly as clear as you make it IRT to fanfic.

You bolded one part of my comment, while conveniently ignoring this:

The copyright holder has sole discretion as to how their property is used, unless the use qualifies as Fair Use.

For-profit use is not automatically disqualified from free use (cf. the 1994 "Pretty Woman" case) but it is less likely to be considered so, since it needs to make a stronger case under the remaining three pillars.

And my point was to dispute that all fanfic is parody.

The person I first replied to is confused about copyright and used conditions for Fair Use to determine copyright status.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It is highly debated, and not nearly as clear as you make it IRT to fanfic.

Er, what?

I think you may have misread my post. At no point did I claim the law is at all clear in relation to fanfic. In fact, I said the opposite: I stated that "fair use law is complex" and that we don't have precedents to help gauge where the line is drawn for fanfic.

You bolded one part of my comment, while conveniently ignoring this:

I ignored that other part because I had no disagreement with it. That particular statement is correct, and indeed it's relevant to why the previous sentence - the one I did bold and respond to - is incorrect.

And my point was to dispute that all fanfic is parody.

I agree with that much. But then you went further by implying that all fanfic is copyright infringement, and that non-profit statement has no bearing on this:

"some authors and copyright holders will look the other way with fanfic if they are not trying to make money from the fanfic, but that is a courtesy, and doesn't change that the fanfic is legally copyright infringement."

That's what I disagree with.

The person I first replied to is confused about copyright and used conditions for Fair Use to determine copyright status.

I'm aware that you were responding to AWD, and I agree with some of your response. I was responding specifically to the parts where I didn't agree.

 

[Bazzle]

If I make it Tony Tonkas cigarette factory. Changing the characters names etc it's based on but not the same as...does that work?

 

[Bazzle]

Well I'm blowed, it got published

https://literotica.com/s/billy-bonkers-cigarette-factory

 

[purvis2]

I have written a smoking fetish version of Willy Wonka. Making it Willy Wonka and Cigarette Factory.

Quite rightly it got rejected for making what were originally children different characters and older.

Without a complete rewrite from the beginning can anyone think of clever way of getting around it?

As to me there isnt!

B

A Oompa Loompa gang bang would be "interest".

 

[purvis2]

Wally Wanka?

Wally Wonka - the manufacturer of dildos and butt plugs?

 

[Bazzle]

Wally Wonka - the manufacturer of dildos and butt plugs?

If I could write something about that, I would...the visitors having to test them out..