How does one go about labeling work when it is a continuance of a late author's incomplete story?
How does one go about labeling work when it is a continuance of a late author's incomplete story?
Not easy as there isn't a tag for plagiarism or theft.
Continuing an author's story without their permission, is both of those. At least until copyright expires the characters they created are their property, however well intentioned, using them is theft.
If you are motivated enough to continue someone else's work, you ought to be motivated enough to write a story of your own, perhaps 'in the style of' etc.
The exception to this would be stories or universes that the original author has opened to others and expressly invited other writers to either add to, or continue his or her stories.
Not easy as there isn't a tag for plagiarism or theft.
ROFLMAO (rolling on the floor laughing my ass of)
If you are motivated enough to continue someone else's work, you ought to be motivated enough to write a story of your own, perhaps 'in the style of' etc.
Or simply include a quick 'Inspired by XXX's story YYY', so that the author you're 'ripping' off receives some of the benefit, as his books will remain active after he's passed on. That's why Fan Fiction is allowed here, as it generally creates additional interest in the original, keeping their flagging sales afloat by keeping the original work in the public eye, rather than merely ripping off the story.
It's still copyright theft, but as long as the original author (alive or dead) doesn't lose any sales, it's a wash to most authors.
Not easy as there isn't a tag for plagiarism or theft.
Continuing an author's story without their permission, is both of those. At least until copyright expires the characters they created are their property, however well intentioned, using them is theft.
It must be depressing (or very liberating) living in a world of black or white with no colours or shades of grey.
It must be depressing (or very liberating) living in a world of black or white with no colours or shades of grey.
There are plenty of shades of gray, unfortunately, they're all on the wrong side of the law, and are more properly considered 'excuses' rather than legitimate arguments.
shades of grey
The book said there were 50 shades of gray. Well it said grey, but that tends to be British English, the original English.
The book said there were 50 shades of gray. Well it said grey, but that tends to be British English, the original English.
Sorry, I never read it and didn't look it up, but then, I'm sure that there are at least 50 varieties of "50 Shades of Gay" too. ;D
It must be depressing (or very liberating) living in a world of black or white with no colours or shades of grey.
There are plenty of shades of gray, unfortunately, they're all on the wrong side of the law, and are more properly considered 'excuses' rather than legitimate arguments.
The law itself has shades of grey. Consider the variation in length and details of copyright law of various jurisdictions.
The thing about copyright law is that it's a compromise in itself. It's a compromise between individual rights and the greater good.
The nature of human development of civilizations dictates that copyright laws be a compromise.
Human civilization is a cumulative process where each generation builds on top of what previous generations built/achieved. If we all had to start from scratch we would be exactly like the chimpanzees.
Can you imagine what our civilization would possibly be if individual rights of ownership of intellectual property were as absolute as property rights for land for example?
At what point would Aristotle's or Shakespeare's works become wide ranging and influential if only he and his heirs had the absolute control of their works in perpetuity?
So copyright laws try to balance the authors' rights and giving them incentives (if the work is commercially viable) to keep working on intellectual stuff, and the greater good where works eventually fall into the public domain and others can use the works in which way they deem good.
Back the original question: adding to works by passed away authors?
I would have thought something like that would be simple to figure out.
We have the greater good (no matter how small) vs the individual property right of a deceased person with no heirs taking care of said work.
If a deceased author had told their family/heirs about their works and given them control over it, then I hope it would be apparent, as they should make it clear that they've taken over like GoldenMage and his son have done. In such a case, there is no need to figure anything out. The heirs are there asserting their rights.
Now for orphaned works with no heir taking control: we must consider the potential harm vs potential benefits.
No heirs, no asserted control means nobody is actually losing anything. So asserting copyright against somebody who wants to 'ADD' to the work and finish it harms no one and is for the greater good. To insist on permission where no permission can ever be secured is foolish. It relegates potentially great works to the dustbin of history where no greater good can be achieved. What's the point?
So, personally, I have no problem with anybody continuing and finishing the stories of deceased authors who have given nobody control over their stuff after passing. To me that's for the greater good and simply common sense.
Now for orphaned works with no heir taking control
The question is, how do you know that the heirs have not taken control. For example, Author X dies. Does his heirs know about his stories? Maybe - Maybe Not. If they are aware, then perhaps they are happy with the status quo - leaving the stories on SOL without them being modified. If that is so, are they required to notify you of their decision. I don't think so. If they do not want the stories 'added onto' any you authorize it, then you and the author who takes over the story are violating their copyright.
joyR's suggestion of a Will is a good solution. Prior to their death, the author can make their wishes known" 1) Remove their stories from SOL, 2) Allow the stories to remain on the site without being modified, or 3) Allow the stories to remain on the site and added to with your permission.
joyR's suggestion of a Will is a good solution.
I didn't suggest it, AJ started it, Keet added to it, I just commented.
So, personally, I have no problem with anybody continuing and finishing the stories of deceased authors who have given nobody control over their stuff after passing. To me that's for the greater good and simply common sense.
I like the idea and I'm sure a lot of readers will greatly appreciate it if a story is finished instead of remaining permanently unfinished. But it could open up a can of worms and have a few unwanted side effects that may need some safe guards.
For example not every author (even the very good ones) can finish just any unfinished story simply because it's not in their kind of genre. Who could create a worthy finish for Raven Soule's Tycoon? Maybe MWTB? How can it be safe guarded that the author that picks up an unfinished story can create a worthy continuation?
How about if a continuation/finish appears just days after an author has deceased? I'm sure I'm not the only who doesn't want to see that happening because it's disrespectful and thus needs a safe guard against it.
What if multiple authors (want to) start a continuation of an unfinished story?
I can can think of several more possibly unwanted results so it might be a good idea to have a set of rules before allowing this on the site. Maybe a few authors can put their heads together and think of what would be reasonable.
What if multiple authors (want to) start a continuation of an unfinished story?
I can can think of several more possibly unwanted results so it might be a good idea to have a set of rules before allowing this on the site. Maybe a few authors can put their heads together and think of what would be reasonable.
First, let's be clear. When an author is absent (confirmed deceased or otherwise), I don't give control over the account to anybody. So the originals stay as is. If an author gives me specific instructions to give account access to an individual (we have two such cases) then I do. Otherwise, nobody takes over an inactive account.
What I do, when asked if somebody can continue a story is to tell them to post their continuation under their own name and when they do, I add a link at the end of the original story to the continuation making it clear that it's a different person. If multiple authors want to finish it, then I link from the end of the story to the multiple endings.
First, let's be clear. When an author is absent (confirmed deceased or otherwise), I don't give control over the account to anybody. So the originals stay as is. If an author gives me specific instructions to give account access to an individual (we have two such cases) then I do. Otherwise, nobody takes over an inactive account.
What I do, when asked if somebody can continue a story is to tell them to post their continuation under their own name and when they do, I add a link at the end of the original story to the continuation making it clear that it's a different person. If multiple authors want to finish it, then I link from the end of the story to the multiple endings.
Thank you for that clarification. I didn't even think about giving access to the original authors account, just finishing the story under the new authors name as you stated would happen.
Would it be possible to add a third marker next to "Completed" and "Unfinished and Inactive" to indicate that the story is finished but by another author or authors. Something like "Completed by another author". Many readers will not start an unfinished and inactive story but would now get a chance to still read those stories.
Would it be possible to add a third marker next to "Completed" and "Unfinished and Inactive" to indicate that the story is finished but by another author or authors. Something like "Completed by another author". Many readers will not start an unfinished and inactive story but would now get a chance to still read those stories.
In the last 20 years, with over 45,000 stories it has happened twice. I don't think such a rare event warrants an addition to the system.
Since the posting of the addition/completion is done as a new story/new chapters, the original story comes to the attention of readers.
So, personally, I have no problem with anybody continuing and finishing the stories of deceased authors who have given nobody control over their stuff after passing. To me that's for the greater good and simply common sense.
So, let us pretend that a writer 'finishes' a story that was left incomplete by a deceased or long inactive author.
If the original author is actually still alive and objects they probably would not take legal action against the writer. BUT if you (WLP) actively encourage or allow it, then they might well take legal action against you because, hey, WLP must have money...
I doubt your reasoning would stand up in a court of law if such a copyright action was taken. Do you really want to risk it..??
As an aside, since you mentioned Shakespeare, according to the SoL rules, he would not be allowed to post his original 'Romeo & Juliet' given that she was 13 years old. (Bearing in mind that the original version had several scenes modified by David Garrick in the 18th century because they were considered indecent.)
I doubt your reasoning would stand up in a court of law if such a copyright action was taken. Do you really want to risk it..??
Usually, authors complain on the site/to me first, and I always take the appropriate action.
If said author didn't complain to me first and started right away with a malicious lawsuit, then they would have to prove financial losses suffered from my actions after they explain how my action did it after they posted their story on the site for free on a free-to-reader site.
By the way, I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but I've been contacted by authors, old or too ill, to find somebody to finish their works more often than I've been contacted by parties interested in finishing somebody's abandoned/orphaned works.
Usually, authors complain on the site/to me first, and I always take the appropriate action.
Absolutely. Just as you act quickly when associated issues are reported to you, as I can attest from experience.
Since this has been discussed before you are aware of my feelings just as I'm aware of your views. I think where we disagree is that you act promptly to protect copyright once reported by the copyright owner, whilst I would like to see copyright protected without a complaint from the copyright owner being required.
Obviously you are not omniscient and cannot know in every case without being notified, nor is it reasonable to expect you to expend large amounts of time checking every single story against all others.
But a willingness to uphold copyright without prompting is very different from knowingly allowing it and acting only when an objection is received.
I can accept your stance and intent, I just don't agree with it.
More important is the message it sends to current and future authors. I would hope that they would leave their stories here on SoL after they retire or expire. Part of doing so may well be a desire to have their stories outlast them, but will they all be as content if they know that the site will condone others breaching their copyright?
Placing a link from the original story to the unauthorised continuation may well bring new readers to the original story, or old ones to the unauthorised one. It also acknowledges that the site is aware of the breach of copyright and condones it.
I'm not the only author here who has had their work stolen by the owners of a 'free' story site and posted on another site without permission or notification to generate income for the site owners.
I am NOT suggesting you would EVER do that.
I am suggesting that disregarding authors copyright sends a message that some authors will see as reason to delete their stories before retiring or expiring and losing control of them.
Food for thought..?
...whilst I would like to see copyright protected without a complaint from the copyright owner being required.
It won't help for stories from "missing" authors but all authors currently active can state their wishes. REP mentioned three possibilities so using these should make it easy for current authors to express what they want. It can be as easy as changing an author preference setting. Would that be something you could agree with as in respecting copyright?
Would that be something you could agree with as in respecting copyright?
Anything that allows active authors to choose is both moral and legal, so yes, of course. If it affects stories/non active authors then no, I would not agree. (For example if it was 'opt out' instead of 'opt in'.)
Actually, if your idea were to be adopted I would almost suggest that Lazeez set it up so every active author has to select an option, either to join (future authors), or at next log in (existing active authors). My only reservation is how many would simply check the 'no' box without reading/considering it, just in order to get to the stories quicker. (Much like people check the 'I agree' box without reading because "it takes too long".)
My only reservation is how many would simply check the 'no' box without reading/considering it, just in order to get to the stories quicker.
That is a choice that the person makes. Our choices have consequences and a bad choice can result in bad consequences. As adults, we should all know this basic fact. If we ignore it, that is also a choice.
If it is plagiarism than so is "Fan Fiction"
Anytime I extend someone else's world by writing Fan Fiction I click a little box that says so in the story codes. I've taken an author's works and extended them with fan fiction.
If I write a story about the new Headmistress of Hogwarts imposing strict rules on the student body - how is that any different? The author never gave me permission.
Obviously, if an author on this site had a problem with fan fiction in their stories that is a different story all together. That would have to be on a case by case basis.
I personally would be more than flattered. However, I can see how someone protective of their ideas would not. Yes, it is good form to ask first.
If however the story is dead for 10 years and the author doesn't respond - I think its fair game to say "This is a continuation" and if they return and don't like it - you can work that out.
It needs to be a labor of love from a fan. That isn't plagiarism anymore than it is plagariasm to write a Star Trek fan fiction that has Kirk banging Uhuru in the ready room.
As I said earlier, plagiarism is the wrong term. The proper term is copyright infringement.
All fan fiction is copyright infringement if the copyright holder has not given permission to other authors to use their characters and plots.
The problem with fan fiction is it is too prevalent to for the copyright holder to take legal action and any settlement probably wouldn't pay for the cost of bringing suit.
Just because you can write fan fiction without consent of the copyright holder and get away with it doesn't make your actions correct or legal.
Copyright infringement is a form of theft, and I hate thieves.
I am suggesting that disregarding authors copyright sends a message that some authors will see as reason to delete their stories before retiring or expiring and losing control of them.
Food for thought..?
We have a different point of view of the world and what's in it.
You view copyright laws as an absolute entity within itself that needs to be respected regardless of context.
I view copyright laws as tools provided by the society to creators to enable them to protect their income streams (if any) and incentivize them to create more.
You view individual property rights as absolute and without context.
Absence of harm has no consequence to you.
The greater good has no consequence to you.
Context has no consequence to you.
Your view is similar to disallowing killing a human in self defence. (I know, hyperbole.)
I have a way more pragmatic view of copyrights.
You disregarded any and all of my reasonings for having a pragmatic view about copyright laws without any acknowledgement.
I've given copyright right laws and the world we live in extensive thought to arrive at my current view. You're not giving me any new food for thought.
Let's agree to disagree.
I've made my stance clear on the subject multiple times before. Authors know it and know that they can request the removal of their stories any time and that I would act quickly.
Just to make it even more clear, I've updated point #16 in the posting rules to make it explicit that I would allow others to add to incomplete orphaned works.
I'm not interested in actively encouraging anybody to finish any incomplete work or to seek them out, but I wouldn't deny those truly interested in adding to our collective work.
Food for thought..?
Lazeez could conceivable add a 'no fanfic' flag to author's accounts, so he'd know when a given author WON'T authorize any use of their work, but it's largely pointless, since the people you're describing simply steal the work wholesale, post it on clearly dubious sites, and try to pass them off in their entirety as their own (clear theft, rather than 'author inspired' creative works).
By the way, I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but I've been contacted by authors, old or too ill, to find somebody to finish their works more often than I've been contacted by parties interested in finishing somebody's abandoned/orphaned works.
Perhaps that information could be shared somehow, perhaps an extension to the 'Story Ideas' forum since that also solicits the service of authors, or perhaps a flag on the author's page.
AJ
By the way, I don't know if I've mentioned this before, but I've been contacted by authors, old or too ill, to find somebody to finish their works more often than I've been contacted by parties interested in finishing somebody's abandoned/orphaned works.
Maybe we should start an "Adopt a Story" Forum, where you could list those stories open to completion, and authors could volunteer to complete them. That way, you could send them the contact information (is send it to the current copyright holder), rather than posting it online.
While it won't work with the majority of the stories, if an author is already familiar with the work, and feels that they could do a credible job of keeping the styles similar (or the original author doesn't mind it continued with all-new stories), then it would probably delight many SOL fans!😁
So, personally, I have no problem with anybody continuing and finishing the stories of deceased authors who have given nobody control over their stuff after passing. To me that's for the greater good and simply common sense.
I agree with most of your points, as most authors would rather their works (and their memory) remain in the public's eyes, while it's more often the publishers who refuse to continue publishing, rather than an author limiting access to their works.
The majority of my future works are stored on a cloud based account (DB) accessible to most of my editors. Since asking a single editor is NOT a reliable way of determine what happens to one's work, I think I'll provide a list of passwords, locations of my stories and statements about each to several relatives (ex-wives as well as siblings) and let them might over it after I pass away, but I trust that someone is likely to publish the semi-finished works, even if they're not quite 'publication worthy'.
Since my family all have careers of my own, and sales from my stories tend to trickle in at a slow pace, I can't see anyone fighting over access to future dwindling revenues, though I trust that someone will post my 'nearly' completed stories.
Continuing an author's story without their permission, is both of those. At least until copyright expires the characters they created are their property, however well intentioned, using them is theft.
I am a thief.
A recent Writers' Group had the theme 'Endings'. For the writing exercise, we were given a selection of opening paragraphs from famous novels and tasked with writing an ending to one of them.
(It's a good thing Graham Greene is dead - he'd be very pissed off that I turned one of his seminal works into a zombie story)
AJ
plagiarism.
"Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work. Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics. Wikipedia"
If you don't represent them as your own original work does it meet the definition of plagiarism? If the author is dead it seems unlikely he will sue you, particularly if you don't charge anything for the results of your use of his language, thoughts, ideas or expressions. There are exceptions, anything owned by Disney is a horrible idea to even mention.
I just wanted to try and help finish the story with all ideas and language credited to him.
You're correct. Plagiarism is the wrong term. Copyright infringement would be more appropriate in that the works of the copyright holder belong to them and cannot be modified without their permission.
I think it was RavenSoule who "officially retired" here a few weeks ago, and asked who would be prepared to continue the stories.
I have seen series of dead-tree stories added to by other authors - H B Piper's works spring to mind - and subsequently sold as being by "H B Piper and John Carr".
The second case I find a bit dubious but the first one makes it clear that things are not always as black and white as you indicated.
I have seen series of dead-tree stories added to by other authors - H B Piper's works spring to mind - and subsequently sold as being by "H B Piper and John Carr".
The second case I find a bit dubious
Depending on when it was done, it may not be as dubious as you think.
It used to be the case with US publishers that, at least with less well known authors, to get published authors had to assign the copyright to the publisher.
If the publisher owns the copyright, as a legal matter, the publisher can, even over the original author's objection, authorize another author to continue the series.
It used to be the case with US publishers that, at least with less well known authors, to get published authors had to assign the copyright to the publisher.
If the publisher owns the copyright, as a legal matter, the publisher can, even over the original author's objection, authorize another author to continue the series.
Henry Beam Piper was dead.
As far as I know he was pretty much bankrupt and reduced to killing pigeons in a park to eat, he committed suicide.
Henry Beam Piper was dead.
As far as I know he was pretty much bankrupt and reduced to killing pigeons in a park to eat, he committed suicide.
Ah, the eventual fate staring many of us struggling scribes us in the face every day. May our stories long rise above being mere 'pigeon fodder'!
I have seen series of dead-tree stories added to by other authors
That's often done with the permission of the copyright holder, and often the permission of the original author. E.E.Smith gave approval for a particular person to complete his unfinished works prior to his death, is just one example that comes to mind. Sometimes it's the heirs who are assigned the copyrights who agree to another author completing the works.
You're correct. Plagiarism is the wrong term. Copyright infringement would be more appropriate in that the works of the copyright holder belong to them and cannot be modified without their permission.
"Plagiarism" is literally the stealing of the actual words in a book, whereas copyright infringement is generally stealing the ideas of a book, often because someone is unable to come up with their own. But, no one can 'own' story concepts. Instead, it's the specifics. As long as you keep to the same story structure, you're trying to claim someone else's credits, rather than building your own.
whereas copyright infringement is generally stealing the ideas of a book
No. Copyright law protects the words used, it does NOT protect the ideas behind the words.
No. Copyright law protects the words used, it does NOT protect the ideas behind the words.
Sorry, I didn't mean the literal 'idea' behind the book, but how the story is put together (the title, the characters, the setting, the particular relations and personality of the characters).
There's copyright protecting your words, and there is registration to protect titles or names, but there's also a lot of overlap between the two when someone is 'borrowing' a work for themselves.
Thank you for the info. I was considering one of Warlord's stories but as you suggested, I will work towards a story "in the style of" his writing. I started a story quite a long time ago and have finished it, but can't quite motivate myself to edit and submit it.
I would talk laz about it as another author recently did the same thing to one of Warlords stories.
I started a story quite a long time ago and have finished it, but can't quite motivate myself to edit and submit it.
Though editing is always a painful and tedious process, if you can't find the motivation to continue, that's usually an indication that you have an underlying problem with the story which you can't rectify.
That problem may be that you're trying to work around the original stories structure, whereas an entirely new book allows you to construct and entirely new world of your own.
You might want to play around with the idea, just to see whether it breathes any life into your current 'unmotivating' story.
The reason I asked was that I read stories that are incomplete along with all others. I then write down my thoughts on how the incomplete stories would be completed. That is just the way I do things. I'm not trying to steal or take someone's story for my own, I just hate to see a story left unfinished.
I'm not trying to steal or take someone's story for my own, I just hate to see a story left unfinished.
As previously stated, until copyright expires the characters they created are their property, however well intentioned, using them is theft. Your intent is perfectly understandable but however well meaning, theft is theft.
The fact that you took the time to enquire is laudable and tends to reinforce your well meaning intent. Hopefully you will be motivated and encouraged enough to complete not an unauthorised continuation, but a story of your own, inspired by, perhaps even 'in the style of', whilst maintaining both the authors copyright and your own integrity.
I'm sure I'm not alone in looking forward to seeing your efforts posted. Once that is accomplished perhaps you will take comfort in knowing that others will do their best to discourage anyone seeking to disrespect your copyright.?
Happy writing... :)
There's an author on lit that "specialized" in finishing unfinished stories: JC_The_Continuer. After multiple rejected submissions he gave up :D
Not sure why as they have a history of allowing the practice. A story on that site, "Something we have to talk about" by Nici was extended by at least 6 writers, including Josephus, Tx Tall Tales and Finish the Damn Story, who in almost 60 stories finished stories whose endings he disliked.
In all the continuations, the authors all referenced the original work and shared their dislike of the premise and ending. None of the authors acknowledged any permissions by the original author.
Perhaps I'm missing about plagiarism and copyright.
Perhaps I'm missing about plagiarism and copyright.
Plagiarism is a moral issue largely centered around academia and amateur fiction regarding passing off someone else's work as your own.
Copyright is a legal issue. Copyright law reserves several "rights" for the copyright owner (typically, but not necessarily the original creator) for the life of the copyright (life{of the original creator} + 50 years under the Berne convention {international} and life + 70 years under US law). If the current owner dies, presuming he hasn't sold the copyright, it passes to his heirs.
The most obvious of those reserved rights is the right to distribute copies of the work.
But also reserved to the copyright owner is the right to create derivative works. The continuation of an existing but incomplete story would constitute a derivative work.
To continue such a story legally, would require written permission from the current owner of the copyright.
If you do so without such permission, you risk being sued by the copyright owner.
If you do so without such permission, you risk being sued by the copyright owner.
Thank you for the explanation. It was/is common practice on that site and by some very talented writers. If there was a blanket permission that I overlooked, the authors have my apology.
If there was a blanket permission that I overlooked, the authors have my apology.
On that other site, probably not. Most of the authors here at SOL take copyright seriously. That's not necessarily true with other story sites.
To continue such a story legally, would require written permission from the current owner of the copyright.
Hard to get when they are dead.
If you do so without such permission, you risk being sued by the copyright owner.
Hard for them to do when they are dead.
Hard for them to do when they are dead.
1. You are assuming the original author did not give the person permission to continue the story. That is not necessarily true.
2. You are also overlooking that the copyright passes to the original author's heirs. Many of us let our families know that we write stories, and our families have the right to sue a copyright violator. The only sure way to avoid legal action for copyright violation is to wait until the copyright expires.
2. You are also overlooking that the copyright passes to the original author's heirs. Many of us let our families know that we write stories, and our families have the right to sue a copyright violator. The only sure way to avoid legal action for copyright violation is to wait until the copyright expires.
I know of three authors who have passed away in recent years who had let family members know of their writing habits - Mike Cropo, Wes Boyd and Zalir.
I know that those what inherited Mike Cropo's copyright have asked those who would go to his site if anyone was interested in continuing the story. I have not been on that site in a while, but as far as I know the offer still stands - just needs someone to contact his family.
Wes Boyd had a number of stories at various levels of completion at the time of his death, including eight that were complete except for a final edit at the most. His heirs have been continuing to post those completed stories on his site.
Xalir's heirs have gotten in touch with a few authors to continue his unfinished stories. One of those "Dreamweaver" was posted about three months after his death.
I know of three authors who have passed away in recent years who had let family members know of their writing habits - Mike Cropo, Wes Boyd and Zalir.
I know that those what inherited Mike Cropo's copyright have asked those who would go to his site if anyone was interested in continuing the story. I have not been on that site in a while, but as far as I know the offer still stands - just needs someone to contact his family.
Wes Boyd had a number of stories at various levels of completion at the time of his death, including eight that were complete except for a final edit at the most. His heirs have been continuing to post those completed stories on his site.
Wes Boyd's stories are still being cleaned up and published (or re-published) after his death by his editor and family. So they are NOT fodder for anyone to simple take as their own. His website is still active, and is still providing money for his family and promoting his original ideas. In fact, I've discussed their publishing them on the new Bookapy site, though they're still considering it, as Wes long ago left SOL long ago after an issue with Lazeez kinda turned sour.
In fact, I've discussed their publishing them on the new Bookapy site, though they're still considering it, as Wes long ago left SOL long ago after an issue with Lazeez kinda turned sour.
It wasn't personal or anything turning sour. I didn't kick him out.
Wes was posting on SOL to get readers to his site and it was a one way relationship. He didn't link back to SOL (refused at the time) and he was posting here books/stories that were completed on his site.
He was the only author who's stories readership on the site here dwindled so fast it was ridiculous. He would post a 20 chapter story here chapter by chapter and by the time he finished posting it, nobody would read the last chapter. They would all go to his site and read it.
So after observing his stories for two whole years, I told him that it wasn't a fair relationship and that there are two choices, either post here at the same time and pace as his site or not post here. He made the decision not to post on SOL anymore.
So after observing his stories for two whole years, I told him that it wasn't a fair relationship and that there are two choices, either post here at the same time and pace as his site or not post here. He made the decision not to post on SOL anymore.
I wasn't taking sides—as I knew the underlying story from years ago—just pointing out that, when called on it, Wes retreated from the site entirely. No that he's not there to object, the family is possibly reconsidering restarting the older relationship with his SOL readers. Posting to Bookapy is sort of a happy compromise, the stories still won't appear on SOL, but at least some of the funds spent will return to SOL, while it's easier for SOL readers to purchase his books without having to leave the site.
Hard for them to do when they are dead.
Tell that to the inheritors of Elvis, Michael Jackson and others. They have certainly upheld their inheritance by suit.
Regardless, it doesn't relieve the living author wanting to continue a story from any moral obligation to respect the copyright.
Elvis, Michael Jackson etc. did not work under assumed names to keep even their heirs from knowing they were working.
did not work under assumed names to keep even their heirs from knowing they were working.
That is a problem, but there is no allowance for it in the law. It's a problem even in dead tree publishing, orphan copyrights, live copyrights for which there is no known/verifiable owners.
If the heirs do find out later and have moral objection to the content of the stories, they can sue you just to stop the publication/distribution of your continuation.
You can take your chances if you judge the odds of the owner showing up or finding out about your continuation are low. However there is no truly safe ground to stand on without written permission from the copyright owner.
However there is no truly safe ground to stand on without written permission from the copyright owner.
We're discussing legality & possible suits when it's simply the correct thing to do which is at issue, i.e. not writing a continuance without permission.
You can take your chances if you judge the odds of the owner showing up or finding out about your continuation are low. However there is no truly safe ground to stand on without written permission from the copyright owner.
The whole fanfic scene is illegal because they don't have any permission of the copyright owners.
BTW, nobody can sue you if you just write a continuation or a "fanfic"-story for your own pleasure, sharing it with others is the problem.
Ok, splitting hairs here, even writing down your ideas may be considered a copyright violation, but then how about just creating it in your mind?
HM.
The whole fanfic scene is illegal because they don't have any permission of the copyright owners.
That's actually not quite right.
You should rephrase that to say, MOST fanfic is illegal - because the problem with your all inclusive comment that it's ALL illegal is that many copyright holders have given permission FOR fanfics to be written - most (but not all of the time), so long as the person who writes the fanfic does not do so for profit.
Note that I'm very well aware of this, as I have two very large stories here on SOL that are fanfics. Both are legal.
You should rephrase that to say, MOST fanfic is illegal - because the problem with your all inclusive comment that it's ALL illegal is that many copyright holders have given permission FOR fanfics to be written - most (but not all of the time), so long as the person who writes the fanfic does not do so for profit.
You are right, there are cases where the copyright owner gave permission, as in your case where you write stories in gaming universes.
I can understand these copyright owners, because your writing doesn't really interfere with their work, but I bet they would sue anyone who writes a game using their settings.
It's probably similar with fanfic of movies or TV series, but I don't think any author of novels or short stories will give carte blanc for fanfic. They may refrain from taking legal actions because they don't know about the infringement. Or they realize they don't have and can't get back the money any action against every obscure fanfic writer will cost them.
HM.
I can understand these copyright owners, because your writing doesn't really interfere with their work, but I bet they would sue anyone who writes a game using their settings.
That's also an interesting thing. As a separate, stand alone game based upon it - yeah, there'd be issues. But as a modification to these particular gaming universes, again, so long as the person doing so does not profit from them, players and programmers are free to create modifications (mods) and share them with others.
Such that, for Skyrim, there is a group that have literally added the complete county of Bruma, including quests, voice acting, additional characters and plotline, AND they're working to add ALL of the Imperial provinces from Oblivion. For free.
The same thing also applies for Fallout, of course. There are a LOT of mods available, including full sex mods. Hey, did you ever wonder, not just what that character looked like without clothes, but what it'd look like for your character to have sex with that NPC? Go right ahead! Oh, did you have a dog involved? Again, go right ahead. Oh, she's actually dead? Not an issue. (Yeah, I know, there are some things I won't download, but they're out there.)
There are a LOT of mods available, including full sex mods. Hey, did you ever wonder, not just what that character looked like without clothes, but what it'd look like for your character to have sex with that NPC?
Rule 34: If it exists, there's porn based on it.
Ok, splitting hairs here, even writing down your ideas may be considered a copyright violation, but then how about just creating it in your mind?
Or, taking the things that you liked about the story, and building on them with a similar story that doesn't duplicate the original author's work, but corrects the things that you found wrong or bothersome about the original work.
I'd say that a large amount of SOL author only started writing because they read one-too-many tales and thought "I can write better crap than this". So take the desire to continue something and, while crediting the original author for their inspiration, create something that's uniquely yours, and which will either live or die by your own hand, rather than expecting a dead man to carry your story for you?
You can take your chances if you judge the odds of the owner showing up or finding out about your continuation are low. However there is no truly safe ground to stand on without written permission from the copyright owner.
But, in the end, it's less about the likelihood of someone suing you, and more a question about the rights of an author to their own story. While completing an unfinished story seems legit, it may very well violate the very tenets the original author observed while creating the work, thus you're effectively pissing on his memory, just for some easy attention.
Since I work with various font developers, many artists are constantly searching for the original authors, who can no longer be found. Thus, after trying for some time to reach out to them, many simply assume that it's now 'safe' to use them freely.
However, in several instances, the original author finds out about it, many years later, after thousands of people have ripped off their work. They still have NO intention of ever selling their products again, but they still resent anyone profiting from their work, and WILL issue cease and desist letters!
If the heirs do find out later and have moral objection to the content of the stories, they can sue you just to stop the publication/distribution of your continuation.
That gets a bit dodgy in the case where the person continuing the work does so without seeking (or gaining) compensation.
Most the heirs would be able to do is a DMCA takedown. I guess a more vicious one may try to pursue a civil suit, but they'd have a hard time trying to demonstrate damages, particularly if their intent is to bury the works in question, both the person continuing it, and the original.
It becomes even more ludicrous with respect to works done by the person they inherited from if it was done under an assumed name. It isn't likely they'd be able to assert a credible claim of damage to their reputation if THEY are the ones linking themselves to that previously anonymous/assumed name.
It is a huge legal grey zone, the least ambiguous option is don't do it.
That said, there are likely to be equally large numbers on both sides of things in regards to the authors who would be tickled pink to find someone wanted to continue the story they started, without regard to where those people may take it. While others might be grievously upset about the idea of such things happening after they're gone. While others still would be perfectly fine with people continuing their story, so long as their successors kept it within "certain boundaries."
But really, this is more of an item for the authors themselves to try to address prior to their own demise, so their desires on the matter are known beforehand, rather than left unstated/unknown.
. I guess a more vicious one may try to pursue a civil suit, but they'd have a hard time trying to demonstrate damages, particularly if their intent is to bury the works in question, both the person continuing it, and the original.
They could go for injunctive relief instead of monetary damages.
But really, this is more of an item for the authors themselves to try to address prior to their own demise, so their desires on the matter are known beforehand, rather than left unstated/unknown.
That sounds perfectly reasonable until you factor in the reaction by some people (as demonstrated here) is to ignore the authors desires in favour of their own agenda. Faced with that an author is more likely to remove their work to prevent their desires being abused, rather than leave it, trusting that their desires will be respected.
I would suggest a compromise. Anyone writing a continuation, fanfic etc, should have no objection to placing the following at the beginning of each chapter;
I (name) hereby accept that I have plagiarised/breached copyright/stolen from the original author (name) without their permission and would freely admit such guilt in a court of law. Obviously I (name) have no respect for the original author (name) nor do I abide by the laws of plagiarism and/or copyright. I (name) am a thief who freely admits to stealing from others, I lack any common decency or moral fibre. If you too wish to spit on the original author, then continue reading.
Strangely, I can see using that opening paragraph (or a variation of it) for a great opening of an entirely new story, as it certainly grabs the readers' attention, and gets them immediately interested in the conflict over the story ideas themselves, even if there is no original story involved.
I may have to consider 'stealing' your idea! ;)
I may have to consider 'stealing' your idea! ;)
No need to 'steal' it. I hereby give you (Crumbly Writer) carte blanche to use it.
Enjoy
:)
No need to 'steal' it. I hereby give you (Crumbly Writer) carte blanche to use it.
Ha, ha (or Hee, hee or even Ho, ho, hos), by the time I'll get around to using it, we'll both forget when I originally got it from. ;)
Since all those poor, starving lawyers need more work, here's another option for consideration:
Management changes the site's terms such that unfinished stories that have gone through archival can, at management's discretion, be completed by a third party.
Obviously the original author would have to be appropriately acknowledged, and the new work would have to be limited to WLPC sites.
This topic recurs quite often so continuing unfinished 'great' stories would be popular with readers. However I'd expected some kick back from certain quarters :(
AJ
Management changes the site's terms such that unfinished stories that have gone through archival can, at management's discretion, be completed by a third party.
Obviously the original author would have to be appropriately acknowledged, and the new work would have to be limited to WLPC sites.
Not a bad idea but it should have an opt-in/opt-out for the authors.
Not a bad idea but it should have an opt-in/opt-out for the authors.
There would also need to be an additional 'postmortem' opt-in, as many of us would rather others not complete a sequel before we've had a chance to write our own, while we wouldn't mind others keeping our ideas alive after we've departed this mortal coil. In this case, that 'mortal coil' is actually a spring that pops us up into heaven! ;)
There would also need to be an additional 'postmortem' opt-in, as many of us would rather others not complete a sequel before we've had a chance to write our own, while we wouldn't mind others keeping our ideas alive after we've departed this mortal coil. In this case, that 'mortal coil' is actually a spring that pops us up into heaven! ;)
Assuming we know when an author has passed away which is not always the case. There is a reason why the ReaderInfo site was started ;)
Maybe Lazeez could add a special section to the author writing agreement where a sort of will can be added. In this case not necessarily after death but also after an x number of years of inactivity. In it an author can authorize what he allows and under which conditions. Maybe some predefined choices and an open field for specifics.
In it an author can authorize what he allows and under which conditions. Maybe some predefined choices and an open field for specifics.
Presuming that authors actually completed it... Obviously that would only apply to current and future authors and their stories. I can't see how it could legally be applied retrospectively.
I can't see how it could legally be applied retrospectively.
Nope, wouldn't work retrospectively but you have to start somewhere.
Maybe Lazeez could add a special section to the author writing agreement where a sort of will can be added. In this case not necessarily after death but also after an x number of years of inactivity. In it an author can authorize what he allows and under which conditions. Maybe some predefined choices and an open field for specifics.
As I've previously argued, this seems to dump a lot in Lazeez's lap, and opens him up to potential lawsuit for things beyond his control. This would be better handled by a trusted editor, though those relationships tend to fade in and out over the years too, as other life events arise. So aside from the author (who may get hit by a bus, carrying the one thumb drive of all his work), there's really NO ONE who'll ever know an author's desires, availability or fate.
This topic recurs quite often so continuing unfinished 'great' stories would be popular with readers. However I'd expected some kick back from certain quarters :(
As long as they're properly flagged as 'authorized continuations', I'd have no objections to it, as it not only makes clear what they are, it also makes checking for unauthorized uses easier to find.
The current SoL terms and conditions state;
By submitting your work for posting on Storiesonline you certify that the following conditions are true and you agree to all the terms outlined here:
1. You are the creator/co-creator of the work or you have explicit written permission from its author to post the work online. OR Submission is in the public domain (copyright has expired - which you may be asked to prove.)
2. You grant Storiesonline, its parent company 'World Literature Company (WLPC)' and its affiliated sites unlimited rights to publish the work in any format that it supports, on any of its sites for as long as WLPC exists or until you withdraw the work with a written request for removal. You retain all copyrights that you may have for the work.
Obviously both those clauses would have to be changed dramatically for SoL to actively encourage or allow writers to ignore the copyright laws and post continuations to, or endings to incomplete stories.
In their current form they are exactly what a court would expect to see, but changing them to reflect a policy of ignoring copyright law would effectively be admitting guilt. Hard to defend against that in court.
In their current form they are exactly what a court would expect to see, but changing them to reflect a policy of ignoring copyright law would effectively be admitting guilt. Hard to defend against that in court.
Not if "the will" is added as a third point. The original author retains the copyright to what is there and a new author adds new writing to complete a story.
Not if "the will" is added as a third point. The original author retains the copyright to what is there and a new author adds new writing to complete a story.
Correct.
An it does not violate copyright law. (Unless made retrospective)
A solution to the problem of the singing, dancing mouse who seems to be at the heart of the problem (at least in the US) is copyright terms based on commercial viability. So, something akin to this schedule:
Copyright year 0-20 : No fee to maintain copyright
Year 20-40: $25/year to maintain copyright
Year 50-80: $1000/year to maintain copyright
Year 80-100: $10,000/year to maintain copyright
Year 100+: $1,000,000 to maintain copyright
Don't pay the fee and the work moves to the public domain.
The numbers/years can be adjusted, and the above is simply illustrative. It eliminates the whole 'life of the author+' concept, and allows the House of Mouse to protect their mice, ducks, dogs, cats, etc, without screwing the entire world out of public domain work.
Just a thought.
It eliminates the whole 'life of the author+' concept, and allows the House of Mouse to protect their mice, ducks, dogs, cats, etc, without screwing the entire world out of public domain work.
That's a very reasonable suggestion. But it's too much common sense, so it would never be accepted.
It eliminates the whole 'life of the author+' concept
Note: the "life of the author+" concept did not originate with the House of Mouse and/or the 1990s Sony Bono Copyright Extension act.
That concept originates from the Bern Convention(1890s) which governs international copyright. The Bern Convention sets copyright term at life of author + 50 years.
The US did not become a signatory of the Bern Convention until the 1980s.
The 1906 copyright act set US copyright term to IIRC 25 years, renewable once and once only for a second 25 years. The 1976 Copyright act made a lot of changes, mostly to bring US copyright law into closer (but not perfect) alignment with the Bern Convention terms.
The Sony Bono Copyright Extension pushed US copyright terms out 20 years beyond the Bern Convention, and worse, it applied retroactively to anything with a still live copyright which the 1976 act did not do.
That concept originates from the Bern Convention(1890s) which governs international copyright. The Bern Convention sets copyright term at life of author + 50 years.
The US did not become a signatory of the Bern Convention until the 1980s.
I was addressing two separate concerns:
The eternal extension of US copyright law (for which Disney is a major force)
The extension of copyright long past most commercial viability.
The eternal extension of US copyright law (for which Disney is a major force)
No, not eternal. It was extended once by 20 years (40 for works still under the 1906 act).
It's been twenty years since the last extension was done and they haven't gone back for another.
The extension of copyright long past most commercial viability.
The Bern Convention term for copyright, which goes back to the 19th century is already longer than commercial viability for the majority of works.
No, not eternal. It was extended once by 20 years (40 for works still under the 1906 act).
It's been twenty years since the last extension was done and they haven't gone back for another.
Walt died in 1966, their Copyright is valid until 2036, they have a few years before they have a need to resume that lobby effort.... And it's potentially beneficial for them to wait until the 2030's to get the law changed, as that allows for numerous other copyrights to expire in the interim.
Walt died in 1966, their Copyright is valid until 2036
Not all the relevant copyrights would have necessarily been Walt's personally (Walt as creator for the term).
You are also assuming that they don't have anything that falls under the corporate authorship provisions from the 1976 act. Those would get a flat 90 years from creation under the extension. Would have been 70 under the 1976 act.
So your solution to the ever-extending corporate copyright ensuring that no bit of our culture ever escapes the grip of major corporations is to put a price tag on copyright that only major corporations can afford to pay in the long term?
I am seeing some problems with your proposal.
So your solution to the ever-extending corporate copyright
It should be noted that while the Bern Convention doesn't cover this, under US law with the work for hire doctrine, there are works where a corporation is actually legally considered the original author.
I believe, though I don't know for sure, that a lot of Disney's works fall under this, but the works of a lot of more traditional movie studio's do not.
Under US law, corporate authored works do not fall under the life+ copyright term. There wasn't a separate corporate copyright term under the 1906 act because the general term was so much shorter. Corporate works got a flat 70 years under the 1976 act, which was boosted to 90 years by the Sony Bono Copyright extension in the 1990s.
And it bears repeating that the biggest problem with the Sony Bono Copyright Extension act was not the 20 year extension. The biggest problem was that it was applied retroactively to works copyrighted under the 1906 act that still had live copyrights, something the 1976 act did not do. This means copyrights from the 1940's through 1975 got not a 20 year extension, but a 40 year extension.
I am seeing some problems with your proposal.
Me too. Even the copyright as set in the Bern Convention terms are ridiculous. Acceptable terms would be 20 years after the death of the author or 20 years from the day the copyright is bought from the original author. That gives the original author plenty of time to gain from his work and first line heirs can still profit for twenty years.
Even the copyright as set in the Bern Convention terms are ridiculous. Acceptable terms would be 20 years after the death of the author or 20 years from the day the copyright is bought from the original author.
If you see the purpose of copyright as encouraging more creation, as is implied by the text of the US constitution's patent & copyright clause, then a copyright term that is shorter than the author's life is more useful.
With life+ anything terms, if an author creates a particularly profitable work, the incentive is to sit back and enjoy the profits rather than to go out and create something new.
Also too many publishers are sitting on live copyrights that are out of print.
On that end, I might support a long copyright that automatically dies early if the work goes out of print.
If you see the purpose of copyright as encouraging more creation, as is implied by the text of the US constitution's patent & copyright clause, then a copyright term that is shorter than the author's life is more useful.
With life+ anything terms, if an author creates a particularly profitable work, the incentive is to sit back and enjoy the profits rather than to go out and create something new.
Also too many publishers are sitting on live copyrights that are out of print.
On that end, I might support a long copyright that automatically dies early if the work goes out of print.
You have some good points. Copyright shorter than the authors life doesn't seem logical to me. It feels like taking away property while still alive. The alternative would be life+0 years but that's possibly dangerous. People have been killed for less.
Loss of copyright when a book goes out of print seems a very good option if it includes that the price of the book should remain comparable to other books otherwise a publisher can set it at a ridiculous price that nobody will pay.
It feels like taking away property while still alive.
Property that only exists because of a special grant of law and has always come with an expiration date.
Loss of copyright when a book goes out of print seems a very good option
Until you stop and think about the fact that copyrights exist for things that have never been in-print or otherwise published in any form.
Property that only exists because of a special grant of law and has always come with an expiration date.
Nope, the property exists because the author created it.
Nope, the property exists because the author created it.
That it is property is only because of a special grant of exclusive rights by law.
That it is property is only because of a special grant of exclusive rights by law.
If you build a house what stops someone moving in and living in it? Oh wait..!! there is a special law that recognises it as YOUR house. Want to have that law of ownership trashed as well...?
So you oppose all fanfiction and think its illegal?
What I think does not matter. The fact is that without permission it is illegal. Period.
The copyright owners may choose not to prosecute but that does not make it legal, it just saves the authors time in court.
If you build a house what stops someone moving in and living in it?
The fact that you are living in it and willing to defend it.
Intellectual property is not anything like physical property. You are ignoring the fact that all intellectual property rights have always been temporary, have always come with an expiration date. Pre-1976 the term of copyright was around 25 years, renewable once and once only.
Oh wait..!! there is a special law that recognises it as YOUR house.
Not quite the way you think it does. Go look up adverse possession.
It is in-fact possible for someone else to legally take real property (land & buildings) by squatting on it for a long time. If the owner of title does nothing about it after a certain amount of time has passed the squatter can gain legal title to it.
Intellectual property
So you yourself describe it as property, you just don't want to respect the property of others enough not to steal it. Ok. You position is plain enough, no need to continue further.
So you yourself describe it as property, you just don't want to respect the property of others enough not to steal it.
If you are going to equate a desire to see intellectual property law reformed with a desire to steal, there is no point in discussing any aspect of it with you.
If you are going to equate a desire to see intellectual property law reformed with a desire to steal, there is no point in discussing any aspect of it with you.
There is a difference between ignoring the law and stealing property versus abiding by the law but campaigning for changes to it. If you can't see that difference then I agree, there is no point discussing it.
There is a difference between ignoring the law and stealing property versus abiding by the law but campaigning for changes to it.
And I have said nothing on this thread that advocates ignoring the law and stealing property.
I have advocated changing the law to shorten the term of copyrights. You are the one who is having trouble seeing the difference.
I am still puzzled about the distinction.
We click Fan Fiction (its a category/code) and write in the Star Trek universe with characters they created - no problem.
Right?
The distinction for what?
Technically, if you are using established characters/settings from another author's work, that makes it a derivative work and if the original work is still under copyright, it's a violation of the original work's copyright unless you have explicit permission from the owner of the original work's copyright.
That is the law. Fan Fiction is not legal without the explicit permission of the original work's copyright owner.
The law makes no accommodation for cases where getting that permission is impractical or even impossible.
Personally, I would not advocate doing unauthorized fan fiction.
However, there is an extensive sub-culture in the US around fan fiction, and it probably isn't going away anytime soon.
The odds may be against any one fan fiction author getting sued, but if you draw the short straw it can be very expensive. Statutory damages can be as high as $150,000 per work and don't require actual financial losses on the part of the copyright owner.
The distinction for what?
...
That is the law. Fan Fiction is not legal without the explicit permission of the original work's copyright owner.
I think you're picking at nits here. The way you phrase it, Eddie has to contact the estate of Gene Rodenberry to get permission to write a Star Trek fan fiction. He doesn't. There has already been a blanket permission given to write it.
In large part, Star Trek is effectively responsible for the whole genre of fan fiction. There had been some derivative works done prior to the whole Star Trek thing that started in the 1960's, but nothing that truly swept and changed the culture.
And just to give you an idea of how far it's gone, Larry Correia has written the Monster Hunter Series. John Ringo wrote a whole series of novels based in that universe without permission, then sent them to Larry saying he liked his books so much, here's a whole novel I wrote there. And Baen Books has published them - because Larry edited them for continuity and is now making money off them. Go check out the Grantville Gazette some time. It's all original Fan Fiction work in the Eric Flint 1632 universe - and some of the authors there have gone on to become published authors in their own right.
Eddie has to contact the estate of Gene Rodenberry to get permission to write a Star Trek fan fiction. He doesn't. There has already been a blanket permission given to write it.
That I was unaware of. Can you point out somewhere that this is documented?
Can you point out somewhere that this is documented?
Yes, I can.
You didn't ask if I would, though. :)
Sorry, that's just a personal bugaboo that I've picked up from my wife. Someone stands up and says, "I'd like to thank you for doing something." Well, why don't you do so? Instead, what you'd said is you'd LIKE to do something, not that you ARE doing something.
Oh, and it's on the FanLore page.
Oh, and it's on the FanLore page.
Even if a court of law would read that statement as explicit authorization of fan fiction, I am doubtful that they would hold that as binding against the current owners of the copyrights.
Oh, and it's on the FanLore page.
Won't hold up in courts unless you can provide explicitly worded original source documents.
Take the works of Anne McCaffery, while she has given approval for some others to add to some works which she vetted, she has made definite statements against allowing that for most of her works. She was extremely protective of the Pern series and has handed control of it over to her son Todd who is also protective of it.
There is a difference between being flattered by someone violating your copyright and giving someone permission to do so. Nowhere in the statement did I see anything giving FanFic authors permission to write knockoff stories.
Go check out the Grantville Gazette some time. It's all original Fan Fiction work in the Eric Flint 1632 universe - and some of the authors there have gone on to become published authors in their own right.
But to write a story in this universe you have to adhere to canon. What you can or can't write is tightly regulated.
Especially the number of Uptimers is limited and the resources brought downtime with Grantville.
There is a timeline maintained for each Uptimer and historical Downtimer. You have to reserve the time span in their fictional life you want to write about and you're not allowed to write something that violates the already published events further on the time line.
If you look into it, it's not fanfic really, if your story gets published electronically you get payed for it.
HM.
Out of idle curiosity, your two stories posted to SoL are both incomplete. Given your attitude I presume you have no problem with others finishing them? I note that the Universe is set to 'public', so it woulds seem you are agreeable. I also note that you have posted a fairly comprehensive guide to your Universe, but obviously that can be ignored as you don't recognise copyright and therefore don't feel the need to control how the world and/or characters in your Universe are used or abused..?
Intellectual property is not anything like physical property.
That distinction bears more consideration.
Building your own house then someone breaking in and occupying it (or even physically stealing it - it has happened!) strikes me as akin to stealing a physical copy of a book.
Writing a book in someone else's universe or completing someone else's book is more akin to building your own copy of someone else's house, perhaps with an extension or attic conversion.
AJ
That distinction bears more consideration.
Actually the comparison I should have used is writing a book and writing a song.
The alternative would be life+0 years but that's possibly dangerous. People have been killed for less.
Of course the real solution would be to go back to a fixed term from the copyright date. It could survive the creator but wouldn't necessarily do so if it's an early creation when the creator is still young.
Of course the real solution would be to go back to a fixed term from the copyright date. It could survive the creator but wouldn't necessarily do so if it's an early creation when the creator is still young.
In terms of practicality that might be the best solution.
Copyright shorter than the authors life doesn't seem logical to me. It feels like taking away property while still alive.
Does the length of copyright of a written work imply that its end is not of particularly great benefit to society?
Pharmaceutical patents are, I believe, limited to 20 years - that long to allow companies to recoup their research and development costs, but that short because it's of obvious benefit to society for other manufacturers to be allowed to compete, bringing down the cost of drugs to the public.
AJ
Pharmaceutical patents are, I believe, limited to 20 years
Yes, the same as all other US patents. Something the big pharmacorps have been complaining about for decades because the regulatory approval process means it takes much longer to bring a new drug to market than other types of process.
If you see the purpose of copyright as encouraging more creation, as is implied by the text of the US constitution's patent & copyright clause, then a copyright term that is shorter than the author's life is more useful.
Really? That basically presumes that authors write for money and 'less than life' reduces their earnings thus encouraging them to write more to continue to receive income. Of course it ignores those who see 'less than life' as a shortcut to jumping on the bandwagon to grab income they otherwise couldn't legally get. How does that 'encourage' the original author? Ask them, but start by apologising for presuming they only write for money and would stop if they could afford to do so.
What would motivate someone to desire a shorter copyright period? Certainly not those concerned with the interests of the author. No. The prime motivator is profit, either by using the successful story/characters to boost their own work and thereby gain popularity/profit by riding the coattails of others, or in the case of publishers by simply publishing and gaining from sales.
Yes there are those who view copyright as an obstacle to other authors creativity and who value the art over the profit. All well and good, except that in reality those with venal intent far outnumber them.
When a child draws Disney characters and sells those drawings at the school fundraiser the lawyers who act to stop it are vilified. Yet if the law was changed to allow that child to raise a paltry sum for a good cause the reality is that Disney characters would immediately be used by every merchandiser out there seeking a fast buck. Mickey Mouse dildos, the ears vibrate..!! Aladdin butt plugs.. Yes, along with losing copyright the author/creator/copyright owner also loses all control over how their work is used.
It is easy to target Disney et al and hold them up as examples of corporate greed. Those that do so choose to ignore the greed that motivates everyone who would gleefully profit from Disney the second that copyright lapsed. Before responding "Disney can afford it" just remember that the law applies to everyone, every author, without copyright the story posted on a free site by an amateur author can be copied and published, used to make a film, all without a penny going to the original author.
There are some great stories here on SoL, stories that deserve to be promoted to a wider audience, some cry out to be made into films. It would be a shame if that happened because copyright was reduced and in doing so the author received nothing, no money, no recognition, nothing. And without copyright, no recourse to seek redress.
And without copyright, no recourse to seek redress.
which was my basic point in allowing copyright extensions to be purchased, at increasing cost, thus protecting copyrights which are commercially viable. And making them affordable even if no longer commercially viable for 50+ years.
Really? That basically presumes that authors write for money and 'less than life' reduces their earnings thus encouraging them to write more to continue to receive income.
It presumes no such thing. It speaks only to the incentives that copyright law adds on top of what ever other motives the author might have.
So your solution to the ever-extending corporate copyright ensuring that no bit of our culture ever escapes the grip of major corporations is to put a price tag on copyright that only major corporations can afford to pay in the long term?
I am seeing some problems with your proposal.
No, it allows a very small percentage of work which is commercially viable to remain the property of the corporation (or individual) which owns it.
And puts everything else into the public domain. I think that's a reasonable trade.
The only change I'd make for your proposed system is to have the heavy fees on corporate owned copyright only and a much cheaper fee for privately owned copyright for the 20 to 50 year group and the change from private ownership to corporate requires the immediate purchase of a new copyright.
The only change I'd make for your proposed system is to have the heavy fees on corporate owned copyright only and a much cheaper fee for privately owned copyright for the 20 to 50 year group and the change from private ownership to corporate requires the immediate purchase of a new copyright.
That would work for me, though I think you'd need to define terms such that an author could create an LLC or some other vehicle for tax and liability purposes (speaking for the US).
Fundamentally, from a practical standpoint, to get this done, we have to appease the singing, dancing mouse who has his one amusement park. Right or wrong, House of Mouse isn't going to allow Mickey and friends into the public domain, no matter what it costs them.
dancing mouse who has his one amusement park.
He has three. One in Florida, One in California, and one in France.
He has three. One in Florida, One in California, and one in France.
Own! Own! LOL. Typos will get you every time!
Really?!? Did any of you read Sanderson's ending to Robert Jordan's epic? I know it was done under Jordan's widow's auspices, but REALLY?!?
On the subject of an author allowing fanfic of their stories on SoL, there's already an option for that called a Public Universe so if an author wants to allow others into their universe it's simple to make a Public Universe/s for those stories, and if they don't they just don't make it a Public Universe. While that's not the same as completing and unfinished story, and it doesn't allow someone to use the main characters as the central characters in their stories, it does allow authors to use a lot of the story universe for their own stories. And there's a lot of them already.