One of the stories on today's feed, appears to be representing another author's work as their own.
It looks like a rather clumsy cut&paste, the beginning pasted multiple times, including the original author's name still in the posted work-- AND that author is already on SOL under that name, with that same story).
It's awfully hard to not jump to conclusions on this one.
1. in the upper right hand corner of most SOL pages (excluding the forum) is a link called Contact. That will send a message directly to our host.
2. Contact the original author if possible. It's best if the original author is the one to report it to our host.
I would also add a link to the story that was plagarized.
I myself have seen that, but also realize that a great many stories are not really "plagarized", but more accurately "retellings".
I can even point to one very specific I caught in here a while back. Originally posted in 1995 as "Tomboy", by Jordan Shelbourne.
https://www.asstr.org/~Kristen/04/tomboy.txt
But then reposted by Old Softy in 2007 as "Only Three Months", but heavily rewritten.
https://storiesonline.net/s/54282/only-three-months
Now credit to Old Softy, he did credit the original author, but I have sen stories like this in here many times. Where an older story can be spotted inside of a newer one, but quite edited from the original.
Also, some of us have changed names over the years. But I would link a copy of the original, and just pass it off to the site owners and let them handle it from there.
As I understand these things, creating one's own treatment of a story is neither plagiariasm nor copyright infringement.
On the other hand, this was clearly both: it was a straight (somewhat bungled) copy&paste of an old Von der Tann story, that *accidentally* revealed Von der Tann as the original author -- and it's a story still found on Von der Tann's own author's page here on SOL.
So there didn't *appear* to be much question what was being done, or even whether the person in question knew he was claiming credit for someone else's story. (Though since there was a faint possibility it was Von der Tann's own bungle, I reported it as "possible" plagiarism/infringement.)
I've since been informed that the infringing copy has been removed, and that the "author" has been warned.
What is the difference between fan fiction and copyright infringement? Another site solves the problem by not allowing fan fiction at all. What about a story, which I have written, loosely based on an old Twilight Zone episode? (Broadcast sixty years ago, actually.) Thanks!
Fanfic is copyright infringement.
Sometimes, the original creator appreciates fanfic, as it helps drive interest in the original work. Other times, the fanfic is considered damaging to the brand of the original (Elf Sternberg was issued a cease&desist order over the gay furry fanfic he wrote based on the Kzin. IIRC)
Most holders of an IP make the choice to ignore FanFic, unless it is something they find objectionable. Plus because the vast majority is distributed for free, it takes a lot of time and money to try and get something pulled where the creator can not be sued to recoup those losses.
Star Trek and Star Wars both have gone through the pendulum many times, of stating at one point it is allowed for non-commercial use, then saying it is not. Others like Harry Potter generally keep a "hands-off" approach, unless the material is something that JK finds objectionable.
Tell a cute story about Harry and Ginny first dating, and they will not care. Tell a story of them having sex, and it is only a matter of time until a letter from the lawyers arrive.
I remember around 25 years ago, when a lot of sites pulled "slash" Star Trek FanFic. Paramount was largely willing to ignore it, but that was an area they objected to so most places pulled them.
I noticed that this site has a category called Fan Fiction. There is at least one story here that specifically mentions the characters in Big Bang Theory, and there are others.
I suppose it comes down to the original content creators. Disney supposedly comes down hard on copywrite, but I've seen innumerable Snow White porn parodies, among other Disney works.
Ah, but those stories aren't Disney property. The art and music is, but Disney used public domain stories.
Now, publish a Song of the South porno and watch the full weight of The Mouse come down on you. But the stories of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty (which Anne Rice did a porno version of), Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast... Disney has no rights unless artwork that is derivative is included. (And if it's distributed freely, they may not be able to promptly identify a defendant.0
Ah, but those stories aren't Disney property. The art and music is, but Disney used public domain stories.
Which is why they have gotten more into original stories in recent years rather than doing ancient fairy tails.
Which is why they have gotten more into original stories in recent years rather than doing ancient fairy tails.
Actually, it is about 1/3 each.
Some (Big Hero Six, Winnie the Pooh) are still based on stories by others (Marvel in the case of Six). Others are still based on traditional folktales (Emperor's New Groove, Frozen, Tnagled), but because of John Lassiter, many are based on an entirely original IP (Cars, Wreck It Ralph, Moana).
Historically, Disney never had much luck with original IP stories, as such movies as Fantasia and The Three Caballeros were seen as experimental and propaganda, and not really successful commercially. So they stuck with folktales, or purchased stories (Bambi, Dumbo). It took John Lassiter and Toy Story to see them how to do it right.
Now, publish a Song of the South porno and watch the full weight of The Mouse come down on you.
That is actually Public Domain also. The Joel Harris stories by Uncle Remus were actually first published in 1881. All of the stories are free to be used by anybody.
However, if you notice the copies that are made, great care is made to avoid copyright issues. For example, before Disney, the dwarves in Snow White are never named. Therefore, Sleepy, Doc, Dopey, and the rest are all Disney copyrights.
This is why in 1980 Filmation got sued when they released a sequel to the original story (they had changed the names barely enough to escape, but the movie which was made for TV was only shown once). And when they made another one a decade later, they replaced all the dwarves with female dwarves.
Ultimately, the decision to return to public domain stories was for several reasons. Their "licensed" stories (the Silver or Bronze age, Black Cauldron, Fox and the Hound, Mouse Detective, Rescuers) did not do all that well once royalty splits were taken into consideration. And their Renaissance of returning to such stories (Aladdin, B&TB, Mulan, etc) really marked the high point of the company.
For example, before Disney, the dwarves in Snow White are never named. Therefore, Sleepy, Doc, Dopey, and the rest are all Disney copyrights.
No. Under US Copyright law, you can't copyright a single word. If you were to use those names even for dwarves in an unrelated story, you would be fine as a matter of copyright.
However, more than likely they have trademarks on those names.
No. Under US Copyright law, you can't copyright a single word. If you were to use those names even for dwarves in an unrelated story, you would be fine as a matter of copyright.
But that is not a word. The IP is giving each of the dwarves their own name.
Now those names are still copyright. When they sued Filmation, they tried to say that the idea the dwarves had names was theirs also, and that each name related to their characters. That part was thrown out.
However, interestingly enough one dwarf is not covered. Somehow when they filed the copyright, they forgot "Sneezy". So while the image is still protected, the name of that one dwarf is not.
IP can be a tricky business. Which is why a great many try if at all possible to avoid it.
Many still question JK as her source, as the 1986 movie Troll had the main hero called Harry Potter, and featured magic, witches, and magical creatures. And Nancy Staufer and her 2 books. The Legend of Rah and the Muggles and Larry Potter and His Best Friend Lilly. Larry is described almost exactly as Harry (without the scar), but "muggles" were a form of mutant.
I know I try damned hard to not let much come into my stories that IP holders could threaten me over.
Now those names are still copyright.
No, they aren't. There are limits on what is copyrightable. Such short segments don't qualify on their own. You can not have a copyright on a single word.
Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's off to work we go...
More like: I owe, I owe, it's off to work we go...
Hi Ho, Hi Ho, it's off to work we go...
In one of my stories I had a "story within a story" where a group meet "seven dwarves". And I even had them get offended when one of them asked "Who's Dopey?"
But just as in RL when I used that plot in a real life game, it was just as a cultural nod and wink.
Reading this thread has made me Sleepy. So sue me, Disney!
You're not really Sleepy, you're a self-declaring Trans Sleepy.
Sleepy Lives Matter.
AJ
I noticed that this site has a category called Fan Fiction.
Yeah. And 'celeb'. I remember years back, a lot of stories involved Agent Scully (or Gillian Anderson). And the use of real individuals in fiction is usually shaky in terms of legality.
And the use of real individuals in fiction is usually shaky in terms of legality.
Actually, in the US it's the individuals trying to sue over it that would be on shaky ground. US federal law does not recognize a right of personal publicity. A few states have recognized such under state law.
A few individuals have tried to bring defamation suits against such, but there have been even fewer successes in court.
Fan Fiction
Stories about devices that move air, to help keep you cool.
Sometimes involve "when shit hits the fan."
