Forum: Author Hangout

And if you attempt to do anything like that before Lazeez approaches you to finish another author's work you have al sorts of legal problems like I said.

The only people with the relevant authority are the original author and someone specifically approached and authorised by Lazeez, not by someone simply putting their hand up and trying to do it.

As one person who has finished incomplete stories by other people with their express request and approval, I can tell you it's a right illegitimate child of an act to do at the best of times, and a thousand times worse if you do not have the story plan of where the story was supposed to go.

Despite all the negativity, there are lots of stories on this and other sites using the universes of authors very much alive eg Harry Potter. From when this subject came up last time, wasn't there a conclusion that there needed to be a clear delineation between where the original author's story concluded and where the new author's continuation starts?

If someone is minded to conclude an unfinished story by a 'missing' author, I suggest they approach Lazeez for permission. And have an outline ready - pantsers would almost certainly be a cure worse than the disease.

AJ

Use of the characters or the universe without the original author's approval is a violation of copyright. The majority of FanFic is a copyright violation as they do not have the original author's approval, although some just ignore it. Most get away with the copyright violation because the original authors doesn't hear of it.

A few authors have given explicit blanket permission for fan fiction.

Fan Fiction has it's own unique area.

In most cases, where the content is not made for commercial gain and the creator admits they are using content owned by another, the courts generally side with it being a "parody".

But when published for commercial sale, then they must follow all the laws for licensing, including permission, and royalties based on the original works.

Then you have even fan fiction stories where it goes outside of what the original author intended. JK Rawling for example is largely fine with fan fiction, and does not care. But write a sexually explicit work based on the Potterverse, then expect her lawyers to be banging on the door with a C&D order.

The same happened with a few that tried publishing "Unauthorized sequels". Some were actually being distributed to major chains and stores when they were ordered to be pulled and destroyed.

But this is a very grey area. For example, you could post in SOL a fairly PG-13 Potter inspired story, and they would likely ignore it. The more it crosses from R to X rating however, the more likely that the lawyers will be watching it.

An adult Harry and Ginny going at it, they might look the other way. A teen Harry and Hermione, or Harry and Ron getting jiggy with it, expect the letter to start being drafted.

Post the story on Bookapy, then expect the lawyers knocking on the door and issuing a C&D and back payments. The moment one crosses from "fan fiction" to publishing for money, a huge degree of protection instantly vanishes.

Even non-commercial fan fiction could draw a lawsuit where not express or implied permission exists.

But if an author gives express blanket permission for fan fiction, it could end up being broad enough to even cover commercial publication of fan fiction.

This will depend on the exact wording the author used.

I can't see that, as in almost all cases fan-fiction is done for no charge. Even many of the earliest which were published in fanzines were free, and the zines would charge say a quarter for the issue, but no money going to the authors.

So the moment one sells such, it pretty much ends being fan fiction and becomes just regular fiction.

And very rarely do authors do that, as it can strip them of all control and future income from their creation.

Which part?

Suit against non-commercial fan fiction?

US copyright law includes statutory damages, if an author/work qualifies for statutory damages, there is no requirement to have or prove actual damages. Injunctive relief is also available. So the fact that the infringing derivative work is available for free is irrelevant.

Goes back to "squeezing blood from a rock".

Just say DC and Marvel decided to go ahead and take me to court over my 2 decade old story. What are they going to win? I have no real assets, they are never going to recover their court costs.

They would have in the end have an empty settlement, that cost them tens of thousands to follow. And I would just declare bankruptcy, they would get nothing.

But when published for commercial sale, then they must follow all the laws for licensing, including permission, and royalties based on the original works.

Copyright is almost entirely financially based. Thus, if you don't actively 'charge' for the story, there's little you can do about it. There is an option, is you actually pay for the copyright for each story, where you can sue to prevent anyone from modifying or continuing your story (similar to trademark protections), but at $57 a pop, it's more likely to be employed by mainstream publishing houses than individuals.

Copyright is almost entirely financially based. Thus, if you don't actively 'charge' for the story, there's little you can do about it.

While that's true of US copyright laws, that's not true of every other country and you can find yourself in deep trouble if the original story is under another country's copyright laws.

ramen noodles

Veering off-topic, can someone explain the connotations of 'ramen noodles' to me? From contextual use on SOL they are positioned as cheap, filling, non-nutritious crap. But I recently saw a TV prog (some upmarket motorway service station) in which a dish containing ramen noodles was positioned as upmarket (with porcini mushrooms).

Which is more accurate, crap or upmarket?

AJ

since AJ didn't seem to be aware of the existence of the cheap instant Ramen

I'm far below average in my knowledge of the noodle world. So much of our food contains what is effectively grandiose grass seed that I usually opt for rice with main courses (which is another form of grandiose grass seed, so I'm a hypocrite).

I've had cheap noodles on a few, rare occasions but the packaging has never described them as Ramen.

AJ

Copyright is almost entirely financially based. Thus, if you don't actively 'charge' for the story, there's little you can do about it.

I don't believe that's true. A long time ago I researched copyright and images and found an article written by (I think she was) a blogger. Non-commercial. She used an image she found on the internet for her blog and was sued for quite a bit of money. And lost. The article was a warning to others that you can't use copyrighted material even for non-commercial use.

Copyright is almost entirely financially based. Thus, if you don't actively 'charge' for the story, there's little you can do about it.

Exactly, with no financial basis what are the damages? Exceptions have been made however, like when Rowling has gone after slash stories based on her writing as tarnishing the image.

And any creator can sue any who write fiction based upon their works. It simply becomes an issue if it is worth the expense of doing so. Marvel and DC could both sue me for my single bit of fan fiction I wrote over 2 decades ago, but why?

Exactly, with no financial basis what are the damages?

I wish I had kept the article, but there was no financial gain and she was sued and lost and ended up paying not a small sum.

I wish I had kept the article, but there was no financial gain and she was sued and lost and ended up paying not a small sum.

But you also said it involved actual theft of an image, not just the use of characters. That is something very different. Because one is only copyright infringement based on the work of another creator. The other is outright theft.

Compare to my selling a copy I painted by hand of painting, and selling a copy of The Hobbit.

US copyright law provides for statutory damages under certain conditions, if an author/work qualifies for statutory damages, there is no requirement for any actual damages.

Yes, and it also takes into consideration the intent of the one that infringed, and the damage to the original holder, normally through "watering down" the rights of the original.

But I would love to hear of a case where the creator of another work on such a basis was actually stuck with that kind of penalty.

There was a slew of cases a few years back filed by the MPAA where they were going after individual file sharers (not the file sharing sites) on the basis of statutory damages.

Which once again is the actual theft of an original creation. Not a something that is entirely created by another, but based on a prior work.

They are not the same thing.

Which once again is the actual theft of an original creation. Not a something that is entirely created by another, but based on a prior work.

They are not the same thing.

Under the copyright laws in most countries they are seen as the same thing.

Write a story about other students set in the Hogwarts Magic School and you just violated the copyright owned by Rawlings. It's the environment / universe you create in the story.

When working on Shiloh I had to change the name of the college they went to for legal reasons. Mind you the changes are totally transparent, but it was enough to keep the lawyers away.

Under the copyright laws in most countries they are seen as the same thing.

Write a story about other students set in the Hogwarts Magic School and you just violated the copyright owned by Rawlings. It's the environment / universe you create in the story.

Remember, this is really a civil issue, not a criminal one. And once again, the courts may also declare it "satire" or "parody", which is actually protected legally. Which for a non-commercial release would likely not see anything but a demand for royalties owed.

Which is why I asked for any cases where this was the outcome. I am not aware of any civil trials where the creator of a free to distribute fanfiction author was treated the same as somebody who illegally copied a creation of another illegally.

And even Rowling, Paramount, Disney, Lucasarts, and most other companies have generally avoided going after fan fiction, unless they saw it was being sold for profit, or it contained elements that they objected to (such as Rowling's issue with "slash fiction" and other adult content).

Myself, for many reasons I have long avoided using such in my own writing. In over 2 decades, I have only written a single "fanfic" story, and that was over 20 years ago.

In fact, one fairly well known book that falls into this category is the Russian book "Последний кольценосец, Posledniy kol'tsenosets", most commonly known as "The Last Ringbearer".

One of the companies well known for pursuing those that violate their ownership commercially is the Tolkien Estate. And this is a book that takes the events of "The Lord of the Rings" and turns it on its head. Where the Orcs, Sauron, and all the others are really the good guys. No translations have been made in English because they refuse to grant permission, but it is readily available for free and they have not made any attempts in more than 2 decades to stop this.

Plus it seems the publishers are content to wait another 22 years until the copyright does expire, and the Tolkien Estate is aware that it may well fall in the area of "satire", and therefore nothing other than royalties would be due.

Much the same reason the 1969 book "Bored of the Rings" was never challenged. Or the 1984 book "Doon", based on Frank Herbert's "Dune".

The courts have long had a policy of allowing satire and parody, and not doing anything more than ordering royalties at most when such suits come forward. And not even assessing such penalties, other than the royalties owed if it was released commercially.

I myself have actually created many other works as such, both in the medium of video and audio. And so long as the work original and not simply a copy, it is generally allowed. This goes all the way to 1956 with the case against Buchanan and Goodman when they were sued over "The Flying Saucer".

This is why most lawsuits like this that come up are often when the charge is that it "dilutes the copyright", such as highly sexualized works based on Rowling's work. That the courts can often swing the other way on, as it can be seen to damage the original source material.

Remember, this is really a civil issue, not a criminal one.

Only in some legal jurisdictions as some countries see copyright infringement as the same as a criminal act and treat it accordingly.

One of the companies well known for pursuing those that violate their ownership commercially is the Tolkien Estate. And this is a book that takes the events of "The Lord of the Rings" and turns it on its head. Where the Orcs, Sauron, and all the others are really the good guys. No translations have been made in English because they refuse to grant permission, but it is readily available for free and they have not made any attempts in more than 2 decades to stop this.

I suspect the issue is more to do with getting the people responsible into a British court hasn't been possible and it's rare you can get an extradition order approved for copyright infringement unless you're part of the MPAA.

Which just demonstrates the issue with cross border copyright disputes.

The courts have long had a policy of allowing satire and parody, and not doing anything more than ordering royalties at most when such suits come forward. And not even assessing such penalties, other than the royalties owed if it was released commercially.

That varies a lot with the courts involved as what the British courts will allow as satire and comedy is not the same as what the US courts allow. Which is why is always best to err on the side of safety. Also, you never know when some prick of a politician will get a law changed to suit their own personal bigotry.

That varies a lot with the courts involved as what the British courts will allow as satire and comedy is not the same as what the US courts allow. Which is why is always best to err on the side of safety. Also, you never know when some prick of a politician will get a law changed to suit their own personal bigotry.

Nope, because satire and parody are protected under the 1st Amendment in the US as "Free Speech". The Supreme Court has weighed in in on this many times over the decades. You would have to change the Constitution itself.

Hustler v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), in which in a satire in Hustler Magazine they used a publicity photo of Jerry Falwell, and in it he was shown as claiming his "first time" was having sex with his mother as they were both drunk in an outhouse.

They were sued for the use of the image which was owned by Falwell, and in an 8 to 0 ruling the SCOTUS said it was satire, and threw it out.

At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole. We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions.

So not even a "law" could ever change that.

You need to go back an re-read EB's comment.

Does not matter, it is still largely the same.

UK law allows the use of the original material so long as it is fair and does not compete with the original version. Subsequently, Great Britain passed legislation allowing the parody of copyrighted works.

Under the change to U.K. legislation, U.K. citizens may now use "a limited amount" of copyrighted material "for the purposes of parody, caricature or pastiche" without the prior consent of the copyright holder.

There is a quirk to the English law, however. An owner of a copyrighted work can still sue if the parody conveys a discriminatory message or if it isn't funny. It thus comes down to whether a judge thinks the parody is funny and whether the parody has a discriminatory message.

The EU rules state, "The only, and essential, characteristics of parody are, on the one hand, to evoke an existing work while being noticeably different from it and, on the other, to constitute an expression of humour or mockery."

The rules also state, "If a parody conveys a discriminatory message (for example, by replacing the original characters with people wearing veils and people of colour), the holders of the rights to the work parodied have, in principle, a legitimate interest in ensuring that their work is not associated with such a message."

Which once again, is almost completely in keeping with what the US law looks at.

Let me spin another hypothetical story. Where the Enterprise crew encounters a "space ray", which devolves the crew to more "primitive" versions of themselves. Kirk, McCoy, and Scotty are barely affected. But Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov devolve into almost mindless beasts, with Sulu's skin turning bright yellow and attacking everybody calling them "barbarians", Uhura developing huge breasts and bottom, and her and Checkov unable to resist getting it on because of their "natural primitive instinct" is to fuck whenever possible.

Even in the US, that would likely fail, as it is obviously a negative racial stereotype, a message that is completely out of line with the original content, and the case made that it could potentially damage the source. Then add in the UK, where it could simply be found to be "not funny" and "in poor taste".

As I said over and over, a careful author would know the laws, and how to avoid them. But nothing can be done about the morons that do everything wrong and then end up getting their asses dragged into court.

Hence, why we get so many stupid warning labels on products. Some moron will always get into trouble, and I see them as the exception, not the rule.

Does not matter, it is still largely the same.

Not quite, it's different in what the courts call parody and humour, as that varies from country to country. Look at the difference between the UK 'Till death do us Part' and the US 'All in the Family.' To the great majority of UK and Australian people the US rip off is not comedy but total crap. So where a US court may say what a person has done is good parody a UK or Australian court may not. This is due to the different way people look at humour in different countries.

In the US, being humorous is not enough to be considered a parody, and in fact something can be parody without being funny.

The fact you admit that in the US parody and comedy are very different is a significant part of the issue as I checked several dictionaries and they all say:

Parody is an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.

Thus all of the seven dictionaries I checked Parody is a form of comedy, but not to some people in the US; which is why it would be an issue in court cases heard outside the USA.

Irrelevant unless you are looking in a US legal dictionary.

And that is exactly the point I've been making in the last several posts on this - what the US law has to say is totally irrelevant to cases under the laws of other countries so the US definition of comedy and parody don't apply outside of the USA; which is where this discussion has been for the last several posts.

By the way, the same situation with courts using words with different (and specialized) meanings than the common definitions is rather likely to exist in the UK and Australian courts.

There are a few acts of law where they include specialised meanings in them, but not that many are involved, and if there is no specific definition in the actual legislation being used then the generally accepted usage in the local community is accepted by the courts.

Copyright Act 1968 (Commonwealth) is the law concerned and the in law definitions are in section 10 and it does not include a definition of Parody.

Section 103AA Fair dealing for purpose of parody or satire
A fair dealing with an audio‑visual item does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the item or in any work or other audio‑visual item included in the item if it is for the purpose of parody or satire.

Thus it's clear the general meaning of Parody applies.

Of interest is section 9A which says

Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code applies to all offences against this Act.

This goes on about the elements of fault and liability for the responsibility for a crime. Mostly about proving they did it and did so willingly or by negligence or by omission.

Copyright Act 1968 (Commonwealth) is the law concerned and the in law definitions are in section 10 and it does not include a definition of Parody.

Not unlike in most regions of the world, there is no real definition of "pornography". It is left up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis.

And for all the times I have asked for a specific case where such was ruled against such a creation, and the mention over and over of different countries and their laws, nobody has yet to actually be able to bring up a case involving an instance that was decided against such a use.

And it would be even harder to do today, with the expansions in the last decade Internationally over "Fair Use".

Not quite, it's different in what the courts call parody and humour, as that varies from country to country. Look at the difference between the UK 'Till death do us Part' and the US 'All in the Family.'

That is actually not parody, but satire.

That is something often completely different. Both Animal Farm and Gulliver's Travels are satire, but neither one is really funny.

Nope, because satire and parody are protected under the 1st Amendment in the US as "Free Speech".

The US Constitution is very limited in that it only applies to things in the USA, and it would have no bearing on a court case under the law of any other country. If you broke the copyright of one of my stories you would be liable for legal action under the Australian copyright laws as I'm an Australian and my works are created here in Australia under the Australian laws, which is why I've had the issues with the local Gestapo for the last several years. The various agreements between the USA and Australia means that the USA recognise the Australian laws on copyright, and the reverse, so even if your actions are in the USA the law being broken is here and the matter would go before the courts here under the Australian laws.

The US Constitution is very limited in that it only applies to things in the USA, and it would have no bearing on a court case under the law of any other country

OK, Australian Law now.

Since the introduction of parody as a 'fair dealing' exception in the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth), the relationship between parody and copyright law has changed. Copyright law protects and encourages creative expression. However, the risk of this type of law is that it may stifle creativity, unless it includes some exceptions. Parody and satire are two such exceptions to copyright infringement. However, they are still relatively grey areas of the law.

The Copyright Act (1968) does not define parody and satire. Both dealings use humour and comic effect to comment or criticise. However, they have a key difference:

parody mimics an original work directly; and
satire uses a work to make a comment about something else entirely.
Ultimately, the comical elements must add to the work in such a way that it forms an entirely unique artistic expression.

What must be remembered, is that both Australia and US laws are largely based upon "English Common Law". And as such, all of them (including Canada and many other Commonwealth and prior-Commonwealth) nations also follow to this day.

And because of the influence of those cultures, most other nations have followed, simply to remain in compliance with the countries that release the most media content, be it in print or recorded.

What must be remembered, is that both Australia and US laws are largely based upon "English Common Law".

First, the comment of mine you quote is in response to your comment declaring the primacy of the US Constitution and not copyright law.

Second, my point you keep avoiding is that what the US courts have decided is comedy is no guarantee what other county's courts will decide is comedy, which is a point you keep missing.

Third the copyright laws are based on the Berne Convention and while general law in Australia is based on the old British Common Law much has been replaced by legislation in the past 100 years and in the US huge chunks of British Common Law was deliberately thrown out by the US government when they kicked the Brits out. A classic example of that is the Jury Nullification which is not allowed to be mentioned in most US courts but can be in in most UK and Australian court.

Comedy is not parody. Parody is not comedy.

In the US, being humorous is not enough to be considered a parody, and in fact something can be parody without being funny.

The fact you admit that in the US parody and comedy are very different is a significant part of the issue as I checked several dictionaries and they all say:

Parody is an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.

Thus all of the seven dictionaries I checked Parody is a form of comedy, but not to some people in the US; which is why it would be an issue in court cases heard outside the USA.

Thus all of the seven dictionaries I checked Parody is a form of comedy

That's only one of multiple definitions. Another one is 'travesty'. The unifying feature is the exaggeration. Much of Lazlo Zalezac's work is parody, but not all of that is comedy.

AJ

I'm not either, but there is nothing in US copyright law that would make such suits more difficult, more costly, or yield a smaller return than the MPAA/RIAA suing individual file sharers who generally have no more money than fan fiction authors.

Once again, those were cases involving actual theft of the full legal property of another, not satire or parody that was independently created!

One is outright theft, and not much can be argued against it in court.

In the other, the individual could claim it is a satire or parody, and has a damned good case for having it completely thrown out based on the 1st Amendment right of free speech. With at the most, a demand of royalties due as a derivative work. And such royalties ordered are generally based upon the income derived from that use. Why do you think so many radio personalities use such parodies all the time with no worry? They are not made for commercial gain, so no suits are ever filed.

This can be seen in what Weird Al does. He does not actually need permission to perform his parodies, he only does so to keep good relations with the other performers. And a great many (Prince, Paul McCartney, Billy Joel, etc) have refused him such permission. That does not mean he does not perform them, he simply does not record and release them to the public. But such have been part of his live performances for decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siZMgywImXY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqtTL9l_TOQ

FYI, I was at that show, the Starlight Amphitheater in Burbank in 1984. And I was amazed at the number of songs he performed that were not from his 2 albums at the time. Only later learning that many the artists asked him not to record them, so he did as they asked. But they were still part of his show even today.

1st Amendment. As I have been saying over and over when that comes into play, it is no longer "theft", it is simply an issue of "owed royalties". Why you all keep trying to go back to the MPAA-RIAA which is something completely different I have no idea, as that is absolutely theft with no satire, parody, or original content involved.

You are correct, satire and parody would be protected and would not be a copyright violation.

However, a derivative work that does not qualify as satire or parody, and most fan fiction wouldn't, is as much a copyright violation as as direct copy.

Actually, they can. Which is what careful authors can use to avoid being an issue. In court, they look at four main things in deciding if it is satire or parody, or theft:

1. The purpose and character of the use;
2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used; and
4. The effect on the market of the copyrighted work.

Now authors like Rowling and others use this fourth one to claim that stories of a sexual nature damage the value and integrity of their creations. And that has often been upheld, especially if it is something very explicit or outside of the bounds expected in the stories (say a slash story with Harry and Voldemort getting it on). It also violates the second point, as being a "young adult" creation, not intended as adult. And possibly the further issue of being "child pornography".

Or in some that say lift most of the plot elements from another story, say placing it in the middle of the Star Trek episode "Charlie X", with Charlie Evans and Yeoman Rand getting it on. That violates the third point they use, as you also included a very specific plot that has its own copyright independent of the characters themselves.

But create a completely independent story with only the generic setting and characters, and at least an attempt to make some kind of moral or satirical look at them, and then it becomes protected. That all falls clearly under the first point, which is the "purpose and character of the use".

Like say you create a story, in which the Enterprise visits 4 different planets. And in "stereotypical Kirk fashion", he makes a visit to each one, and gets it on with a different alien on each planet.

Only in the end to have created an "Intergalactic Political Dilemma" as not only has he knocked all 4 of them up, he had a form of "Space Herpes" which then was passed to each of them.

And FYI, that also could try to get called into question, as it was actually used as part of the plot in the 1984 movie "Ice Pirates".

But if I was to write such a story, I think it would be no problem proving to the court that it is indeed entirely satire, with the purpose showing the consequences that could have arisen that were never shown in the series itself.

And good luck even trying to claim that I had "diluted" their copyrighted material. Because in the episode "The Paradise Syndrome", it is made perfectly clear that in such a case Kirk knocked up a gal he met on another planet.

There are a lot of sites out there, offering a lot of advice to fanfic authors. And in general, that is exactly what they suggest. Avoid any overt sexual content unless the original was intended for a mature audience (Star Trek and Game of Thrones good, Potterverse and Twilight bad). Also, never lift actual plots and stories directly from source material, only the characters and settings.

And finally, tell at least some kind of moral or cause and effect story. My little example easily passes that. A story where two cast members from NCIS get drunk and get it on, only to have them be late and miss catching somebody can also apply.

This is also why I will never again do "Fan Fiction". And largely laugh whenever somebody suggests it in the "story idea" threads. At most, I may lift some elements from other "universes", but still weave them into something entirely my own with no reliance at all to existing works (other than almost sarcastic "name dropping").

Can some get into trouble? Of course, but a careful author can easily avoid doing so, as long as they at least have an understanding of the legalities involved.

One of the suits was filed against an elderly woman who reportedly didn't even own a computer.

Was the the one from the UK where they went for granny because she was the registered owner of the Internet connection to the ISP because her underage grandson who lived with her couldn't get an Internet connection in his own name so granny got the connection and the kid paid for it by working on weekends? The MPAA took legal action they went for the registered owner of the Internet connection and not the person who had the login ID for the sharing website. If I remember right when it first went to court granny had no solicitor (think lawyer in the US) as she couldn't afford one, so she represented herself and the magistrate (low level judge for the US) listened, looked at the evidence, then ruled she was protected as a service provider and made the MPAA pay her witness fees and expenses for having to attend the court. Best court ruling I'd ever heard of.

But I would love to hear of a case where the creator of another work on such a basis was actually stuck with that kind of penalty.

This may be the article I read many years ago. If not, it's similar. I found it with Google.

https://contentfac.com/copyright-infringement-penalties-are-scary/

Q: What's lamer than a crappy photo of Nebraska? A: Having to pay $8,000 in copyright infringement penalties for it. This is a lesson we recently learned the hard way, and if you have (or contribute to) a blog you might want to read about our story so that you never, ever make the same mistake we did.

This may be the article I read many years ago. If not, it's similar. I found it with Google.

https://contentfac.com/copyright-infringement-penalties-are-scary/

Once again, the actual theft of the original creation itself. Not a derivative work that is original but based on that of another.

Coming into this late...

I agree about Bookapy - that may well cross the line to allow for a lawsuit.

Short of that, see: https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/how-to-keep-fanfiction-legal-and-avoid-trouble-with-lawyers

Quote from the piece: "No U.S. court has ever held that a noncommercial, transformative fanwork infringed copyright."

While Rowling certainly takes umbridge (pun intended) at slash and explicit works, it takes under a minute to find dozens - hundreds - that are easily available in plain sight, meaning either Ms. Rowling's lawyers are a bunch of lazy gits or she's not terribly concerned with taking meaningful action. Now, if someone were making money on it, or developing a huge following, that might be different, but even in the specific case of X-rated Harry Potter fanfiction, the community seems to be thriving.

Partly, of course, because that would be exactly the sort of "transformative work" that would be legal, and would most likely also lend itself to "parody" - also legal.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just someone who can google things and is interested in the subject :)

Partly, of course, because that would be exactly the sort of "transformative work" that would be legal, and would most likely also lend itself to "parody" - also legal.

However, if sold it then the author would also have to pay royalties. And failure to do so could be an entirely different matter no matter what.

Even parody writers are obligated to pay for the rights, they simply do not require permission. The majority of lawsuits over this subject is not over the copying itself, but the avoidance of royalties owed.

A few authors have given explicit blanket permission for fan fiction.

More often, there's an uneasy alliance, not based on law. If someone writes a FanFic piece, it'll generally drive more readers to the original work, so the FanFic pieces, while technically violating copyright, only benefit the original author. Thus, many will allow the FanFic piece to go unchallenged, even if they haven't requested permission.

However, if the FanFic anticipates the original authors planned sequel, or otherwise spoils the original author's plans, then all bets are off, and you can expect copyright suits to follow. After work, why struggle for years writing and perfecting a book, just to have some nobody pop up at the last minute and ruin everything? As you mentioned, the 'implied license' might make the lawsuit ineffective, but you'll still face years of legal battles over ownership, and unless your family has a lot of money just lying around, it gets pretty prohibitive!

In your example, if an author 'grants' another to continue his stories, that only applies to that one story. The family still retains the rights to his other stories (if they're even still in print anymore), but the authors has officially signed away his ownership. But, that only applies to that one work. Thus, the family could always 'authorize' someone else to pen their own sequel that 'parallels' the already published work. Copyright law gets a bit convoluted at this point. However, cases of families 'hiring' an author to continue the deceased author's work are extremely rare, and rarely occur in RL.

More often, there's an uneasy alliance, not based on law. If someone writes a FanFic piece, it'll generally drive more readers to the original work, so the FanFic pieces, while technically violating copyright, only benefit the original author. Thus, many will allow the FanFic piece to go unchallenged, even if they haven't requested permission.

Actually, in the US "fanfic" has a rather interesting history. It had actually been around already for over 100 years, but never really became more than a single off story for resale until Star Trek.

As early as 1967, fanzines were appearing with art, poems, and stories based on the Star Trek characters, but written by fans for free. And this is much of the catalyst in the creation of the first Star Trek books. And ultimately resulted in 16 books between 1970 and 1981 by Bantam Books.

But the lack of an actual "Bible" had the stories often strange and hard to follow, as the would diverge wildly from both the show, and each other.

It was not until 1981 when Simon & Schuster got the contract and started the "Numbered Series" that an actual "Writers Bible" was created, and the rights holders started looking more into quality of writing and adherence to the series itself that it became what it was.

And that became the blueprint used by all other series afterwards for novels based on a media franchise. There were many others, but Star Trek was really the first to take control of it, and regulate the authors into following strict guides for characters and settings.

The same was seen in the earliest Star Wars novels. Which is why all of the early novels based on that franchise were ultimately delisted as no longer being canonical.

There is also a concept in US copyright law called implied license.

Would only have legal standing if both the author and the fan had written both stories in the USA. Everything comes under the copyright laws of the country they were created in.

That was shown by the copyright issue with some of the Sherlock Holmes stories. When Doyle visited the USA a publisher there got him to write a new story which was placed in a collection of Doyle's works and published in the USA. The new story came under US copyright while the rest were under the British copyright laws. There was a long court case where the US publisher argued that all of the stories in their edition were under US copyright laws, but he lost the case as the US courts ruled the original British copyright laws applied and all the publisher had was a limited right to publish the stories in the US.

I recently tried to read an authorised (by the author) prequel to a successful/popular story. In short, the writing style, the quality, the language were nothing like the original story. It was a poorly edited, disjointed crapfest and unfinished to boot.
I am afraid that people will be mostly disappointed with any efforts to finish the work of popular authors. Firstly, most authors have more story ideas and projects of their own than time to type them into their computers. Secondly, to adopt somebody's writing style is a daunting task. Thirdly, they are bound to catch heat from the fans of the deceased author for their efforts, regardless of whether the attempt is good or poor. Lastly, the plot. Unless an author left behind a plot outline, any attempts to finish it without that knowledge will only leave a stale taste.
Sure, there are stories and series here on SOL that I would love to see finished — but only by the person who created them and the characters therein, and not by somebody of different talent, language and imagination.
For my part, I'll make sure that no story of mine will be left unfinished.

I am afraid that people will be mostly disappointed with any efforts to finish the work of popular authors.

I understand that. And because of human nature, if there's more to read it, there's an innate compulsion to read it. Personally I think the continuations of the Lisbeth Salander stories, the James Bond stories and the Jason Bourne stories are less successful than the original author's stories.

However I don't believe that's sufficient reason for authors not to try.

to adopt somebody's writing style is a daunting task

As an editor, it's probably the thing I've found hardest to do. It's okay for a sentence, perhaps even a paragraph, but longer than that is nightmarish.

I've written a couple of shortish SOL stories that were intended as homages to other authors, but readers were quick to point out the differences.

AJ

As an editor, it's probably the thing I've found hardest to do. It's okay for a sentence, perhaps even a paragraph, but longer than that is nightmarish.

Examples: "I think so too." or "Okay, I get that." ;) Those are a bit difficult to copyright, as virtually everyone uses them. But copyright doesn't protect an author's ideas, only the precise words on paper. Thus, if you do write a sequel of someone else's work, don't simply cut and paste samples of their previous books!

I recently tried to read an authorised (by the author) prequel to a successful/popular story. In short, the writing style, the quality, the language were nothing like the original story. It was a poorly edited, disjointed crapfest and unfinished to boot.

Back when Ernest was authorized to do this, he basically had to rewrite the entire story so that the two versions would read/sound similarly.

The alternative, since story ideas can not be protected, is to simply write a similar story using different characters and which can't 'borrow' even a single line of text. Many renowned authors have done this, including Shakespeare himself. The key is in making the story one's own, not merely 'mucking' up another author's work for your own promotion.

For my part, I'll make sure that no story of mine will be left unfinished.

That's easy to say, and I used to believe that too, but in my later (last five) years, I've written a LOT of 'unpublished' pieces, mostly things I either lost interest in, couldn't complete in time, or was unable to whip into shape (based mainly on underlying plot conflicts).

So, if one of my authors were to 'decide' to adapt the work as their own, it wouldn't be a big deal: especially since I've never filed a copyright and they already have access to the copyright. Of course, I'd prefer that they'd credit it, and if I'm still alive at least request my permission, but beyond that, the material is both open and available, as I'd prefer the work see the light of day, even if I'm incapable of doing the necessary work myself.

If someone is minded to conclude an unfinished story by a 'missing' author, I suggest they approach Lazeez for permission. And have an outline ready - pantsers would almost certainly be a cure worse than the disease.

Generally, the best approach is to develop friendships with a particular set of authors--typically those with a similar writing style and who write similar plots. Then, you can strike up an unofficial contract to 'finish' each other's stories in the case something happens to either one.

Note that that would not be an obligation, merely an 'open invitation'. However, what would be required is either to notify Lazeez directly, or to present him with the authorization after the fact. However, given how easy it is to fake emails, it's best to have a signed document, just like you'd need in a court of law.

But as others have noted, authors don't write simply to please readers, they typically pick whatever topic captivates their attention, and they'll write it, not because it's 'easy', but because they're compelled to. If you have a story that doesn't compel another writer, then nothing you arrange to get them to undertake it.

Good point! We evolve as writers, and even a one-year hiatus may show.

Everyone who has posted a story here has already agreed that after three years the site owner had the authority to finish or add to a story. It's in the posting agreement.

This is the text:

We may give interested authors permission to finish any work you left unfinished.

Nothing about adding to a finished story.

I had eye surgery Thursday

I hope the surgery was successful and your eyesight is restored to optimum after the effects wear off.

AJ

I hope the surgery was successful and your eyesight is restored to optimum after the effects wear off.

Thanks.

But, unfortunately, the optical nerve damage is irreversible. I've lost quite a bit of vision in that eye. And I have monovision so it's my reading eye (from Lazik surgery).

I have Glaucoma in that eye and the procedure is called Glaucoma Implant surgery which implants a plastic tube (stent) in the eye to drain the fluid to keep the pressure down (the high pressure causes the optical nerve damage). The purpose of the surgery is simply to slow down the inevitable blindness.

I had Canaloplasty surgery a few years back that worked for a while. They put something like a catheter in a tube around the eyeball to widen it (so the fluid drains) and then the catheter was removed. That worked for a while but the pressure went back up.

The problem I'm having reading the screen is from the drops that dilate my eye. I guess also because my eyeball is swollen from the surgery. I was editing/revising my latest novel when the surgery was done and had to put that on hold because I can't see.

But thanks for your well wishes.

I have the exact same problem. Best of luck to you.

Thanks.

Is yours controlled with eye drops to lower the pressure?

My best wishes for a speedy recovery,

Thanks.

"eye to eye"? LOL