posted
What is the rules concerning writing in other author's worlds. Specifically dead authors. Such as writing a Sherlock Holmes story, or a Dracula tale, or a Middle Earth story, or maybe a prequal to the Secrets of NIMH. I have seen it done countless times but how is it done without acting as a plaguerist or violating copyrites?
Posts: 451 | Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted
What matters is not the author's viability status, but whether or not copyright has expired on the original work.
For purposes of this discussion, I'm going to assume that you want to write stories that you can sell for publication, rather than "fanfic" that you post on internet sites.
For Sherlock Holmes and Dracula, the copyrights have expired, so you can create derivative works to your heart's content and sell them to any publisher that wants to buy them.
The Lord of the Rings is still under copyright, so publishers will not buy a story set in Tolkien's universe without permission from the copyright owner. For all practical purposes, that means you should not write such a story without being asked to by the copyright owner. (The same is true of Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH.)
posted
As an artist, the rule is that you shouldn't do it unless you are the recognized protege of the artist that created the original work (or the protege of the protege, etc.). Now, becomeing the recognized protege can be a fairly simple matter of being a very promising artist who has an ardent desire to be associated with the original artist's work, or it can be rather difficult.
The legal issues are all pretty simple, having to do with whether the work is under copyright and who controls that copyright. It is almost certain that if you are really the recognized protege of the original artist, you will have little difficulty securing legal permission to the copyright, though it still might require yielding a bit on the financial side.
Conversely, if you are having real difficulty securing legal permission, then either you are not the recognized protege or something very strange is afoot (of course, as long as something as strange as a foot is, in fact, a foot, something strange will always be a foot, but that's not what I'm talking about at all).
In which case, that might make a good story by itself
posted
Well Conan Doyle died in 1930 and I beleive the material is protected for 70 years after the death of the author. So it should have become public domain sometime in 2000.
Posts: 552 | Registered: Dec 2004
|
quote:In the EC, the entire work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle enjoys copyright protection until 31 December 2000. After that date, a number of characters created by the author will enjoy trademark protection.
In the US, the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1997 (105th Congress, 1st Session H.R. 604 ) has extended the renewal term of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's works among others for an additional 20 years. This means that all works published after December 31, 1922 are protected for 95 years following the date of publication. For further information see http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:HR.604
The characters created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: Sherlock Holmes, Doctor Watson, Mrs. Hudson, Professor Challenger, Brigadier Gerard and the Hound of the Baskervilles among others are trademarked by the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle Literary Estate.
[This message has been edited by mikemunsil (edited December 29, 2004).]
posted
For works published before 1978, the copyright expires 95 years after publication.
The character of Sherlock Holmes was introduced when "A Study in Scarlet" was published in 1887. While some of the later stories (published after 1908) are still under copyright, the majority of the stories are no longer copyrighted, and you are free to create derivative works.
The trademark issue is separate -- but as long as you are not using Sherlock Holmes as a trademark, you're fine.
quote:Why was my comment about the Beatles catalogue not being owned by the Beatles deleted?
ArCHeR, are you referring to your response to Survivor? If so, it was deleted because you were responding to Survivor, when I asked you to pretend that Survivor doesn't exist.
posted
I didn't even notice it was Survivor. I was just saying that it's very likely and very common for the creators to not own their works.
Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted
I must be getting slow-witted, it took me forever to figure out what EJS was talking about. I was thinking more along the lines of "That's a rather interesting philosophical insight--I'd always visualized evil as more of a malevolent dark presence...."
The purpose of copyright lasting for so long is theoretically so that the author's descendents can have something of real value that can be sold for actual money even after the death (or mental incapacity) of the author. So you can sell a copyright pretty much the same way you can sell anything else, that's the way the law is supposed to be written.
Whether that law actually serves the intended purpose is another question...most laws don't.
posted
The post I deleted quoted Survivor and then said something along the lines of "Tell Paul McCartney."
It wasn't clear what you were saying, first of all.
Second, you should pay more attention to whom you are quoting.
Third, when it comes to recorded music, the usual practice is that the copyright owners are the record companies, not the artists. This is why you can't quote someone else's song lyrics without permission, and why permission is usually very expensive. The artists may be fine with you quoting them, but the copyright owner--the record company--will require you to pay hundreds of dollars for permission, and they will aggressively litigate anyone who doesn't get permission.
Which is why I will also delete posts in which song lyrics are quoted without permission.
posted
No experience with book publishers yet, goatboy <sigh>. But when you sell a short story they usually are paying for First American or First Worldwide or First Electronic rights. That means that they retain the right to be the First ones to publish it. All other rights, including ownership of the story, remain with the writer.
Don't EVER sell a short story to a publisher who demands that the writer turn over ALL writes to them. Check out ALL the best ones and peruse their submission rights. NONE of them demand all rights for short story publication. The ones who do are QUACKS!!!
And I believe it's similar with book publishing. Otherwise JK Rowling wouldn't be getting mega-rich off all those movies and merchandise. Only the publisher would be.
You sell as few of your rights as you possibly can. A magazine buys first periodical rights or first serial rights. An anthology buys first anthology rights. A book publisher will try to handle things like foreign rights and movie rights for you, but you should control as much of your rights as you possibly can.
The publishing business and the music business are run very differently when it comes to rights.
posted
What KDW says about song copyrights is very interesting in the context of this discussion...while songs produced by the music industry almost never introduce a milieu for later artists to explore in their own creative work, the theoretical or hypothetical status of works set in a milieu owned by a record company is rather mind boggling.
Really, I just don't want every discussion to turn into a thread about how we writers can protect our copyrights. Really, it's simple enough. Before you sign anything, make sure you have a reputable agent. Even if you get an offer on an unagented submission (and people do), before you sign check it out with someone who knows what you're selling.
posted
Looks like things have changed over the years. Last I worried about submitting, half the stuff in "writer's Market" seemed to want "all rights". Has this change been due to the growing influence of "electronic rights"?
Posts: 497 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted
There are SO many flash-in-the-pan publishers out there, goatboy. I wonder, if you looked over some of your old lists, how many of those publishers or periodicals who demanded all rights back then are even still in business.
Posts: 1672 | Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted
That music thing is all wrong. It's practically the same as publishing. If you're smart, you'll give away as few rights as you can. The only difference is that in the 60s, people didn't realize how much the record labels would screw their artists until they found out how much the Beatles got screwed.
My point, however, was that it's not unusual for people to not own the rights to their own works. Some people don't bring lawyers to look at papers they sign, either because they're naive, gullible, or ignorant to what a signed piece of paper can do. It happens, and happens less often now that there are examples like The Beatles.
posted
As I understand it, legality is not the only issue. Even once it's public domain, authors may not want you to use their characters. Agatha Christie and IIRC Doyle killed off their sleuths so no one else would use them.
I can imagine writing about Hamlet if, say, a magic spell changed an actor playing him into the detective himself. Then it makes sense to use an existing play that's often performed. But if I wanted to write about an angst-filled ditherer, I'd make my own. I often wish Hollywood would do the same. If I see one more modernization of Scrooge --!
Okay, I often post stuff that clearly didn't go through a final check. But that one is funny because it's true, Hamlet is all about Hamlet investigating the murder of his father and the consequences that arise out of that.
On the other hand, I have to disagree with the popular stereotype of Hamlet as an "angst-filled ditherer". In the end, he does succeed in killing his uncle after publicly exposing him as a murderer. The fact that this is largely by accident doesn't change the fact that it was a fairly difficult assignment in the first place.
"All rights" means exclusive licenses to publish a work in various media and markets. It doesn't usually mean the copyright itself. And while it is semi-standard for publishers to ask for that, it is not standard for authors to sell it. That's why you get an agent before concluding the sale of anything important.
Getting back to the subject, Shakespeare is a special case. Anyone that is recognized as having extensively studied Shakespeare's works gets a shot at writing a take-off on his characters (despite the fact that he prudently killed so many of them off). The standard for being recognized as a "protege" varies a bit and is naturally rather subjective (hence the term "recognized").
And "yielding a bit on the financial side" is sometimes translated as "selling yourself like a crack whore". I know, my level of discretion tends to vary a lot. I had thought that "yielding a bit on the financial side" was clearly weaseltalk for less delicate sentiments, but I suppose that the whole point of weaseltalk is that it isn't immediately obvious what it means
quote:If I see one more modernization of Scrooge --!
I agree. You'll never do better than Scrooged, so why even try?
I think the writers who don't kill of their most famous characters are the ones who don't expect to die. So, well... most of them. But I think the practice of killing off the character when the series ends isn't really a matter of protecting the character form other authors. It's more of the idea that the series about this character should end when the life of the character ends.
The rights to an actual person expires 100 years after their death. (there was a recent lawsuit over a John Dillenger museum.) But as far as I see most arent persued. (Note the use of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in Shenghi Knights.)
posted
Any historical or popular figure can be used in any work of fiction. I'm not sure of the details of the Dillinger thing, but when you have Michael Jackson look-alikes, Elvis impersonators, and Einsteins running around in a bunch movies I don't think people can be protected unless they actively do so. I'm not even sure if they can do that...
Posts: 341 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
quote:The rights to an actual person expires 100 years after their death. (there was a recent lawsuit over a John Dillenger museum.) But as far as I see most arent persued. (Note the use of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in Shenghi Knights.)
I think the rights, in the case of the museum, are whether it is official (sort of like fan clubs -- if you are "unofficial" there are limits to what you can do and how you operate). For example, an unofficial museum probably couldn't sell John Dillenger t-shirts, postcards, or other type souvenirs without the permission of his estate.
It isn't that the name or person have any special copyrights (I heard a rumour that O.J. Simpson had tried to have "O.J." copyrighted during his trial so that his name could not be used without his permission for books, etc. As far as I know he was unsuccessful). However you still have to be careful about how the person is portrayed. Even if they are dead, family members of the desceased could sue for libel or slander. I'm sure someone would have been upset and possibly would have pursued leagl action if Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had been presented in less than flattering light in Shanghai Knights.
posted
If you want a relevant news story on the issue of using the name of a living person for a fictional character check out this link that outlines the $15 million lawsuit of a hockey player named Anthony “Tony” Twistelli, aka, Tony Twist, sued and won the lawsuit against Todd McFarlane who used the name for a mobster character in his Spawn comic book. I am stunned that the jury found in favor of Tony Twist and this should put a chill down anyone spine that works in fiction.
quote:Actually, in most places it is not possible to libel or slander a dead person.
I think the word I should have used (but couldn't think of at the time) was defamation. If something said or written about a dead person defames them and by extension their surviving family, there may be legal grounds for a suit.
As writers, libel can be a dangerous situation to get into. I'm not sure about the legalities in The States, but in Canada, libel is one of the only situations that puts a reverse onus on the defendant to prove that they are indeed not-guilty. Libel and slander are guilty-until-proven-innocent charges. It hardly seems fair. The upside is, if everything you write or say is the truth, then there is no need to worry.
posted
> If something said or written about a dead > person defames them and by extension their > surviving family, there may be legal > grounds for a suit.
You cannot defame the dead. However, if what you say about the dead person defames a living person, that person has grounds for a suit. But it's because of the defamation of the live person, not because the dead person has suffered any injury.
For example, if I falsely say that John Doe, who is dead, was a cuckold, there is no cause for a lawsuit based on the injury to John's reputation. But John's widow would have cause for a lawsuit, because the allegation that John was a cuckold implies that she was unfaithful to him.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
