Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

Is it ok to write unofficial continuations of unfinished fictional stories abandoned by the original poster as long if they ok with it?


Go to solution Solved by Kyuu,

Recommended Posts

Just curious, I've noticed some fictional stories on this site are unfinished to this day and I want them to be finished soon, but it look like these stories have been abandoned by the original posters, is it ok to write unofficial continuations of unfinished fictional stories abandoned by the original poster as long if they ok with it?

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, vizzing said:

It would probably be best to have the original story writer comment their permission with the handle of whoever is going to continue their story. Otherwise how could we be sure that permission was actually granted. I’m not an admin btw. Just a fellow tale spinner. 

So if the author of the story isn't online in a very long time, should we consider their permission was granted or not?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, brown1410 said:

So if the author of the story isn't online in a very long time, should we consider their permission was granted or not?

I'd say no. What if they show up again? Don't mean to sour your day, but content someone else makes should be their own. I'm with you though that there's some fantastic unfinished stories on this site.

Maybe there's a way around it with fan fiction, and starting a new thread. I'd say never take over someone else's story thread, for sure.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, vizzing said:

I'd say no. What if they show up again? Don't mean to sour your day, but content someone else makes should be their own. I'm with you though that there's some fantastic unfinished stories on this site.

Maybe there's a way around it with fan fiction, and starting a new thread. I'd say never take over someone else's story thread, for sure.

Is it ok to make a separate thread with my own continuation of the story as long as the author is ok?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, brown1410 said:

Is it ok to make a separate thread with my own continuation of the story as long as the author is ok?

It's really up to the original author. Personally, I'd be flattered if someone made a fan fiction of my work. But I'm sure there's plenty of people that would not be happy finding that their work was continued by someone else. There's no way to be sure without getting direct permission from the story writer.

I'm curious which story has you so riveted?

Link to comment
  • 5 weeks later...
On 5/12/2024 at 3:38 PM, DerivativeWings said:

If you do anything like this, it should definitely be it's own thread. Linking to the original thread would be good form. I think writing a continuation of sorts is somewhat okay since at that point you're essentially writing fanfiction of another author's story. However, even that could be taken to be a little rude.

Yeah, I think there's some context dependence here. Let's make a concrete example:

Imagine someone posts an unofficial ending to jailor eckmans Off-Limits series before the official story is finished. If it's clearly labelled as fan created, and the author does not insult the original creator (e.g. "Jailor is lazy and takes too long to draw panels, so I finished the story for them... It's probably better than anything they could come up with anyway") I see no reason as to why it's more or less offensive than someone writing a Harry Potter fan fiction. It comes under free use policy and I don't need JK Rowling's express permission for this. Of course, if she requests it be taken down then I should do so.

Furthermore, it's good for the writing community and probably quite flattering for the original creator. 

Just need to make sure appropriate credit is given and the unofficial status is clearly communicated. 

Link to comment
On 6/10/2024 at 6:08 PM, OmorashiPotato said:

Yeah, I think there's some context dependence here. Let's make a concrete example:

Imagine someone posts an unofficial ending to jailor eckmans Off-Limits series before the official story is finished. If it's clearly labelled as fan created, and the author does not insult the original creator (e.g. "Jailor is lazy and takes too long to draw panels, so I finished the story for them... It's probably better than anything they could come up with anyway") I see no reason as to why it's more or less offensive than someone writing a Harry Potter fan fiction. It comes under free use policy and I don't need JK Rowling's express permission for this. Of course, if she requests it be taken down then I should do so.

Furthermore, it's good for the writing community and probably quite flattering for the original creator. 

Just need to make sure appropriate credit is given and the unofficial status is clearly communicated. 

I'm not sure what you're going to accomplish coming into this thread five weeks later to try to countermand the general consensus of the thread, the owner of the server, and to cite a legal doctrine that doesn't exist. "Free Use" is not a legal concept. You don't know what you're talking about.

It's exceedingly rude to use other people's canon and characters without their permission, especially if they're personal and not part of for-profit enterprise. Don't do it. If you're so horny for someone else's work, write it for yourself and don't publish it.

Edited by Sonador (see edit history)
Link to comment

Whoops, 2 mistakes on my part: 

1) didn't realise the thread was that old, my bad

2) I meant "fair use" not "free use"

 

This is an actual real concept, I didn't just make it up. 

 

P.s. I think the claim that it's "exceedingly rude" is silly. You're basically getting mad at someone else's headcanon of your content. It barely affects the original author if clearly labelled fan content exists around their canon. Look at Undertale fan games: those are all passion projects, but nobody thinks it's disrespectful to write a story about a character from an undertale fan game. That's because it really isn't.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, OmorashiPotato said:

Whoops, 2 mistakes on my part: 

1) didn't realise the thread was that old, my bad

2) I meant "fair use" not "free use"

 

This is an actual real concept, I didn't just make it up. 

 

P.s. I think the claim that it's "exceedingly rude" is silly. You're basically getting mad at someone else's headcanon of your content. It barely affects the original author if clearly labelled fan content exists around their canon. Look at Undertale fan games: those are all passion projects, but nobody thinks it's disrespectful to write a story about a character from an undertale fan game. That's because it really isn't.

It's exceedingly self-righteous to argue within a concept in which the author's feelings are diminished or inherently taken for granted as positive, and then back it up behind a complete lack of understanding under Fair Use. You're essentially giving a layman's misunderstanding of the law. Fair Use does not explicitly protect derivative, transformative work on its own without consideration of the context, it is not carte blanche to violate IP law. It is an affirmative defense to trademark or copyright infringement, which means you are admitting you're taking something that belongs to someone else by doing it.

More importantly, you're completely eschewing the author's feelings and passion for their work taking their characters and setting and doing something else with it. If someone took my fursona, an emulation of myself, and did things with them that I'd never do, it'd be emotionally devastating and the author abusing my personal work for their own gain may never even realize it.

No, using someone else's work without permission is exceedingly rude. It takes 5 minutes to ask for permission and have basic respect for your peers. There is myriad difference between adapting something made explicitly for commercial enterprise and profit, and something deeply personal and expressive to the author as well.

I'd do some soul searching and bone up a little on IP law. Saying an author should be glad someone else is taking their ideas and doing whatever they please with it is not a good look. Headcanon is fine, you can think whatever you want, get off to whatever fantasy you want, write an entire library of fan works if you want. Publishing, for profit or otherwise, especially for sexually explicit purposes, works involving other people's personal projects or ideas without permission is a fine line to walk; and explicitly doing it without asking at all is a garbage thing to do.

Edited by Sonador (see edit history)
Link to comment
On 6/13/2024 at 3:29 AM, Sonador said:

It's exceedingly self-righteous to argue within a concept in which the author's feelings are diminished or inherently taken for granted as positive, and then back it up behind a complete lack of understanding under Fair Use. You're essentially giving a layman's misunderstanding of the law. Fair Use does not explicitly protect derivative, transformative work on its own without consideration of the context, it is not carte blanche to violate IP law. It is an affirmative defense to trademark or copyright infringement, which means you are admitting you're taking something that belongs to someone else by doing it.

More importantly, you're completely eschewing the author's feelings and passion for their work taking their characters and setting and doing something else with it. If someone took my fursona, an emulation of myself, and did things with them that I'd never do, it'd be emotionally devastating and the author abusing my personal work for their own gain may never even realize it.

No, using someone else's work without permission is exceedingly rude. It takes 5 minutes to ask for permission and have basic respect for your peers. There is myriad difference between adapting something made explicitly for commercial enterprise and profit, and something deeply personal and expressive to the author as well.

I'd do some soul searching and bone up a little on IP law. Saying an author should be glad someone else is taking their ideas and doing whatever they please with it is not a good look. Headcanon is fine, you can think whatever you want, get off to whatever fantasy you want, write an entire library of fan works if you want. Publishing, for profit or otherwise, especially for sexually explicit purposes, works involving other people's personal projects or ideas without permission is a fine line to walk; and explicitly doing it without asking at all is a garbage thing to do.

Firstly, I only raise fair use as an example of societal precedent on this issue, not because I care about copyright law. If you look at my comments, I've always maintained that people should admit that they have used other people's work when making derivative content, so this is a moot point.

Secondly, I agree with you that someone using your fursona in a derivative work would be disrespectful and emotionally damaging. That's because a fursona is a distinct thing from a story canon. If you were to write your fursona into a story, this would be a self insert character, and it would be weird and disrespectful for someone to write a fanfiction using this character. 

What I'm arguing isn't that there is no potential harm involved in derivative work. I'm arguing that instances of derivative work are so variable in their ethical status that they should be assessed on a case by case basis. The story with your self insert character, who you care a lot about and maintain, is very different than a short story written 10 years ago by an inactive user. In one case, it is very easy to be disrespectful trying to write derivative work. In the second, it is going to be viewed as permissible.

This is a general feature of stories. They can be harmful or they can be uplifting. If it is possible for me to write an omorashi story about soldiers in WW2, which is really disrespectful to them and trivialises the tragedy of that war, should all omorashi fiction be banned? While this is an extreme example, I'm trying to highlight that just because the potential for a medium to harm exists, doesn't necessarily mean this medium should be shunned.

Should I consult the people who would read my story before I write it? Probably, I would have quickly seen that the story would be ill recieved. Am I absolutely obligated to before I write it? No. In the same vein, I should contact the author before writing derivative work, but in a case where I deem it unreasonable or unnecessary (e.g. author is inactive for many years), I do not have a categorical obligation to do so.

If I choose not contact the author, I assume the risk of causing harm and the responsibility that comes with that. But it is my choice to assume that risk just as every author does when they publish fiction that may be controversial. It is also the audiences freedom to shun and vilify for taking that risk.

The community here will organically eliminate harmful derivative work, as I'm sure you'll agree it would with an original story (see the hypothetical WW2 story). But the fact of whether the original author is consulted does not de facto determine whether the work is disrespectful; this is for the community to decide. Likely, the community will eventually decide in favour of how the original author feels (e.g. the community feels that the work is disrespectful, but the original author reveals that they liked the work, so the community changes their mind). This is where the importance of the original authors feelings lie: they hold a large sway over the opinion of the community on the work. I am allowed to choose not to consult the author and hope that their opinion is positive, but usually this is a completely unnecessary risk to take.

To distill my point, I'm arguing that sitewide litigation against writing a short story without the authors permission is unnecessary. It would be like litigating against shooting yourself in the foot. Except that not contacting the author is reasonable in many more situations than shooting yourself in the foot would be. We would lose more good fiction than we would eliminate harmful fiction with this rule (as harmful fiction is already going to be eliminated by community vitriol). I'm arguing that in Kyuu's response, the "should" ought to be a strong recommendation, but not an immutable law.

Looking back, the original statement in my P.S. is poorly written, and does imply the sort of disregard for the author that you attributed to me. I was trying to point out that most of the derivative work that is already published on here doesnt negatively affect the authors (in fact the authors are usually flattered) - not argue that authors must always enjoy derivative work. Im sorry for this miscommunication.

 

Hopefully you understand my point a bit more. I'm happy to leave the discussion here, as I understand your point of view and feel I've articulated mine in a more understandable way. 

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this website you acknowledge that you are at least 18 years of age and agree to be bound by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy