Have you heard of Fifty Shades of Grey? Originally a fan fiction, posted on FF.net, the rights to publish the trilogy have been obtained by Vintage for a 7 figure sum!
Vintage have asserted that Fifty Shades of Grey deviates substantially from the original fan fiction, but a report from www.dearauthor.com shows that 89% of the text remains the same.
We want to hear your thoughts on this. Is it ok to adapt fan fiction for publication? Does this infringe Stephanie Meyer's copyright? Should Vintage have offered so much money?
P.S As for the money Vintage offered. If the story is good, if they think it can be so successful to earn them that amount and more back, then yes, they should pay that much. The problem I have with this is whether what they did is considered legal since there is such a similarity with the original work, but then again, I don’t think they would dare make such an investment without making sure it won’t come and bite them in the back. I guess, when spending that much money, Vintage made sure they were legally covered to proceed.
@ Isabella Hynde,
What you said about bringing characters back to life is true. Remaking classics for younger audience is a good thing; it should be allowed to happen.
But for the case above, it is not just the character. (and I am not referring to the name. Names mean nothing if you ask me, there are a thousand Scotts out there. The problem is if you steal that specific character with certain personality traits and more)
"Grey deviates substantially from the original fan fiction, but a report from www.dearauthor.com shows that 89% of the text remains the same."
I am wondering about this part right here. If this is true, if 89% of the text is the same, is that considered, well basically stealing another's work? Plagiarism if you prefer. If the similarity is that high, then I would say yes it is. Unless of course you have the author’s concede to do so.
I know there can be a huge debate around the subject, but just using my character that you liked in a different story, using a setting similar to what I have created probably (like Sherlock Holmes in another crime solving adventure) is something that cannot be stopped, unless the character is as you said trademarked.
I will search into Sherlock Holmes more because I think every remake mentions the original author’s name (which I think means they paid whoever holds the rights for Sherlock Holmes)
Should characters be trademarked? I say Yes. Maybe not indefinitely, but if I ever create a character, it means I put a lot into it, and the chances are I am, in a way, "in love" with my character, so while I am still alive, then yes I want the character to be considered trademarked to me. I don't want others using my characters unless I have given my approval first. I believe this is a right any creator has over anything he has created. (Patent law isn’t it? You own the design for a while?)
You asked, does a parent own a child? Well in a way yes he/she does. If he/she is deemed incompetent as a parent, then there is a "legal" procedure to remove them as legal guardians and the court can appoint someone else as the child’s legal guardian. There is a legal procedure because the parent was considered the "owner", the legal guardian when the child is born.
In the case of an author, I believe, the same applies. At the moment of creating a character, when a character is born, the author is the owner (there are of course again legal steps to take and ensure the story is copyrighted to you) and no one can deem an author unworthy of owning his own creation. So unless the author is dead and there is no will, stating an owner of the copyrights, more importantly if the author is still alive, then I think that without his/her concede, any use of her work should be considered illegal and not allowed.
Does an author own the characters by having created them? I can't help asking myself, 'Does a parent own a child?'I think that unless a character name is trade marked then it would be possible for other authors to use that name and character in their own unique way, provided they don't copy sections of text. Jonathan Hopkins (above) poses the question, Is it OK to use the characters that dead authors have created? Perhpas we should ask two questions, Is it right? And is it legal? I would say the The Diary of Bridget Jones' Diary would be in breach of copyright if it were illegal to use characters from authors past, as would The Saragasso Sea which precedes Jane Eyre's Mr Rochester's life in gloomy England and every re-make of Sherlock Holmes. Is it right? Are authors, as creators, owners of their characters? I would hope not. I feel it leaves little room for bringing classics to younger audiences or even classics skeptics. I think it's a great thing to bring characters, long forgotten or unknown, to life in a new or imaginative way. Doesn't it prolong the life of the character? We might even say that bringing a memorable character to life again is a way of extending the shelf life of a dusty old classic and paying homage to an author.