Huh. Since that’s not in the public domain, I’m curious how people feel about adapting non public domain works to IF? I thought the prevailing opinion was that it was verboten. Asking sincerely, because I’ve on several occasions given serious thought to adapting Alfred Bester’s “The Stars My Destination” (which is not public domain, though Bester died without heirs and apparently handed the rights over to Forrest Ackerman who has also long since passed without heirs).
Which Legal Region you’re in can influence when a specific novel or an Author’s works can become Public Domain, as the laws that cover that aren’t consistent across all Legal Regions.
eg. Of the detective books published under the Ellery Queen pen name (1) only the two that were released before 1931 have entered the public domain in the US. However in Australia neither of those books would be considered public domain, as the relevant laws have a life of the author plus 70 years cause, which means none of the Ellery Queen books would enter the public domain until around 2053
So a work can be in the public domain in one Legal Region and not in the public domain in another at the same time.
So the question becomes, was this project created by residences of a Legal Region where the period at which the Murder on the Orient Express novel becomes public domain is shorter than that of the US.
(1) the joint pen name for American authors Frederic Dannay (died 1982) and Manfred B. Lee (died 1971)
2 Likes
It’ll be public domain in the US in 3 years. But also, whether it’s illegal and whether it’s immoral are two separate questions. But also also, the title & cover art makes me suspect that the game itself may contain some deliberate commentary on the topic of authorship and adaptation…
2 Likes
Huh, never heard anyone get up in arms about Muggle Studies or Milliways and those are based on works where the authror is still alive and the author has died in my lifetime respectively, and sadly, the posthumous duration of copyright in a lot of places is closer to twice my age than half my age.
I think we’re getting somewhat off the topic here, but generally, transformative fan works (which use the setting/characters of the original to tell their own story) are more acceptable than straight-up adaptations (which tell the same story in a different medium). If people will watch/play/read your adaptation instead of the original, the logic goes, you’re taking business away from the original creator.
I’m not a patron, so I haven’t been able to try this one yet, but from my knowledge of Ryan Veeder I would bet money that this is going to be very different from Christie’s original and not take any business away from her. I eagerly await its eventual public release!
4 Likes
There are a bunch of complicated rules about fanfic. The most important I believe are:
- It must not make money that cuts into the license-holders’ revenue
- It must not attempt to “fool” people into thinking it’s authorized by the IP creators.
- It must observe copyright
- Most fanfic is distributed for free.
- Titles are non-copyrightable. I can write a book called The Shining about metal-polishing and that’s fine as long as it’s not a horror novel about people caretaking a hotel for the winter. If I used the typeface and coloring of the Kubrick movie poster, that might be a problem.
- I can write a story “in the Star Trek universe” but it can’t directly lift anything another author has written that imposes on their copyright. I can write a story about Kirk and Picard meeting in a coffeeshop in 1992 and discussing their Captain strategies so long as I don’t use direct dialog or plot situations lifted from another movie or book. I probably can’t call it a “Star Trek” episode, but Kirk & Picard’s Coffee Kiki is likely fine.
#1 is probably the most important. If you’re not making big money and not soaking up social media attention, IP holders probably don’t even bother. The creators of the fan-made Bridgerton musical were in the clear until they decided to record the work and sell it, which is when the rights-holders stepped in (and in that case were incredibly magnanimous allowing it to proceed as long as they got a cut of the revenue and some creative control - the creators declined, which should have shut them down, but I think it got worked out.)
#2 Starkid made a satire musical of the Wizarding franchise and got wide leeway and permission by changing the title to “A Very Potter Musical” from what was probably a more legitimate-sounding franchise-based title. Likely because WB wanted to keep the potential rights if a legitimate musical came up - they wanted to reserve those royalties, and you can patent a franchise name like “Star Wars”.
#3 There are steadfast satire/parody “markers”: This is why Mad Magazine always changed the names of titles and characters in their parodies to puns or associative jokes. For The Godfather they titled their riff The Oddfather about the Minestrone family instead of the Corleone family.
5 Likes
As I understand it, whether or not you personally are making money is not really legally relevant. What matters more is whether you’re affecting the market for the original work, regardless of whether you personally are profiting. In general, a lot of rules of thumb around fanfic are more about cultural norms & what makes it likely that someone will want to sue you, rather than about actual copyright law. Satire/parody is relevant to fair use, but most fanfics are not satire.
4 Likes
I believe that’s true. I think it really comes down to how aggressively the copyright holders care to pursue protections of their IP. Star Trek fanfic has been mentioned, and while there is a ton of that, including entire fan-made TV episodes, there have also been moments in history when Paramount aggressively attacked fan websites. It really comes down to the whims of the current corporate leadership, which may change its priorities at any time. Any time you’re working with IP that’s owned by a corporation, you’re taking the risk of being shut down.
Knowing all of that, when I asked the question, I was less interested in the reality of copyright infringement, which I understand pretty well (more from a corporate perspective than a legal one), and more interested in the IF community’s feelings about it. For instance, I really doubt that anyone’s going to pursue Ryan’s project because IF is the nichest (nichiest?) thing in the world that flies well under the radar; but regardless, it sounds like folks here are eager to play it based on Ryan’s past works.
And to be clear, I’m just curious, not judging. My opinion when it comes to corporate held IP is almost always Fuck The Man, while I have tremendous respect for creator owned properties.
…but they are Trademarkable in some Legal Regions, as are Character Names.
Isn’t that in the context of a logo/design?
The word “amazon” is not copyrightable, but the their website logo with the smile-design is.
This is veering off topic as things tend to do.
Both a logo but also the actual name of something can be trademarked. For example Twine is a trademark.
2 Likes
- Twine Living: A popular home goods and tabletop brand known for rustic serveware, charcuterie boards, wine accessories, and picnic baskets. [1, 2]
- Twine (Software): A highly popular, open-source application used to create interactive, non-linear stories (similar to digital “Choose Your Own Adventure” games) without needing to write code. [1, 2]
- Twine.com: A customer intelligence and revenue platform designed to analyze sales and customer calls to help product teams prioritize features. [1]
- Twine.net: An online freelance marketplace that connects companies with creative and tech professionals. [1, 2]
I’m not intending to be argumentative, but when I’ve read about these things, it’s like the trademark for “Twine” means someone can’t write another choice-based IF system called Twine, but a store that sells string can’t really be sued along those lines for calling themselves “The Twine Store”. They might have a case if they tried to get a patent when there was already a website selling Twine plugins called “The Twine Store”…but that’s why this topic is confusing.
1 Like
Yes, trademarks are always industry specific. Which can cause trouble when megacorps start spreading into new industries.
3 Likes
Not even industry so much as goods & services. I believe you can have similar trademarks within the same industry, and it’s more about what is the actual good or service that the owner provides. I think the issue comes down to whether a consumer can be confused by one mark vs another mark. In Hanon’s example, I think it could be argued that Twine.com and Twine.net are in the same industry, but offer different services.
1 Like
Also, these days internet searchability.
Recently the movie Wicked had an issue with their website URL, because an adult entertainment company has owned wicked (dot) com for years.
Realizing that I’ve made it this far in my life without ever thinking about the idea of a movie having a dedicated website. Is this common?
Ah, but the Space Jam website is a classic. Space Jam
3 Likes
Yeah, it’s been pretty routine since the early 'oughts, though the level of effort varies quite a bit. Many websites are just one-page marketing flyers while some offer elaborate interactive ARGs.
I guess I’ve just never had a reason to think about looking for the website of any movie. But also, of these examples only the Blair Witch one seems like it has any real sense of purpose.