Hello, I wanted to write a novel for so long but always had trouble coming up with something original. Now there is a TV show with an amazing plot but it is full of plot holes. Out of fun, I spent the last week creating my own plot based on it. I changed the background story and setting drastically and added my completely different conclusion and complex world building, while the key story events, the pattern of it, the major twists and some characters share obvious similarities. Now I could go further and further and change more and more, but as it is now, this plot I created is very appealing to me. Some people said to me that I should come up with something original or let it be, since the show is pretty recent but at the same time Romeo & Julia, for instance was and is copied over and over again. I wonder how high the chances of being pilloried are, if I release content like that . Thanks for any opinions
Two questions: 1) Just to be clear, the only "inspiration" here is the plot, right? The happenstances and chain of events? The who, what, where, and when of the story is entirely new? 2) For sake of intellectual honesty, how unique and popular is said show? I mean, an unending stream of rehashed tripe comes out of Hollywood. You could be "inspired" by any of that and not even realize it because some plots are bloody ubiquitous. But some things are genuinely unique. Which one is it in your case?
1) The happenstances and chain of events share obvious similarities. The who, what, where, and when of the story is entirely new, correct. 2) Well, it is pretty much top tier in its genre and the absolutely unique and fresh type of plot
The uniqueness is where you may run into some trouble. I won't address legalities because I do not possess the legal competence to do so, but as regards audience engagement... The films Pretty in Pink and Some Kind of Wonderful are both properties that were written, produced, and directed by the same team, so no legal issues here whatsoever, right? If you don't know these two films, the latter is a near perfect reboot of the former, but the romance choice goes the other way. Some Kind of Wonderful is the answer for all the poeple who loved Pretty in Pink, but wished that it had been Andie and Duckie at the end, not Andie and Blaine. My point is, legal issues or no, if you loved Pretty in Pink and then watched Some Kind of Wonderful, you knew exactly what was happening from word go. The actors are all different, the roles are occupied by people of differing genders, all of that is different, but what happens, the dynamics between these characters, is blatantly the same save for the end, which was also blatantly what it was, an answer for those who didn't like the ending of PiP. You may face that kind of acknowledgement from your readers if they are likely to also know the work that inspired you. So, there's that to think about.
Important to note for those reading who feel the need to explain to me just how blandly non-unique these films are, I certainly don't think either film is remotely unique. Both are pretty standard romantic dramedies. But... find both and watch back to back and tell me you don't agree that it's the same film.
That acknowledgement, what you are talking about, is what I personally was thinking(hoping), what would happen at worst. Your example is great, but is it really applicable to my case, if both movies are written by the same people?
The answer to the above question depends on... ... who you're concerned will pillory you? The owners of the inspirational franchise, or the prospective audience? If it's the audience, then yes, it applies.
I see, even though the movies are written by the same people, it was only acknowledged. Of course, I am only worried about the audience. Thanks
And just to play devil's advocate to my own sentiment, think about The Hunger Games franchise. The internet it littered with posts, memes, articles, kvetches, diatribes and self-absorbed monologues about how it's just a reboot of Battle Royale. Didn't stop us from following Katniss on her way to end President Snow, right? So, there's a third question to be asked: How much pillorying do you think you can withstand or are willing to withstand? We've only just met! Who knows, you could be quite resilient. There are always choices to be made in our writing and those choices are bound to get under someone's skin no matter which way we go, no matter which turn we take. I make choices all the time that I know require a bit of skin when it comes to offering them up to be read. But that's okay. Skin, I have.
Point Break begat Drop Zone begat The Fast and the Furious. Absolute paint-by-numbers. F&F series has grossed over five billion dollars.
Very hard question to answer but based purely on taking "inspiration" I think it needs to feel so different that no one would be able to know it came from that idea. But something being unique is a bit subjective. People might think the Hunger Games is unique if they've never read Battle Royale. The more attention this TV show has the more you'd need to change it for publication, however as this is just for fun I wouldn't worry too much. You could always post it somewhere as fan fiction or just keep it as a fun, personal project. Everything you read has been inspired by something else and I have no problems with writers/authors being inspired it's when they lie about it that I get annoyed. The amount of times author have been questioned in their book took inspiration from another and they'll say: "no, never." The likeness is uncanny! Character are almost total replicas. Events are the same. Too much to be coincidence.
There's no such thing as originality. Everything has been done. All you can do is take ideas and come up with your own spin. Ideas are everywhere. Absolutely none of the books you read or the TV shows you watch are original. The writers "borrowed" those ideas too. Honestly, just find something that interests you and write it.
Right, so you're basically doing it exactly as you're supposed to. This is more or less how using your influences works. I would say, though, don't make changes just as camouflage, to make it different. Go for changes that makes the concept more interesting and personally appealing to you. Just speaking from personal experience here, but I suspect is very unlikely that this show you're talking about exactly matches your own style of storytelling. Even in stories I really, really liked I tend to find stuff I would have done differently. Plus, experimentation is fun. Take something old and try to put a new spin on it. Change the gender of a character just to see what you end up with. Find the most satisfying way to subvert a cliché. Have the angsty guy be funny. You know, play with the idea. Playfulness is a very important part of creativity. The trick is having lots and lots of influences and then mashing so many of them together that the end result doesn't quite resemble any given source, and you end up with this Frankenstein-type creation sown together by parts that felt particularly right for you. At a certain point it all turns into this primordial soup of tropes, genres and writing theory in your subconscious and even you won't always be able to tell where a particular idea came from. See, you're not supposed to try to be original. It's just something that happens once you learn to tell your stories your way. I've spent quite a lot of my life writing fanfiction and something I learned from that is that it's actually kinda hard to faithfully copy another creator even when you're actively trying to. We creative types just aren't wired that way, we have a fundamental need to express ourselves. I've occasionally come across stories with premises practically identical to my own ideas - and I knew for a fact this was coincidental - but it turns out those stories were completely different from what I would have written. I wager that if you gave the exact same concept to two authors, they would still produce distinctly different works. Because people are different, and tell stories differently. Yeah, I wouldn't trust those people to know what they're talking about. I'm sure their intentions are good, but it's the sort of misinformed belief popular among those who think they know what a good story should be while lacking comprehension of the creative process. Creating something entirely new, that still works as a story no less, is an unrealistic ambition. And not necessarily desirable, for that matter. In practice, "originality" is really just your ability see discern new variations in old patters, and expressing your own individual tastes and values through them. We can't create something out of nothing, since we're not gods, which is why it's important to have a lot of raw material to draw from. People telling you not to base your story on that show because that's "unoriginal" have it all backwards. You shouldn't be concerned about being influenced, you should be concerned about not being influenced enough.
If this is a real concern, 1. "This is an original work that I was inspired to develop after watching ____________ and thinking that X and Y should have happened rather than A and B. I hope you enjoy my take on ____________. If you enjoy my work, please check out the original story." 2. Why not contact the creator of the original work and ask for permission to play in their sandbox? There is tons of Star Wars fanfic out there and the good ones get licensed by Lucas Films (or Disney now) and become part of the official Star Wars canon. The worst they can do is say no - or maybe perhaps say yes but we'll take a percentage of any sales you have.....?
gee how I miss the 80s! I cannot think of a more tropish romantic story than that of Pretty in Pink. But I always loved the simplicity of its storyline and the fun characters. Very 80s America. That is where the difference is from all the rest, I think. From my point of view, if you change the characters, even when the general theme and the plot (at large) is the same, the story is doomed to change, because different characters do different things. If the characters do exactly the same things as the original story, then the characters are the same or too similar to the original characters.
This is really more like when someone takes the fanfic they wrote and change stuff enough that they can publish it as their own writing, which is something people have openly admitted to doing with no repercussions other than some mild mockery from internet people, and sometimes to great success. More to the point: Joe says he also changed the backstory, setting, world building and the ending. At that point I have to sort of question how much his concept really resembles the original one.
I would not mess with Disney. That corporation is well-known for being extremely vigorous in its defense of its copyright and trademarks. In the early years of YouTube they demanded videos of toddlers dancing be taken down because there was a lo-fi audio of a Disney song being played (much to the kid's enjoyment) in the background, and as recently as 2015 they went after a guy for posting a picture of a Star Wars toy to social media. I'm not saying they're wrong (Did you hear me, Lord Mickey? I mean no criticism!!!!) but their copyright lawyers aren't on retainer, they're on staff.
^ I think you have to have some specific distinguishable reference to the original work, like the song in the background and photo of the toy. But I am not a copyright lawyer. But maybe @joe can have a couple of people who have seen the show also read his story to see if they pick up on the similarities. To me it personally sounds like they are completely different works at this point, and Joe sees it as similar because he knows he worked on the original storyline of the show.
Some information for general background: On the legal side, and in the U.S., the plot is not protectable per se, but the specific expression of the plot can be protected. In other words, you cannot get copyright protection for the general idea of "Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy finds girl again, girl shapeshifts and eats boy." On the other hand, if you used that plot in a book that had a substantially similar sequences of scenes and events to another work, you might very well get into the realm of copyright protection. The choice of scenes and how to order them can form part of the artistic expression necessary to secure a copyright. Another thing to keep in mind is that "substantial similarity" for purposes of copyright infringement is typically analyzed by looking at the works as a whole, and plot could be one factor of that analysis (though as I said above, not sufficient in and of itself to find infringement). Lastly, to what @Iain Aschendale said above, yes if you're going to be close to a protected property the owner of that property does sometimes enter into the analysis. If you're cutting it close with respect to a work by Doug who lives in his parent's garage, publishes on Amazon, and doesn't register his copyrights, you can feel a lot more at ease than if you're getting close to infringement of a Disney copyright. I've dealt with Disney, and they're rabid about their properties. I felt the same way about Warner Bros., who I was involved with on a trademark matter where Warner Bros. was, in my opinion, clearly in the much weaker position legally, but where it was clear they were going to spend my client into oblivion if we didn't concede to their demands. We pretty much did what we wanted. When it comes to the big content owners and their trademarks in particular (distinct from copyright) you really want to steer clear of infringement allegations.
First, you're spot on with the Pip/SKoW comparison. While I personally like both films, I find SKoW funnier and I quote that one more often. But that's beside the point. I'll throw out another example. The football films Necessary Roughness and The Replacements. The latter is a nearly perfect parallel to the former, plot and characters included, only one is about a college team and the other professional. This kind of thing happens all the time in art, whether it be books, film, or music. It brings about the old adage that everything has (maybe) already been done.
I have always advised caution with this statement. As popular as it is; it is a paradox in itself for obvious reasons. I understand that it aims to aid writers who struggle not feeling original; it must be asserted, however, that originality does in fact exist and original stories and ideas tend to reap great rewards. You can claim 1984 to be unoriginal quoting Brave New World as a dystopia beforehands. Then you can point at "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin ... but the trail ends there. It's there as a first, original by its own right and quoted as a father to the dystopian genre. You can attack it with the claim that it used certain elements from earlier sci-fi authors but the point is futile as the originality far outweighs the borrowed ideas. Same goes for Goethe's Faust, for Brecht's Mutter Courage, for the Decameron - these were works that were "first" of their kind and are celebrated achievements of human literature. Was Das Fräulein von Scuderi unoriginal? Sure enough for every original work that got famous there's a dozen unoriginal ones and here you can quote ASOIAF, LOTR or the whole Star Wars universe - point remains; before these existed Dune, Germanic Mythology, Princess and the Goblin, Valerian. Before those? That's the main question/point.
