Isn't a story an idea? I mean, if I re-wrote Harry Potter but just changed the names wouldn't I get sued? If I am writing a story and putting it online should I copyright anything? Shouldn't the characters be copyrighted so I can use them in the future?
There must be some protection for characters and settings, otherwise FanFiction wouldn't be in the legal position it is.
The idea is not the story. Here's an idea: a tragic love story in which the two lovers are from groups that hate each other. That can't be copyrighted. Two stories that used that idea are "Romeo and Juliet" and "West Side Story", both of which are copyrighted and neither of which would be mistaken for the other. Yes, if you re-wrote Harry Potter and changed the names, you would get sued. Not because you stole the idea, but because you actually stole the story (and changing character names doesn't change that fact). Mammamaia has, on more than one occasion, posted a link to a site that will tell you everything you need to know about copyright laws (short of contacting an attorney in the field). A search should turn up the thread with the link. Good luck.
www.copyright.gov [for copyright laws/info] www.uspto.gov [for patent and trademark laws/info] everyone who wants to be a writer should familiarize themselves with the laws from the get-go... sulla... what cog is saying is that as soon as you complete any piece of writing [does not mean just writing down an idea for one], it is automatically copyrighted... all that is done after that is to register the already existing copyright, but that's done for you by your publisher, if you have one... you can do it yourself, for $35 at the library of congress' site linked above, but should not do so till you publish it... there's no need to do so unless it's a song or a screenplay, in which case most pros do so at wga, the writers union...
I have used the search function, but either this question hasn't been asked before, or I just can't find it. The book I'm currently writing is a science fiction piece that takes place in a somewhat dystopian/orweillian future, wherein a United Nations type supranational governmental entity has global authority. I have actually mulled over the idea of calling this organization the "United Nations", but I can't find out whether or not there would be any trademark issues to worry about. A close second choice would be "United Earth", but I have seen that name used as backstory to several different franchises. Is there anyway to determine whether either of these names are actually trademarked, or whether they are open game. I understand that this may not seem like it should be as important as I am making it seem, but the interaction between this entity and those around it are actually fairly crucial to the plot line that I have developed. As always thanks for the help.
It appears that the United Nations objected to "United Nations" being used in Doctor Who. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_in_popular_culture That page also mentions:
That's actually why I posed the question. In some franchises, there doesn't seem to be a problem using the UN name, while in others there is. I'm actually thinking of using "United Earth" as a substitute, but again, I can't seem to find any sort of information regarding trademarks regarding either term, although I know both have been used in some franchises.
Characters and fictional locations can be trademarked. This is very common with characters and locations in TV and movies, as well as comic books. It's somewhat less common with novels, but still done at times. Trademarks are NOT automatic, in contrast with copyrights. Each trademark request must be filed with the court and a decision rendered, and a certain amount of research is required, at law office rates.
i'd advise not using UN, for the reasons given above... and trademark violation applies to businesses or products, when the user is in competition with the trademark owner, such as calling your coffee shop 'starbucks'... which does not include simply using the name in a novel, unless you call a character 'batman' or 'ronald mcdonald'... if 'united earth' is a registered trademark, you'd be wise to use a different term for your global gov't... like 'united planet' or 'one world' or whatever... but the bottom line in all such issues is, 'when in doubt, consult a literary attorney!'...
Hi, When in doubt I like to use historical precedents. The UN came into existence after WWII. But prior to that and following on from WWI there was an organization known as the League of Nations. Since that no longer exists and WWII ended 67 years ago I can't see anyone really kicking up a fuss if you used it. You could even jazz it up a bit and call it the International League or some such. I think the UN objects to its name being used in ways that either defame it or make it out to be something it's not. Cheers, Greg.
So I wrote this line of dialogue in my novel "Time will go quicker. More than you can ever know." and for ages it was bugging me because I thought I had heard it somewhere else before. I finally found out where. One of the lines of a Devin Townsend song called 'Bastard' is "Time passed quicker than you will ever know." So... what should I do now?
I don't think it's a problem. I seem to recall a scene in Battlestar Galactica where one of the main character speaks a line from "All along the Watchtower". If it fits it fits.
Never, ever use lyrics in your writing without written permission from the copyright owner. It is a copyright violation, and the music indstruy tends to be particularly litigious. Expect to pay royalties for that permission.
Personally, I believe that the above example is not a direct quote, is a single line, and would easily be defended as a coincidence if it ever went anywhere near a court. Time will go fast. More than you'll know. That seems like an incredibly generic statement so you won't have anything to worry about. If the lyrics are obviously copied, or if they are referred to as lyrics, then you have a serious problem.
If you are having doubts you can always change the words, "Time will go faster. More than you can comprehend" If you're not having your character actually singing the song, I don't see how it could be considered a violation. We're talking about 8 words here, in different context. (I'm assuming.)
You can't dodge a plagiarism lawsuit by making a few changes. If the source is identifiable, expect a process server to knock on your door, and kiss your financial assets goodbye. If in doubt, consult with a literary attorney. Don't bank on reassurances from an Internet forum.
Not over 8 words, otherwise every story that has a character finding themselves in a locked room and thinking "There must be some kind of way out of here." would be slapped with a lawsuit.
Absolutely, but for the above example it isn't and couldn't be. It's a turn of phrase that is probably written in a similar way already in 76.3 billion books. If the next line, and the next line after that were also similar... warning flags. OR if it was something that identifies the song, such as 'This is the end, my friend.' and even then I'd think a lawsuit would be a stretch without more lines in pursuit. Half of my work is probably the same as some line in some song I've never heard.
No, it's not plagiarism. Individual words, common ideas or short phrases cannot be copyrighted. Just like, 'There's no place like home.' isn't copyrighted. I can put it in a book and sell it as much as I want. Don't worry about it. It's a common, generic phrase and you can use it all you want. ~ J. J.
If you're not referencing the song in any way, no other parts of the song are quoted or referenced, and the line of dialogue is about something completely different, in the context of a conversation, I don't think you need to worry. It's not really that unique of a phrasing, and your phrase is different. You can't copyright or trademark something that is in general use and is generic -- for example, how many times are "He sat down" or "I couldn't believe that happened," or any other generic phrases, used in various stories? The phrase isn't something immediately recognizable, and isn't conveying anything really unique.
I've looked back at the original post more closely, and I'm inclined to agree that this would fall under coincidental similarity. Your use of the phrase is not in a lyrical context, nor is the phrasing sufficiently distinctive or of sufficient length to make a case for plagiarism. In that instance, you can be damned sure that permission was carefully secured in writing prior to inclusion in the script. That was not at all coincidental. The occurrences of that phrase, along with other excerpts from the lyrics, was a major plot element, and was additionally reinforced with the rhythms and sequences of notes from the song.
As most of the others have already said, this isn't plagiarism (based on the context). If you're still worried, you could try rephrasing it.
Cogito could very well be right (he is a whole lot more experienced in this type of writing than I am), but if you're asking the question, wouldn't that lead you to believe that others are asking it as well? Then again, if you wrote it, and it was ringing bells because it sounded familiar, then you did plagiarize the line because you took it from another source without attribution. Just because you didn't realize it at the time doesn't mean that's not where it originated. What that means though, is that no one else will know but you if/when you publish it. So in my opinion, the final question is what do YOU think about it?
as worded, it's not a verbatim use of a copyrighted lyric... and it's not being used as a line from a song, which is another thing that would make it plagiarism... i'm a lyricist, so can speak from knowledge gained in studying and practicing the craft... the problem i see with it is that it makes no sense [lyricists often take liberties with grammar that prose writers can't get away with]... 1.'quicker' must be 'quickly' to be grammatical... 2.'more' makes no sense in either case... 3.neither does 'than you can ever know'...
