Plot plagiarism by songbird1313 in "Harry Potter" fandom

[rzzmg]

I'd like to report songbird1313's story "HIS" (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/9657492/1/His) on Fanfiction.net for plot plagiarism of Curiositykil's fanfic, "MINE" (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/8795611/1/MineWhat do I mean by "plot plagiarism"? Specifically, it's the lifting of the entire main plot from someone else's fanfic, even going so far as to

Comments

[horustheavenger]

TAPIR Report FFNID 1249646 - songbird1313 - Harry Potter [active] [Resolved: Made Compliant]


http://www.fanfiction.net/topic/124913/95987324/1/Report-FFNID-1249646-songbird1313-Harry-Potter-active-Resolved-Made-Compliant

This case has been resolved over at TAPIR

[anonymous]

I just want to point out that idea's can't be copywriter. Even plots. I can take a plot from any book I want and re-write it into a fic or an original story. Just saying.

[rzzmg]

As a published author, I can assure you that you're quite mistaken. Plots and characters are copyright protected (and in the case of some of them, even trademarked - like 'Harry Potter' or 'Percy Jackson', as they are brands, not just titles).

In a nutshell, copyright protection extends until the copyright expires and assuming no new revisions have been made in the intervening years after the original publication date. Hence the reason you keep seeing new Disney stories "taken out of the vault", given a new cover image, and re-released, or why JK Rowling launched Pottermore and every year, another chapter is 'opened up' to the public (and why she's working on a new movie for the franchise involving Fantastical Beasts and Where to Find Them as we speak [see her Facebook page & local news reports for that announcement]), or why The Hunger Games author pushed for the second and third movies to be filmed back-to-back now for release later this year/next year, or the re-launch of the Star Trek franchise in recent years, or the purchase

[yemi_hikari]

I actually personally already know most of what you're speaking of, but there is a bit I would personally like clarification for.

I thought adaptations of source material didn't actually extend the length of the works copyright. That's why books that came out prior to 1922 can have adaptations made for them even if an adaptation was made after 1922. Sherlock Holmes is a prime example. People can write stories for him despite the fact some of the works are still under copyright. Re-releasing a new edition though did extend the copyright length.

[josephinestone]

Um, no.

If any fan fiction or fan artists are doing revisions of their work for this purpose they are wasting their time. When copyright was first invented, or I guess maybe a better word would be passed, they lasted for 14 years and at that point you simply filed for an extension which would last another 14 years if you wanted to. You could keep doing this until you died. (This is the way it should have stayed.)

The whole point of copyright was to get as much into the public domain as quickly as possible by encouraging artists to create more art. (If you can't make any money off your art, and others are allowed to out sell you for your own creation (by offering it for cheaper prices-which is what was happening at the time) it doesn't really motivate anyone to create it.) The limited time frame was 14 years. Now "As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years."

No one's copyright will be expiring in their lifetime. It is impossible based