[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.09 MB, 1242x1688, DE3AAC2A-6C80-44FD-BF1C-6F7A5834C1AF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17441810 No.17441810[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Wasn’t sure if /lit/ is the relevant board here, but what do you think about plagiarism and the idea of intellectual property? I saw this whole shitstorm on Twitter, and while I acknowledge that this definitely qualifies as “plagiarism” something feels unsympathetic about it that I can’t put my finger on. The comic looks like garbage compared to the tone of those stills from the short film for one, which makes me wonder if I don’t think plagiarism as an ethical concern is that interesting when it comes to adaptation, if the adaptation is better or sufficiently different from the original. Adaptation to other mediums in general is going to be very different, but especially in this case the tone feels much darker and they made changes to the setting, as well as having the short itself be longer than the comic with additional scenes.

What I’m really unsure about is if I have an issue with direct plagiarism but not “adaptation” in that sense. Like, he was never going to make this film. The filmmakers didn’t deprive him of authorship of his comic, and in fact they put in all of the work regarding the film itself. So the film seems very separated from his intent or efforts. Something seems disagreeable about the idea that a person can own this series of events or similar images and deprive anyone else of the ability to produce entirely different works by their own efforts that were influenced by those images.

>> No.17441822

>>17441810
Not literature

>> No.17441831

>>17441822

What other board would this go on? It’s not about the comic itself, but plagiarism. This seems like it could go on any of the boards about arts.

>> No.17441834

>>17441810
this board is dedicated to that kind of stuff

>> No.17443328

>>17441831
>>17441810
I think you might be retarded. This tweet is bait. Those look like screenshots from The Road.

>> No.17443381

>>17441810
Who gives a shit. There's no """grey line""" or whatever in this sort of thing, if the dude want to press legal charges he can and if he doesn't then he doesn't simple as that. Bitching and moaning on Twitter is just for publicity.

>> No.17443397

>>17441831
Some other gay board.
>>17443328
>Those look like screenshots from The Road.
You seem like the retarded one

>> No.17443433

copyrights usually favour the little guys
both in artistic work and corporate affairs
without copyright laws big companies/producers would just swipe up shit from up-and-coming authors

>> No.17443867

>>17441810
plagiarism is a spook

>> No.17443890
File: 554 KB, 750x747, 77922872-DC64-4944-B325-A4CD5A591BCF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17443890

>>17441810
If you wanna see something really funny, go to the /aco/ commissions thread. There’s an autistic chink who hangs around there 24/7, and is a known tracer. The dude goes through ridiculous mental gymnastics to justify why he’s in the right for charging $200 for a tracer piece of work. Probably my favorite case of schizophrenia on 4chan, and he posts like clockwork.

>> No.17443942

I think as long as the work takes the source material (and ideally mentions it/cites it) and significantly changes/modifies/beautifies it, it is fine. Imagine how much work is based off of ripping off of the Greeks. Imagine how much Shakespeare we wouldn’t have if he didn’t rip off. Chaucer also.

Hell you can even argue against Homer. But the lines of influence, homage, retelling, copy, plagiarism and so forth are very hard to draw.

>> No.17443994

no sympathy at all. copywrite exists for a reason, if youre famous enough to get a blue checkmark on twitter you should have taken the necessary legal steps to protect yourself

>> No.17444048

>>17441810
>I have the copyright of people sitting beside a window and digging
kek

>> No.17444066
File: 170 KB, 753x800, Stirner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17444066

>>17441810
>intellectual property
What are you gonna do? Call the institution with the monopoly of violence to settle this pussy?

>> No.17444288

Imagine making a movie about your fingernail being the seed of a human life.

>> No.17444411
File: 119 KB, 1000x667, 20110112-KM-Showcase-Obama.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17444411

>>17441810
It doesn't really matter if something plagiarized is better than the original, only if it is "transformative" The guy who designed this Obama hope poster got sued into oblivion because he traced a photo. Doesn't really matter if it looks better or not than the original. The fact is he didn't transform the photo into something new.

On the other hand, Christopher Paolini got away with Eragon because although the names were clear ripoffs and the plot was a clear ripoff, he didn't actually take a visual medium to make another visual medium. He took a visual medium and transformed it into a (derivative) literary medium.

If these guys were making a 90 minute movie, and there was a five minute scene where he planted a fingernail and grew a person, then maybe they could get away with it thanks to the other 85 minutes that weren't plagiarized. But because the film maker took a visual medium and turned it into another visual medium, and because I assume the bulk of the film is shot for shot the comic, they didn't actually change anything significant.

They really shot themselves in the foot by contacting the artist after they made the film.