Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
Well, first of all, we're talking about legends, that were carried verbally before they were written down (although there's argument about Geoffrey versus La Morte d'Arthur, yadda, but we don't need to digress on that). It's hardly surprising that oral legend would adulterate. That's not the same thing as lifting a story, in toto, and mooching it. (IMHO). Not in today's era, when it's not even remotely "accidental," as in, you heard some story someplace, metabolized it, and think you came up with something new.
Reimagining, I can take. Outright recycling or regurgitation is something else altogether.
Hitch
|
Good points. The legends were written long before the idea of copyright was even brought up too. I do agree that outright copying is wrong. Ideas can't be copyrighted but the way that they are presented i.e. the actual word for word text is a different matter. You and I could start with the same premise for a story and as long as I don't copy you or vice versa there is nothing wrong with that. Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot are cases in point. Both deal with detectives who solve what to others seems a mystery, both have sidekicks (i.e. Watson and Hastings) both have official police contacts (i.e. Inspector Lestrade and Chief Inspector Japp) but Christie didn't steal from Doyle. She used some of the same ideas as far as characters and their relationships, but Poirot isn't a virtual clone of Holmes. And you could say the same about Miss Marple and Jessica Fletcher. Both are older women in a small community who find themselves involved in solving murders, but Mrs. Fletcher isn't a virtual clone of Jane Marple either.