Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Old Neon
But that would not prevent you or anyone else from writing a story involving a boy wizard, provided you’re not simply plagiarizing Rowling’s work. You might be charged with being unoriginal, but little else.
|
But what do you think will be easier to sell to an uninterested public? "Tchaikovsky writes a fantasy-overture to Romeo and Juliet" or "Tchaikovsky writes a fantasy-overture to a story about a boy and a girl, both 13 years old, who have fallen in lust with each other and think they will die if they are ever separated in the future, and who in the end die because of a misunderstanding about their scheme to break free"?
Also, don't you think that story is a bit too specific not to be recognized as "R&J"? Or should Shakespeare's version then have ended happily, in order to preempt an "unoriginality" lawsuit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
But, with respect, the fact that a work is still in copyright simply means that the composer would have to license the rights, just as an author now not-uncommonly licenses movie rights for a book. It's not a "ban" on it being used.
|
Which would probably mean that only (relatively) rich or established authors can or could let their imagination be inspired by whatever they deem interesting, or vary on a theme, rather than everyone who put his mind to it. Never mind what happens once the author/composer dies, or the rights are in the hands of the publisher. (Like Dostoevsky's
the Gambler, for instance)