Would you guys say I cheated?

[William Cook]

It's an extremely honest question. I inherited a book that was written in 'Olde English'. It was given to my Grandfather in 1900 and in its day (published circa 1860). it was a best seller. I read it as a child, and whereas I found the 'perchance and wellnighs' a bit daunting -I was 10 :D - I found the tale to be spellbinding - so two years ago I rewrote it. I kept it's title and even some of the originals authors name. In truth his tale would have and indeed does 'run out' by page 50 of mine. I guess it is good old 'plagiarism' but is it 'honest plagiarism'? The Author was W Bourne Cooke and the death of Author clause on copywrite was researched.

My theory is -better to be honest - than to claim false credit.

[HeronW]

Sounds like plagerism to me. If his tale runs out at your page 50, why not start your story AFTER Cooke's ends? I know it's past the 100 year limit and people do revisions of Romeo and Juliet all the time: West Side Story for ex., but even there it's the concept of warring sides--going back to the Pyramis and Thisbe tale.

You can do a preface: Based on XXXX by W. Bourne Cooke and continue the characters' adventures after his book ends.

[dpaterso]

William David, :) unless you've got any objections, i.e. privacy issues, I'm going to move this thread out of Share Your Work (our WIP critique forum) and into Get with the Genre > Historical Writing (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=119) discussion forum, where you might get a wider range of feedback. Let me know?

-Derek

[William Cook]

Go ahead, I'm fine.

I could not have simply carried on the story, that would have been a negative. The title of the book is in itself a historical reference point relating to the forged papers of Robert Fergusson (The Rye House Plot).

[Marlys]

I think it depends on how much of the original you're using. If you were just inspired by it to write a story about the Rye House Plot, that's one thing. If you're using the same characters, same plot, same situations, and lifting the dialogue, that's another. Once something has fallen out of copyright you can publish it at will, quote it without permission, use the characters in new situations, etc.--but what you can't do is copyright, under your own name, the same material.

Here are a couple of pertinent quotes from the U.S. Copyright Office:

To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a “new work” or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself.

And:

One cannot extend the length of protection for a copyrighted work by creating a derivative work. A work that has fallen in the public domain, that is, a work that is no longer protected by copyright, may be used for a derivative work, but the copyright in the derivative work will not restore the copyright of the public domain material. Neither will it prevent anyone else from using the same public domain work for another derivative work.

So it sounds like a total rewrite could be copyrighted, but any chunks you pull from the original would not be. Plus, if someone in Hollywood wanted to make a movie out of it, they could bypass you and head for the source material, and there isn't a darn thing you could do about it.

If you're really serious about it, your best bet might be to talk to a copyright lawyer, who could help you determine exactly how different your version needs to be to be able to copyright it.

[William Cook]

Hmmm.Interesting - I did use legal research and the wordings that I received was in effect that if the original author had died over 85 years ago and that no other publisher, author or any third party or immediate family member had reprinted any material from the original works then it is basically ok. I am not advocating that everyone should dash out and go to carboot sales and buy as many 150 year old books that they can lay their hands on, because basically the genre would be outdated.

I did however, advise the British Library that it was a rewrite and it got its ISBN number.

You have to bear in mind that each page was a diatribe. Yes I kept the characters, but so did Hollywood when they filmed Errol Flynn's movie 'Captain Blood'. Well according to which version you read then Doctor Peter Blood did in fact get sentenced by Judge Jeffreys, well he's in it to. Richard Doddridge Blackmore's 'Lorna Doone' also is based on the same historical facts and it carries many of the same characters. These were real living people. Dan DeFoe, Pepys, John Churchill, Feversham etc etc all played their part in this period. It maybe a form of plagiarism - to some - but it remains the simple fact that had I not have done it, then maybe it would have been lost.

[Marlys]

Sorry if I wasn't clear before--if something is no longer under copyright protection, yes you can use it. But you can't claim it as your own and copyright it yourself. The quotes I gave you before were from the U.S. Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/)--here are some from the U.K. Intellectual Property Office (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copy.htm):Copyright applies to…written work
Copyright applies to original written work such as novels, newspaper articles, lyrics for songs, instruction manuals and so on. These are known as literary works. Copyright in a literary work lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years.

Original works
A work can only be original if it is the result of independent creative effort. It will not be original if it has been copied from something that already exists. If it is similar to something that already exists but there has been no copying from the existing work either directly or indirectly, then it may be original.

The term "original" also involves a test of substantiality - literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works will not be original if there has not been sufficient skill and labour expended in their creation. But, sometimes significant investment of resources without significant intellectual input can still count as sufficient skill and labour.

Ultimately, only the courts can decide whether something is original.
I didn't realize you'd already self-published it. If your rewrite is substantially different, you should be okay. Hope it turns out all right for you.

[William Cook]

Thanks, it's got me wondering about having used Rafael Sabatini's Character Peter Blood (Based on Henry Morgan anyway :D) - Oh well, the Prisons are too full up. And as Jeffrey Archer said 'Prison's are a good place to write from' so I'll wait quietly for the sirens and the men in white coats.

[IceCreamEmpress]

You can use characters, situations, events from other original works that are out of copyright--look at The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen for instance, or the Flashman series.

But a direct rewrite of another book--that's much dicier. It's not that you may have violated the other author's expired copyright so much as that you may not have done enough creative work yourself to qualify you for a copyright on the "new book."

On the other hand, if the source material is only 50 pages, and your book is considerably longer, you're probably OK. But it's tacky not to acknowledge the source material in detail.

[DeleyanLee]

It's an extremely honest question. I inherited a book that was written in 'Olde English'. It was given to my Grandfather in 1900 and in its day (published circa 1860). it was a best seller. I read it as a child, and whereas I found the 'perchance and wellnighs' a bit daunting -I was 10 :D - I found the tale to be spellbinding - so two years ago I rewrote it. I kept it's title and even some of the originals authors name. In truth his tale would have and indeed does 'run out' by page 50 of mine. I guess it is good old 'plagiarism' but is it 'honest plagiarism'? The Author was W Bourne Cooke and the death of Author clause on copywrite was researched.

My theory is -better to be honest - than to claim false credit.

When you say you "rewrote it"--are you talking about transcribing it from "Olde English" to modern English? If that's the case, then you could be considered the translator, not an original author.

I guess I'm not quite clear on what it is you've done with the original work. Sorry.

[William Cook]

This is all extremely helpful and you all have my thanks. I am formatting a page dedicated to W. Bourne Cooke for future editions. I had done this on press release and blogs.

Thanks David

[girlyswot]

This is all extremely helpful and you all have my thanks. I am formatting a page dedicated to W. Bourne Cooke for future editions. I had done this on press release and blogs.

Thanks David

I think that's definitely the best solution. As a reader I'd be intrigued rather than put off by the fact that you're working from much earlier source material. And it's certainly better to be up front about these things to avoid potential scandal.

And, fwiw, I think it sounds like you did more than enough creative work to count as an original piece eligible for copyright protection. What's copyrighted is not the characters, nor the plot, but the expression of those things - the words.