Where is the line between drawing inspiration and mimicking/ripping off?

You want to give a little more backround? It's very hard to answer with so little information given.

In the hopes that this may help (like the previous poster, I'm not precisely sure what you're asking):

Using the idea of primitive beings shaping the world (as occurs in many myth cycles*) = fine.

Using Lovecraft's primordial entities without permission from the rights-holders = not fine.

Using something called a "touchstone" = fine.

Using a "touchstone" as described specifically in the D&D rulebooks, without permission and outside the D&D universe = not fine.

Using the ancient idea of ley lines for your own works = fine.

Using ley lines exactly as Author X used them, with a name changed = not fine.

The line between inspiration and plagiarism can get a little blurry if you zoom in too close, but generally speaking, if you can look at Book A and immediately recognize Book X, you're pushing your luck.

* - As a side note, some native/aboriginal cultures are very touchy about outsiders using "their" stuff, a backlash against rampant exploitation in the past. It's especially prominent in art; I've heard it's tough to sell Pacific Northwest Coast native-style art if you aren't actually a tribal member. You might want to look into this further, as I'm not sure if the Aboriginal Australians have lawyered up to keep people out of their mythos or not. So long as you don't mimic a particular tribe's myth cycles, though, keeping your inspiration base more general, you ought to be okay...

satyesu said:

Examples I'm not asking about specifically:
a) taking from aboriginal Australian myth of Dreamtime the concept of primordial beings shaping/becoming the world

Click to expand...

Brightdreamer said:

Using the idea of primitive beings shaping the world (as occurs in many myth cycles*) = fine.

Using Lovecraft's primordial entities without permission from the rights-holders = not fine.

Click to expand...

I will add to this that in one of my favourite game series, The Elder Scrolls, the idea of divine beings becoming the world and the moon(s) is present.

It's far too vague of a concept* to be owned by any one culture and it has likely occurred in cultures separated significantly in distance and time with absolutely no knowledge of one another, but you do have to be very careful if your work draws more inspiration from another culture - especially a non-White culture - than just a basic idea.

*The concept being divine beings becoming the world, the moon, the sun, the stars, and so on. Research Japanese Shinto and the origins of some of the Kami and what they became for another example of this.

satyesu said:

Examples I'm not asking about specifically:

Click to expand...

I was going to respond, but I saw the word 'not' there - can you say what you ARE asking about?

Are you concerned about legal problems (as in copyright infringement), or social problems (from, say, cultural appropriation)?

Brightdreamer said:

In the hopes that this may Using Lovecraft's primordial entities without permission from the rights-holders = not fine.

Click to expand...

This isn't true. The stuff of Lovecraft's printed pre-1923 are public domain. And legally people are not sure who even owns the copyright. It's a huge mess.

There's a huge number of books that use Lovecraft's mythos, and specifically name entities in it. A friend of mine not only reads, but writes, Lovecraftian fiction. Hell, just last month a book called "Lovecraft's Monsters" was published, with Neil Gaiman et al in it.

If you had used another author it would have been accurate - using Tolkein or Harlan Ellison or something - then it would have been accurate, but Lovecraft specifically is kosher.

I figure that line that you are asking about is somewhere around Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, where an author can take the work of another author and add just enough original material to make it a new thing.

That's an interesting question. I would stick with Brightdreamer's examples, since they're pretty clear. General concepts are fine to recycle as long as you fill in the unique details with your own creative stuff.

Brightdreamer said:

* - As a side note, some native/aboriginal cultures are very touchy about outsiders using "their" stuff, a backlash against rampant exploitation in the past. It's especially prominent in art; I've heard it's tough to sell Pacific Northwest Coast native-style art if you aren't actually a tribal member. You might want to look into this further, as I'm not sure if the Aboriginal Australians have lawyered up to keep people out of their mythos or not. So long as you don't mimic a particular tribe's myth cycles, though, keeping your inspiration base more general, you ought to be okay...

Click to expand...

I'm going to echo this. I'm married to a guy that's part Cherokee and they are indeed very touchy about being represented by an outsider. It's a delicate issue that comes up throughout many Indian Nations, so be sensitive to their myths and culture.

Rechan said:

This isn't true. The stuff of Lovecraft's printed pre-1923 are public domain. And legally people are not sure who even owns the copyright. It's a huge mess.

There's a huge number of books that use Lovecraft's mythos, and specifically name entities in it. A friend of mine not only reads, but writes, Lovecraftian fiction. Hell, just last month a book called "Lovecraft's Monsters" was published, with Neil Gaiman et al in it.

If you had used another author it would have been accurate - using Tolkein or Harlan Ellison or something - then it would have been accurate, but Lovecraft specifically is kosher.

Click to expand...

My mistake - I should've researched my example. But this also demonstrates why one shouldn't just assume a work is up for grabs based on age or pop culture osmosis; it's essential to know that what you're "borrowing" is actually and entirely in the public domain, or you'll likely be staring down a lawsuit.

Rechan said:

I figure that line that you are asking about is somewhere around Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, where an author can take the work of another author and add just enough original material to make it a new thing.

Click to expand...

If we're talking about copyright, there's no such line.

Anyways, if we're not talking about legal copyright, then it's merely a matter of "If someone picked this up and looked it over, could they tell without question where it came from?"

The saying is that good authors borrow, great authors steal. The trick is to either disguise it so heavily that it's hard to tell, or to own up to it completely and try to use it the best you can. What do I mean by owning it?

Look at the Romeo/Juliet story. How many times has that been done? We know where people are getting it, and they don't try to pass the concept off as original. And yet, there have been excellent versions of it because they are adapting it.

satyesu said:

Examples I'm not asking about specifically:

Click to expand...

???

Layla Nahar said:

???

Click to expand...

That's what I said.

cornflake said:

If we're talking about copyright, there's no such line.

Click to expand...

True, it would be completely against copyright to take a recent novel and do the PPZ treatment without permission. There is, though, a different fine line. How much do you have to change so that you can claim that you're not stealing a character/story? There's the famous example of Nosferatu, which was decided to be in copyright violation of Dracula. They changed a few things to try to avoid trouble--Count Dracula became Count Orlok. And as with any film adaptation, plot points, details, etc, were changed (For instance, Nosferatu introduced the idea of vampires being killed by sunlight). Just not enough to avoid violating copyright.

But there are other vampire stories that could have been told that wouldn't have introduced copyright problems, if they'd deviated much further. The question is just how much? (Of course, by now, both the original novel and the film are out of copyright, so we can plunder them for ideas).

Of course, backing away from copyright, the main reason why I disliked Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was that I didn't think it went far enough in changing the story, so it didn't add anything interesting as far as I was concerned (having read the original a number of times). So if you do ever want to do such things with out of copyright works, I'd suggest doing more to add your spin. Of course, it worked well for Seth Grahame-Smith, so don't pay attention to me.

buirechain said:

True, it would be completely against copyright to take a recent novel and do the PPZ treatment without permission. There is, though, a different fine line. How much do you have to change so that you can claim that you're not stealing a character/story? There's the famous example of Nosferatu, which was decided to be in copyright violation of Dracula. They changed a few things to try to avoid trouble--Count Dracula became Count Orlok. And as with any film adaptation, plot points, details, etc, were changed (For instance, Nosferatu introduced the idea of vampires being killed by sunlight). Just not enough to avoid violating copyright.

Click to expand...

Well in the Nosferatu example, I think they straight up were stealing it. But the changes were just enough to count legally.

Other examples for the discussion are adaptations that cross genres or time periods. The movie Clueless is Jane Eyre with valley girls.

Rechan said:

The movie Clueless is Jane Eyre with valley girls.

Click to expand...

Actually it's Jane Austin's Emma.

Layla Nahar said:

???

Click to expand...

benbradley said:

That's what I said.

Click to expand...

As in, here are some examples of what they're talking about, but they aren't examples of what their story actually involves.

A) you have to credit the original authorship...based on an Australian Aborigine myth and it's better to give the original title.

B) Can't you come up with your own concepts? It's fun and you get to say you invented that concept.

C) Ley Lines--they seem to be overdone see wikipedia and B) above.

Regarding using ideas from the Dreaming. Dreamtime stories exist to teach lessons (on laws etc) and explain creation. They are traditionally performed, not written. In primary school we (as in all Australian children) learn about the stories, and are encouraged to create our own imaginative texts using our own backgrounds and experiences in the styles of Dreamtime stories. Accordingly, I do not believe it would be a problem if you were to write your own story to explain the creation of your beings in this manner. I do think it would be a problem if you used existing stories for your work.

This guide might be of some assistance regarding the protocols and sensitivies regarding Indigenous Australian writing - http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/32373/Writing_protocol_guide.pdf

This is a legal question. Look up plagiarism and fair use. Know that the law is not the same in every country but work has been done to create a universal sense since the world is so global these days. Consult a lawyer in this field to verify that what you are doing is okay before proceeding.