Influence vs Plagiarism

D

daveswan

Well-known member
Or, where does one become the other?
I'm not trying to start an argument, merely trying to do right.
I'm fairly new to scriptwrighting, but I've been around long enough to have picked up any number of influences, and can see some of them in the script I'm working on now, a 30ish min short, very low budget, involving ideas from Norse mythology, science ficion, Clarkes Third Law and Cargo Cults, so how to allow for and accept the ideas I may have picked up, while keeping the story my own, and not (Inadvertantly) being laid open to charges of plagiarism.
Sorry if this seems a little rambling .

Dave
 
Sure doesn't sound like a road to plagiarism. Just write the damn thing. All good writers steal. Don't worry so much.
 
If you wrote a script about an archeologist in the WW2 era who went on an adventurous quest to Africa to retrieve a fabled Christian artifact of great power before the Nazis could get hold of it -- that might border on plagiarism. :)

Basically, plagiarism (to my understanding) is less about building on someone else's general theme, and more about word-for-word copying of their writing. I mean, if you essentially stole a script scene-for-scene (first scene takes place in a graveyard, second scene in a mortuary, third scene in a dentist's office, etc.) then you could be guilty of plagiarism.

But I agree with brianluce -- it doesn't sound like you're anywhere near that edge at all. Influences are wonderful things. So have at it!
 
Many thanks! I didn't think I was in danger, but wanted some input from more experianced folks.
Funnily enough, the first scene does take place in a graveyard, but goes its own way after that.
Cheers,
Dave
 
There is a great Romanian proverb that says ...

Talent imitates, Genius steals.

To plagerize it to copy verbatim and call it your own. To be influenced by is to follow a thread of consciousness, and take it to the next logical step (or illogical, depending on your intent).

I'd pick the latter, and make sure your work has enough original components to set it apart.

a

www.alexwhitmer.wordpress.com

www.guerro.wordpress.com


.
 
Additionally, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with a superior execution of an old idea. People seem so quick to label stories as unoriginal these days. Personally I don't mind it when someone takes a concept that's already been done and improves upon it if they can do so well. I mean, hell, look at Hollywood Westerns. There are only a few Westerns whose stories contain a lot of originality, but I love the genre.

I'd be interested to see others' thoughts on this.
 
Duff said:
Additionally, in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with a superior execution of an old idea. People seem so quick to label stories as unoriginal these days. Personally I don't mind it when someone takes a concept that's already been done and improves upon it if they can do so well. I mean, hell, look at Hollywood Westerns. There are only a few Westerns whose stories contain a lot of originality, but I love the genre.

I'd be interested to see others' thoughts on this.
Click to expand...

There's probably only a few great stories that are retold over and over again with different packaging. For example,

The Faustian archetype, Medea ("the last seduction", "fatal attraction"), the impossible quest, Cinderella, the coming of age story.

they've all been done. Can you come up with a fresh take?
 
chapelgrovefilms said:
If you wrote a script about an archeologist in the WW2 era who went on an adventurous quest to Africa to retrieve a fabled Christian artifact of great power before the Nazis could get hold of it -- that might border on plagiarism. :)
Click to expand...
That's much, much too general to be plagiarism. It would be a bad idea to write that script, but it wouldn't be plagiarism. You have to rip-off very specific story elements to be found guilty of plagiarism, and I mean very specific.

You could probably even throw in a bit about the archaeologist being estranged from his historian father, who has been kidnapped by the Nazi's, and that still would not legally count as plagiarism.

That idea could be taken in many ways, and could be completely different in the hands of different writers.

As long as your scenes are your own scenes, you're pretty safe.
 
That's why I said that it "might border on plagiarism." It was actually a tongue-in-cheek comment. Should've put a :) at the end of it.

Imitation is certainly revered in Hollywood. Look how many movies were made about the Titanic disaster before "Titanic" came along.
 
In legal cases, plagiarism is hard to prove. You can't copyright an idea, so a case must hinge on the specific way that ideas are told.

For instance, the producers of Spielberg's Amistad were sued. The movie is based on a true story (fair game) but the author of the book "Echo of Lions" claimed specific storytelling devices and characters had been lifted from her work. (She didn't win, by the way.)

Some court cases that have been successful... Nosferatu was a steal from Bram Stoker's Dracula. The character names were changed, but that wasn't enough.

Also, as wonderful as Fistful of Dollars is, that's a steal from Kurosawa's Yojimbo. Those wacky Italians thought they could get away with just changing the setting, but Kurosawa sued and won.
 
I always like to consider plagiarism in regards to Star Wars, if you use your "influences" (i.e. Hidden Fortress) well enough most people will forget/ignore the extent to which you've drawn from them.

That said, the shear difficulty of thinking a truly 'original' thought these days makes plagiarism a murky issue. Homage, influence and inspiration can all contribute to a creative endeavor without being considered plagiarism. From the sound of things, you're not treading dangerously.
 
I have a question regarding inspiration and plagiarism.
When does one become the other?
I'm not trying to start an argument, merely trying to do right.
I'm fairly new to script-writing, but I've been around long enough to have picked up any number of influences, and can see some of them in the script I'm working on now, a 30ish min short, very low budget, involving ideas from Norse mythology, science fiction, Clarkes Third Law and Cargo Cults, so how to allow for and accept the ideas I may have picked up, while keeping the story my own, and not (Inadvertantly) being laid open to charges of plagiarism.
Sorry if this seems a little rambling .

Jack
 
Well, let's put it this way: if you were plagiarizing, you'd know it.

Look at the "Vampirates" thread, lots of people saying "hey, that was my idea!" Similar/identical ideas happen to multiple people all the time across this globe. You come up with an idea that you think's unique, you're doing the right thing -- even if it turns out that 200 other people have already registered similar-themed scripts.

But when you deliberately set out to take or copy someone else's work? You'll know that. And that's plagiarism.

For example: if you were to copy the original poster's post word-for-word, that'd be plagiarism. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Neither copyright infringement (the legal bad) nor plagiarism (an ethical but not a legal bad) are cut and dried. They're both the subject of great debates and lengthy lawsuits, so when you cross the line in either case is just not very clear. If you're already asking yourself the question, I doubt you're going to violate either of them, because you'll take precautions not to.

With plagiarism, you risk bad reviews. E.g., "This movie was a derivative and hackneyed re-hash." Or, "I dunno, seemed an awful lot like that movie I saw last year, and the one last year was better."

With copyright infringement, you risk a lawsuit. E.g., That person obviously saw my work and then "copied" substantial portions in the creation of their own work.

In both cases, there's considerable subjectivity in drawing a conclusion. What is similar? How similar is too similar? It's blurry!

I say, if you happen to have themes and events that are like another movie, it's not big deal, since almost all movies are drawing from themes and events in other movies. If you feel like it's too close to another movie, I bet it will still be your own "legally" and you're safe, but you can also ask yourself if it needs some additional twist or change to make it fresh for the audience who saw the other movie too.
 
The truth about copyrights and trademarks.

The truth about copyrights and trademarks.

1) A copyright notice is not required to have a copyright.

2) Merely making the copy is a violation. No profit is required.

3) The internet does not make it public domain.

4) Stories based on someone else’s story do not belong to you. Fan fiction is a violation.

5) Fair use is allowed but it’s very complicated and varies in different jurisdictions.

6) If you don't defend your copyright you don’t lose it. Trademarks are the opposite.

7) Titles and ideas can not be copyrighted. You could make a movie called Titanic, or make a movie about the Titanic sinking.

8) Trade mark protection is completely different and can protect colors, shapes, pictures or names as long as they are unique. Names are trademarked, not copyrighted.

9) Copyright law suits are based on a burden of proof called a ‘preponderance test,’ generally interpreted as 51% positive in order for them to rule against you. It’s not much. Beyond a reasonable doubt doesn’t apply.

10) Write facts and ideas in your own words and you will not be in violation of a copyright.

A copyright notice used to be required to have a copyright, but that changed completely in April 1, 1989. Now everything is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. Before that people lost their protection if they didn’t use the notice.

There is another issue of using someone’s likeness for a commercial purpose that is also prohibited. However, if you charge for the copy higher damages are likely to be awarded to the copyright holder.

Now nothing goes in the public domain unless the author specifically puts it there.
In the old days things became part of the public domain over time.
The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law is for commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author, but can still violate copyrights if they damage the original or intend to damage the original. Fair use is more likely to be found if it’s short and attributed. Other countries are different.
Internet copyright law was changed in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and vastly reduced the fair use doctrine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top