One thing I’ve learned from the Internet is that someone is always going to think that an idea was ripped off from their favorite book/movie/whatever. There’s no point worrying about it.
I was a book reviewer for a time. Here is my advice: the success of “50 Shades of Grey” notwithstanding, you do not want to write a novel that is perceived as “fan-fiction” once you are done. If you are using all the same characters, but just changing their names, don’t do that. If you are trying to emulate the style of writing, and using all the same characters, but inserting your own “new” character, who is “you” by the way - the “new” character is a super-awesome person whom everyone loves, especially the former main characters - don’t do that either.
For the love of all that’s holy, get a copy-writer and an editor, even if you have to pay for them yourself.
If you are inspired by another book, but write your own book, with your own plot, and your own characters, then you should be fine. By all means, leave in subtle clues if you want to.
Well, Lamia, the idea really is a slight rip-off of another, but not in the sense of “A boy takes a DeLorean from Doc Brown and do -whatever- in the past”. Of course not. But in the case of time travels, a lot of them have been literally the same schemes of paradoxes and we don’t consider that they copied or stole the story.
That doesn’t concerns me, because I see that sometimes new stories are better than old ones which did set the original tone.
I don’t think this is right. I’m pretty sure that if you can publish a work without authorization because it’s in the public domain, you can publish it under its original title. A title qua title isn’t necessarily a trademark use by itself.
Titles cannot be copyrighted. Trademarks are something else, but it’s not so simple.
Anyway … concerning character names and their traits. These are definitely covered by copyright law. (Copyright doesn’t just cover the actual words.)
The most famous example is Sherlock Holmes. The characters Holmes and Watson are now in the public domain in the US. Most of the stories likewise. But some are still under copyright. So you can use a trait or reference in one of the older stories but not so if they are from the later ones.
Because of the weirdness of copyright lengths and extensions, the legality of certain adaptations of Sherlock Holmes in different countries varies all over the place.
Not all characters are protected by copyright law. Only those can as a whole be considered a creative work of expression. That means that a character must not only have a name, but an appearance, distinctive personality traits, a history, etc. Stock characters (that is, character types) are not protected under copyright law.
In the article it states clearly that Diamond Comics titled their John Carter piece “Warlord of Mars” to avoid trademark issues, and titled their comic about Tarzan “Lord of the Jungle” for similar reasons. Why would they have bothered if they could simply used “John Carter of Mars” and “Tarzan”?
“Because they want to avoid trademark issues” is a business decision that does not necessarily mean “because it’s infringing under trademark law.” You will note that the article never says definitively that trademark law prohibits them from doing it.
nm