Write On! :: Discuss the art and craft of writing

A case for an open universe?

by gitm
Posted to Publishing, Musings on Fri May 24, 2002 at 02:11:26 PM PST
[Print]

There are many 'universes' (detailed fictional environments) currently established. From the commercial franchises of Star Trek and Star Wars to the individually developed universes of authors such as Peter F Hamilton (Nights Dawn), Isaac Asimov (Foundation) and Robert A. Heinlein (Future History). Generally these universes have a high barrier of entry (legally and monetarily in the case of the franchises and being compared to the original authors in the case of the others). Is there a need (or desire) for an open universe, developed by a group of like minded authors and shared in a similar way to open source software?

This is a question that has been nagging at the back of my mind for over 2 years. Sometimes the nagging gets enough for me to actually take some action (my sourceforge project Trident Rising is the initial [and admittedly poorly updated] first attempt at trying to realise this ideal).

The project is far from dead, I have been doing a lot of work on my own systems to try and realise this dream. Hopefully I will be able to unleash the fruits of my labour on an unsuspecting world in July (I'm waiting for my ADSL connection to be installed).

Now, my biggest concern is the level of collaboration I can expect to see. Would you (as an author) be willing to write a short story or novel based in a universe not developed by you? Would you be willing to contribute parts of that work (such as major characters, significant environmental or technical devices) to anyone else who chose to use them in their pieces?

There are also significant legal issues to be overcome. I would like to see all contributed work become available under a license similar to the Open Content License (a GNU based license). All copyright of course would remain with the original author. In a 'blue-sky' future I would even like to see anthologies of user submitted fiction published - the appropriate royalties going to the appropriate authors but all content still freely available. How many authors would be willing to contribute under these restrictions? What sort of legal hurdles would need to be overcome to support these ideals?

Does anyone here have any ideas/suggestions/comments on this matter? I would love to hear your feedback.

Make a new account

Poll

Votes: 11
Results	\|	Other Polls

Related Links

A case for an open universe? | 23 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden)

Sounds like a neat idea (none/0) (#2)
by janra on Thu May 23, 2002 at 05:23:03 AM PST

I do have a couple of comments about the description on your sourceforge site, since it goes into more detail about the license than you do here.

First off, the GNU licenses don't prohibit people from making a profit, they just require that any changes they make are released back to the project. Your description is of a GNU-like license, but isn't GNU. My question is, why can't an author sell a story they've written that uses the open universe as a base? It should be submitted to the project, and possibly accepted into the history. Perhaps stories that have been accepted like that can have a small logo or something indicating that they are part of the official history of the universe. With the full text available on the Trident Rising site, the author may or may not be able to get it published; this is an area that is unknown. I've heard that some publishers won't buy a manuscript if it's published elsewhere, and they count it as published if it's publicly available.

Secondly, just like any coding project, this can't be a free-for-all; there needs to be a maintainer who decides what stories/ideas are incorporated into the official "distribution" (ie, the official history of the universe) and which don't. You mention having a dynamic encyclopedia similar to Kuro5hin (or this site, they use the same engine behind the scenes), and while having such a collaborative filter is great, you may not want to have anything that makes it through the queue become official. Complete crap makes it through the queue sometimes.

Thirdly, to address your comment about allowing fanfic: using the universe in a story isn't at all separate from contributing to it; they are one and the same. Any story written and accepted contributes to the history, defines relationships between characters, and adds to the timeline. If "fanfic" is accepted into the official history, is it still fanfic? I think not, and therefore the only fanfic would be those stories that are not accepted into the official universe, possibly because they directly conflict with an existing bit of history or break some of the "natural laws" of the universe.

I'm sure I'll think of more to say later, once my subconscious has had a chance to chew it over.
--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?

Licensing and control (none/0) (#4)
by gitm on Thu May 23, 2002 at 01:29:11 PM PST

That was the issue for me - whether publishers would accept material that is publicly available. I would hope that people could make money from their work in the universe as well as contributing to the richness of it.

The open content license was just one type of license I was considering - I was hoping that readers here could point me at a few more alternatives :)

Secondly, just like any coding project, this can't be a free-for-all; there needs to be a maintainer who decides what stories/ideas are incorporated into the official "distribution" (ie, the official history of the universe) and which don't.

I've been chewing over this issue for quite a while. The problem of having no maintainer leads to all sorts of rubbish becoming part of the whole. On the other hand having a single maintainer can lead to other agendas being followed which may or may not coincide with the goals and desires of the contributers. Perhaps a BSD like group of maintainers, voted for on a regular basis?

The logo suggestion is a good idea :)
--- This space for rent.
[ Parent ]

: maintainers (none/0) (#6)
by janra on Thu May 23, 2002 at 03:18:53 PM PST

Perhaps a BSD like group of maintainers

...there is no TR cabal!

;-)

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?
[ Parent ]

I'm torn... (none/0) (#7)
by Slothrop on Mon Jun 17, 2002 at 02:35:13 AM PST

as to whether this is a good idea or not. As a rule, most of the fiction produced for these universes is pretty bad. And by bad, I mean utterly terrible. While I'm generally opposed to this sort of thing, I think that this is something a little different. Kind of like a book with two authors, or something. So I don't think that it's entirely unworkable, which is my opinion of sharcropping universes. I think this mostly because it would be more collaborative, rather than the usual case of one brilliant author letting other people play in his yard.

Suggestions:

Work on a first draft universe. Release it to people. Hold a story competition. The three best stories are the other three members of your committe.

Be harsh on quality control. Very harsh. If it isn't publishable, then it doesn't get the committee stamp of approval. A high standard should be held to at all times. No nepotism or other stupidity should be allowed. A story can only be approved by a positive vote from the whole committee.

Basically, build it like any community project. Get people interested and then find some lieutenants. Remember that quality is always job one, as stupid as that sounds.

re: I'm Torn ... (none/0) (#8)
by gitm on Tue Jun 18, 2002 at 02:08:21 AM PST

The general level of quality of fan fiction is something I am worried about. Your suggestions are really very good.

From my experience with open source coding projects people don't generally contribute to projects that don't have a fairly decent base already established - this is what I'm working on now for TR. This is also important if I want to retain control over the direction and theme of the universe.

The story competition idea is excellent! I never thought of that method of recruiting the committee - I'm definitely going to use that method. Thanks.

Regards,
Shane
--- This space for rent.
[ Parent ]

fanfic quality (none/0) (#9)
by janra on Thu Jun 20, 2002 at 08:21:49 PM PST

The general level of quality of fan fiction is something I am worried about.

Actually, one of the things I've noticed about the (small amount of) fanfic that I've read, is that they're not bad - for first drafts. In other words, they need editing in a big way, but they have a decent story.

Of course, maybe I just haven't seen the truly awful crap out there... :-) I freely admit that I rarely read fanfic.

--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?
[ Parent ]

: RE: fanfic quality (none/0) (#22)
by AaronAgassi on Mon Dec 08, 2003 at 06:48:02 PM PST

However you've pulled it off, you've proven somewhat discerning in your selection. Alas.

[ Parent ]

Open Source Universe (none/0) (#10)
by zonker on Fri Jun 28, 2002 at 10:00:03 AM PST

I might be willing to contribute to a collaborative project that uses the same "universe" but I would want control of my characters. I mean, I wouldn't mind someone writing a story that references a character that I create or something - but I'd be worried that someone else would botch my vision of a character and I don't see the bonus in allowing that. Writing is very different than coding in that it's much more personal. If I write a PHP function for updating websites, all I really care about is that it works. When I create a character, I probably have a very definite vision for that character and having someone else take a whack at them is going to be painful. Quality aside, it's unlikely that another person will have the same vision that I do.
Dissociated Press - A Boy and his 'blog

Another Thought... (none/0) (#11)
by zonker on Fri Jun 28, 2002 at 10:27:15 AM PST

What we really need is shorter copyright periods. An author should be able to profit off of their work for the span of their life, but the idea that no one in my lifetime will be able to write a story using Star Trek characters (for example) without paying through the nose or working for the copyright holder is ridiculous. The current span of copyright is just too long, cut it to the life of the author or 50 years - whichever comes last.
Dissociated Press - A Boy and his 'blog

Hey, we agree that copyright is too long. Wasn't it originally supposed to be a limited monopoly granted to the author? If it endures for the lifetime of the author, then from the perspective of the author it's not exactly limited, is it?

Having copyright for the original 14/28 years is probably better for society. Although I'm torn: it would really hurt to see people messing around with my writing once it hits public domain, especially if they do stuff I don't like; but at the same time, I want everything to become part of our common pool of knowledge. Of course, in 28 years I might hate my writing and not care if people mess with it. :-)

And, a link that I just have to post every time the discussion of copyright terms comes up: Melancholy Elephants.

--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?
[ Parent ]

Term of copyright... (none/0) (#14)
by zonker on Sat Jun 29, 2002 at 07:32:02 PM PST

If it endures for the lifetime of the author, then from the perspective of the author it's not exactly limited, is it?

Well, this is true...but I've interpreted it as "limited" in terms of society, not the author. Maybe the founders did intend for the copyright to expire while the creator was alive... I'm not sure. It just seems unduly cruel to an author to have to see their work butchered by others. I don't worry so much about the idea of things like fan fiction, I think about Disney ravaging someone's works the moment the copyright expires or seeing the Doonesbury characters used to advertise Pepsi or something...(I'm pretty sure that most of the original Doonesbury characters would now be public domain with a term of 28 years...)

Also...it's useful to remember that the average life-span has increased quite a bit since the founders came up with the original terms.

If I had to choose between 28 years and the near-infinite extensions that Congress has been granting, however, I'd take 28 years. There's no doubt in my mind that the benefit to society would far outweigh the effects on authors or other artists...
Dissociated Press - A Boy and his 'blog
[ Parent ]

: copyright history (none/0) (#20)
by janra on Wed Sep 18, 2002 at 11:09:43 AM PST

It's a wierd one. In the UK in the 1600's, it was less copyright and more censorship, but in the 1700s copyright was formulated more or less as we know it today, and the US adopted the UK copyright law, along with a good chunk of the rest of the legal structure and common law, when they finished their revolution and went independant.

The purpose of the laws is often obscured in the legalese, but is generally accepted (as far as I've seen) as phrased in the US constitution: to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. This is really open to interpretation, but then so is anything not specified painstakingly in legalese.

Whether you take "limited" to mean from the perspective of the author or society, even "life of the author" is a long time; authors don't live any longer or shorter than the rest of the people in their society, and most of their contemporaries wouldn't see their work in the public domain before they died, too.

Another reason I'd prefer to see copyright terms back to the shorter terms is to keep the ideas out there, period. A lot of great stuff written shortly after the "cutoff" for determining if it's in the public domain (ie, around the time that Mickey Mouse first showed up) is impossible to find, simply because no publisher can print it because it's still under copyright, and the one that does have rights to it doesn't want to publish it. They're disappearing, while stories older than that remain, because they are no longer under copyright and any publisher can print them any time they like - Winnie the Pooh, The Wizard of Oz, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, anything by H.G.Wells, uncountable others.

--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?
[ Parent ]

Melancholy Elephants (none/0) (#21)
by lpp on Wed Sep 24, 2003 at 05:13:10 AM PST

That rocked.

[ Parent ]

Ownership (none/0) (#13)
by gitm on Sat Jun 29, 2002 at 06:52:16 PM PST

I agree with you totally, developing the universe has involved coming up with a number of characters for which I have a definite set of goals and plans for.

One of the things I am trying to work around is the concept of ownership of different parts of the universe. With things like technology and/or locations it's not so bad - with something as personal as a character it's very different.

This is one of the reasons I'm shooting to the Cabal method of managing the site. The idea being that a story can be shot down by a small group managing the site regardless of the community vote because of things like this. It would still require you to point out to the cabal that story x kills off your character or does something else with your character that you disagree with.

The encyclopaedia ties into this as well - all entries would be clearly marked with the originators account and the 'rules of conduct' of the site would request that you pass your story past those people for approval before submitting.

This is a very difficult thing to manage and I think only time will tell - and there will probably be ongoing changes to make the whole thing work.

Regs,
Shane

--- This space for rent.

: TR encyclopaedia (none/0) (#15)
by janra on Sat Jun 29, 2002 at 07:35:22 PM PST

That's a great idea. An entry for each location, piece of tech, and character, with the name of the original author and the terms of use... ie, "you may use this location in any story in any way, as long as you don't blow it up or otherwise irreparably damage it", or "you may use this character only if you submit the entire story to (author's name) for approval before submitting it to TR"... Might be interesting convincing people to read the encyclopedia before writing, especially if it gets big. Ouch. It's hard enough to get people to read FAQs, because they tend to be very long.
I agree that a cabal would be necessary in this case; they would have to know the encyclopaedia very well and ensure that a story works with it, and reject a story that doesn't even if all other members think it's a great story. Even if it is a great story.
However, I think that using other people's characters should require specific approval, not specific disapproval. The original author shouldn't have to watch everything to see if their character is used inappropriately, the new author should seek their approval and notify them that they're using the character - or the story doesn't get approved.
Of course, to deal with an original author who disappears and cannot give approval would be difficult. Perhaps have a 1 month time limit to reply and approve or disapprove - but then I'm not sure what the default approval should be. If the author is away from his email for more than a month and comes back to find his characters used without his approval, that could be unpleasant.
Any thoughts?
--
Who needs to be big and burly when you can just apply physics?
[ Parent ]
: To much copyright worrys may anoy people (none/0) (#19)
by Anonymous Writer on Tue Sep 03, 2002 at 02:13:10 PM PST

While I understand nobody wants somone wrecking their character, all these ownership rights could sink the whole idea. And, that would be a pity as I like the concept. What would make this a good idea is it's ability to grow with many people's input, and lots of thoughts and ideas. Of course this will create inconcistencies, and maybe bad fiction in some cases, but if all the ideas are checked before they're allowed through it could keep on track.
This idea reminds me of fan fiction for popular movies/TV series, some of it makes me shudder, but some of it I can really hear the character talk and it feels/sounds like them - That's what good fan fiction is about, and if you only allow that through then no unfortunate author will see their characters ruined by bad writing. I suspect the writer(s) for these films/TV series have read some of the fan fiction and liked it, maybe it even helped them? An open minded author would see the idea of having other people use their character as an imense posibility to understand how other people see him/her/it, and it will help them in some cases.
Also, while this is only my sugestion, I think the idea would launch best as a writing exercise. Get people to write short peices as a way to tune their writing skills, then perhaps they will move on to longer more complex ideas if they like it. After all, if you give ten writers one setting, a few characters and something to happen you'll get ten entirely different storys. In fact, why not make a random plot generator, it could put together places, characters, motives and stuff in one or two short sentances, then people could combine it all in a peice of fiction?
Good luck with the project,
Bry - Bry@alphaphe.com

[ Parent ]

A good tool... (none/0) (#16)
by zonker on Mon Jul 01, 2002 at 05:20:31 AM PST

Might I suggest setting up a Wiki for this project? If you don't have the resources, I have a Wiki at Dissociated Press - I could set up a Web for the topic. Feel free to drop me an email if you're unfamiliar with Wikis or if you want to talk about it - I think a Wiki would be a slightly better method than a Scoop-type site for collaborative work.
Dissociated Press - A Boy and his 'blog

: Agreed... (none/0) (#17)
by Slothrop on Mon Jul 01, 2002 at 10:58:08 AM PST

A moderated Wiki with limited admin granted accounts would be a much better place to do something like this. Scoop is geared towards news and community discussion, but a communal universe, I think, would be better hashed out either in Wiki format, or done on a mailing list/web board, and then the definitive stuff posted to a Wiki or something similar.

[ Parent ]
: Wikis (none/0) (#18)
by gitm on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 07:04:24 PM PST

Yep, a Wiki would be a great tool for the brainstorming and encyclopedia parts of the project. I've been using OpenWiki running on an internal server to manage my notes and ideas for the project so far.

Although Scoop is probably not the best tool overall the way Scoop manages queues of votable items would be very useful to manage story submissions (articles and fiction).

I do have a broad design of what I feel is required written up - I'm trying to polish it enough to get it out for more public comment but 'real life' keeps interfering :(

--- This space for rent.
[ Parent ]

FoolQuest.com Shared World Building Collaboratory (none/0) (#23)
by AaronAgassi on Mon Dec 08, 2003 at 07:32:08 PM PST

Don't make a move without first checking out the free comprehensive fiction writing collaboration and brainstorming resources at FoolQuest.com

http://www.FoolQuest.com/fiction.htm

A case for an open universe? | 23 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden)

	Yes (Contribute and Use)	63%
	Yes (Use only)	9%
	No	27%