Hey everyone, so for my next project I'd like to turn one of my favorite short stories into a screenplay that would later be made into a short film. I have a broad idea on going about doing this, but would I run into any problems with using the story? Would I have to make changes to the original story while still using the main idea? Or can I use the majority of dialogue and story progression as it is originally written?
-
Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.
Turning short stories into Screenplays
- Thread starter WGCProductions
- Start date
Depends on the story. If it was originally published prior to 1923 (in the US at least), then you can do whatever you want with it because it's in the public domain.
If it was published after that, someone may still own the copyrights to it, and you'd need to either substantially change the characters/setting/plot events (though you could keep the same theme) or you'd need to seek permission and likely pay a fee to use it. There are some exceptions to this (parody and satire, for example), but basically it's a bad idea.
If it was published after that, someone may still own the copyrights to it, and you'd need to either substantially change the characters/setting/plot events (though you could keep the same theme) or you'd need to seek permission and likely pay a fee to use it. There are some exceptions to this (parody and satire, for example), but basically it's a bad idea.
You can if you get permission.
The writer has rights and one of those rights is the right
to decide how the short story is used. If the "main idea"
is very broad you can use it - you cannot copyright an
idea - but if the main idea is specific you may be violating
the rights of the writer.
Ask for permission.
Satire vs. Parody
Quick note. Parody is fair use while satire is not. The difference is parody makes fun of the work itself. Satire uses the work as a vehicle to make fun of something else. In the past this was not so much an issue, but recent court cases have started splitting hairs. Stanford's Copyright Page has a few examples relative to media at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals found that a books using Dr. Seuss stylings to describe the O.J. Simpson trial was a 'satire and not a parody' because it was not making fun of Dr. Seuss' works but providing a commentary.
And from my limited understanding, Canadian law does not permit parody as a defense for copyright infringement. So if you are going to parody a work, it is best to get permissions. Even Weird Al will approach performers for permission to parody their songs. While fair use is a general protection for the not-for-profit public, when you start trying to make money, even if just to break even, the criteria become tougher to meet.
Quick note. Parody is fair use while satire is not. The difference is parody makes fun of the work itself. Satire uses the work as a vehicle to make fun of something else. In the past this was not so much an issue, but recent court cases have started splitting hairs. Stanford's Copyright Page has a few examples relative to media at http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals found that a books using Dr. Seuss stylings to describe the O.J. Simpson trial was a 'satire and not a parody' because it was not making fun of Dr. Seuss' works but providing a commentary.
And from my limited understanding, Canadian law does not permit parody as a defense for copyright infringement. So if you are going to parody a work, it is best to get permissions. Even Weird Al will approach performers for permission to parody their songs. While fair use is a general protection for the not-for-profit public, when you start trying to make money, even if just to break even, the criteria become tougher to meet.