What's "fair use" for borrowing someone else's invented term?
Let's say I'm writing a sci-fi novel. I want to use a word which another writer has coined, which has become well-recognized outside the original book, for the name of an alien species in my story.
I want to do something akin to this:
Jacob walked in the room, accompanied by Dori, who jumped on the table beside him and began sniffing the book.
"What's that?" said Katie with a frown.
"This is Dori. She's the consulate's grok. She should be able to tell us how old this book is and who had it."
"She's a what?"
Jacob chuckled. "Her species has their own name for themselves, but it's practically impossible to pronounce. What they're best at is — well, they sort of sniff out history. They can read all kinds of things about an object. The history of it, the age, who touched it, how many people touched it —"
"She smells all that?"
"It's not really smelling, but close enough. Anyway, when they first arrived and we found out what they could do, one of the ambassadors is a real Heinlein buff, and she started calling them 'groks.' And it stuck."
Can I get away with that? Considering that "grok" is popular enough to be known outside Stranger in a Strange Land, I'm using it to mean something similar to the coined meaning, it's not an insult or derogatory in any fashion, and I'm citing the coiner of the word right there in dialogue as I introduce the word. Is that considered "fair use"? Or is "grok" so attached to Heinlein that I would still have to get permission?
4 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
+1 @Kris: ACTUALLY, it appears "Grok" is a middle ages version of "Greek" referring to the Greek Language.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22grok%22&tbm=bks&tbs=cdr:1,cdmin:1680,cdmax:1699&lr=lang_en
I upvoted his answer. The Google ngram site looks like a useful research tool for copyright purposes.
0 comment threads
First off, "grok" is not copyrighted; you can't copyright individual words, even made-up ones. Therefore fair use (a defense against an infringement claim) does not apply. That doesn't mean it's impermissible, in fact it almost certainly is fine.
It's also not trademarked, as it is not being used by the Heinlein estate to identify a product or service. And as it is not an invention, it is also not patented. So from an intellectual property standpoint you are covered.
The only real problem you might run into is if you wrote something so similar to SIASL that your story might be legitimately considered a derivative work. Even in that situation it is not always a slam-dunk case, but your use of the word "grok" might be considered evidence that you were aware you were copying that specific work. But since you don't seem to be doing that, I don't foresee a difficulty there either.
Adoption of terminology used by one writer by others is common in the science fiction field. "Robot" (which was invented by a writer outside the SF field, though Asimov seems to have coined the word "robotics") and "ansible" are two that spring to mind. Writers tend to let such borrowings happen without objection because they have certainly done their share.
All that said, this is America and you can be sued for anything at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. The fact that any case against you for using "grok" in your own novel would probably be thrown out doesn't mean you can't be sued. But that's not a reason not to write it. You could be sued by someone who thinks your villain is too much like themselves too.
I would not bother with the dialog explaining what a "grok" is in your story. SF readers familiar with SIASL (i.e. most of them) will immediately understand, and readers not familiar with it will get it when you show them what the grok can do. If you must have such dialog, please oh please for once make it so the other person gets it rather than needing it explained. "A grok? Oh, because her function is to understand things, right?"
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/4071. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Kindall tackled the legal aspect. As for reception/perception considerations, here's the rule of thumb I'd use:
If you're using the same word in the same way for the same thing, and your story is about that thing (or concept, or whatever) - you're crossing the line. That's like saying "I'm writing a story about the same Smeerps Albert J. Jones wrote about," and that feels like you're treading on his toes.
If you're using it in a different way (e.g. verb --> race name) then your referencing it, which is fine. I'd be concerned about feeling in-jokey or outright inbred if the phrase is really tough to recognize for somebody who isn't a fan, but it wouldn't feel like infringement.
If you're using it in the same way for the same thing, but your story is about something else - then that's usually fine. You're saying "I've accepted your concept as a building block for my story," and that's acceptable in SF.
Or, to put it briefly: in general, the more your use of the phrase is dependent on the original, the more problematic it is.
A slight addendum is that if a word originating from (or featured in) a particular work has entered common usage, at least in the genre (e.g. "grok," "robotics," "hyperspace," "replicator"), then you can pretty much do as you like with it - that's a case where the phrase has become recognized as completely independent on the original. But I think part of what you're asking is how a word moves from "unique" to "common usage," since somebody needs to be the first to swipe it :)
0 comment threads
Grok existed in 1700 AD?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/4633. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads