Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/4072
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/4072
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

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 :)

Original score: 7