Blinovitch Limitation Effect

[Orianna2000]

Sci-fi geeks out there probably know what I'm talking about. It's a complicated theory related to time travel, which limits your ability to go back and repeat your actions, and which produces an energy discharge when two versions of the same person touch. I first read about it in a "writer's guide to time travel" book, a few years back.

I had been planning to reference the Blinovitch Limitation Effect in my current time travel novel, but then I found out it's not a "real" scientific theory, it was actually invented for the television show Doctor Who. However, according to Wikipedia, specific references to the "Effect" have been made in various movies and comic books. Not just to the theory, which may or may not have a basis in reality, but actually calling it by name.

So my question is, is something like this copyrighted or trademarked? Would I get in trouble for using it in my novel? How did they get away with using it in the movie Happy Accidents, and the Supergirl comics?

At this point, I'm planning to come up with my own scientific-sounding theory to explain things in my time travel novel, but it did get me thinking about it.

[n3onkn1ght]

It's just a fun, playful reference to a show that inspired people. No harm, no foul.

[L.C. Blackwell]

By all means double-check with your editor when it's time; and be prepared to make up your own "theory" if necessary. Unfortunately, copyright law as applied can be full of fouls--and snarls--and pitfalls.

My impression, off the cuff, is that yes, this probably is protected by copyright. However, if you were to use it in conjunction with a reference to the show (thus including the source), you might be fine with that. What you shouldn't do is leave the reader with the impression that you made it up yourself.

[jaksen]

Put your own twist on it. Instead of touching, seeing is enough. If you see your former self...

Then name it after your favorite dessert, pet or the teacher who helped you most with your writing.

tada, you've created your own 'theory' which later on might be copied, added to or enhanced by future scifi writers.

[ViolettaVane]

I'm a Doctor Who fan and I associate Blinovitch very strongly with Doctor Who. It's a theory invented purely for plot convenience, and it's cheerfully ignored by show writers whenever it's not convenient. I think you should use it because it's hilarious :-) but I wouldn't take it seriously by any means.

[bonitakale]

Or, you could make up your own theory, to suit your own plot, and name it what you will. You can touch, but it takes time off your subjective timeline, so you die younger. You can touch, but you can't recognize each other. If both of you realize who the other one is, you disappear. It can be a proven theory, or an unproven one, and it can work in such a way as to make things especially hard for your main character. The Orianna Effect. The Orianna-Jergens Theory of Psycho-Temporal Overlap. Whatever. Have fun!

[Phaeal]

At least the last time I looked, using "warp speed" in SF is considered a fatal symptom of fanboy/fangirl-itis. Why? Because it hints that you get all your science from Star Trek.

Your Dr. Who-ism sounds directly analogous.

[Cyia]

If you're going to use something like that (there are actual, similar theories), be prepared for the inevitable groans from people who will the reasons it doesn't actually apply. There are so many holes in the "if they touch, they assplode" theories I could max out my post character limit with them, but the short version is -- it's not possible for the theory to ever be tried. You can't have two people from two separate time periods touch the "same" cells, as the cells in a body on Monday are different from the cells in a body on a Friday (never mind the number of cellular divisions that would have occurred over a a span of years) and unless the two bodies are overlaid so that your liver is touching your liver point to point, there's no chance of it happening.

All of that is just to say -- make up your own theory, try to fill in the holes, and don't worry about it because someone will always complain about fictional science, even if it's based on real science (which is often based on fiction itself, hence the existence of Star Trek certified "tachyons" in quantum physics.)

[Shadow_Ferret]

I thought the exploding thing was invented by Jack Kirby in Fantastic Four King Size #6 to explain what would happen if an anti-matter person and a matter person were to touch.

[Manuel Royal]

If you're trying to deal with the idea of time travel in a serious way, don't use anything like the Blinovitch thingy; it's a patently absurd idea.

Decide what the rules are for your version of time travel, and call them what you want.

Originally Posted by Shadow_Ferret

I thought the exploding thing was invented by Jack Kirby in Fantastic Four King Size #6 to explain what would happen if an anti-matter person and a matter person were to touch.

No, that's actual physics. Except it doesn't matter whether the matter and antimatter are shaped into persons, or objects at all. It can be molecules, free atoms or subatomic particles. Just keep 'em away from each other, unless you want a bunch of gamma rays.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Originally Posted by Manuel Royal

...unless you want a bunch of gamma rays.

Then you'd have the Hulk!

[Victoria]

Like in 'Time Cop' when the two versions of Ron Silver touched each other and they kind of imploded? That was back in 1994, and they didn't have a name for it, just said the same matter couldn't occupy the same space or something like that.

[MarlynnOfMany]

I've actually never heard the term before (I know, shame on me), and I'd say to just come up with your own name for it. That way you can make it work any way you want, you won't have any negative associations for the readers, and people like me won't be left wondering what everyone's talking about.

You can still have the characters reference the new term like it's an established idea, because for them it will be. But if it doesn't exist outside your book, you don't need to worry about copyrighting and the like.

[Satsya]

Originally Posted by jaksen

Put your own twist on it. Instead of touching, seeing is enough. If you see your former self...

Sort of like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKqd27h7KjM

Fine advice otherwise, though.

Time travel (and the accompanying paradoxes) is a common enough subject that use of a certain type of paradox would hardly be considered stealing, so long as you change the name.

As for using the paradox and a name from another source...well, I suppose that could fall under being a homage plot device. I've seen many media reference Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics in this way. The downside is that you risk alienating readers if they aren't familiar with the source of the homage -- so you end up having to explain the plot point thoroughly enough that you may as well come up with a different name/device for it, so that your readers that get the reference are paying attention to your plot instead of "oh hey, that was a Doctor Who reference! Ha ha! I love Doctor Who".

*gasps for breath*

[IceCreamEmpress]

I think it's too new to be automatically understood as an homage. If I got your book for review and saw "Blinovitch Limitation Effect" I would Google it to see if it was a real thing, and when I saw it was a Doctor Who thing I would probably be a bit nettled by it, unless there were other homages to other sources in the book.

[Orianna2000]

Yeah, I think I'll just go with calling it something original. Maybe it would be okay and maybe not, but I'll err on the side of caution. :-)