Shouldn’t the author at least retain choice and decision-making authority over his or her work while it remains in copyright?

Let us note for the record that changing standard, near-industry wide language is a bit like moving mountains a foot or so in another direction. There is rarely a touch of whimsy involved and the actual change only comes after long, dull meetings, so of which involve PowerPoint (when a meeting involves PowerPoint, you know you’re in for a good time). Generally, these changes come about when it is determined that they are good for the company.

We have no doubt that Simon & Schuster will argue, quite forcefully, that this change is good for authors. Perhaps for some, it will be. But it will be even better for the publisher. To wit:

“We believe that our contract appropriately addresses the improved technology, increased availability, and higher quality of print on demand books, and reflects the fact that print on demand titles may now be readily purchased by consumers at both online and brick and mortar stores. We are embracing print on demand technology as an unprecedented opportunity for authors and publishers to keep their books alive and available and selling in the marketplace in a way that may not have been previously possible for many authors, and are confident in the long term that it will be a benefit for all concerned. We would also like the author and agent community to know that, when necessary, we have always had good faith negotiations on the subject of reversions, and will continue to on a book-by-book basis.”

Reversion of rights — which long-time readers will recall is a favorite topic of ours (look, all humans are geeky in their own special way) — should be the most important topic on the minds of all authors in this current business environment. Sure, you’re all focused on the writing and whatnot, but if you’re not seriously grasping the implications of who owns the rights to your work, you are not serious about the business you’re in. There is a technical term for what will eventually happen to you.

Rights are squishy things. Authors, by default and law, own the copyright to their work. Publishers acquire the right to publish or distribute an author’s work. Sometimes, because of the way territorial rights work (see how all of our blatherings come together?), multiple publishing entities own different distribution rights. US, UK, Australia, hardcover, trade, mass market paperback, audio, etc. Each entity that acquires the distribution rights pays the author money, most often in the form of advances and royalties.

There are issues relating to the transfer of copyrights or specific instances of the copyright to licensees (publishers), but that is not really relevant to this discussion. If you’re as fascinated by this topic as we are, you can start here and wander where the links take you. Fascinating stuff — you’ll probably lose an afternoon to curiosity and wonder.

Simon & Schuster, being prescient enough to see the value of electronic content, has realized that they will only benefit from future riches if they own the rights to a work and are able to distribute said work for a very long time. In this case, it’s 70 years after the death of an author for works created after 1978. As the way humans access and read information continues to evolve, it’s is understandable that publishing houses would want to hold on to their assets for as long as legally possible.

Except…wow. Royalties paid to authors can range from 15% to 5%. There are tiers and whatnot that determine royalties, and, yes, there remain egregious practices in the industry such as semi-annual accountings with really long periods of time to issue statements after the close of the period, plus reserves and whatnot that lower the actual payout. Royalty rates also factor in such concepts as “deep discounts” (lower royalty) and clubs (ditto). There are many other factors, including, but not limited, to subsidiary rights (this is a good analysis of royalties, too). Electronic editions of books, under many agreements, can be considered subsidiary.

It all really depends on your specific agreements, so we’re talking in generalities when it comes to numbers.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know, you want to know what this means. Quite simply, it means that Simon & Schuster wants to own the rights to your book for the entire duration of the copyright. The good news is that you’ll be dead for 70 years of that time period; the bad news is that as long as S&S owns these rights, you can’t do a thing with your book. As markets evolve and grow, you will be at the mercy of the publisher’s whims as to when, where, and how your creation is exploited.

Up to this point, authors have had, at least, the promise of rights reverting to them when a book goes “out of print”, though out of print is also one of those squishy publishing things that don’t always work out the way authors expect. The new Simon & Schuster language essentially means that as long as a book exists in the publisher’s “catalog”, the publisher owns the rights. Define catalog as your basic database with titles that could potentially but not necessarily exploited, and you have a whole lot of books that their creators cannot market and sell in other ways.

While it’s possible that the eventual value of most of these books will not be much in the way of actual dollars, shouldn’t the author at least retain choice and decision-making authority over his or her work while it remains in copyright? Let’s add one more caution: since today’s agreements cannot possibly address all ways works will be published, marketed, and paid for, the chance is great that Simon & Schuster will make money off of, oh, excerpts or micro-content, that may not flow to the author.

It is likely that other publishers will follow Simon & Schuster’s lead, after performing careful in-house analysis because wholesale changes to standard language across an industry would be, shall we say?, considered suspect:

“Other major publishers have not followed suit,” said Guild executive director Paul Aiken. “We’ll be watching for that, of course, since coordinated moves would have serious legal implications.”

We have heard that the technical term for this is “collusion”. No industry wants to be accused of that!

If we were to make a recommendation to authors, we would strongly suggest following practices done in the motion picture industry: licensing rights to specific distribution areas for specific time periods. Five years, ten years, whatever seems reasonable for the specific right. When the term ends, renegotiate the deal or take your rights elsewhere. Publishers aren’t acquiring blanket distribution rights because they are nice people who want to make sure an author is published far and wide; they acquire these rights because they are valuable.

And something so valuable to publishers is surely valuable to authors, right?

“…despite all of our best efforts, a book or software product can still fall flat in the market…”

This means that if you ever have the misfortune of finding yourself stuck in conversation with us, nothing will be planned. We like to think we outline the wittier of remarks in advance, but mostly we punt. That doesn’t mean that planning and foresight do not impress us. In fact, even though we don’t fully understand how it’s possible, we admire those who publish their remarks in advance. It seems that a speech should be, oh, spontaneous. Like if a laugh line naturally leads to another laugh line. If the mind wanders to an unrelated topic and rambling ensues. If the audience nods off and it’s obvious that another approach is required.

This is our way of expressing our heartfelt admiration for Thomas C. Rubin, Associate General Counsel for Copyright, Trademark and Trade Secrets, Microsoft Corporation. He not only delivered a speech entitled “Searching for Principles: Online Services and Intellectual Property”, but he also published what he was going to say in advance. We are in awe…and we have a few quibbles with Mr. Rubin’s statement. And more than a few points of agreement. If only his speech to the Association of American Publishers had been a debate. A debate in writing. We remain of the species who always thinks of the clever comebacks long after it is appropriate.

However, you aren’t here to work through our issues. You’re hear to read what Mr. Rubin said to the AAP, probably because you couldn’t be bothered to attend this year’s conference. We understand.

Thomas C. Rubin: “…this issue is one that I’ve thought about and grappled with for most of the past decade from Microsoft’s dual perspectives as a technology innovator and a major content owner.”

Booksquare: Content owner? Oh, he must mean the particularly unhelpful help pages. We still can’t figure out how to make links in Word or Excel documents not actually link to anything. Sometimes you want your spreadsheet to function as an address book, not a conduit to a website.

TCR: “We both understand the time and commitment it takes to develop the first germ of an idea into a finished work. More importantly, we both understand the risk it involves – that despite all of our best efforts, a book or software product can still fall flat in the market.”

BS: [Must resist urge to make joke about the Zune]

TCR: “However, the reality, as many of you know, is that authors and publishers often find it difficult just to cover their costs, let alone make a profit, in this new online world. At the same time, companies that create no content of their own, and make money solely on the backs of other people’s content, are raking in billions through advertising revenue and IPOs.”

BS: He’s talking about Google here, because, well, as a search engine, Google doesn’t so much create content as it does aggregate content in ways that make it easy for people to find said content. Ads support this service. This is similar to how Microsoft’s own search product works. At the risk of oversimplifying, a “crawler” goes out and eats content, digests it, and then regurgitates it based on weird criteria created by people who are “searching” for things. Like, well, it’s scary what people seek online. You should be looking at the person next to you with appropriate fear and loathing. Mostly loathing.

TCR: “What path will we as a society choose in making the world’s books and publications available online? Will we choose a path that nourishes creativity and innovation over the long term and that preserves incentives for authors to offer their best works online? Or will we choose a path that encourages companies simply to “take” the works of others, without any regard for copyright or the impact of their actions on authors and publishers too?”

BS: We’re guessing this is what they call an “applause line”. We learned about this from watching presidential speeches. Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tony Danza giving away trips at a certain motion picture studio’s holiday party. We didn’t win, and we’ve sort of held that against Tony Danza ever since.

Seriously, who wouldn’t applaud this line? It sounds just grand. But what does it mean? No, really. What does it mean? Are they saying that Google is encouraging piracy? Them sounds like fighting words.

TCR:”At its soul, Microsoft is an innovation company, and we’ve been working hard for many years to develop innovative technologies that allow readers to experience books online in new and exciting ways. In a moment I’ll describe a few of those latest innovations. I’ll also underscore how our efforts are intended to boost your ability to cost-effectively market your works, which is one of the great benefits of online search.”

BS: Not said: this is also pretty much the same model being employed by Google. You’ll simply type a different URL into your address bar. But that’s another topic for another day.

TCR: “The first principle is that new services that expand online access to content should be encouraged. The second principle is that those new services must respect the legitimate interests of copyright holders; put conversely, we must forcefully reject any business model that is based on the systematic infringement of copyrights. The third principle is that even as we follow the first two principles, we must all work together to find consumer-friendly and cost-effective solutions to our shared goal of expanding online access to copyrighted and public-domain works.”

BS: A + B ≠ C. Necessarily. Something’s gotta give. Trust us.

TCR: “Microsoft currently has two publication-focused search products in test, or what we call “beta,” right now.”

BS: Because there’s no way you’d know what beta means. Just an aside, since when do people from the General Counsel’s office address publishers? Isn’t that just plain weird? Or is this a cynical way of suggesting that one company is playing the legal sandbox while another, well, isn’t?

TCR: “The second source is our Publisher program, under which we receive books still under copyright from publishers with their express permission, either in digital form directly from the publisher, or scanned from hard copy.”

BS: [Very excited that Microsoft is now taking digital copies of books. That whole "we must scan what you give us" thing felt very nineties to us.]

TCR: “Several major publishers have signed on to the Publisher Program. Others, however, prefer to create their own digital repositories of their books. For those publishers, we’ve been working with them and the AAP to develop a seamless interface between Live Search and their own repositories. We think this interface is a tremendously important technology, both for publishers and consumers. It allows publishers to maintain control over their content and to pursue whatever business model they choose, while at the same time making their publications “searchable” by consumers through the Live Search Books engine.”

BS: Who? What publishers. Enquiring minds really want to know because, if this is executed as presented, it could be really cool. However, we tend to be skeptical of these type of announcements because, well, reality and fantasy worlds are often mutually exclusive. Sad but true.

Also, we believe that Google has similar initiatives, though the execution might be slightly different.

TCR: “One of my favorite examples is the collaboration between Microsoft and The New York Times to create the Times Reader. Times Reader is a technology that combines the readability and portability of the printed New York Times newspaper – the hardcopy, if you will – with the interactivity and immediacy of the Web. Rather than read an article by endlessly scrolling down a web page, readers enjoy a column-oriented layout that mimics the printed page. Rather than a generic font, the actual New York Times fonts appear on the screen. These innovations allow online readers to enjoy many of the same positive experiences they have as readers of the print edition.”

BS: While making the actual reading of articles more irritating due to the “continued on page A-99″ syndrome suffered by newspapers. New media, new ways to present content.

TCR: “The stated goal of Google’s Book Search project is to make a copy of every book ever published and bring it within Google’s vast database of indexed content. While Google says that it doesn’t currently intend to place ads next to book search results, Google’s broader business model is straightforward – attract as many users as possible to its site by providing what it considers to be “free” content, then monetize that content by selling ads.”

BS: What? Someone thought Google was running a charity? It’s called “return on investment”. You cannot tell us that Microsoft isn’t looking for the same thing. All those shareholders and whatnot expect this. It might even be a law in some states.

Again, we’d remind publishers that Google — and Microsoft — are doing something that the publishing houses should have started years ago. Around the time the first scanning technologies became available. This playing catch-up is expensive.

TCR: “Google’s chosen path would no doubt allow it to make more books searchable online more quickly and more cheaply than others, and in the short term this will benefit Google and its users. But the question is, at what long-term cost? In my view, Google has chosen the wrong path for the longer term, because it systematically violates copyright and deprives authors and publishers of an important avenue for monetizing their works. In doing so, it undermines critical incentives to create.”

BS: Ah, we believe this is what is known as a legless, armless argument. As in, you be bad, but I’m not going to say why. “More cheaply”? Like offering search results for free? That is cheap. Also the general rule of public search. Sure, you pay through the nose for Lexis-Nexis, but Microsoft doesn’t seem to be suggesting that they’re going with that model.

We might, given enough wine, see merit in the argument that copyright is violated, provided that we also buy into the notion that other venues that offer full text “searches” of content before purchase (bookstores, for example) might also violate a sort of copyright. Yes, a ridiculous argument, a silly argument, but, let’s be honest, if you can’t browse, how do you decide to buy? Oh, yeah, word-of-mouth. Limited application.

It is very important that publishers understand one thing: moving to a digital world should not be an excuse to take access away from readers. Protecting copyright should not trump allowing consumers to make informed purchasing choices.

As for not providing avenues for monetizing — and that’s really what we’re talking about here, isn’t it? — wow, so many options, so little space. We have the rest of the speech to peruse. However, we will note links to bookstores and the still-nascent (or in the thinking stage) e-books model (or excerpt model). Just two potential moneymakers. In fact, the moneymaking model is what Google’s program is all about. As is Microsoft’s.

TCR: “From the perspective of your business, Google’s approach is troubling for another reason. It assumes, in effect, that Google is the only game in town. Google argues that authors and publishers should simply notify Google if they want to preserve their rights in their works. But what if, as is inevitable, other companies around the world start taking the same approach? Should copyright owners be obligated to track down everyone engaging in unauthorized copying in order to preserve their exclusive rights in their works? Presumably, the desire to preserve these rights is why they asserted copyright in the first place. This approach would be absolutely unworkable in practice, which is probably why Congress in enacting the Copyright Act placed the burden on those who want to copy to get the express consent of the copyright owner, rather than the other way around.

In essence, Google is saying to you and to other copyright owners: “Trust us – you’re protected. We’ll keep the digital copies secure, we’ll only show snippets, we won’t harm you, we’ll promote you.” But Google’s track record of protecting copyrights in other parts of its business is weak at best. Anyone who visits YouTube, which Google purchased last year, will immediately recognize that it follows a similar cavalier approach to copyright. Since YouTube’s inception, television companies, movie studios and record labels have all complained that the site knowingly tolerates piracy. In the face of YouTube’s refusal to take any effective action, copyright owners have now been forced to resort to litigation. And Google has yet to come up with a plan to restrain the massive infringements on YouTube.”

BS: It is a mistake for the publishing industry to think anyone is the messiah. Lots of games in town. Do not put all your eggs in one basket, as they say. Doing so is a big mistake.

Also, technically, copyright is governed by the Constitution, as enforced by Congress. They have, sure, messed with copyright, mostly because Mickey Mouse must be protected. The purpose of copyright has its roots in quid pro quo — we will protect your works for a (very) limited time; you will repay society by putting your work into the public domain. You get something, you give something. In many ways, the original purpose of copyright protection has been lost. Content is simply too valuable to meet the vision of the Founding Fathers.

Ah yes, we quibble. There are valid arguments about copyright violations and fair use and limits. Those are still being worked out, both in law and in the court of public opinion. Do not discount the public — they have seen their Constitutional promise eroded over time.

Seriously, if we’re going to have this argument, at least air all viewpoints.

TCR: “First, in order to promote innovation and online access, we need to figure out ways to reduce transaction costs of negotiations between online service providers and copyright owners.”

BS: Amen, brother!

TCR: “Second, we need to preserve the benefits of the Internet’s global reach. While online service providers must be mindful of the territorial rights of publishers, we all need to recognize that enforcing these rights in an online environment adds enormous complexity and cost.”

BS: Dude, good luck with this audience. You think sisters squabbling over who stepped on whose side of the room are tedious? Talk territorial rights with publishers.

TCR: “Third, we need to address the orphan works issue, an important issue that I have supported in testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Online providers should make diligent efforts to locate copyright owners, but when they cannot locate the owner, there must be a process or a safety net by which they can move forward without risk of liability beyond payment of a reasonable royalty if the copyright holder later makes herself known.”

BS: And another amen! This is a really important, serious issue. If the publishing industry wants to prove it’s serious about copyright, addressing this issue is paramount. How can we have an intelligent discussion about copyright and rights when the entire infrastructure gives murky a good name. There is no good way to determine the ins and outs of rights ownership. You have registered owners, you have licenses here and there, you have deaths and transfers of copyright. Who, might we ask, is tracking all this mess?

Maybe a better question might be: how many returned royalty statements are piling up around publishing houses (or even motion pictures studios) because copyright owners simply disappear?

And yet it is expected that Google (or even Microsoft, in all fairness) find the copyright owners in order to conduct business. This is not a straightforward process; in many ways, the complexities of rights ownership support Google’s approach. The audit trail simply doesn’t exist. If the publishing industry wants to make its case, then the publishing industry should do its job when it comes to clarifying rights ownership.

Also authors. Ain’t nobody getting off for free here. Authors need to do records updates with their publishing houses.

TCR: “Fourth, and critically, we need to understand and address consumer expectations. For example, most consumers now expect to preview content before they buy it, and this needs to be taken into account in the digital world. DRM tools and other technical restrictions need to be adopted carefully so that they do not frustrate consumers’ legitimate experiences and expectations, or else you risk losing the vast new market that’s before you.”

BS: We could not say it better. Well, we could and have. But no point in repeating ourself.

TCR: “Finally, all of us need to be open to adjusting our business models to add value for the book customer.”

BS: This means many things to many people. The key is that if you take the fourth point above to heart, this final point will come naturally.

In our never humble opinion, there isn’t much difference in the goals of Microsoft and Google. It’s all about money and eyeballs. Publishers and authors, however, need to think beyond this guy versus that guy and consider both money and eyeballs. Especially eyeballs, because the money will follow. As long as consumers have options, the publishing industry needs options. One size will never fit all.

Thank you. We’ll be here the same time next year.

Technorati Tags: microsoft, google, publishing, copyright, book search, live book search

Creative Commons licenses are not licenses to steal

This thought arose, oh, last week, when marketing guru Seth Godin complained that someone was selling unauthorized physical copies of his free e-book. Granted, the party selling these books was, essentially, given the green light by Godin when he chose the license he did. The Creative Commons licenses provide for various levels of control on the part of the licensor — Godin’s protestations stem either from a misunderstanding of what he really wanted to do…or maybe it’s just a brilliant marketing ploy. After all, the story made it all the way to the New York Times.

Oops. Sorry. Cynical.

So, we thought we’d spend a moment discussing what Creative Commons is and what it means to you. Actually we meant to do this around two years ago after cornering Mike Linksayver at a party, but, you know, time flies when you have as much to say as we do. Back then, we told him to remember us tall, thin, and funny. We hope our brainwashing attempt worked. Anyway, great party and the post is still relevant after all these years. How often can you say that?

Very, very simply, Creative Commons provides a way for content creators to copyright their work while allowing for levels of flexibility when it comes to distributing said work. Basically, you get to decide whether or not your work can be used for commercial purposes (the option apparently chosen by Godin). You also get to determine what, if any, modifications can be made to your work. This allows others to create derivative works of your art.

Each of the six main types of Creative Commons licenses — ranging from very restrictive to pretty liberal — requires attribution for the original content creator. Depending on the license, again, sometimes your original restrictions are carried through as derivative works are created, sometimes not. It’s important to read the descriptions of each type of license before making your decision. Otherwise, you might pitch a fit and have bloggers making merciless fun of you when making fun is not your goal.

Creative Commons also offers a public domain option for those of you who want to free yourselves from the copyright chain entirely — you can set your work wild right away (think, you and Emily Dickinson, living in the public domain together forever) or you can choose a shorter period of copyright, 14 or 28 years, than the current law requires. Options, dear friends, are what make the world go around. Also, gravity or something like that.

Creative Commons licenses should not be confused with the concept of Fair Use, whereby small portions of copyrighted works may be reproduced for the purpose of quotes or other limited uses. Fair Use is one of those things that is increasingly under attack as content becomes, well, increasingly valuable, mostly because it’s sort of like pornography — everyone has a different idea of what Fair Use is.

Another note. Creative Commons licenses are not licenses to steal. Each license has its own set of rules, and those who believe that the mere appearance of a license on a website constitutes permission to steal and reprint content, well, they’re wrong. Very wrong. The work is steal copyrighted and it is still subject to legal protection. The content owner is providing a clear path to distribution and use; it is up to you (content user) to understand what the rules are and to follow them.

Remember the old saying: it is more fun to party with lawyers than to meet them in the courtroom.

Technorati Tags: creative commons, copyright, licenses

US District Judge Richard Owen said US copyright laws now recognised young writers like Steinbeck could not “predict the high stature they would attain” when they signed early contracts.

The law permits authors or their heirs to terminate contracts or renegotiate deals “allowing creators or their heirs appropriate rewards for their artistic gifts to our culture,” he said.

At first blush, this appears to be similar to cases being fought by early jazz and blues musicians who turned over the rights to all of their work to unscrupulous publishers, receiving mere pittances in return. Something tells us that while mere pittances were not involved here, a transfer of rights was done in a less-than-overboard fashion. The part about the motion pictures is baffling as, unless Steinbeck paid for production out of his own pocket, he would, at best, be entitled to an ongoing participation interest, maybe retroactive residuals if he had a creative role and the judge decided to stretch that rule. He could own the underlying work, but not the actual production.

According to the Associated Press, the titles involved are:

The judge awarded the rights to the following works to Thomas Steinbeck and Smyle: “Cup of Gold,” “The Pastures of Heaven,” “The Red Pony,” “To a God Unknown,” “Tortilla Flat,” “In Dubious Battle,” “Of Mice and Men” (both the novel and the play), “The Long Valley” and “The Grapes of Wrath.”

Though this case appears to be a straight issue of copyright, there is the open question of the right of inheritance. And, if you’re a publisher, an open question of how and when a copyright holder or heir can make the determination to yank rights and renegotiate agreements. After all, like Steinbeck, most authors cannot predict how successful their work will ultimately become. While we certainly have our issues with long-term copyright and, sigh, royalty rates, we also find this notion a bit loosy-goosy for our taste. This may be why we shunned the law in favor of creative accounting.

Otherwise, the Steinbeck kids, if we may, will be positioned to exploit their rights to his works starting in about 2012. Yeah, the lack of immediacy has us scratching our confused little head as well.

• Steinbeck’s son gets novel rights – The son and granddaughter of author John Steinbeck have been awarded publishing rights to his early novels by a US judge
• Judge gives Steinbeck kin rights to works

Technorati Tags: copyright, books, publishing, john steinbeck

Copyright in this country is a mess. Kelly noted that copyright was originally established to protect the artist, a sort of quid pro quo. The government would protect rights to an artist’s work for a certain period of time; in return, the artist would allow his or her work to enter the “public domain” after that period of time expired. Due to the impending entry of Mickey Mouse into said public domain, our copyright protections have been extended to 70 years past the life of the creator.

Nelson argues, quite rightly, that artists deserve this protection for their hard work. She then argues that their heirs deserve fair compensation (Nelson has clearly never worked in a situation where she’s had to deal with bickering heirs who then sub-divide their shares of a property until it’s a patchwork quilt of irritation). Finally she acknowledges the sad truth about copyright:

Yes, it’s hard to keep track of copyright, especially when publishers (who, essentially, “lease” copyright from the author) disappear and morph and merge, as they do.

If we do agree that copyright exists to protect the artist, then why aren’t we having a serious discussion about the fact that publishers lock up rights to books by playing with the notion of “in print” to extend their contractual terms (heck, how long before we see litigation about digital exploitation as publishers try to stretch definitions while authors point out that “digital” was never granted, explicitly or implicitly)? Why aren’t we discussing the fact that due to disappearances and morphs and mergers, there are untold numbers of orphaned works? How is it that tracking down copyright owners (a Constitutionally-protected class) is an exercise in frustration? Why have we reached the point where copyright is such a money-maker for corporate interests that the basic building blocks of art — other art — cannot be accessed? If you need an example of a system gone out-of-control, try to make a documentary using historical film footage. Whatever happened to the concept of fair use?

Artists deserve fair compensation for their work (heck, they deserve, whenever possible, to become filthy rich), but if we’re going to argue that copyright provides protection, then we also need to face the fact that copyright isn’t truly protecting those it was intended to serve. We have to discuss the idea that sometimes copyright protections limit an artist’s ability to exploit his or her work — and, yes, that “copyright” limits access to books.

Since the publication of Kelly’s article, the publishing industry has taken a “circle the wagons” attitude. But the truth of the matter is that what Nelson calls a “new business model” is not a pie-in-the-sky vision. Outside the publishing industry, the world is turning faster than ever before, and if we truly want to protect copyright, we need to acknowledge these changes today.

And that includes asking tough questions about copyright and how it serves artists.

• Scan This!

Technorati Tags: publishing, copyright, books, sara nelson, kevin kelly, scan this book

March tells the story of the father from Little Women by Louisa May Alcott (official BS) hero). Alcott’s book focuses on the family at home during wartime — a domestic novel, if you will; Brooks writes about the war. Two sides of a story. Whether they create a whole or not, they expand the view.

Why does this fascinate us so? Well, it highlights the way art is created. One artist has an idea, another artist looks at the work and asks, “What if?” From there, notions are stretched and twisted and new ideas emerge. Remixing art is a key component of our collective creative process, and we find it disturbing when this natural process is held hostage to laws that refuse to acknowledge the way artists work.

Protect copyright, yes, but don’t strangle artistic expression.

• Brooks’ ‘March’ Wins Pulitzer for Fiction

Technorati Tags: Geraldine Brooks, Pulitzer Prize, Fiction, Remixability

If it were a run-of-the-mill copyright claim, Leigh and Baigent would argue that Brown lifted passages of their work verbatim, or that his work as a whole was substantially similar to theirs. Instead, they maintain that Brown built his novel around the central assertion of their book…

Artists constantly borrow from other artists, creating more great art. One could argue that it’s not the idea, it’s the execution, and that seems to be the case here. Say what you will, it seems that Dan Brown presented the idea of a Jesus Christ/Mary Magdalene bloodline in a more compelling manner than the Holy Blood, Holy Grail authors (who weren’t the originators of the idea either).

We don’t think it would be overstating the case to say if Brown were to lose this battle, it would have a serious impact on authors, painters, musicians, and filmmakers everywhere.

• Da Vinci code of justice

Technorati Tags: Dan Brown, Da Vinci Code, copyright

Bloggers and copyright mavens alike can always use a refresher on truths and myths. One we see quite often is full reproduction of an article from another source. These are generally attributed, but posted with the clear intent of keeping you, the reader, from going to the source. That, for what it’s worth, is bad. To quote Brad Thompson:

Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn’t find time to write your own story, or didn’t want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren’t.

(via MediaBistro Toolbox)

• 10 Big Myths about copyright explained: An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication.

We’ve also noted that current copyright laws don’t really address the rapid changes in how we access and consume media. Congress needs to focus on this — and they need to understand the issue. We figure that’s going to take some time, if Arlen’s Specter’s recent commentary at the Alito hearings is any indication. We need a Congress who actually accesses the Internet on a regular basis. You cannot make laws if you don’t understand the medium.

Our sister site, Medialoper, looks at subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on the doctrine of first sale. This might not seem like an issue worth considering, but you so don’t want to hear us saying “told you so” a year from now. We are not pretty when we’re gloating.

For some reason, we’re being asked to believe that digital content is is something entirely new and different. We’re being told that the principles of copyright that have applied for hundreds of years no longer apply in the digital realm, even though the content is essentially unchanged — only the method of delivery has changed.

• Consumer Rights Fading In The Digital Age

“Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal.” -T.S. Eliot

Hmm, in one of those funny coincidences, the song playing on the stereo is Dean Wareham & Britta Phillips’ (okay, it’s Luna without the rest of the band) Ginger Snaps. It blatantly cribs from the theme song from the Mary Tyler Moore show (“You’re gonna make it after all” becomes “We’re gonna make it after all”). This is a blatant, clear case of honoring the source. You know the reference being made by the song. You’re singing it your head right now. It’s homage, not ripping off.

The idea of stealing versus plagiarizing continues to intrigue Dan Wickett to the point that he asked members of the EWN to weigh in with their thoughts on intertextuality. Or

The recent controversy over Brad Vice’s short story collection has led to some discussions about intertextuality – the idea of merging scenes and ideas, or even actual text, from a previously published work, into one’s own work, to create a new work.

The comments are most interesting because of the thoughtful approach taken by the respondents. They get the idea that art inspires art. They get that stealing is bad. They get it. It leads to the question that should be explored: how does this vision of art fit into today’s corporate copywritten world?

• Intertextuality