Category Archives: copyright

Copyright and privacy: assorted links (#SFWApro)

Wired reports how easily findable guys using the Grindr gay-dating app were, even if they turned off the location features. It’s unlikely this is the only app this is true for.

•Fox makes use of one YouTuber’s clip of a videogame glitch for an episode of Family Guy. The network’s copyright bots then demand YouTube take down the clip. As noted at the link neither Fox nor the Tuber have any copyright claim on this.

•Your computer makes noises that would enable someone to track you online by sound.

•The 2012 LinkedIn data breach may have been bigger than people thought.

•Jerk.com was a site where supposedly members would vent about people they disliked—but if you bought a membership, you could contest negative postings. The FTC says that it was actually the site’s data-mining that provided most of the postings, and the owner didn’t actually let people contest statements. At the link, an appeals court sides with the government.

•Paramount’s lawsuit against an allegedly copyright-infringing fan film is moving forward. This is the same lawsuit that involves Paramount claiming a copyright on Klingon.

•Some courts say that if your phone is fingerprint-locked rather than passworded, law enforcement can legally order you to unlock it.

•A secret court reviews government requests for national security-related surveillance. Apparently it never says no. Which is not actually news—I’d heard the same thing before 9/11—but it’s still noteworthy.

•Even something as simple as how you hit the brakes can identify you as a driver.

•As I mentioned in a previous post (can’t find the link), there’s a lawsuit in Illinois charging that Facebook’s tagging feature violates Illinois data-gathering laws. By an amazing coincidence, lawmakers have introduced a bill that completely protects Facebook.

•In trying to refute negative online reviews, some healthcare providers divulge patient information.

Leave a comment

Filed under copyright, Politics

Dubious arguments for killing copyright (#SFWApro)

So in the aftermath of Prince’s death it seems a lot of people went looking for YouTube clips and other free sources to share, and didn’t find them: Prince was aggressive about protecting his copyright and getting paid for his work. At the WaPo, Sonny Bunch criticizes the view that the music should be available free, so what Prince was doing is wrong.

When Scott Lemieux linked approvingly to the article at Lawyers, Guns and Money, he got a lot of comments with a lot of disagreement. None of the counter-arguments were good, and several of them were old. Breaking it down:

•I don’t get paid for work I did twenty years ago, why should writers or musicians?

Because their work is actually earning someone money.

•Yeah, it’s fine if the writer gets copyright, but the heirs are just greedy and grasping to want royalties!

As someone else put it in the comments thread, if the family inherits a rental house, they’re still entitled to collect the rent. Why is this different?

•The ownership of tangible property is natural. “Intellectual property” is an artificial law created by the state!

But a lot of law is artificial and arbitrary. Shoplift under $500, you commit a misdemeanor; shoplift a penny over that amount, it’s a felony (the specific figures are made up, the principle isn’t). Forty hours a week is regular work, over that is overtime. And even ownership of land includes artificial elements, like the right to keep trespassers off.

•Copyright and royalties supposedly provide artists an incentive to create more—but people will create even without earning a living. Therefore the need for copyright is nonexistent.

True for a lot of creators, not all. And a number of creators, even if they aren’t earning money, are lured by the dream of someday doing so. And of course, if you can make a living at writing (or art, or music), you can get a lot more creating done than if you have to rely on a day job (I speak from experience). I’m pretty sure there are bootleg copies of my film books circulating online—if 100 people download bootleg, that’s like $300 out of my pocket, which is a considerable amount for me.

And while some commenters think it’s “artificial,” to be forbidden to stream or copy someone’s work free, I think “create the work get paid for the work” seems perfectly natural. With obvious “fair use” and similar exceptions of course.

•Prince was rich. He doesn’t need money. Copyright shouldn’t apply.

I’ve heard this argument before, and I think it’s unworkable. Just what is the level at which copyright stops working? What if Prince loses all his money, does copyright kick back in? And could you even set up a system where poorer writers wouldn’t be affected?

•Writers should just make a living off personal appearances and release the work for free.

As I’ve noted before, that’s just a bad, bad idea.

•Why should the writer’s desire to control copyright outweigh my desire to listen to his music/read his books?

Again, I think “access the work, pay for the work” is self-evident —but I know many people don’t.

Don’t get me wrong, I think there are huge problems with copyright law and the degree to which copyright is now endlessly extended (as has often been said, it’s the “Mickey Mouse” law—any time it looks like Mickey’s early works will be out of copyright, Disney starts screaming). The degree to which big corporations aggressively pursue anything even vaguely infringing is alarming. But I don’t want to ditch the whole thing without a good substitute in place, and we don’t have one (I’ve heard some ideas, though). And I think that’s a valid position despite having a dog in the hunt.

I agree with Lemieux a lot of this is just people feeling they’re entitled to get it free because they want it free (case in point) or because they think the price is too high so they’re entitled to get it free (as John Scalzi points out, that’s like justifying shoplifting a paperback because the hardback price didn’t come down enough).

Rant over. Go about your business.

3 Comments

Filed under copyright, Writing

Traditional publishing (and other) problems (#SFWApro)

Kristine Kathryn Rusch is writing a series on publishing contracts (hat tip to Walk of Words), so far posting Parts One, Two, Three and Four. The big takeaway is that you should read any contract carefully and get a legal explanation of whatever you don’t understand. And that includes things like contest rules and nondisclosure agreements: Rusch says in Part Four that one contest she’s entered in the past now has fine print requiring entrants — not just winners — give the contest group a large share of copyright.

Which leads to the other takeaway, that publishers and even agents are increasingly aggressive in sinking their fangs into your rights: even some agents demand a share of copyright now. Rusch makes the point that intellectual property is an asset: even if the publisher has no interest in reissuing an old book, keeping it makes the balance sheet look much more profitable. And while most of the publisher’s staff can move on if, say, a hedge fun buys up the company, we’re stuck with the contract and its obligations (this is not hypothetical. A writing acquaintance has told me of bankrupt publishers whose intellectual property wound up in the hands of banks or landlords, who, of course, have no interest in publishing it).

•On the other hand, writer Ros Barber explains that given the added responsibilities involved in self-publishing — editing, getting a cover, marketing your book — she’ll stick with traditional, despite the limited income. While I wouldn’t rule out self-publishing at some point (something novel length, that is, rather than a collection such as Philosophy and Fairytales), I admit that marketing is not my strength, and the necessity is a huge disincentive.

•And then we have Mallory Ortberg writing on The Toast about publishers’ apparent interest in writers who are good-looking. : “Herr, for her part, acknowledges that an author’s appearance can affect an advance — ‘We look at all of that stuff’ — but insists, ‘We would have paid her the same money if she weighed 500 pounds and was really hard to look at.’ In other words, appearance doesn’t affect advances and contracts, except when it does. Ditto contacts (one interviewee says a writer being able to get a cover blurb from Amy Poehler was a big plus) and social media skills.

Which is not news, really. I remember back in the 1990s one editor at Daw saying one of the things he looked for in submitting writers was whether they’d networked enough they could promise a few big names would provide blurbs for the books. But it’s still disturbing for all of us who are not, shall we say, avatars of physical perfection, to know we might be judged on our looks as much as our craft.

It’s also one of the problems I have with arguments that we should kill copyright and let writers make their living off personal appearances and readings. Writers are not actors or musicians; public performance isn’t part of the skill set. A lot of people are too nervous (public speaking is one of the commonest phobias); a lot of people are just poor public speakers. Huge numbers of people don’t have the kind of presence or appearance that draws a crowd, or the kind of fame that will put butts in seats: I’ve made probably over a thousand on short stories over the years, but I seriously doubt I could earn that much by reading them in public. It’s a really good idea unless you think writers should be fine not making money. Which some people are.

•And here’s a depressing report that Ace and Roc are being merged in with their parent companies, and in the process not only are editors going but upper management will make “title cuts” — which Rusch in another article says some books simply won’t come out. It was depressing enough when Barbarian Books closed its doors before publishing Questionable Minds; I think having the title “cut” would be even more painful.

•To end on an upbeat note, here’s an unusual cover (don’t know the artist, all rights reside with current holder) I rather like.

dailyb-1

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under copyright, cover art, Writing

Dr. Strange, copyright and other writing issues (#SFWApro)

So a while back I ripped into a description of Dr. Strange as phony mysticism. I didn’t do more than touch upon the Asian stereotyping (white guy learns mystic arts by apprenticing under Asian guy in Tibet). Mighty God King takes a look at the stereotypes, the problems and how Marvel failed to avoid them (it’s still learning mysticism in the East, but under a white person).

I’ll add I’m not happy that the trailer refers to pre-initiation Strange as “a man who saves lives” rather than an arrogant jerk who saves lives if he’s paid lots of money. Because for me the redemption aspect is a huge part of what makes the stories compelling.

Now, copyright:

•Can conlangs (artificial languages like Klingon or Esperanto) be coyprighted? Paramount is currently fighting to assert a copyright to Klingon in response to a proposed indie Star Trek flick.

•A digital comic book explaning copyright.

•The Recording Industry Association of Industry says it can’t get a fair price for music played on YouTube because copyright law makes it too hard to take down infringing videos (so why bother to pay the fee if it’ll go up anyway?). Of course RIAA has a different idea of fair prices (in this case relating to bootleg recordings) than most people. And no, the money doesn’t flow to the musicians.

•Using geolocation isn’t a legal method for finding Internet pirate downloaders. Here are some horrible examples of how current mapping systems can make innocent people look like pirates or child-porn fans.

•Spotify has put up a pool of $21 million to settle suits over unpaid royalties.

•Consumerist argues that if schools teach kids about the dangers of violating copyright, they should teach fair use as well.

•Speaking of fair use, the Supreme Court has rejected an appeal in the Google Books scanning case. So the lower court ruling that scanning is fair use stands.

•Led Zeppelin has been sued for plagiarizing another songwriter. Paul Campos looks at the case and the legal rules.

Now, other things:

•If the red herring in your mystery is more interesting than the real explanation, you did it wrong.

•Jim Hines discusses trigger warnings and the idea they’re only for wimps.

•I bet you’ve been wondering about the legal requirements for importing kryptonite, haven’t you?

•Glenn Greenwald discusses the future of investigative journalism in the freelance Internet age.

•Sources for period-appropriate names for historical fiction.

•I’m not sure I entirely agree with this Chekhov’s gun-type argument that you should only include characters and scenes in your first act that pay off later. Sometimes I think there’s an advantage just to showing the normal life your protagonist starts with to dramatize the total change when she’s yanked into 1776 or Valhalla or wherever.

•If you’re doing a nonfiction piece and the client asks for more than you agreed to, what next? Some suggestions. Scope creep is definitely something to be wary of. I did a ghost-writing gig some years back for a very low rate and ran into this problem; eventually I just had to say no to added work.

•Alison McKenzie suggests how to revise mid-draft without doing it over and over and over.

•Advice on a good Goodreads author profile.

•Clean Reads defines its line of “wholesome reading” — as no erotica, no BDSM, no homosexual characters. (hat/tip Shannon A. Thompson)

•Scammers have found a way to make money of Kindle Unlimited by deliberately writing drivel.

Now an illustration, Powers again (all rights to current holder):

dailyb-1

1 Comment

Filed under copyright, Nonfiction, Writing

Digital content woes, JK Rowling on North America and other writing/publishing links (#SFWApro)

The digital age was supposed to be when everything would became available to us at any time we wanted it. Except (astonishingly) it’s not so simple. Barnes & Noble is trying to stop red ink on the Nook, so downloaded video must be switched to other providers. And in the UK, customers will have to open an account with another provider (Sainsbury’s) and transfer books to that platform or they’re lost. As I’ve mentioned before, this was not the way ebooks were supposed to work.

Mighty God King meanwhile laments how much video is not on DVD or only available at exorbitant prices, but also not available for streaming. I agree with him completely: it’s astonishing, working on Time Travel in Screen, how many movies weren’t available or weren’t available in English or American-compatible DVDs (I was willing to spend a lot on my book, but I don’t really think it was worth getting an all-regions DVD player). But I do disagree that people reading this “grew up in a world where there was a basic assumption that any movie or TV you wanted to watch would be reasonably available to you, thanks to the dual waves of VHS and then DVD meaning massive releases of decades’ worth of film and TV.” Okay, it was probably a basic assumption but it was wrong: as long as VHS and DVD have been coming out, Good Movies That Aren’t Available has been an issue (copyright issues or simply lack of interest). Which doesn’t make it any less of a problem for preserving good stuff. And makes me glad I kept a lot of stuff I recorded off the air (The Nasty Girl, for instance, is a great German movie but last time I checked, it wasn’t available at all in DVD).

•On the plus side, Barnes & Noble is closing fewer stores than expected and opening some new ones.

•As a run-up to her new Harry Potter story, J.K. Rowling has been writing about magic in North America. Some Native Americans think it sounds like a disaster. For example, Rowling explains the myth of the Navajo skinwalker as distorted stories about native animagi. While I think her point is to show stereotypes and bias leveled against Americans, the criticism is that skinwalkers are part of a complex tradition, so it’s like declaring Christian saints are actually Hogwarts graduates using magic.

•What constitutes a conflict of interest when you’re a freelancer with multiple clients?

•Twenty-two years ago this month, 2Live Crew won a major “fair use” copyright case over parodying the song “Pretty Woman.”

•If you’re writing about a convicted serial rapist, discussing how he was once a nice white high school athlete and none of his friends can believe he’s guilty is not the way to go. More commentary here.

•Shannon Thompson on not letting writing consume her life. This is very much a YMMV topic—J. Michael Straczynski once wrote that when he was starting out either he was going to become a writer or “the abyss would take me”—but it’s worth thinking about for that reason. Is writing a job, a hobby, a passion, and how much are you willing to cut back on other things to find writing time and energy? And if there’s a limit to what you’ll give up, that’s okay (I certainly prioritize TYG over getting work done).

•Below, another Powers cover, from one of Jack Vance’s Demon Princes stories.

390-1

1 Comment

Filed under copyright, Writing

Imposter syndrome and other writing links (#SFWApro)

Imposter Syndrome is the fear that no matter what your achievements, you’re a phony. You don’t deserve your success, it’s all due to luck, you’re not as good as people think and they’ll soon realize it. John Scalzi says he’s never suffered from it and suggest it’s because he’s never doubted he was a writer, never had the people he cares about dismiss his dream, and because he’s been so successful. Writing at Fraggmented, John Seavey says (and I think he’s right) that this is bullshit: imposter syndrome hits people regardless of their success (which is true at noted at the first link). Saying “my success protected me from impostor syndrome” makes no more sense than “I’m too brave to have phobias” or “I have too many wonderful things in my life to be depressed”—it just doesn’t work like that.

•Sequential Crush look at fashion imagery from romance comics, and how much it looks like classic fashion illustrations.

•Contrary to Steven Moffat, a psychologist says, Sherlock Holmes is not a sociopath. While I agree completely on Doyle’s original character, I wish the shrink had covered the BBC Sherlock too, because he is obviously not the same person.

•Copywriting a book or short story is one thing, copywriting a character (or trademarking them) is different, and tougher.

•Happy Birthday is not only in the public domain now, Warners—which had the now invalid copyright—will pay several million dollars to the people it hit with copyright fees.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under copyright, Writing

Morally complicated Y/A and other writing and media links (#SFWApro)

So last November, an author named Scott Bergstrom got a six-figure deal and a movie deal for his new Y/A novel about ‘Gwendolyn Bloom, a Jewish, slightly overweight 17-year-old, who is transformed into a “lean warrior with hair dyed fire-engine red,’ during her mission to rescue her father, a kidnapped diplomat. Her search takes her into Europe’s most dangerous slums, and into contact with gangsters, spies, and arms dealers.”

Bergstrom touts this in the article as being really morally edgy because Gwen shoots first and asks questions later, and because it’s set in the real world, in contrast to all the Y/A that takes place in “a walled garden” (whatever he means by that). At the same time his new editor comments that the morality isn’t that complex (though she doesn’t put it that way): “Kicking butt to save your dad is actually a lot easier for me to swallow than kids killing kids in The Hunger Games.”

Well, yes, it is, one reason why I’m rolling my eyes at Bergstrom’s self-assessment (Shannon Thompson and Victoria Aveyard do too in different ways). The Hunger Games books are all about having to make horrible choices in an environment where you can’t simply give up and walk away — you either kill everyone else, even the nice people, or you die (as Aveyard notes, Katniss gets into the game to save her sister, but after that it’s kill-or-be-killed). A teen who does terrible things to save her father is actually a relatively safe bet, the same way a mother fighting to save her children gets a lot of latitude.

And frankly, a story where a pudgy teenage girl transforms into what sounds like a sexy, no-flab killing machine sounds pretty safe too. Certainly the kind of arc Hollywood loves (look, she starts flabby and ends sexy!). So color me unimpressed.

•More competition in the challenging world of online video.

•Do social media weaken the power of the media when interviewing the famous?

•A new approach to releasing movies for home viewing that cuts theaters in for a slice of the profits.

•Audiobooks are becoming bigger business.

•Including a time jump in your story.

•A lot of LA Times reporters are getting while the getting is good.

•It looks like “Happy Birthday” is finally entering public domain.

•Meanwhile, Disney gets a little obsessive about Star Wars copyrights.

•Five web sites for finding sources.

•A YouTuber posts an old news story about a dentist who allegedly assaulted patients. The dentist is suing.

•A writer discusses different ways for Y/A to be feminist: more female friendships, more female sports stories and multiple other options. Shannon Thompson discusses allowing characters to be kick-ass and girly both.

•Yes, having female heroes to admire does matter.

•NBC has argued that based on Netflix ratings, streaming shows doesn’t affect broadcast TV viewing. Netflix responds that ratings don’t matter much when you’re not selling air time for ads.

Ten mistakes freelancers make. Mostly geared to nonfiction writers, but things like Read The Contract Before Signing are universally applicable.

•Foz Meadows rips into a claim Force Awakens has a bad male/female dynamic because (what else) feminism! Meadows, herself, loves the dynamic.

•Mystery writer Sherry Harris looks at a 1968 issue of Seventeen. The Wonderbread ad is particularly memorable (“Are you the kind of girl boys fall in love with at the drop of your false lashes?”)

•New York Times reporters claim that the San Bernadino shooters talked openly on social media about their faith in jihad … only it wasn’t true.

 

2 Comments

Filed under copyright, Politics, Reading, Writing