intellectual property

Fuck You, Clean Reader: Authorial Consent Matters

by

This post by Chuck Wendig originally appeared on his terribleminds site on 3/25/15. Note that it contains a lot of strong language, but as strong language and authorial consent are at the heart of this post we have not censored any of it in the title or excerpt here.

There exists a new app called Clean Reader.

The function of Clean Reader is to scrub the profanity from e-books.

Their tagline: “Read books. Not profanity.“

You can dial in how much of the profanity you want gone from the books.

Author Joanne Harris has roundly (and to my mind, correctly) condemned the app, and I would recommend you read about her and condemnation. I would further suggest you go on and read the email she received from the Clean Reader people and, more importantly, her response to that email. (Oh, also: check her tweets, too: @JoanneChocolat.)

I am an author where much of my work utilizes profanity. Because fuck yeah, profanity. Profanity is a circus of language. It’s a drunken trapeze act. It’s clowns on fire. And let’s be clear up front: profanity is not separate from language. It is not lazy language. It is language. Just another part of it. Vulgarity has merit. It is expressive. It is emotive. It is metaphor.

So, as someone with a whole pig wagon full of fucks at stake, let be be clear:

Fuck you, Clean Reader.

*cups hand to mouth*

Fuuuuuuck. Yoooooooou.

*fuckecho through the canyon of fucks*

Please let me condemn your app in whatever obscene gesture you find most obscene.

Let me unpack this a little.

When I write a book, I write it a certain way. I paint with words. Those words are chosen. They do not happen randomly. The words and sentences and paragraphs are the threads of the story, and when you pluck one thread from the sweater, the whole thing threatens to unravel — or, at least, becomes damaged. You may say, Well, Mister Wendig, surely your books do not require the profanity, to which I say, fuck you for thinking that they don’t. If I chose it, and the editor and I agree to keep it, then damn right it’s required. It’s no less required than a line of dialogue, or a scene of action, or a description of a goddamn motherfucking lamp. Sure, my book could exist without that dialogue, that action, that goddamn motherfucking lamp.

But I don’t want it to. That’s your book, not my book.

 

Read the full post on terribleminds.

 

Authors: Don't Scream "Piracy!", Then Turn Around & Pay Thieves To Represent You Or Your Work

by

This post by Publetariat founder April L. Hamilton originally appeared on her Indie Author Blog and is reprinted here in its entirety with her permission.

It happens again and again: authors, both indie and mainstream-published, crying foul over piracy of their work. They grab their virtual torches and pitchforks and take to social media to spread the word and their righteous indignation over this or that file sharing site offering their ebooks for free download.

Imagine my surprise then, when I found at least a few of those same authors paying to list their books with a promotional service that steals intellectual property for use in its ads:

When the ad pictured above started showing up all over Facebook this week, I was both shocked and angered. I have censored the service’s name in the image because I don’t want to send any business their way or promote their service, even inadvertently. But if you’re on Facebook and regularly post or share about books, ebooks and publishing, you have probably seen the original ad yourself.

I was shocked by the blatant theft and use of Charles M. Schulz’s intellectual property for purposes of advertising a service that is in no way endorsed by the Schulz estate. I was shocked that the thief did not even bother to include Schulz’ signature, to at least give credit to the creator of the iconic image of Snoopy at the typewriter. I was shocked that this ad was being run in such a hugely popular online forum, showing flagrant disregard for intellectual property laws.

I was angered that an author services provider—a company ostensibly in the business of helping creators of intellectual property—would do such a thing. I was angered that many authors whose names are familiar to me (some of whom are quick to point the intellectual property theft finger at ebook piracy sites) have books listed with this service, and probably have no idea they’ve thrown their lot in with an intellectual property thief.

I was angrier still when, after sending a private message to this outfit’s Facebook fan page earlier in the week, today I received a response claiming total ignorance of what intellectual property was stolen, and from whom.

As some already know, I’ve recently started developing and releasing my own Android apps, and I’ve put in a lot of work creating my own, original artwork and images for use in those apps and a lot of money paying for artwork I’ve had custom-created for use in my apps. The same is true of my books, and I’m sure many of you reading this have also paid good money for proper use of intellectual property, because it’s the right thing to do.

AUTHORS: please do not throw your lot in with any person or service with so little regard for intellectual property rights. You are, after all, in the business of creating intellectual property and it’s incredibly hypocritical to let an intellectual property thief represent you or your work in any way, once you have been made aware of this situation. If you have a book listed with this outfit (and if you’re not sure, email me at indieauthor @ gmail dot com and I’ll share the name of the company) I urge you to immediately remove your books from their listings and demand your money be refunded, and then spread the word about this company to all your author friends.

 

The Indie Author's Guide to Rights

by

This post by Daniel Lefferts originally appeared on Publishers Weekly on 12/15/14.

As self-published works grow in popularity, indie authors are increasingly in a position to market their book to foreign publishers or to agents and producers working in film, TV, and theater. But before authors can do that, they need know their rights.

Copyrighting Your Work

Without the guidance of literary agents, indie authors have to take extra-special care to protect their rights—including copyright—when negotiating with a self-publishing service.

Seth Dellon, director of new product development at PubMatch, a rights management resource for publishers, agents, and authors, says that, while indie authors technically own the copyright to any original work they produces automatically, it’s worth it for them to register their copyright. “You want to make sure that you register everything that you do,” he says, adding that the act of publishing itself constitutes “proof that you [own] it.”

 

Read the full post on Publishers Weekly.

 

The Copyright Naughty List

by

This post by Susan Spann originally appeared on the Writers in the Storm blog on 12/10/14.

Happy Holidays!

‘Tis the season to stay off the copyright “naughty list,” so I’m here to share a few #PubLaw tips for avoiding copyright infringement in your holiday blogging and social media celebrations!

When celebrating online this holiday season, keep these helpful rules in mind:

SONGS (AND LYRICS) ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

At the holidays, it’s tempting to re-post the lyrics to favorite carols or celebratory songs, either on Facebook, on a blog, or on other social media sites. Unfortunately, lyric-sharing often violates the copyright of the lyricist or songwriter, because lyrics are protected by copyright, as are novels, short stories and poems.

Posting an excerpt (no more than 2-3 lines) is often permitted as “fair use,” especially when the quoted work runs at least 30 lines. However, there is no absolute test for fair use, and no definitive test for when you’ve used too much of a copyrighted work. The legal test is “facts and circumstances,” based on several factors (so anyone who tells you “X lines is ok, but more is not” isn’t telling you the absolute legal truth.

 

Read the full post on Writers in the Storm.

 

Prose and Cons: A Plagiarist Faces the Judge

by

This post by John Doppler originally appeared on The John Doppler Effect on 9/2/14.

To an author, there are few crimes more heinous than plagiarism. Every author knows the agony of the untold story, the grueling birth of a novel, the joy of finally bringing that creation into the world and holding it up for all to see.

Having that joy stolen from you is an unspeakable cruelty.

That’s why Rachel Ann Nunes’ plight has struck a chord with so many authors. Rachel’s novel, A Bid for Love, was stolen, mutilated, and repackaged as a sloppy knock-off titled The Auction Deal.

Rachel’s work has already hit #1 on the Amazon bestseller lists for Christian fiction, but the plagiarist believed she could improve it by injecting explicit sex scenes into the work. She then offered the book for sale under her pen name, Sam Taylor Mullens, and pretended that it was her own, original creation.

The plagiarist tried to take credit for Rachel’s inventiveness, hard work, and perseverance. It was a cowardly act, but it paled in comparison to what followed.

 

An impersonal crime becomes personal

It’s said that character is what you do when nobody is looking. Mullens felt invisible and untouchable behind her pseudonym, and her true character was quickly revealed.

First, she attempted to deflect criticism by offering a bewildering series of lies: that she had permission to use the work; that the work had been given to her by a mysterious, nameless man who later died in a car crash; that she was the niece of the CEO of Rachel’s publisher; and that she had collaborated with Rachel to write the book.

When those flimsy lies failed to stand up to scrutiny, she turned to a campaign of harassment and vicious libel against Rachel.

 

Click here to read the full post, which includes more details on how the plagiarist was caught, what charges she’s facing, and how other authors can help the case, on The John Doppler Effect.

 

Poor Man’s Copyright – Newsome v. Oldham

by

This post by Pete Morin originally appeared on his site on 6/24/14.

Hardly a week goes by without a discussion on the Internet about the legendary “poor man’s copyright.” This theory posits that an author may prove he is the creator of a work at a particular point in time by mailing himself a copy of the work, which is kept in the sealed envelope until such time as it may be needed. With the near ubiquity of email and the use of the Internet (especially by authors intent on selling their work), the old mailing tactic might just as easily be employed by one emailing himself a file.

With the advent of the Lanham Act, such quaint tactics are no substitute for registration with the United States Copyright Office, a process that takes minutes and costs only $35.

Nevertheless, the time may come when an author whose work is unregistered would discover her novel to have been stolen – perhaps by an unscrupulous beta reader – and fraudulently registered. Upon discovery, that unfortunate author might seek to register her own manuscript (as she must in order to maintain an action for infringement), which the USCO will not approve in light of the prior registration. Alternatively, the fraudulent author might (with breathtaking temerity) maintain an infringement action against the true creator.

How would the victimized author fare in her quest to prove she is the original artist?

 

Click here to read the full post on Pete Morin’s site.

 

The Poorest Man's Copyright

by

This post by Lily Hay Newman originally appeared on Slate on 5/4/14.

Do nothing.

ou could have heard about the “poor man’s copyright” anywhere: from an older relative, from a friend, from a high school English teacher. They find out that you’ve been working on a novel and they want to help, so they tell you to mail it to yourself once it’s done. That way, even if you don’t do anything with the novel for years (or if those snooty literary agents and publishing houses are incapable of recognizing genius when they see it), you still have a copy bearing an official federal date—and no one can steal your spot on the New York Times best-seller list.

It’s a nice idea, but the problem with the poor man’s copyright is that it doesn’t work. The humorless federal copyright office explains on its website, “The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a ‘poor man’s copyright.’ There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration.”

But if you’re a starving artist, don’t worry. Copyright legislation that took effect on Jan. 1, 1978, dictates that all works are automatically copyrighted from the time that they are created and “fixed” in some recognizable way.

 

Click here to read the full post on Slate.