Does a writer deserve to be paid?

There's an interesting post at the blog TechCrunch, about how easy it is to use portable media devices for "stealing books." The writer notes the technology known as BitTorrents conveniently enables this act. What's even more interesting is the discussion following the post. One fellow, Chris, who describes himself as a writer, offers some interesting views about compensating writers. He posits that publishers rip us off on contracts, but a reader who illegally acquires a book by the use of technology is doing no harm. Chris believes we should value all readers (desperately seeking readers?) whether they pay for our product or not.

I posted a question on the discussion, asking Chris whether he's paid for what he writes or whether he's been doing the deed for free. I'll let you know if there's a response.

While ivory towers are useful, most of us who try to earn a living by the pen do not have the luxury of an ivory tower. Some of us write full-time, others teach and write on the side, and still others work a non-related day job to be able to write during leisure time.

I obviously love my work--otherwise I wouldn't do it. But I also expect to be paid for content I supply to a publication or Web site. I like royalties from my books. Do you think those who own publications, presses, or Web sites are doing it for free? Should the U.S. follow the suit of countries where government controls the written word, reimbursing journalists and others who write?

I have a hard time wrapping my brain around working for nothing. When grocers fill my bag with free food items and gas stations pump fuel at no charge, when utilities supply me with free water and when cats stop chasing songbirds, I suppose we can all work for free. Until then, you work you should be paid.

Ed. note: In the article at Tech Crunch, since BitTorrents is mentioned, readers should be aware the technology does not cloak users' identities. Numeric Internet addresses are viewable, according to Bram Cohen, BitTorrents developer. Cohen was interviewed by The New York Times. He told the paper he didn't envision people using his technology for copyright infringement. Read our Covering Florida story of an Orlando man facing 10 years in prison and a $500,000 fine for participating in a the Elite Torrents network, involving file sharing of music, games, movies and software.

The wild wild Web, where copyright is becoming an oft-repeated word

I read a post at a discussion forum—the author found a Web site had copied her content verbatim. She contacted the owner of the site, who basically told her to shove it—there was nothing she could do. The site owner did remove the content, however. In August, I wrote a column about a lawsuit filed by an author who took issue with a bad review of his book. The reviewer didn’t just bash the book; illustrations from the work were reproduced. The author had provided the book, so the case isn’t black and white.

In a perfect world, no one would lift your content without asking. But people do. One reason I added the ‘Copyscape’ banner to both my sites involves providing notice that I do check for copied content. Copyscape works beautifully to this end.

Technically, you don’t have to officially register a work to protect it. The U.S. Copyright Office Web site notes:

No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration.

Here’s the note referenced above:

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time.

It is a good idea when you post to your blog or Web site to add a copyright notice, and it’s an even better idea to file the forms to protect your work.

And if you have your eye on sharp content written by another, ask before you lift. Chances are if you run a quality site, you’ll receive permission unless you’re asking a large commercial concern. And always, if you’re given permission, be mannerly and include a link to the site where the work was first featured.

There’s an excellent site explaining the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, organized by the Association of Research Libraries. This government act offers some protection for your Web content, and restricts use of your content to fair use guidelines, including the amount of content in relation to the whole work. Fine to lift a line or two when you’re reviewing a book or poem. Not so fine to lift the whole item.

Meanwhile, you can drop your URL in at Copyscape to see if your work is being used without your knowledge.

©KayBDay/2007

On publishing a book of poetry

My new poetry collection is almost complete, and I’m considering different options for publishing it. I had the benefit of a traditional publisher with my last two books.

But copyright developments in the marketplace as well as thoughts about profitability are leading me to take a hard look at self-publishing.

If you’ve been following the columns I’ve written about the Faulkner vs. National Geographic case, you’ll see how cloudy copyright issues can be. It’s my opinion Judge Lewis Kaplan erred in his decision on that case.

I actually read his decision, all of it.

I also read amazon.com reviews posted by those who purchased the Complete National Geographic collection. Everything I read there drives home my position—the CNG was not an archival collection of the original issues. I love the reader’s comment exclaiming, “I have to watch a damn Kodak commercial?”

I seriously doubt the judge had the foresight to experience sample CDs from the collection, but I could be wrong about that. You’d think they’d have demonstrated the product in a courtroom where such a sweeping decision would take place.

My point is that some of these photographers, whose heirs actually sided with Faulkner, signed a contract before technology made such a collection possible. There would have been no way for them to foresee the creation of this product. As a consequence, their beautiful photographs are rendered to pathetic images in many cases, according to reader reviews. That would make any artist feel pretty lousy because this distorts, possibly even damages, the integrity of the original artwork. After all, you hear the name ‘Geographic’ you automatically think pictures.

At this point in my career, I see contracts that ask for everything but the kitchen sink. That’s one reason I don’t submit poetry anymore to online magazines. Most lit zines can’t pay a writer—they just don’t have the budget. But at least if I have my poetry in a collection that I own, I will have some control over where it’s published.

The downside is the time necessary for making sure the book gets distributed, possibly by placing it with a distribution channel who has arrangements with a major wholesaler.

I actively participated in the marketing of both my other books, so I figure I’d have to do the same if I were to invest my own money in publishing my work.

I saw on the National Writers Union site there’s a report for members about this subject. I haven’t read it yet, but the gist of the report focuses on comparable benefits for self-publishing if your books are done through a small traditional press as mine are rather than a big house.

Publishing is changing drastically, in no small part because of technology. It pays to weigh any decision beforehand, for we learn much at the expense, often unfairly assessed as in the National Geographic case, to others.

SPJ freelance chair resigns, cites amicus brief in National Geographic case

I met a few SPJ members in Washington at the D.C. chapter's Christmas party. I'd traveled to the capital to read poetry at 'Florida Poets Arrive' at the U.S. Library of Congress.

---

The Society of Professional Journalists signed on to an amicus brief supporting National Geographic in a lawsuit involving contributors’ rights relating to collective works produced by publishers. How does this serve SPJ or the freelancers who belong to the organization?

Kerri Fivecoat-Campbell was a definite asset for freelancers who belong to the Society of Professional Journalists. Most members of the organization are full-time employees of newspapers and magazines. Most freelancers join the organization because SPJ is a guardian of freedom of the press. My own membership fees have connected me to a network of writers and editors around the country, but until Kerri headed the freelance committee, there was scant attention to those who are self-employed.

Kerri worked hard to increase our presence in SPJ. One big accomplishment was the freelancer database she and her committee implemented. Now if an editor is looking for an independent journalist, there’s a handy database full of willing and available writers. She also maintained the SPJ blog The Independent Journalist, listing jobs, opportunities and other information relevant to our trade.

Unfortunately Kerri emailed me this morning, stating she is resigning her position as chair of the SPJ Freelance Committee.

Kerri is leaving because SPJ signed an amicus brief supporting National Geographic in a lawsuit. NG purchased photos from contributors, using the works in print editions. But now the photos are included in a CD-ROM collection.

As an SPJ member, I’m not satisfied with the organization’s explanation justifying signing on to the brief—I fail to see how this fits with SPJ’s emphasis on freedom of information and first amendment rights. SPJ notes in a statement on the Web site:

This case does not harm a contributor’s ability to receive payment for the reproduction of his work when published in the same context of the original. It merely affirms that any such understanding must be expressly written into the contract.

Chances are when some of these contributors signed contracts, a comprehensive CD-ROM collection was an idea unborn. If a CD-ROM of each issue had been produced separately—and written into the contract as such—that would be a different scenario. But a collection of numerous issues in digital form should not fall under the contractual agreement these freelancers signed for usage of their properties in the print edition. The marketing for these products will certainly be different—the approach in selling a subscription is inherently different than that used to sell a collection. We are talking about a completely different entity.

Even federal courts are at odds over this matter. The American Society of Media Photographers says in the case of Florida photographer Jerry Greenberg, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled that Geographic had violated Jerry's copyrights by creating and selling the digital collection without permission to use his photographs.

But then the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed almost identical claims by photographer Douglas Faulkner and others.

As digital collections become more popular, issues over rights to intellectual property will surely proliferate.

Freelancers in SPJ have certainly lost a strong advocate. Kerri Fivecoat-Campbell did a great job for us. She really made us feel like we belonged.

I'd have preferred that SPJ at the least stayed neutral in the Geographic brawl--taking sides alienates those of us who may be fringe members, but believe in the mission SPJ built its foundations on.

READ RELATED STORIES

Erik Sherman's WriterBiz.

K.C.'s Write for You, Kerri Fivecoat-Campbell's blog

Intellectual property rights: what a tangled Web we’re weaving

The Web is heating up with news of another copyright battle, Viacom’s $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube.

I predict lawsuits will continue to increase in the next few years because technology available on the Web creates gray areas in copyright and other intellectual property rights issues.

I don’t think disputes will be limited to sites owned by media conglomerates, and I think a number of disputes will transcend intellectual property rights, moving into areas like libel and slander.

Traditional media is suffering transition pains right now because there’s so much free content available on the Web. Who watches TV anymore?
For instance users at YouTube upload whatever they want, and if they do infringe on a copyright, it’s up to the owner of the property to flag YouTube to remove the content.

That process sounds like a good plan until you consider the numbers. Last month, according to BusinessWeek.com, Viacom spokesman Jeremy Zweig said Viacom demanded the removal of more than 100,000 “unauthorized clips” from YouTube. That request was followed by Viacom’s discovery of another 50,000 unauthorized clips.

I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. Right now there’s a move among print media as well as online media to take advantage of “citizen journalists”—partly because the content is free and partly because this approach involves the reader/guest in the publication’s development. Circulation declined for many traditional newspapers last year, and investors are running a little scared.

The approach sounds all well and fine until you consider the lack of standards. Who will make certain stories adhere to fact and not fiction? Who will make certain there’s no copyright infringement? Who will deal with libel threats that will surely ensue? And will quality suffer even more, considering the current quagmire engulfing the English language at the moment?

I interviewed best-selling author James Redfield (The Celestine Prophecy) for the St. John’s Sun not long ago, during his residency at Flagler College. He likened the Web to “Chicago in the ‘30s.”

We will certainly face interesting challenges as individuals with no professional background in media transform into content providers.

Here’s hoping the content they provide will be legal. But I wouldn’t always bet on it.