Rant du Jour: Copyright

[ewein2412]

Can't live with it, can't live without it.

 

Wendy Cope has a thought-provoking article (well, it provoked me) in the Winter 2008 issue of the Authors' Guild Bulletin, in which she complains about people sharing her poems via the Internet. The article's title sums up her argument: "You Like My Poems? So Pay for Them." She has a legitimate case, I'd say, in that the authors of comic verse are particularly vulnerable to having their names detached from their poems (she says she once came across one of her own poems, in an anthology, attributed to Dorothy Parker). I think I'm probably guilty myself of quoting her version of Eliot's "Waste Land" somewhere in hyperspace.  Cope argues, among other things, that "Free publicity has no value if all that happens is that even more people download your poems from the Internet without paying for them."

 

But wait a minute. I'm sure that, nay, I know that, in addition to quoting Cope in conversation electronically I have also, and often, quoted her in conversation ALOUD.  And… well… forgive me if I'm wrong.  I have a rather bizarre attitude toward copyright, dating back to St. Columba causing the Battle of Cúl Dreimhne because he'd made a copy of St. Finnian's psalter.  But isn't the WHOLE POINT OF POETRY that it's meant to be SPOKEN ALOUD?  To OTHER LISTENERS?  I have something of a reputation, among friends and family, for being able to match any situation with "perfect words"—I sometimes consider it my only true talent.  I have memorized (for my sins) almost everything that Rupert Brooke ever wrote. There was a time when I could recite the whole of Act V of Hamlet.  I ended my high school valedictory speech by quoting aloud a huge chunk of Carl Sandburg's "The People, Yes."  Now, if someone hears one of these recitations and goes off and quotes it to someone else, is that a breach of copyright?  There is a LOT of Rupert Brooke's doggerel verse, stuff that was never intended for public consumption, that has made it into the cultural literacy of a bunch of my friends (even now a friend of mine from high school quoted to me probably his most dreadful poem, "A Channel Passage," when I went to visit her during the Nebula Awards weekend). OK, so Rupert Chawner Brooke's poetry is probably in the public domain, as is Hamlet. But does that mean I can ONLY pass on poetry that is in the public domain? Does it count as breach of copyright if I recite the whole of The Thirteen Clocks at a party?

 

This brings me to an even stickier question: THE LENDING OF BOOKS.  Every time a keen reader takes one of my books out of the library, I lose a sale.  Is that wrong and evil and illegal, like breach of copyright?  I don't think so, but you know, The Winter Prince and A Coalition of Lions are out of print because of slender sales. Shouldn't I be anti-library as well as anti-copyright theft?

I don't know the answer. I'm just asking.  (And trying to be thought-provoking too.)

 

Pretty randomly, I discovered that the Multnomah County library system in Oregon has got a whole lot of ALL my books, and as I write this, all three of its copies of The Winter Prince are CHECKED OUT. As some of you may know, The Winter Prince has been out of print since 2005. But people are still reading it in Multnomah County. They're also reading my two most recent books. But they're not BUYING my books. And you know what? Even if they were buying The Winter Prince at this point in time, I still wouldn't be making any money off the sale, because it's out of print--any money exchanged over that book goes direct to the bookseller.

 

And you know what else? I DON'T CARE. I'm DELIGHTED that people in Oregon are able to read The Winter Prince for free. I WANT people to read my books. I WANT people to quote them. I want people to make photocopies of them (well, the out-of-print ones, ok?) and share them with their friends. I crave attention. I crave a readership. Who would write a book they didn't intend to share?

 

I wanted to quote a passage from Homer's Odyssey in The Empty Kingdom, but there were lines that I needed to rearrange. I asked for permission to use the same translation that I'd used in The Sunbird and A Coalition of Lions. But the translator's publisher wouldn't grant me permission this time, because I wanted to rearrange the lines.  Guess what I did (well, first I cried a lot because I was so frustrated): I got a friend of mine to translate the original ancient Greek, and rewrote it myself in English. The modern translation is all tied up in copyright rules, but the original Homer is in the public domain. Go figure.

 

Poems are for sharing.  Dear, goony RCB. Who knows THIS one:

 

"If you were like clam chowder

and I were like the spoon

and the band were playing louder

and a little more in tune

I'd stir you till I spilled you

or I'd kiss you till I killed you

if you were like clam chowder

and I were like the spoon."

Comments

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

I read an excellent book called "Becoming Shakespeare" by Jack Lynch, and it talked a lot about the early copyright laws and how Shakespeare's works were rewritten, edited, sequeled, etc. The point I got out of it is that copyright law should balance the interests of the author/publisher and the interests of the public/history. But what the perfect copyright law looks like, I do not know.

I am sad TWP is out of print...I have run out of extra copies to give to people. There are three books I have kept extra copies of to give people, and those are TWP, Good Omens, and John McPhee's Basin and Range (one of these is not even remotely like the others, heh).

[sovay]

I got a friend of mine to translate the original ancient Greek, and rewrote it myself in English.

Go, you and your friend. The translator's publisher, however, is silly.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Yes, and those of us who have just called up their local bookseller and begged them to order in every book you have ever written are mourning that TWP and ACaL are out of print, too. Sigh.

But what you said about being excited that people somewhere are reading them even if you aren't getting any money for them. Which is pretty much the rationale I used for spending eight years writing nothing but fanfic when I was too busy having kids to get my head together for any wholly original writing. Having readers but no advances or royalties couldn't put bread on the table, but it kept me alive and hopeful as a writer.

Is there honey still for tea?

[suzannemercury.livejournal.com]

I distinctly remember you quoting The Old Vicarage, Grantchester the first time I met you. Ah memories!

I really agree about copyright. Not that I *have* any copyrights to fret about mind you, but as a poet I would be deeply indebted to anyone who loved my work enough to want to share it. I have never expected to make money off of this kind of writing, so maybe my expectations are different from Cope's.

But I also think that too much concern with this issue can work against an author-- it's nice to be paid of course, but there are other ways of going about this, more than one way to skin that cat.

Do you know the music of Jane Siberry by any chance? She is a musician with quite a following who has always been deeply unhappy about the highly proprietary nature of the music industry. One of her best collections is unavailable because the company that "owns" it refuses to reissue it. So a couple of years ago she did a number of very radical things:

First she changed her name to Issa and sold everything she owned except for the basics so that she could afford to just be a full time traveling musician. She then took all of her music that she actually owned and put it up on her personal website for users to download-- for free if they wanted it all for free, or for a donation if they wanted to make a donation. Everything. People thought she was nuts, but her POV was that she simply wanted her music to be out there and didn't care about anything else.

Then a big surprise came her way: she made more money from donations than the music companies ever paid her, and huge numbers of people are now downloading her work. Word has gotten around, and she is on to many more new projects. Who would have thunk it?

So while I think it is nice to make money and we all like those contracts, worrying about it too much or getting angry ala Wendy Cope is kind of short sighted. There are all kinds of distribution methods for poetry (if you want to use market-speak) and a printed book with a price tag attached is only one. Honestly I would value more the devoted reader who actually memorizes verse. I think now is a great time for writers to explore alternatives.

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

While I would like to make money at writing, that isn't why I do it. I think I'd agree with you, in that I would be delighted that they wanted to read my book...

(And since I donated my paperbacks to a HS library when I purchased hardcovers, I'm contributing to your lack of funding)

[mhari.livejournal.com]

Copyright is such a weird thing. So useful when it works, such a pain in the butt when it doesn't.

See, what you need is for Hollywood to pick up the whole series and make big shiny movies out of it. :D

...*runs away!*

(that is an adorable poem!)

[ewein2412]

I am very flattered to be on that list.

I know that copyright law is there to protect me as an artist, but as a member of the public I just feel stalled by it. I once tried to quote one line from a Cole Porter song in a book, and Warner Brothers wanted $750 to grant permission to me to include it. $750 to quote ONE LINE, with credit given, in a book that would have had a print run of about 5000 copies! That's about a quarter of what the advance would have been back then. Obviously, I wrote the line out of the story. (That the book remains unpublished has nothing to do with it.)

I suppose the law has to be draconian or else people would take advantage of it, but I wish there could be more artistic borrowing allowed--as homage, as allusion, as reference.

[ewein2412]

I thought so too, but I think they were just following the rules.

(we have the same publisher... ahahahahahah)

[lauradi7.livejournal.com]

Neil Gaiman has had ongoing discussions of this kind of thing. His basic idea is that if you give away one of your books, people will buy the others, or something like that.

[ewein2412]

seriously, guys, if you can't get these books you should come to me and beg. Because I have been made to buy all the remaindered copies. INCLUDING the extra 100 hardback copies of Coalition that the discount buyer shipped me by accident and which I couldn't afford to return (the shipping cost three times what the books cost) (I live in Scotland, remember?).

whine whine whine

What you say about fanfic is very true, of course--that instant response is the most gratifying thing ever. Part of the trouble with published original fiction (or any writing) is the waiting, don't you think? you have all that time to doubt yourself, and by the time it's out there in the reading world you've moved on and are ready to talk about something else. So you're left feeling faintly dissatisfied, because you never really got engaged in a dialogue about the story.

possibly this is a problem individual to ME, since I am naturally a solitary sort of writer and don't like to share my stuff (in a critique group, say) until it's DONE. And, of course, if you get involved in school and library visits you do get that dialogue going. But you still have to WAIT.

Re: Is there honey still for tea?

[ewein2412]

I used to date a guy who was a copyright policeman. seriously. He went around to bars where there was live music, spying on and reporting bands who played other people's songs without permission.

it was not a match made in heaven.

but you know, I do have sympathy for Cope's argument. I think that my high-amoral-ground stance is a privilege of not being very high profile--if I was more squarely in the ranks of the midlist, and actually had some chance of earning my living writing poetry (as I suspect she does), I might very well complain if my writing was being bandied about with no return for me. Because it might make a difference, to her, between self-sufficiency and having to do other work, or between self-sufficiency and comfort.

but there ARE alternatives now, as you say, more and more, which is exciting.

Re: Is there honey still for tea?

[ewein2412]

oh btw I can still do "Grantchester."

[ewein2412]

I contribute hugely to my own lack of funding. I give away books all the time. (Where do you think the Perth library gets my books?)

The worst was when I gave books to our local bookstore in town (a chain, I hasten to add). It sold them all and kept the money. How freaking desperate is that.

[ewein2412]

shiny movies! ahahahahahaha

so how come Susan Cooper doesn't get to sue whoever it was who made that awful Dark is Rising film? what a screwed up business it is.

[holyschist.livejournal.com]

I think current copyright law is less about artists and more about publishers, but I'm rather discontented with it (and the increasing tightening of Fair Use that's damaging academia, and the reasons museums can't share historic photographs freely, and...). I'm just not sure what I want copyright law to look like. I think about it a lot, though. As you say, homage and allusion and reference are all important, as is criticism and analysis and education and history.

The permissions for song lyrics are the craziest of all.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Consider yourself begged for both TWP and ACoL. I will gladly pay cover price plus whatever postage it takes to mail both -- do you have PayPal? Or if not, would you be willing to set up a PayPal account? Because that's by far the cheapest and easiest way for international fans to buy books off you, and all they'd have to know is your e-mail address... Anyway, you can e-mail me at rja at pobox dot com if you're interested.

And yes, the waiting involved in publishing is very tedious. On the other hand, I am positively promiscuous about sharing my work in progress (albeit with a relatively small circle of trusted readers), so I probably don't feel it quite as keenly as authors like yourself who prefer to keep their manuscripts under wraps until they're published.

[ewein2412]

well, I always argue that I want the books, if I like them enough. I want them on my bookshelf, in my hands, not just on the screen. Here's what I do with books that I really, really like:

1) I buy multiple editions of them for myself.

2) I give new copies out as gifts.

3) I learn chunks of them by heart.

And a lot of the books that I only read in the library as a child, I now own as an adult.

[ewein2412]

Neil Gaiman's Books of Magic are in fact a case in point. I think I own about 3 sets of 'em.

[mhari.livejournal.com]

I can see it now. Hollywood Sunbird: everyone is beige, and there are big fight scenes instead of that Boring Political Stuff^TM, and Sofya and Telemakos have Cute Preteen Faux!Kisses. (brb have to scrub myself with lye)

I DO NOT KNOW. There oughta be a -- yeah.

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

A reader's a reader! ;o)

[ewein2412]

done, and I done sent you email.

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

Hear, hear. I do the same thing. Well, maybe not so much with the multiple editions just for me. But the others, definitely.

[ewein2412]

oh, gawd, yes, academia is another story altogether. Again, I have somewhat radical views that probably don't entirely jive with the actual law. (Isn't it BETTER to copy an OP book than to steal it from the library, or cut pages out of it?)

My high school librarian eventually let me have their copy of Rupert Brooke's collected poems, since I argued that no one had taken it out since 1946. When I got a little richer I bought them a lovely new expanded and annotated edition. Funny thing is, people actually do check out the new copy from time to time.

[ewein2412]

urp.

Telemakos Meder^TM, hee hee hee.

[ewein2412]

my point exactly!