WSJ Opinion Highlights The Problems Of 'Permission Culture'
from the that's-not-how-the-world-works dept
A bunch of folks have been sending in this Wall Street Journal opinion piece by author Tony Woodlief, where he aptly demonstrates the problems with the "permission culture" we've built up around copyright today. Often we'll discuss some of these things in posts, and defenders of the existing copyright regime will say "well, it's no problem, because you can just ask for permission" (here's an example of that kind of thinking). Of course, the reality is that it's not so easy at all. Woodlief points out that publishers are taking a very short-sighted view and demanding ridiculous amounts of money for tiny snippets of use, such that it makes no sense to use those works at all, and often the original content creators and society is worse off for it:The copyright thicket is a growing frustration among writers and editors. One editor of a popular literary anthology (who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals from publishers) confirmed that many publishers pursue illusory short-term profit at the expense of both profit and art. By demanding fees that most people won't pay, they forsake free advertising for the artists they claim to protect....Woodlief talks about his own experiences trying to quote a single eight-word line by songwriter Joe Henry in his recent book, and the fees were simply ridiculous:
Further, this editor noted that one reason literary anthologies and college-course syllabi have replaced classics with less edifying sources like newspaper articles and diaries is simply that major artists in the American literary canon are too expensive to procure en masse, if not totally off limits. The estates of William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway have historically restricted which stories can be used in anthologies, which means that students often have a narrow exposure to two of our country's finest writers.
But in dollar terms, some decisions by copyright holders, rather than optimize the artist's revenue and distribution, insure the opposite. When I asked to use a single line by songwriter Joe Henry, for example, his record label's parent company demanded $150 for every 7,500 copies of my book. Assuming I sell enough books to earn back my modest advance, this amounts to roughly 1.5% of my earnings, all for quoting eight words from one of Mr. Henry's songs.Now, there are some problems with the article, some of which are aptly pointed out by Christopher Harbin. For example Woodlief suggests that copyright is about guaranteeing income to creators, when it's actually about creating incentives for creators to add to the public domain. He also takes issue with the lack of recognition of the overall benefit of the public -- and no mention at all of fair use. Specifically, Harbin points out that with Joe Henry this is a clear fair use situation:
I love Joe Henry, but the price was too high. I replaced him with Shakespeare, whose work (depending on which edition you use) is in the public domain. Mr. Henry's record label may differ, but it's not clear that his interests --or theirs--are being served here. Were they concerned that readers might have their thirst for Mr. Henry's music sated by that single lyric? Isn't it more likely that his lyric would have enticed customers who otherwise wouldn't have heard of him?
One line from one song that doesn't hurt the market of Joe Henry's song is fair use, bud. You don't need to seek permission because you own it already. Joe Henry doesn't get to control every use of his work, only unfair ones.While I agree with Harbin that this should be fair use, the unfortunate reality these days is that publishers won't touch such quotes without permission being granted. It's almost impossible to find a publisher these days that would sign off on even that snippet of eight words, claiming that they don't want the liability of a lawsuit. I've had this discussion a few times with authors and publishers, and they all say the same thing: due to the potential liability of a lawsuit, even if it clearly does appear to be fair use, it's just not worth using the quote. In fact, we discussed this point here last year, where we wrote about an author who had to drop an entire section of a book, because of a few short quotes. Clear fair use... but his publisher wouldn't touch it. So I'd say Harbin goes a little too far in suggesting this is a purposeful omission by someone who wants to deny fair use. It seems more likely that Woodlief is accurately describing the state of the industry today, where threats of lawsuits have made permission culture the norm, even in cases of obvious fair use.
And that's where this "permission culture" has brought us. It's eating away at fair use. It's eating away at creativity. It's eating away at education. It's eating away at culture. And very, very few people seem to recognize how far it's already gone.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, fair use, permission culture, quoting, tony woodlief
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What do you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What do you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What do you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too true
The cost to reprint an article from a major US newspaper for this publication was $600 for a circulation of something like 200. Even with the normal three times multiplier newspapers used to use that meant at most 600 people saw an article they'd otherwise never have seen. Total cost is, then, one dollar per reader.
This may seem reasonable but once you get to the point of realizing that this is a small parish of about 120 members you start to see how silly this is.
And why, as Mike and others are saying, this is a net loss to everyone concerned even those charging so much cause no one will buy.
(Yeah, I know I shouldn't have but the article just fit so beautifully in the theme and, in the end, I bit my tongue and paid. Never again.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Too true
I freelance and if a publication sells a reprint during the window in which they still own the rights, I get maybe $75.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No such thing as "obvious" fair use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No such thing as "obvious" fair use
I think many of the problems of copyright would be resolved if this were turned around. To win a lawsuit, the plaintiff should be first required to demonstrate that it was NOT fair use, and bringing a lawsuit regarding a situation that really is obvious should result in the Plantiff paying the defendant's attorney fees.
People could still protect themselves from actual harm or blatant profiteering efforts based on their work. But if it is a case that society and the defendant are winning and the holder is not being harmed, the use should be protected.
I have a job where lots of people benefit from the "sweat of my brow" without paying me. There is a pricing mechanism that results in me getting payed in certain cases, but not for every single secondary use of my work. I also realize that sometimes the people getting to use my stuff for free become paying clients. That is nifty; I would be a lot worse off if I got paid for every secondary use but lost the potential for new customers. In some cases there is no realistic potential for me to make money off the secondary use, but in that situation it isn't actually costing me anything so I don't have any reason to object.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No such thing as "obvious" fair use
This should be highlighted more. If it doesn't cost you anything, then there's no reason to object.
Too few people think of it this way, they rather want to think of it as their right to be compensated for every single use and to have total control of everything, even if that means that EVERYBODY lose out on it,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So is the WSJ a CC licensed publication?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares?
More of us than them, why are we being bullied like this?
The more they stifle our minds, the more obedient we become.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
Of course there is the claim of infringement. For that you should be able to file your claim in a civil court.
The problem is that copyright has been bastardized to the point that content producers feel entitled and in fact have received legal permission to infringe on the peoples rights to protect their revenue stream.
So are you advocating that content producers should have extra special "rights" not available to the public to do whatever they feel is appropriate to protect their revenue stream?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
That's a moral rights question. As you must know, in the US we have no moral rights.
In fact, it's currently *perfectly legal* for such a political action group to play any song they want at a convention/event, so long as they or the venue have paid their ASCAP/BMI/SESAC licenses.
Fact is, the creator has no moral rights over how someone hears their song. Along those lines, if a member of such a group gets inspiration from mishearing the lyrics to such a song, the musicians have no right to stop them.
But, in the end, you don't need copyright or moral rights in such situation. As we saw in the political campaigns, if a campaign uses a song (legally) against the wishes of a musician, that musician can speak out against the politician (even without the moral or legal rights issue) and embarrass the politician for a news cycle. In other words, social mores can help deal with that situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
We don't have moral rights. But the Lanham Act provides a similar remedy (see the Monty Python case, when the network chopped off material to fit a commercial break and as a result, the joke fell flat.)
Of course, it seems a bit unfair to draw the musician into a fray he may have preferred to avoid, especially if it distracts him from writing more music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
Give me a break.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
This is one place where permission is not needed - it's a compulsory licence already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: co-opting a song for a cause you don't like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what's wrong with originality?
In the Woodlief piece, *mention* of Faulkner and Hemingway are completely gratuitous and would be better avoided. I've managed to avoid even reading either for decades after brief skims; they are *not* among the best writers any more than that gibbering Irish drunk Joyce is. -- Anyway, unless in the circularly redundant field of "literature appreciation", a *good* writer never *needs* to quote, and wouldn't do so. It's simply cheap "name dropping" to grab some of the supposed glory. I'd say anyone who does mention hoary old chestnuts is a product of "arty" institutions that better writers avoided. As proof, I doubt that you'll *ever* find Faulkner or Hemingway even mentioning another writer. (Nicely circular "proof" by way of the already deprecated authors, ain't it?)
Then, Woodlief makes another ghastly admission: that he needed *a* quote, probably as just a *style* point, and this whoever Henry or Shakespeare are interchangeable for his purpose. ... I doubt that he has anything new to say, since quotes are usually out of context and misleading. Such admissions flow without apparent awareness of how *revealing* they are.
And then the writer's own problems that should be kept behind the scenes are used as theme for *another* bit of hackery! No reader cares about your troubles at grave-robbing! -- If you find yourself digging for *quotes*, please, just QUIT WRITING.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what's wrong with originality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what's wrong with originality?
Wow, you really don't like quotes, do you? Your opinion actually reminds me of a common theme on TechDirt, namely the "not invented here" attitude. Like many in the business world, you seem to have an inexplicable need to re-invent the wheel. If someone else did something or, in the case of quotes, said something that exactly matches your needs, what benefit is there, other than to your ego, to invent/write it again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what's wrong with originality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what's wrong with originality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So what's wrong with originality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what's wrong with originality?
Well, except The Sun Also Rises, which was named after a quote from the Bible.
Then again, you think Hemingway should have just QUIT WRITING. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Misses the Bigger Question
Woodlief could at least have thrown in some analysis showing how copyright has been bastardized, how it has expanded in time and scope, and that formerly civil infringement is now considered criminal behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as they view 8-word quotes as a profit center instead of promotion, it'll never change, esp. when a few people actually pay up (most likely big media).
They all seem to be hedging their bets that someday something that quotes them will get enormously popular, and they want to make sure they can ride that bandwagon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
avoiding permissions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: avoiding permissions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
seems to be encouraging innovations, by discouraging replication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> do something of your own.
I dare you to have a conversation with someone and never ever repeat a word they say. Culture is a conversation. If you don't understand that, you have never created art or done science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what has happened over the last 20 or 30 years is that it is easier to find infringements and easier to see misuses (blame the internet and specifically google) which makes it much easier for a rights holder to discover misuses and take action. once publishers have been burned a few times on stupid acts by writers, they no longer want to get involved.
it isnt a question of a permission culture, rather a culture where information is more easily found, and rights holders are taking a stand against their content being used freely without consideration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright used to be for a period of 14 years with a renewal option, now it is almost to the point of being a "perpetual" right rather than a limited privilege. Content producers have been working on obtaining legislation that would effectively allow the content industry to spy on consumers and force ISPs to act on the content industry's behalf. The content producers are not "taking a stand", they are actively depriving the consumer of the consumer's property rights to content that they have aquired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Therefore, we rights holders must demand that everyone pay us when they sing in the shower.
We must take a stand against our content being used freely!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Life in a Day" guidelines
A project (http://www.youtube.com/user/lifeinaday) that is meant to provide a snapshot of our current culture is being distorted because it would be too difficult for the folks making the film to seek out additional permission to use trademarks and copyrights from all of the snippets they intend to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lame argument
If the rights to use a copyrighted property are too costly, don't use it. Let the market determine the value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google and the artist
Google has taken the position, and is even funding political candidates in Europe, who propose eliminating copyright entirely. Why? So Google (and others) can make money off of the legitimate work of others who would share in none of those revenues.
I'm sorry that poems and short stories published in literary magazines aren't getting excerpted. Perhaps those authors would think twice next time about selling (yes, selling) their material to these same publishers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]