Reason #247 Why You Should Pay For The NYTimes: To Keep Its Dead Obituary Writers Employed

from the wait,-what? dept

Wed, Mar 23rd 2011 2:55pm — Mike Masnick

The big news of the day appears to be the death of actress Elizabeth Taylor. All the big news orgs are running obituaries, of course. And, as is typical with major celebrities, most of those news orgs had stock obituaries written long ago, which they pulled out, added a few final details, and posted. Of course, that leads to some odd situations, such as with the NY Times obituary for Ms. Taylor, in which it is noted that the author of the obituary actually died himself, nearly six years ago. While, again, lots of news orgs have pre-written obits, there does seem to be something a bit "off" in a newspaper claiming that it needs you to pay up to support its quality journalists... when it's using work done by someone who died years ago.

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: elizabeth taylor, obituaries

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rose M. Welch (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 2:55pm

How many people have actually read the official obituary, versus the people who read the free articles and posts about her death on the Internet in general? And how many people just read about it via a friend's status message on Facebook and never read any further at all? Do we need to create a micro-payment system for these enterprising Facebook 'reporters' as well? :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 3:04pm

I don't see the problem here. All artists should be getting paid for at least 70 years after their death. Why else would they create anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 3:31pm
  
  Re:
  I never understood the whole 'after death' thing they introduced into copyright, but you have to admit that it has paid off!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - kyle clements (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 4:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I never understood the whole 'after death' thing they introduced into copyright
    
    The argument I use is that if copyright lasted for the duration of the artists life, and their work went into the public domain the day the artist died, unscrupulous people people could get content for free by taking out the artist.
    "That's a nice movie you've got there, but don't be asking too much for it, it'd be a shame if something happened to you..."
    
    A better way (in my opinion) would be having copyright based entirely on the date of first publication. "Publication + 20 years" or so seems reasonable. Life + 50 or Life + 70 makes absolutely no sense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 4:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I totally agree (and have made the same argument in the past.)
      
      I don't like copyright in general, but if we're going to have it it should require registration (i.e., you have to give at least a token shit that your stuff is all that) and a short finite term (so the next generation doesn't have to worry that the author of a hundred year old book may have died 'only' a few decades ago.)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - someone (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 5:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When medical technology advances to a level that allows us to live forever we will have a rather large issue on our hands.
        
        Eventually no one will be able to create anything due to all useful combinations of expression being previously copyrighted.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        kyle clements (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 10:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Eventually no one will be able to create anything due to all useful combinations of expression being previously copyrighted.
        
        I've actually talked to several programmers about writing some software that generates midi files of every possible melody, just so we can hold all future musicians hostage. Using copyright to stop all musical progress for the next 100+ years!
        
        (once you limit yourself the popular scales and tempos, and phrases of a reasonable length, that 'almost infinite' number actually becomes fairly manageable.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        freak (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Going through algorithmicly instead of creatively means no copyright in the midi files, actually.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ConceptJunkie (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 9:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why not?
        
        Is there a part of Copyright Law that specifies how a work must be created?
        
        How do you define "creatively" vs. "algorithmically"? How can you draw the line? There were algorithmic schemes for creating music a hundred years ago.
        
        Are you telling me if someone wrote code to create a cool piece of music that he would not be allowed to copyright it?
        
        Believe it or not, this is already being done, and while the results might not be considered groundbreaking, it's only a matter of time until machine-generated melodies will be mistaken for ones written by a human composer.
        
        If someone who creates this software publishes the sheet music to one of its creations, he deserves no copyright protection?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 5:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I've actually talked to several programmers about writing some software that generates midi files of every possible melody, just so we can hold all future musicians hostage. Using copyright to stop all musical progress for the next 100+ years!
        
        Been done already (for the set of melodies that can correspond to phone numbers on a particular phone).
        I can't find the link at present (It might be somewhere on "Freedom to tinker")
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ron Rezendes (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 5:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Publication + 20 years is absolutely perfect in my opinion as well!
      
      IIRC, there was a recent study or a link to such, that indicated 90+% of revenue is made during the first 10 years after release/publication. I think 20 years is plenty of time for content creators to get paid for their work before it enters the public domain, keeping in mind that they can still make money off of the work even once it has entered PD.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chargone (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        i'd argue that anything more than ten is highly debateable if that's when 90% of the revenue is made.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Paddy Duke (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 5:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        With the rate of content production constantly increasing, most content older than 5 years is probably worse off locked down under copyright.
        
        The authors would almost certainly be better served by freely disseminating old content in order to promote their new stuff/live performances/other value propositions.
        
        I think some other stuff, like live recordings of sporting events, should have even more limited copyright terms, but that is more of a personal wish that I should be able to access and watch past events that will never be broadcast again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irving, 23 Mar 2011 @ 3:07pm

Sorry....
... "final" details, indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don, 23 Mar 2011 @ 3:09pm

247 Reasons
What gets me the most is that you've come up with at least 247 reasons why anyone should pay for the New York Times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wallow-T, 23 Mar 2011 @ 3:16pm

The Techdirt piece here is Not Fair!! It's standard practice at major news organizations to keep pre-written obituaries for public figures on file -- even the young ones, because you can never tell when a car crash will claim a young star's life. I bet there are Miley Cyrus obituaries on file, just in case.

If anything, I think it's fascinating that the main part of the obituary was written by someone dead for several years. This makes sense, because due to her advanced age and health issues, Mrs. Taylor was mostly out of the public eye and not scoring new accomplishments in her final years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 4:41pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, MJ kicking the bucket sort of dropped her social circle down to 0.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NY Times, 23 Mar 2011 @ 3:18pm

I got 99 problems
but paying dead people ain't one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 3:43pm

I didn't realize she was still alive.
Now that she is gone maybe Angelo Del Morte can pay an interest in the MPAA ... BOOM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff, 23 Mar 2011 @ 4:24pm

Guys...
You really undermine your credibility when you post things like this. Use some common sense -- this is content the NYT paid someone to write years ago, and paid someone to edit and update to make sure it was still appropriate today. The author being deceased has no bearing on the work or its value.

Stick to the substance, and not this snark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:51pm
  
  Re: Guys...
  The post ends up being more like "reason #247 why Techdirt is considered whiny".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws.org (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 11:32pm
    
    Re: Re: Guys...
    And trolls like you as trolls.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bob, 24 Mar 2011 @ 9:11am
      
      No, you're the troll
      He makes a good point. You, on the other hand, are trolling.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FuzzyDuck, 24 Mar 2011 @ 6:43am
  
  Re: Guys...
  Agreed, this article misses any serious point.
  
  Besides that it costs money to run a newspaper is true and unrelated to the paywall question, neither is there anything wrong for the NYT trying to make money.
  
  The question for the NYT is if the paywall will earn them more money than the absence of a paywall.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 4:47pm

Probably a union thing...
"Should an employee or employees die before mandatory retirement age, their salary will continue for seven (7) years or discovery by observant readers. Dues will continue to be collected at this time and the remainder of the check(s) will be deposited into the current sports pool (varies according to season)."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 4:58pm
  
  Re: Probably a union thing...
  But what happens if they die right before they retire?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 5:16pm
    
    Re: Re: Probably a union thing...
    They will be declared winner of the current sports pool, have that declaration nullified by their death, and all remaining check funds added to the "Free Parking" pool, per union "Monopoly House Rules Sec. 141.2.1(c)."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 4:57pm

Why don't you focus on how good journalism can be made economically more attractive than the alternatives (taking shortcuts, aggregating but not reporting) rather than taking pot shots at the NYT all day?

If the NYT, who actually probably cares about the quality of it's reporting even if it doesn't live up to its own standards) finds it exonomically more advantageous to cut corners, what does that say for journalism as a whole?

I mean, if the market is allowed to decide the quality of journalism we get, we're screwed. So can we just admit this and stop trying to act like good journalism is an economically-viable proposition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 5:04pm
  
  Re:
  I've read this three times and have no idea what you're trying to say.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 5:23pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The NYT says "doing good journalism has value and people should pay us so we can continue to employ good journalists."
    
    The two NYT-related articles today seem to be saying "pfft, your argument doesn't hold water. Your journalists and your entire organization take shortcuts that everybody else takes. Why should we pay you?"
    
    I think the NYT's heart is in the right place, even if it does fail often and take too many shortcuts. Sadly for them, I have yet to see any proposed business model where not taking shortcuts is more profitable than taking them.
    
    The additional profits you get from the cost savings of taking journalistic shortcuts are centralized and immediate. The costs are distributed among the whole society, delayed, and hard to quantify.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 5:05pm

I"m sure they paid him while he was alive
I'm not sure why you think the time lag between writing and publishing is relevant. I suspect the writer drew a NYT paycheck when he wrote the bulk of Ms. Taylor's obit. If the NYT paid him when he wrote it, why should the NYT be subject to criticism for charging when they finally run the piece merely because the original writer is now deceased?

Didn't the "Girl Who Payed With Fire" books get written by a guy who croaked pretty much right after he sent the manuscripts off to be published? Should the publisher be criticized for charging for those books because the writer, as a dead man, is no longer a "quality [author]"?

I'm really not sure how you think this advances your arguments about the NYT at all.

HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 7:08pm

Oh boy, talk about a tempest in a teapot.

Mike, do you realize that most major news organizations have a "storehouse" of obituaries already made or "almost completed" for pretty much every major star and public figure? On slow days (when nobody important dies) the obit writers work on filling in the background on various VIPs on the list, getting them ready to go.

This would be doubly true for someone like Taylor, who was a significant star, and also had suffered great medical problems in the last couple of years. I am sure that most major organization had her obit in the can already, waiting to push the button and have it run.

I think you are working way to hard to pick nits on the NYT. I think it just proves you are hating on them, which makes many of your other comments about them now seem a little suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Mar 2011 @ 9:53pm
  
  Re:
  A nice explanation of this:
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/03/23/obit.writers/index.html?hpt=T2
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 23 Mar 2011 @ 11:35pm
  
  Re:
  "I think you are working way to hard to pick nits on the NYT. I think it just proves you are hating on them, which makes many of your other comments about them now seem a little suspect."
  
  Actually it doesn't cause his economic reasoning still stands as opposed to the "guilt" the NYT expects people to experience to pay them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 12:05am
  
  Re:
  Mike, do you realize that most major news organizations have a "storehouse" of obituaries already made or "almost completed" for pretty much every major star and public figure?
  
  No, that's only why I mentioned it in the post twice.
  
  Come on now, it's like you're not even trying any more.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 6:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    I know you mentioned it, and what I can't understand is that it's like you typed it, but ignored it.
    
    Come on Mike. A quality journalist doesn't mean "one that lives longer than the story they print". Do you think this guy did a poorer job because after he finished it, he too died? Do you not think it fair (and perhaps even is a bit of a tribute from his fellow workers) that his name was on the obit, as he wrote pretty much all of it except the date of death and the cause?
    
    I just think that you are so desperate to slag the NYT, that you don't really care. I suspect that the real issue here is that you fear that their "paywall" model might actually work, and leave you with egg on your face. I cannot think of another reason why you have suddenly gone all stalkerish on them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Mar 2011 @ 1:04am

On an almost completely unrelated note.

I work for a auction house and when I came to work yesterday I was met with an Andy Warhol print of Elizabeth Taylor in pieces on the floor.

At the time we all blamed the guys who put the print up and joked, how as an auctioneer, you'd think we would know how to hang artwork. It wasn't until yesterday afternoon we heard Elizabeth Taylor had passed away and the print seems to have spontaneously jumped off the wall around the time of her passing.

Coincidence? Probably, but still a cool story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 24 Mar 2011 @ 5:40am

They might as well
write their own obituaries - and cut out the middle man..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]