Bob Dylan: People Claiming I Plagiarized Them Are Pussies

from the meow dept

I know two things about Bob Dylan. First, my father loves him and thinks he's the kind of lyrical mastermind that makes puppies weep or something. Second, man does that guy like to contradict himself. Mike recently wrote up a more general piece about how copyright law goes against how we as a people create and mentioned in passing how Bob Dylan is often cited as a gift bestowed upon the masses by copyright, despite his appropriation of others' work in his lyrics. Well guess what, Mike? Bob Dylan thinks you're a pussy!

Yes, reader redrum writes in about a wonderful story in which Bob Dylan flatly states that those who have accused him of plagiarism are "wussies and pussies."
"Meow I would not feeeeel, so all alooooone!"
Image source: CC BY 2.0 No, not like that. He meant it in the demeaning ignorant way, proving his power over prose with such eloquence I haven't seen since college, when a stoned fraternity brother explained to me how awesome hazing is. In any case, the interview apparently went much deeper than simple misogyny.

In an interview with Rolling Stone magazine for its Friday edition, the influential singer-songwriter made his first public comments on the accusations, saying that in folk and jazz music "quotation is a rich and enriching tradition."

"Everyone else can do it but not me," he complained. "There are different rules for me."

It's a fair point by Dylan, I think. I mean, so what if he appropriated lyrics like "I'm not quite as cool or forgiving as I sound" almost verbatim from the biography of a Japanese mobster? That seriously isn't a big deal. And, yes, perhaps it seemed kind of strange when Dylan offered the world a painting exhibit he said was from scenes of his travels, when they were actually scenes from other people's photographs. But big deal. That's often how culture works. No harm, no foul.

The problem, of course, is that there are some people who think this kind of appropriation isn't okay. That it takes away from culture, rather than adding to it. That words have the right to be owned and art should be protected. One such person, who would disagree with Bob Dylan in this case, is Bob Dylan. As we've previously discussed:

He didn't just filch songs from other people's repertoires; he stole their arrangements. (As late as 1992, he lifted Nic Jones's arrangement of Canadee-I-O, wholesale and without acknowledgment.) He did this on both sides of the Atlantic. The great Martin Carthy, who has also just turned 70, taught him Scarborough Fair, which Dylan then recycled as Girl from the North Country. 

But he treated his own songs as private property: what's yours is mine and what's mine is my own. The assertion of his individualism involved in "going electric" was in part a way of defining Dylan entirely as an individual artist and therefore as the sole owner of his own songs. 

And that's the Bob Dylan we disagree with. Of course appropriating words, or photographs, or whatever as pieces to a larger cultural output is the way folk music works. And art. And writing. And film. We all stand on the shoulders, to some degree, of those that came before us. It's a good thing. As much as Dylan is contradicting himself, he's correct to push back on those accusing him of plagiarism. But he might also have to revisit his own views on the way people use his work as well.

Filed Under: bob dylan, copying, culture, music, plagiarism

Canadian University, Publisher Promise To Fix Problems With Art History Book That Has No Photos

from the a-bit-late,-but... dept

You may recall the story we had earlier this week about Canadian University OCAD requiring students in an art history class to buy a $180 book that didn't even have any images, because they couldn't properly license them. Instead, it had big white boxes and students were expected to go online to see the right images. Beyond the ridiculousness of the situation itself, it was clear that there would be no resale value at all for the book.

OCAD got in touch to let us know that they've now put out a statement on the situation (pdf) in which they admit that the situation was far from ideal, and they're taking steps to deal with it. The dean claims to have met with the publisher, Pearson, who "was highly responsive." That's not too surprising, given just how much attention that original story got. They must have sensed that being on the wrong side of this one would not end well. The plan now:

• Guaranteed end-of-term buy-back of the custom text (dollar amount to be announced next week); they want to take it out of circulation.
• Provision (free) of print copies of the Stokstad text (which contains the vast majority of missing images) to all students who have purchased the reader, to use as a print-based cross-reference; these would be the relevant volumes of the portable version of Stokstad (much easier to carry) – details on how this will roll out next week.

The pricing on the buyback may still be a concern, but clearly the loud outcry and vast internet interest in the situation resulted in the university and the publisher deciding that this whole thing was a mistake. They probably should have realized that before pushing an art history book that had no images, but at least they're trying to make it right.

Filed Under: art, art history, books, culture, ocad
Companies: pearson canada

New Minister Of Culture In Brazil Brings Hope Of Return To Earlier Enlightened Copyright Policy

from the back-to-the-future dept

As Techdirt observed back in 2007, Brazilian artists were some of the first to recognize that piracy can be a positive force that helps get the word out about their creations. That was part of a larger openness to new ideas about copyright that was symbolized by the appointment of the well-known Brazilian musician Gilberto Gil as Minister of Culture, a post he held from 2003 until 2008. However, more recently, things have gone into reverse on the copyright front. Ana de Hollanda, the Minister of Culture appointed by the current President, ordered the CC license to be removed from the Ministry of Culture's website, and there were indications that harsher copyright laws were coming.

Now, in something of a shock move, de Hollanda has been dismissed according to this report by infojustice.org:

Ana de Hollanda has been on shaky grounds since she appointed. Her first words were to say she would review the Copyright Law Reform in order to "protect the author" from what she saw as an attack on their rights and its exercise. By that she meant the expansion of the limitations, the supervision of the Collective Management Organization and the institutionalization of the equivalent to a Copyright Office with consulting, mediation and possibly arbitration powers.

As the article points out, there are signs that de Hollanda's successor, Marta Suplicy, may return to the more enlightened policies of Gil and the President who appointed him, known popularly as "Lula". Moreover, Lula's successor, President Dilma Rousseff, has also talked about widening access to culture in her country:

It is important to note that, when taking office in 2011, the President Dilma established 13 directives which were priorities for the Government. Among them, the 11th, there is an explicit statement on "democratization of access to cultural goods". One of the most important ways of achieving such goal is strengthening the copyright limitations and exceptions by opening up the system.

It's too early to tell whether the new Minister of Culture will make that happen, but the signs are looking better than they have for a while.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: ana de hollanda, brazil, copyright, culture, gilberto gil, marta suplicy

Dead Authors' Estates Preventing Even The Slightest Revisions To Works

from the creativity-not-allowed dept

Justin Levine points us to the news that a revival of Ira Levin's famous play Deathtrap has been canceled because Levin's estate doesn't approve of very slight modifications in the play -- including one character disrobing and showing his naked rear for about 30 seconds, as well as this version of the play making it clear that a relationship between two males was a gay relationship (something not explicitly stated in the original, though many other interpretations have assumed the same thing). Either way, after the estate demanded changes to the staging, the LA Gay & Lesbian Center who was putting it on decided to cancel the show altogether, rather than having the estate give them creative notes.

Now, this may be entirely legal, but does that make it reasonable? One of the great things about plays is seeing how different companies interpret them -- sometimes in very different and creative ways. It seems overly controlling and silly to seek to block certain showings because they don't conform to the way the estate wants the play performed.

Filed Under: adaptations, culture, deathtrap, ira levin, publicity rights

Kickstarter Campaign To Fund New Short Stories For The Public Domain

from the don't-miss-out dept

Ross Pruden, who has written for Techdirt occasionally, is a filmmaker/storyteller who is experimenting with Kickstarter to fund a bunch of short stories for the public domain. For $10 he'll write a short story specifically for you. For just $1, you'll get sent an email with all of the stories before they're officially released. As he says, this is a pretty simple experiment that he's hoping to learn from. He's already reached his target goal, but if you'd like to help expand the public domain for just $10, why not check it out?

Filed Under: culture, public domain
Companies: kickstarter

Three Artists On Piracy: Sharing, Disruption And Turning Filesharers Into Your Street Team

from the stupid-filthy-helpful-pirates dept

There's a lot of discussion here at Techdirt about filesharing. Much of the discussion focuses on various legacy industries and their efforts to fight infringement, as well as their continued cultivation of artificial scarcity, which often sends potential customers towards unapproved sources. Various artists have also weighed in on the matter, offering their perspective as those most directly affected by filesharing. Some embrace it. Others view it as a threat to their chosen professions. No matter which side they take, it's largely viewed as inevitable or inescapable. But inevitable or not, the discussion continues.

In the interest of furthering the discussion, I'd like to draw your attention to three separate posts on the subject of filesharing, each one written by an artist with "skin in the game," as they say.

The first post is very timely, considering the recent rumor that Bruce Willis was taking Apple to court to secure his ability to pass his iTunes library on to his next-of-kin. Dessa, a rapper and member of the Doomtree Collective, draws a parallel between Monsanto and Apple and their sale of licenses rather than goods in order to better "secure" easily duplicated items and prevent sharing. Dessa also makes a further connection (filesharing to seed-sharing collectives), showing that these restrictive licenses fly in the face of normal human behavior.

Peddling a product that consumers can duplicate for free is a tricky business. With affordable consumer technology, you can now copy a song a hundred times, with no degradation in the sound quality—and most people seem to immediately recognize why that’s gonna make it harder to get paid for songs. But my first experiences with lossless, duplicable technology didn’t have anything to do with my career as a rapper. My first encounter wasn’t with a torrent site. Or a bootlegged disc. It was a tomato.

Seeds, quite obviously, are the mechanism of plant duplication. You drop a sunflower seed in wet dirt and, bang, you get a brand new one. Essentially, you just 'burned’ a sunflower. The seeds of this new plant can then be harvested and planted to create an infinite, almost lossless supply of flowers and seeds.

The connection continues. Monsanto sells licenses for the technology in the seed, not the seed itself, explicitly forbidding the resale or transfer of its seeds to unlicensed "users." iTunes does the same. Purchasers are forbidden from doing anything with their library other than what is explicitly allowed by the EULA. The right of first sale is stripped away because the purchasers have nothing to sell. They own nothing.

In addition, she points out that users agree to stipulations they'd never agree to with physical goods (as opposed to licenses), like being monitored (Apple says "technologies" will be used to verify compliance with the license terms; Monsanto's verification method is even more Big Brother-ish -- "aerial photography").

These rules and regulations can undermine our fundamental ideas of what it means to actually own something. In most of our purchasing lives, we pay for product and then we can do with it as we like... So If I’m only allowed to interact with my purchase in meticulously prescribed ways...it starts to feel less like mine. Like a pet I'm not allowed to touch or see.

Losslessly reproducible technologies are just complicated things to own... In many ways, the whole ownership model just seems poorly suited to duplicable technology... When we try to force new technology into the old model, our contracts end up sounding really, well, creepy. Instead of asking, Whose is this, who gets paid for it, and how much?, the conversation might be better reset by asking What is this, who made it, who uses it, and what’s fair?

The second post features the writing of recording artist and netlabel co-founder Bunny Intonamorous (presumably not his real name). His post goes long, spurred on by a statement made by a different set of artists, a pair that create likenesses of recording artists using the artists' own CDs.

Mirco Pagano and Moreno de Turco were quoted in the article as saying that "Piracy infects and destroys music, preventing artists to succeed and become idols as in the past."

My fury is two-fold: piracy of music prevents no-one from succeeding let alone infecting and destroying music, and also this (frankly outdated) notion that to be successful in music you have to be some kind of mega-stadium-level superstar money-machine.

There's a lot in Bunny's post (which runs a few thousand very entertaining and informative words) discussing what's wrong with these assumptions. While piracy has affected some artists ability to sell music, for the most part, that wasn't where they were making the most money anyway. Touring is where the money was and still is for many (though not all) artists. Piracy can't touch that.

The other positive aspect of piracy is that it has changed the music landscape from an industry that sold artists (and their art) to consumers, presenting the artists as "idols" and "icons," to something more democratic, more varied, and perhaps most importantly, more personal:

For better or worse (read: better) piracy is here and it's changed things. These days an artist has to have a presence over data-rich streaming sites such as soundcloud and bandcamp if they accurately want to gauge the size of their audience and tour efficiently enough to get money out of it and start building a reputation. And even then, it's risky, but it negates the main problems with piracy and money can, and will, still be made. I certainly wouldn't say that piracy is killing music. In fact, it's making a lot more music more widely available, which increases the amount of different breeding grounds there are, technically (though not necessarily) increasing the amount of interesting acts and artists out there.

In fact piracy of music software has broken down boundaries even further. Not only can people hear and experience a wider range of inspirational existing music, but now musical creation has become more widely available.

Just as there are those whose musical stasis prompts them to ask questions about who the next "Dylan" or "Led Zeppelin" or "Beatles" will be, there are those who wonder how today's severely fractured market and wealth of distractions will ever produce another 25-million-album seller like Michael Jackson (or even $35K a year). Those that blame this lack of multimillionaire chart dominators solely on piracy, rather than on underlying cultural shifts, economic woes, a multitude of new distractions and other disruptions are merely settling for a convenient whipping boy, rather than actually working on fixing their problems.

And this is one of many reasons I really appreciate how piracy has changed the face of musical culture (along with the internet in general, of course): it has forced musicians to stop the whole rock 'n' roll, "untouchable", get-the-fuck-away-from-me attitude that beleaguered "legends" for some time, and encouraged artists to interact with their fans. This not only creates entirely new platforms for interaction other than just through audio, but has also de-fangs and de-mystifies these people, which then decreases the amount of "artist anxiety" someone faces when looking to create.

Yearning for idols and blaming piracy for today's "weak" music market is nothing more than rose-tinted nostalgia rewriting the history of the recording industry, turning it from an exploitative commercial venture into the deflowered victim of millions of basement dwellers. Those who rail against the "level playing field" are constantly working to conform this disruption to fit their favored narrative.

My biggest gripe with the whole "legends" argument, however, is that there needs to be some form of monopoly on 1) record sales, and 2) the public consciousness in terms of music. The second point, I fear, is the impulse of monoculture - that same impulse that abhorred subcultures in times past (which is slowly also being eroded, thankfully - be who you want! choose your friends! etc. - another wondrous example of what technology can bring you). Either way the suggestion is that, the way musical culture has been headed for the past few years is utterly wrong.

Granted, musical culture and money are in a strange state of flux at the moment, but the trends have been leaning towards a more aware, more (arguably) moral state of business: that you pay for what you enjoy so that these musicians - who generally tend to be very thankful - get if not all the cash you gave them, then at least a fairly sizeable chunk.

There's a thought: Support your favorite artists directly, rather than hoping a small portion of your $14.99 makes its way to them after passing through an entire office full of unrelated staff and a multi-level supply chain.

The final stop on this filesharing three-fer is over at Feral Intensity, home of self-published author Gayla Drummond. If you're not familiar with her, all you need to know is this: she is one of the few authors who came to the defense of LendInk during the Twitter-fed witch hunt.

Drummond begins her filesharing saga by describing herself as someone who originally felt piracy was "bad," but unlike others, she didn't just make the assumption and move on :

I researched to discover what the major reasons for piracy were, and came up with three: availability, DRM, and price.

Her reaction?

As a result, I distributed my work to as many sites as possible, made it DRM free where I was able to, and experimented with pricing to find what people were willing to pay for it. I stated more than once that I was totally okay with people loaning my ebooks to others (before lending systems on Amazon, etc), but did ask that they please not put my work on file sharing sites.

This is a refreshing change of pace from so many other stories that begin and end with "there's no excuse for piracy" and result in the ratcheting up of various piracy countermeasures until they reach the "draconian" level. However, the story continues:

Then someone did. Tria’s Tale ended up on one in January 2011.

My reaction was something along the lines of ‘Jeeze, the one thing I ask people not to do!’ and then it was ‘Oh, well’. Except when I checked the file sharing site, I discovered they required people to pay a membership fee in order to download anything. That got my back up; the site was making money from offering access to my, and others’, content. They weren’t selling the actual files themselves, just access to them. That was not okay with me. I sent a DMCA notice and within 72 hours, the site removed the link to Tria’s Tale.

So far, par for the course. Sharing is one thing, piracy is quite another, etc. DMCA served and content removed. Except... this isn't the end of Drummond's brush with piracy. First, she noticed this:

I can’t say whether it’s related or not, since I actually just realized it last night, but my sales doubled in 2011. That link was only up for 10 days at the most, but for all I know, it was related to the sales increase.

Anecdotal. Correlation and causation, etc. It would be easy to dismiss this as a coincidence, but rather than just wave it away, Drummond decided to pursue this angle. Discouraged by a lack of feedback and the grind of self-publishing and self-promotion, she decided to turn over her books to the dark side. Her thought process was basically: why kill myself handling all the promotional work when so many others are willing to do it for me?

When everything you’re doing isn’t producing the desired results, it’s time to try something different.

That is why I’ve become a ‘self-pirate’.

I want readers. Readers who will enjoy my work and let me know in some fashion. So when Ashen made his suggestion to me after the Lendink mess, I said YES.

While he was busy doing the heavy work of file prep and ‘seeding’ (the FSM bless him for putting up with my stupid questions and general cluelessness!), Google alerts notified me that The Contract Bride was mentioned on a certain forum. I always check out my Google alerts, and went for a look.

Lo and behold, file sharing links to it had been posted.

For just a second, I was all petulant about it: ‘That’s not one of the titles I picked out!’, but I got over that and ran with it because someone thought it good enough to recommend to others, AND THAT IS WHAT I WANT! Joined the forum to leave a comment with a link to a newly created page on my author site.

The next day, I had 3 new sales on Amazon and had received a donation from someone from that forum. That is the most action I’ve seen in a single day in regards to my ebooks since March, people.

It has been said that filesharers purchase more music, ebooks, etc. than non-filesharers. The argument goes back and forth on this, but one thing's for sure: pirates know how to get your work in front of thousands of people you'd never reach otherwise.

Don’t get me wrong, I by no means think doing this is going to catapult me into fame and fortune. But file sharing is widespread, and may possibly be the most effective, least time consuming method of getting my work in front of eyeballs.

It’s not any different than offering freebies through Amazon’s Select program or other sites when you decide to put your own work out there, and it’s certainly not going to have anymore negative of an effect than doing that. It’s a different platform with content hungry people.

It's not exactly advertising but it's certainly better than locking your creative efforts up behind DRM or endless legal threats. And if you feel piracy is unstoppable/inevitable (no matter which side you come down on "morally"), why not start seeding your own stuff? If you think you can't stop someone else from doing it, get a step ahead of them and become your own worst enemy/best friend. Let the system work for you.

Drummond's put her money where her mouth is:

Wanna pirate some of my ebooks? Go here.

As she points out, the Harry Potter books were being passed around on the internet long before official ebook versions were (finally) made available and yet, millions of copies were sold.

Filesharing will continue to be villainized by certain industries and members of various creative fields, many of whom would rather find someone to blame than actually deal with massive disruption. But to see only the negative is to miss out on a lot of the positive effects while also scapegoating potential fans.

Filed Under: artists, culture, piracy

Piracy Is A Cultural Opportunity; Embrace It

from the sharing-is-fun dept

Piracy has become a force of nature in the entertainment world. No matter what you make or how you release it, there are pirates waiting around the corner to try to get it for free. No matter what you try to stop this from happening, you just can't -- much like a storm, you have no control over its movements and power. All that is left is to embrace it and hope to harness the storm's power for your own benefit.

This is what Daniel Cook from Spry Fox has decided is best. In a reprint of his comments at Gamasutra, Daniel explains that piracy is a fun activity that can be harnessed for good.

Being a 'pirate' was being part of a community. You and your friends shared games like social gaming gifts on Facebook. It didn't cost you anything to copy a game and give it to someone. A game was a social token to chat about, a gesture of kindness to reciprocate. A key takeaway from that time is that copying and sharing vast quantities of digital goods is a deeply fun, social and highly useful activity. This is a new thing, a new behavior in a post-scarcity world.

This is perhaps the most commonly ignored or overlooked aspect of piracy by those who want to end it. For many people, sharing games, movies and music is a fun activity that allows them to share what they love with their friends. Despite what those who seek to stop piracy think, there is very little animosity involved in the activity. It is this love of sharing that can be, as Daniel puts it, hacked for the benefit of the creator.

With shareware, we hacked the copying behavior. People would play the random floppies and some of clever programs would say "Hey! Did you know that you can pay for this?" And a small portion of users did. 'Pirate' and 'consumer' are not mutually exclusive properties. In our capitalist society, almost everyone (with a few notable exceptions) is trained to buy stuff. People who like checking out new software for free are really just another audience of potential consumers.

It was just recently that Ubisoft learned a similar lesson. That the percentage of people who pay for single purchase games is about the same as those that pay in free to play games. If you want people to pay for games, one of the best ways to get them to do so is to let them experience the game first and for free. By giving fans the ability to share the games with others who may not have heard about it on their own, you can expand the pool of potential paying customers.

Unfortunately, there are many creators and gatekeepers out there that want to vilify such behavior. They can't fathom that someone is playing, listening, reading, watching their work without paying for it. They see no benefit in it. This mindset has dangerous outcomes for their paying customers.

It has been a really confusing time for businesses. Some lashed out by labeling consumers as evil, some tried to protect the old ways with DRM. Relationships with customers...who see themselves as just having fun sharing cool stuff...became antagonistic. 30 years. When you raise kids in a warzone, they grow up parroting propaganda. No wonder the conversation is polarized.

It is actions like adding DRM, anti-piracy ads and threatening fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars that will end up costing the entertainment industry more in the long run. As those in the industry seek to threaten and lash out at paying customers, many of those customers will begin to lash out as well. They will end up doing exactly what the industry wants to stop, pirate. For many purchasers of games, it often starts by downloading cracks for games in order to remove restrictive DRM. But there is a lot that can be done to turn the tide.

Detach yourself from the emotions of history. Give up the past forms of what games were. Adapt to the current environment with one eye firmly fixed upon the future.

People copying digital goods as an inherently joyful social activity is an opportunity. It is an artistic opportunity. It is a business opportunity. It is a cultural opportunity.

There are opportunities out there that many creators have found and are enjoying. It can be things like adding a "Cockroach Edition" to your payment options. It can be adding pirate hats to all your characters and putting the game on the Pirate Bay. It could be giving players the ability to set their own price. It could be anything really. By embracing the sharing culture of your fans, you can expand you fan base and increase the potential to make a living.

Filed Under: culture, opportunity, piracy

Common Sense For School Internet Safety Policies

from the less-irrational-fear,-more-education dept

We talk quite a bit here about the growing pains of various institutions when faced with upstarts like the internet and social media. The usual suspects like the recording industry and newpapers come to mind first, but one of our oldest institutions continues to painfully stumble its way into the future: the educational system.

The institution's deep-seated mistrust of the most used encyclopedia in the world is already well known. But as email has given way to texting and social networks have expanded past the confines of the schoolyard, those seeking to somehow control the seeming chaos have worked steadily to bang out reactionary policies and ever-tightening guidelines. Rather than temper their actions with some common sense or a bit of perspective, educators (and some parent groups) have often decided to deploy terrible "zero tolerance" policies or overly-broad "guidelines," relying on a variety of tech-related boogiemen (online predators, cyberbullying, sexting, porn... um... Wikipedia vandals?) to keep questions to a minimum.

Fortunately, someone is actually attempting to inject some common sense into school internet safety policies, tackling many of the issues that seem to go hand-in-hand with attempting to provide analog guidance in a digital era. Via Bruce Schneier comes "26 Internet Safety Talking Points," compiled by Scott McLeod at Dangerously Irrelevant.

McLeod, founder of the UCEA Center for the Advanced Study of Technology Leadership in Education (CASTLE), runs through the whole alphabet (and adds a few corollaries) detailing talking points he uses when discussing internet safety with principals and superintendents. The entire piece is definitely worth reading. Here's a few selections from McLeod's list.

First off, bad things will happen. But it's not the tool being used. It's the user.

C. Mobile phones, Facebook, Wikipedia, YouTube, blogs, Wikispaces, Google, and whatever other technologies you’re blocking are not inherently evil. Stop demonizing them and focus on people’s behavior, not the tools, particularly when it comes to making policy.

In addition to school administrators, members of our government and various security agencies should be presented with a copy of this talking point.

F. You never can promise 100% safety. For instance, you never would promise a parent that her child would never, ever be in a fight at school. So quit trying to guarantee 100% safety when it comes to technology. Provide reasonable supervision, implement reasonable procedures and policies, and move on.

Another thing our government and its affiliated agencies do well: use fear to acquire and maintain control.

G. The ‘online predators will prey on your schoolchildren’ argument is a false bogeyman, a scare tactic that is fed to us by the media, politicians, law enforcement, and computer security vendors. The number of reported incidents in the news of this occurring is zero.

There's a lot of buck-passing and "our hands are tied" gestures made when these policies are questioned. Often, it's simply not true.

H. Federal laws do not require your draconian filtering. You can’t point the finger somewhere else. You have to own it yourself.

This should be obvious. You're educators, after all.

K. There’s a difference between a teachable moment and a punishable moment. Lean toward the former as much as possible.

What is the rationale behind policies like this? That if it's online, it's automatically inappropriate? It's such an obvious double standard and yet, it's deployed so often.

N. If you’re prohibiting teachers from being ‘friends’ with students online, are you also prohibiting them from being ‘friends’ with students in neighborhoods, at church, in volunteer organizations, at the mall, and in other non-school settings?

Streisand.

S. Unless you like losing lawsuits, remember that students and staff have speech and privacy rights, particularly off-campus. Remember that any dumb decision you make is Internet fodder and has a good chance of going viral online. Do you really want to be the next stupid administrator story on The Huffington Post?

The more you block, the more energy gets expended by attempts at circumvention. Wouldn't you rather focus this energy on something positive, rather than trying to extinguish every flame you see? 

Z. Educating is always, always more powerful than blocking.

This the correct way to "think about the children." A list like this is a handy thing to keep close at hand for the inevitable moment when school adminstrators declare "something must be done. " Tossing a little common sense cold water on heated, reactionary plans is always a good idea.

Filed Under: culture, safety, schools

Fan Fiction: A Revisionist History And Future

from the it's-crap-cause-I-said-so dept

For fans, the ability to expand upon and share their understanding of their favorite books is an important past time. People can spend days, months, years talking about their favorite books and eating up any new information that comes their way. Sometimes this new information comes from the original creator, but other times it comes from the fans themselves in the form of fan fiction. Fan fiction is a growing area of fan engagement that many authors and creators have learned to love and embrace.

There are some people, though, who just absolutely hate it. Take Ewan Morrison as an example. In a recent essay on the subject of fan fiction, he doesn't hold back his feelings on the matter.

It may seem like a joke, but for many the rise of fanfic is "the end of the world". Fanfic is seen as the lowest point we've reached in the history of culture – it's crass, sycophantic, celebrity-obsessed, naive, badly written, derivative, consumerist, unoriginal – anti-original. From this perspective it's a disaster when a work of fanfic becomes the world's number one bestseller and kickstarts a global trend.

This is absolutely amazing. While many writers try to hide their disapproval of a subject, Ewan decides to just lay it all out in the open so that you know right off what to expect from his little rant. But what exactly has his panties in a twist? Fifty Shades of Grey.

As we all know, Fifty Shades of Grey, originated as a piece of fanfic based on the Twilight series. Since it hit 31 million sales in 37 countries worried voices are asking: is this the beginning of an era in which fanfic overthrows original creation?

Come on. How can fan fiction produce anything of worth? Am I right? Well, Ewan thinks he is right. He just can't believe that anyone could turn fan fiction into a profitable career. Fan fiction is some horrible blight on the entertainment industry, at least to him. Nothing good can come from it, right?

Ewan decides that now is the time to show off just how little he knows about fan fiction in general. He starts off with a nice bit of revisionist history.

If one sees fanfic as "the work of amateurs retelling existing stories", then one would have to conclude that the number one book in the middle ages – the Bible – was a work of fanfic, as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were non-professionals retelling the same story about the same character. However, such a definition of fanfic is skewed historically. There were no fans in the middle ages, and there were also no authors.

Isn't this lovely. There were no authors in the middle ages. Since there were no authors, then that means there were no fans. All those works that we look back upon came out of ether for us to enjoy. Since there were no authors and no fans, there was no fan fiction. Fans, authorship, fan fiction, all of this is simply a modern construct.

If we see fanfic as "the reworking of another author's characters" then this form really only appears for the first time in history with the invention of legal authorship in the 18th century through copyright and intellectual property laws, after the invention of the printing press. After all, you can't have derivative works or copies if there are no regulations over what constitutes original works, or separates ownership from theft.

Notice the nice equating of fan fiction with theft. But don't let that distract you from the main discussion points here. You see, authorship never existed until modern copyright law was written and passed in order to create such a role in society. Back then, no one was creative. Everyone just stole ideas from everyone else. It was just one big swirling miasma of derivative characters occupying the same roles. No one exercised any kind of real creativity because of this. It makes sense right? We honor Homer and Shakespeare because they were just thieves who stole the work of others to become famous.

From here, Ewan goes on to share a bunch more about what he thinks of fan fiction and the different types of it. One common theme running through this breakdown is a bitter distaste for pornographic fan fiction. He even lets this get in the way of describing slash fic correctly as one commenter to his rant explains.

The first point is a semantic quibble, but it really gets on my nerves. 'Slash' does not refer to all pornographic fanfiction. There may have been a time when it did. Having spent ten years in fandom, I have never heard it used to describe anything but stories about m/m relationships. (A story does not actually have to have sexual content to be considered slash. A story can be slash without so much as a kiss if it involves a male character who is attracted to another male character.)

When you are revising history to fit your preconceived notions, accuracy can get in the way. So perhaps we can just let this one slide. Maybe not.

Another interesting point in his rant is when it comes to crossover fan fiction. He just can't understand why anyone would want to cross universes to create a story.

The most postmodern and aesthetically bankrupt of all fanfic, is when two well-known franchises from the same genre are "crossed over". So you get BattleStar Gallactica, crossed with Star Trek, which results in the story: Star Trek: Way of the Battlestar – author Carson Napier.

One of the problems with this sub-genre is that narratives and character motivations have to be warped to fit convoluted, meaningless mergings.

That he even makes this complaint shows that he doesn't even realize that even original creators have a hard time justifying the crossover conflict. When was the last time an Avenger vs X-Men comic line actually made sense or just wasn't a shout out to fans of certain characters? What about anything DC vs Marvel. Shoot, the DC vs Mortal Kombat game was one big convoluted meaningless merging. And all of those were authorized mergings. If the original creators have such a hard time making a crossover meaningful, why hold fans up to a higher bar?

Then he jumps right back into his absolute hate of Fifty Shades of Grey. After all, that is what spawned this rant, so he can't let it off easy.

Fifty Shades is actually a very generic work of Twilight fanfic from amongst tens of thousands already created. It is, in fact, a piece of "AU het slash Twilight fic", and as we've seen, in all slash fic, sex and sexual violence are the predictable components of the genre.

We should not consider EL James an author in the conventional sense for the same reasons that we wouldn't call someone from before the invention of copyright an author. Rather, her books are like medieval lore – in a sense she doesn't own the content.

To be honest, I haven't read Fifty Shades nor do I have a desire to do so. However, to make the claim that no creativity went into creating the work is beyond ignorant. Despite what he claims, all reports, that I have read, make it pretty clear that it was not simply a location and name change of Twilight. It was massively successful because it was something unique that people wanted. Of course this massive success lets Ewan break into another rant against how it became successful.

The only innovation is not in the story itself but in the delivery system that launched it – Amazon KDP. Without Kindle the book(s) would never have escaped the gravitational pull of fanfic sites and would not have been able to earn their author any money. KDP, has become the Enchanted Duplicator that has monetised fanfic and propelled it into the market. The historic difference, the point we have just crossed, is that now, through the mechanism of epub, fanfic is heading towards becoming the cultural dominant.

Amazon, with its e-publishing service, is what made successful fan fiction possible. Without Amazon, such fan fiction would have been relegated to the various basements and dodgy parlors of the internet. According to Ewan, this outbreak of self publishing is only going to lead to one gigantic mess of fan fiction feeding off each other spawning new works. This is going to be the fall of modern culture.

It is possible that with the enchanted duplication systems of fan-based epub, we might have arrived at a point in history where we've accumulated enough cultural material from the past for fans to remix indefinitely, and as they can now sell this content to each other this becomes a boom industry where none existed before. However, the point where fans become the creators, and a derivative work becomes the new original is also the point at which the culture industries stop needing to create anything new. Fanfic begets fanfic, which then in turn becomes mainstream which then begets further fanfic and so on. When we reach that point our future will not be fifty, but fifty thousand, shades of grey.

What is worth pointing out to Ewan is that we already have this within the established industries. As we have written about many times in the past, everything is a remix of something else. There is no 100% vacuum for created art these days. Someone is inspired by or copies aspects of another person's work. Shoot, some industries are blatant with their remixing of old works. Whether it is endless sequels and remakes of movies, or the dozens of first person shooter games released each year. But this is how culture is built. It is built on the work of those that came before.

Now, if I may add my own little bit of history to the mix, fan fiction, or more accurately derivative works, is an important part of what made our culture what it is today. I am going to bring in two examples of derivative works from the past that had massive impacts on the state of culture today.

The first is Nosferatu. We wrote about this film in the past. Bram Stoker's estate had refused to assign the rights to Albin Grau so that he could make his film. Instead, he went about creating the film anyway, making many changes to vampire lore in the process. Today, much of what we apply to vampire lore comes from Albin's movie not Bram's book. This is example one of the positive cultural impact derivative works can have.

My second example is that of Edison's Conquest of Mars by Garrett P. Serviss (thanks io9 for pointing this out). In this article, Cracked points out six major sci-fi tropes that exist today that have their roots in this unauthorized fan sequel. Of these we have the handheld ray gun, space battles, the space suit, and aliens building the pyramids. If we didn't know better, one would be excused for thinking this book was the result of a time traveling fan of H.G. Wells. Without this book, we may not have had much of what we consider sci-fi today.

So despite what Ewan claims, fan fiction and derivative works can be an important part of the spread of culture. It is how communities are born and grow. Without the ability of fans to expand on the work of their favorite creators, many would become bored as the content would become stale. When they become bored, they stop buying the works of that creator. Why would we want that to happen to creators?

Filed Under: culture, fan fiction, history

Should Creative Commons Drop Its NonCommercial & NoDerivatives License Options?

from the a-good-question dept

While we're big fans of Creative Commons in general, for many years, we've raised questions about some of the licenses/clauses -- with the NonCommercial one being of particular concern. Almost four years ago, we worried about the very blurry line between what was commercial and what was non-commercial, and how trying to separate them out in a license could lead to serious problems. Two years ago, Nina Paley also argued about significant problems with the NonCommercial licenses, and how they actually hurt Creative Commons itself in the long run by creating branding confusion. In particular, many people think that all CC licenses bar commercial use, even though that's not the case at all.

Given that, it's interesting to see a suggestion over at the website for Students for Free Culture to take this a bit further and suggest that as Creative Commons is exploring its next round of licenses, it's time to get rid of both the NonCommercial clause and the NoDerivatives clause, arguing that they both run counter to the nature of free or open culture:

The two proprietary clauses remaining in the CC license set are NonCommercial (NC) and NoDerivatives (ND), and it is time Creative Commons stopped supporting them, too. Neither of them provide better protection against misappropriation than free culture licenses. The ND clause survives on the idea that rightsholders would not otherwise be able protect their reputation or preserve the integrity of their work, but all these fears about allowing derivatives are either permitted by fair use anyway or already protected by free licenses. The NC clause is vague and survives entirely on two even more misinformed ideas. First is rightsholders’ fear of giving up their copy monopolies on commercial use, but what would be considered commercial use is necessarily ambiguous. Is distributing the file on a website which profits from ads a commercial use? Where is the line drawn between commercial and non-commercial use? In the end, it really isn’t. It does not increase the potential profit from work and it does not provide any better protection than than Copyleft does (using the ShareAlike clause on its own, which is a free culture license).

The second idea is the misconception that NC is anti-property or anti-privatization. This comes from the name NonCommercial which implies a Good Thing (non-profit), but it’s function is counter-intuitive and completely antithetical to free culture (it retains a commercial monopoly on the work). That is what it comes down to. The NC clause is actually the closest to traditional “all rights reserved” copyright because it treats creative and intellectual expressions as private property. Maintaining commercial monopolies on cultural works only enables middlemen to continue enforcing outdated business models and the restrictions they depend on. We can only evolve beyond that if we abandon commercial monopolies, eliminating the possibility of middlemen amassing control over vast pools of our culture.

Most importantly, though, is that both clauses do not actually contribute to a shared commons. They oppose it. The fact that the ND clause prevents cultural participants from building upon works should be a clear reason to eliminate it from the Creative Commons license set. The ND clause is already the least popular, and discouraging remixing is obviously contrary to a free culture. The NonCommercial clause, on the other hand, is even more problematic because it is not so obvious in its proprietary nature. While it has always been a popular clause, it’s use has been in slow and steady decline.

Of course, as they note, the NonCommercial clause is still used pretty frequently -- though often without much thought given to why. The site suggests that perhaps those clauses could actually be rebranded or moved out of Creative Commons directly, to keep CC more focused on true open culture efforts.

It's an interesting proposal all around, and we're already seeing a fair bit of buzz about it. It will be worth watching to see if it really gets any traction.

Filed Under: creative commons, culture, derivatives, free culture, noderivatives, noncommercial, open culture