World Class Poetry Blog

What About My Copyright?
4 May 2008, the poet @ 9:34 pm

Here’s some sage advice about copyrights from Robert Lee Brewer.

I’ve got to say, I find this to be a rather annoying practice myself, and I’m not a literary journal editor. If I were, I’d have this unspoken policy floating around in my head:

• If I see a copyright symbol or notice of any kind then the work automatically goes into a “slush” pile - a separate slush pile just for the copyright notices. I wouldn’t even read the work.
• I’d go through all other submissions the normal way and make my selections.
• If - and only IF - I felt like I didn’t have enough work included in the edition of my journal that I’m about to publish, then - and only then - would I even think about digging into that copyright “slush” pile.
• As a last resort, and again only IF I felt like I needed to add one or two more pieces to what I’m working on, I’d read through the slush pile as if reading the poems for the first time (ignoring the copyright symbols and notices) and pretend that they are normal submissions to be considered in the same manner as all others.
• Bear in mind that my “normal” consideration for a poem (when I was an editor) was this:
  1. Read the first line; if I like it, keep reading.
  2. Read the second line; if I like it, keep reading.
  3. Read the third line; if I like it, keep reading.
  4. And so on ad nauseam until I finished all of the poems
  5. Poems that I made it all the way through on would get a second reading, and a third if necessary. Each reading would consist of a critical looking for anything that might make me want to reject the poem. Bear in mind, I’m really looking for reasons to say ‘No’ and to get past me on any reading you have to make me read on without finding any red flags.
  6. Any poem that came “close” - that is, I didn’t read all the way through, but I at least approached a complete reading - I then gave a second chance, this time looking for anything that might cause me to give the poem a benefit of the doubt. Now I’m looking for reasons to say ‘Yes’ without selling out on my aesthetic.
  7. If I didn’t come close to a complete reading of a poem then it was tossed (about 90% usually).

You have to understand that editors are very busy people. There is always more work to do for very little pay, if any. Most writers don’t work nearly as hard on their creations as editors work on theirs, and it shows. If a poem doesn’t catch an editor’s attention on that first line, I wouldn’t expect the editor to read any further. Why should she? She has hundreds or thousands of other lines to read. Why waste one minute on an unworthy poem?

That’s why I’m always appreciative of comments from an editor. If you get a comment from an editor then you know he read your poem. No editor is going to comment on a poem if all he read was the first line. Of course, most editors don’t comment at all and that’s understandable. But some editors will, with exceptional work, write a word of thanks for the opportunity to read a certain poem or a word of encouragement to the poet to keep submitting work. I’ve received those notes and they are encouraging because I know that if a certain poem wasn’t right then my style is at least leaning in the right direction for that journal. I have an open door.

Back To Copyrights
Even now, when I see a blog or a website that has copyright information plastered all over it, I lose my synaptic nerve. What’s worse, is for an author, webmaster, or blogger to point out to me that their work is “protected” by Copyscape.

Don’t get me wrong. I love Copyscape. I use the service. But I do not feel compelled to let the whole world know that my words are copyrighted. For one thing, as Robert Lee Brewer points out, they are copyrighted the moment I put them down. I don’t need a notice to let people know my work is copyrighted. I own this blog. Don’t believe me? Check Whois.net. That should tell you right there that all the content on this blog, with the exception of visitor comments, is owned by me and therefore copyrighted with legal protections in a court of law. In other words, if I had to, I could defend my work in court using only the Whois information.

But that’s an aside. The likelihood of anyone stealing my work is so small that I’d waste more time worrying about it than I’d earn back defending it. Plus, even if I could prove that someone stole my work, I’d then have to prove that I was due some remedy for damages. What exactly is my work worth in terms of monetary value? Well, quite frankly, not much. I haven’t earned a dime from this blog, and most bloggers don’t earn a dime from theirs either. So where’s the damage?

I’m not saying that ne’er-do-wells have free license to steal content from blogs simply because bloggers don’t earn money from their content. There are other considerations. And I’m no attorney so don’t take any of this as legal advice. It’s simply my understanding of copyright law. But it is conceivable that if someone else did earn money from my content, which they stole, then I might be able to receive some compensation from them provided that I could prove they did steal my content. But would it really be worth it?

Why I Won’t Share Link Love
With The New York Times
I received a threatening letter one time from a content author of a web property owned by the New York Times. The property is a well known, popular property with a lot of information about a lot of different topics. I won’t mention its name, but it rhymes with clout, which is something most of its writers don’t have. They really have too much time on their hands and not enough in the cranial cavity to understand really what to do with it.

I am a ghostwriter of many commercial blogs (well, now I only ghostwrite a handful of them and manage a staff of writers who ghostwrite the rest). In all, I manage more than 40 company blogs. In the blogosphere, it is quite common to borrow a snippet of text from another website and link back to that site as the source. It’s called giving attribution. In the print world, you can’t do that; you have to give attribution by listing the source and depending on the type of source you are quoting and which style you have adopted for your research, you’ll give attribution in one of several ways. A link is not possible. Online, however, you can simply link to your source as a way of saying, “This is the original source of this work or the place where I have borrowed this text.” All other rules of fair use (opens a .pdf file) that have existed historically still apply.

In my role as ghostwriter (and often on this blog, if you have noticed), I will often borrow a snippet of text from a website or blog and comment on the snippet. I usually offer more commentary than the text that I borrow. I’ve only ever had one complaint in doing this - from the author of this content that I borrowed from the unnamed source. It was what I would consider fair use, and I believe any reasonable legal professional would as well. Nevertheless, the author of the content sent me a letter threatening to sick the dogs of the New York Times legal team on me if I didn’t remove her content from my client’s blog. Bear in mind, of course, that the letter actually went to my client, who forwarded it to me. We both agreed that she had way too much time on her hands.

So to shorten the story a bit, I didn’t feel like getting into a legal wrangle. I simply removed the content in question and resolved myself to never link to that property again. So I do not even link to any of the other information sources owned by the New York Times (with the exception of the Times’ website itself if I find a news story worthy of mention, and then I can usually find another source with the same story). I figure if the writers there are too stupid to bother themselves with understanding copyright and fair use laws then they won’t get any link love from me.

Does Copyright Matter?
Is the New York Times affected by my decision to never link to them again? Likely not. They probably don’t even know who I am. And likely don’t care. But that’s not the point. The point is, the Internet is a new medium and has its own rules. Of course, this doesn’t nullify the rules of decorum, good policy, and common sense that have existed in the off line world of print throughout Western civilization. But this isn’t print; the Internet is its own medium.

That said, copyright is still copyright. It matters. Ownership is ownership and authors and creators are owners of their own intellectual property. As an author and creator, I’d be a fool not to believe that. Still, authors and creators must weigh the small ideas with the big picture.

In all seriousness, what real difference does it make if some Yayhoo thousands of miles away likes a poem that I publish on this blog, or another piece of writing, and decides to re-publish it on his own website? As long as he doesn’t claim credit for it himself and notes that I am the author then all is fine, right?

I’d prefer that he link back to me as that is sort of a “payment” itself for the work that he uses, but if all he did was say “This piece of writing was done by Allen Taylor then I’d be happy that he acknowledged that.” If I was not satisfied with the way that my work was represented then I’d send a friendly note to the publisher explaining my concerns and ask for removal of my work or that problems noted be fixed. If that was unsuccessful then I might go a step further and try to get action through other means, but most people have far too much to do than worry about stealing other people’s content. It is so easy to come up with one’s own creations that taking the time to steal someone else’s just isn’t worth it. And that’s why I find these silly notices of “protections” a bit irritating. I wonder if I’m all alone.

7 Comments a “What About My Copyright?”

1. janetleigh — May 5, 2008 @ 12:14 am
   

   Well, why don’t you just go all irritated on me, Allen, and this little annoyance out of your system. It’s a legit offer since I have one of those irritating Copyscape notifications on my blog, which I’m sure you’ve noticed each time you visit my blog. I cringe at the thought that each time you visit, you shake your feet as you leave.. ;> hee hee Allen, you need to know that I have it on my blog only in support of the organization itself that apparently works hard to deter people from using the copyright work of others. If you do a little research, you’ll find that there are many people on the internet who have their works plagarized and people take the works of others and post it as their own work. For some people, it can wreck their day. I’m not speaking from personal experience, BTW. Anyway, I’m offering myself up for ridicule and roasting, for you to exorcize yourself over me, fervently, if necessary. This way you won’t go offending some of your readership, hah hah, unintentionally. So.. go ahead and take your best shot as Pat Benatar would sing! I don’t mind looking like a fool - somebody’s got to do it. Let it be me! Hooyah! ;>

2. Jim Murdoch — May 5, 2008 @ 10:17 am
   

   As you’ll know from visiting my site I use a lot of quotations and I really do my best to credit the various sources whether on-line or off. I am aware that I’m not writing a textbook so I’m a little sloppy in giving the kind of precise references I included in the footers to my Wikipedia articles. I do tend to view what I do as promotion. I am very keen for my readers to follow up the links and get to know these other sources. That’s one of the reasons I don’t post more than twice a week any more. My blog does not make me money. It has enabled me to gather an audience and one or two may well buy some of my books as I introduce them but that’s an aside and it will be a long time (if ever) that I’ll make a profit from my writing.

3. the poet — May 5, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
   

   LOL at Janet. Actually, I did notice the Copyscape icon on my last visit to your blog, but I don’t find it at all annoying simply because it doesn’t dominate. It’s only noticeable if you scroll down the sidebar and look for it. This is due to its placement and the size of it relative to other elements near it. I’m discussing more the attitude behind it with some bloggers who think that by merely placing a notice on their blog that they will never be plagiarized. Not true. If someone is intent on stealing your content, they will do it whether you have a Copyscape icon or not.

   I’ve had articles stolen so I understand how annoying it can be to have to chase down the perpetrator and send out C&D letters, etc. I spent more time trying to achieve justice than the thieves likely made on the content. I reasoned that it just wasn’t worth it in the long run. I know that when I search for my articles by keyword then they are indexed in the search engines and not the websites that scraped them. I’ve learned that I can make better use of my time by creating new content than by worrying over how last year’s blog posts are being used today, and there are folks who will put that Copyscape icon right at the top of their blogs as if that is the most important concern in the world. I’m just saying that it isn’t.

   Jim, I think you do a good job of giving attribution, from what I’ve seen. It is difficult to do all the research and make sure you quote everybody correctly. Writing Internet content is not a Master’s thesis. My view of blogging is that this medium is a marketing tool. That’s what I think its best use is. If you look at how companies do marketing - both online and off line - you’ll notice that it is difficult sometimes to measure ROI. Whether you write fiction, poetry, or something else, you are still engaged in marketing and producing a product. The same principles apply for this business as for any other. If you use the tools for what they are capable of and don’t expect more of them than they are capable of producing then you won’t be disappointed. You don’t have to make money on a blog for it to be beneficial to your business. For a writer, gaining a loyal audience is about the best benefit you can get.

4. Billy The Blogging Poet — May 5, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
   

   Allen,
   You make some great points but it isn’t the copyright infringers who scare me, it’s those who are working with Congress to allow them to legally steal our copyrights and the fact that no one seems to be concerned.

5. the poet — May 5, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
   

   Billy, if this is what you are talking about then I don’t think you have any worries. There are a lot of stupid laws in this country but what you are suggesting is something that no legislator would dare to vote for. To do so would put millions of people’s lives in litigation limbo overnight. Here’s a good article on that to counter Mark Simon’s hysteria. Additionally, this commentary by the Register of Copyrights elucidates pretty clearly what the actual predicament regarding orphaned works is and what the proposed solution is for remedying the problem.

   It is highly unlikely that Congress will act quickly with regard to orphaned works, but it is equally unlikely that they will adopt anything as disastrously silly as what you are afraid of.

6. Elizabeth Able — May 6, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
   

   Um… my mind got stuck waaay up at the top, when I had questions after this li’l bit:

   3. Read the third line; if I like it, keep reading.
   4. And so on ad nauseam until I finished all of the poems

   Does the bar get lower as you get further into a piece? If so, is there a point somewhere around the halfway point where your need to “like it or else” goes way back up? I always want to know what keeps ‘em reading.

   I agree 100% that a “protected by copyright” notice should not get top billing. Prominent fear of being coveted unjustly isn’t exactly a great selling point, and it’s not a good creative incentive either. IMHO, swirling vortex of time suckage is the natural state of fear related enforcement.

   I think sites and authors with a flashy copyright notice look insecure and immature. If you’re still reading (this comment) at this point is more to the point, unless the piece in question is the site’s copyright notice. Especially in the case of submissions to a potential publisher, one would hope that the author already felt good about the publisher, and the publisher’s re-print/re-use policy.

   I do think that though there should not be a substantive difference in what is legal online vs in print, some very direct and specific language would help “borrowers” understand that fact.

7. the poet — May 6, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
   

   Good points, Elizabeth. On your question:

   Does the bar get lower as you get further into a piece? If so, is there a point somewhere around the halfway point where your need to “like it or else” goes way back up? I always want to know what keeps ‘em reading.

   In a word, no. If anything, the “need to like it or else” as you call it goes down the further into the piece I go. Line 15 should be every bit as engaging as Line 1, but if you haven’t got my attention by Line 1 then I’ll never get to Line 15. I employ the same critical process when I read blogs online - whether they be poetry blogs, marketing blogs, or any other content. If you lose my interest, sorry, I’m gone. I don’t have time to waste. That said, I do have different expectations as a reader than I do as an editor, but the critical process is always turned on.

   On your final paragraph:

   I do think that though there should not be a substantive difference in what is legal online vs in print, some very direct and specific language would help “borrowers” understand that fact.

   I think, substantively, the legal obligations are still the same for content creators. What is different is methodology. It is impractical, and often cumbersome for readers, for online content creators to include for every external reference a complete stylized reference (Elizabeth Able, Ablereach, “Mom Remodels WordPress”, April 25, 2008, http://ablereach.com/wordpress/mom-remodels-wordpress/).

   Just imagine how cumbersome that would be for readers every time I quote a new source (particularly if I do my homework and quote a lot of sources in one post). It is much more practical, fair to the source, and provides creative license for an online content producer to simply link to the source (i.e. specific page from which content is used) with a simple link that serves as reasonable attribution. You can’t do that in print, but you can do that online. Now, if I was writing an e-book instead of a blog post then I might both link to the source and provide a detailed bibliography depending on my audience and purpose of the content. An academic paper, of course, would require a reference appropriate for the manual of style being used. There’s got to be some level of intelligent thought process involved that is fair to the source, your readers, and yourself.

Submit a comment

Name

E-mail (not published)

Website URL

Enable CommentLuv which will try and parse your last blog post, please be patient while it finds it for you

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail