Science Fiction Microstory Contest discussion
Should we make the group private?
Tom! You're input and stories have been missed! Welcome over to our Microstory Group on GR
Yeah, Tom, we need you here! Good to hear from you again.
So here's a question for you all, I'm going to send a few email inquiries which I'll share but I'd love opinions on the matter.Do you think reading your short storie in audio form such as a podcast would be considered "previously published"?
I would think not but podcasts are still so relatively new I think it's a gray area since the words aren't searchable unless you post the transcript.
@Carrie. I would imagine a podcast is viewed as previously published (PP), but I haven't found much in my Google search. If I find more, I'll let you and the group know. (Tom and Andy probably know. They seem well-versed on publishing.) I did find this blog about podcasts that pay for PP material. Have you've heard of any of these, Carrie?
http://www.beyondyourblog.com/11-podc...
If 'the law' views 'a story in written form' and 'a story in podcast form' as 'one and the same product' then a publisher (who you had told, in writing, was receiving a 'new product' from you) who later found out that in fact the story was 'a used product' (previously published in some form) could probably sue you for breach of contract.If you argued that you didn't know that publishing included podcasts I think they could possibly successfully counter-argue that 'a reasonable person in this modern era should know' that the concept of publishing had expanded. And you could argue back and forth on that point.
But if you, instead, centred your defence on arguing that 'a podcast' (unlike an audio book) is actually 'a whole other entity to a written story' - even if the words in both are exactly the same - then you could possibly win the case! In other words, it would be a bit like how a graphic novel presentation of a story, even if it has exactly the same words as the written story presentation, is a different 'entity'.
So how could you argue that a podcast of your story was not the same exact thing as the written form of your story?
Well there are some ideas in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast ... for example, you could argue that the podcasting (as opposed to publishing) of your story is just "a conversation" that is able, in this modern world of mass communication (as any reasonable person/publisher should be expected to know) to be overheard by millions ... as if you were 'trying out' your story on friends and acquaintances or anyone willing to listen. You can read through that article to get some ideas on how that line of arguing could go.
Another reason why I feel strongly that 'a podcasted story' is a whole other entity to 'a published story' (and why I don't like the idea of a professional or any other reader, as opposed to the author herself or himself, reading their own story on a podcast) is that, as a work of art, it is (in the conversational or 'around the campfire' style of podcasting) 'a performance art piece of work'. It has a whole other karma or energy or context to that of a published piece.
An everday story maker-and-teller's rights as a performance artist (as opposed to a mere word-author's rights) would hopefully be able to be argued as the central issue. Maybe that would include an artist's moral rights and/or intellectual property rights? It would have to be looked into further to know that. But it makes moral sense (and so should be legally arguable?) that - by some sort of natural law - the podcasting of (the raw energy of) one's own intellect, by a person (to non-paying others) comes under the rubric of that which can't be contracted away.
I suspect that all the ins and outs of this phenomenon is actually part of a groundswell, for the moral betterment of who we are as a society; that such easy-sharing-and-encouragement-of-creative-energy (or karma) formats are emerging. (The danger is that 'the law', and our notions of how currency is earned/obtained, in the realm of artistic pursuit at least, might hobble along at a much slower pace than is needed to keep up with such social movements ... not least of all because 'it' ('the new wave' of which podcasting may well be a part) simply does challenge our myths! For example, we 'Westerners' don't come from fully consciously-acknowledged mythical traditions, including that of the artist as sharman! )
The podcast thing just says how mad the whole publishing thing has become. Copyright was invented to protect inventors- not 'agents'- Unless one signs up to a contract that specifically ties one in.
The law has gone the same way as consumer rights and protection of information. They are all used to protect big business and not those with rights of ownership.
If you sign a contract giving retrospective rights in any form, knowing that that is what one has done one is a plonker. If a product has the potential for forward sales its history is commercially either irrelevant or a help to the new licensee.
As far as I'm concerned the whole issue is irrelevant because either a publisher would accept a contract that only had power forward, or else I'd tell them to take a hike. Deals in the real world are done on forward potential even in this jackass industry. If one has never signed away rights then previous copy is irrelevant- or should be. Now if someone can persuade me that these words are now the property of GRs then I'll reconsider. In which case I'll be defamatory about every character in the world that might want to sue GR for publishing (owning) such material.
I just submitted the following chat message/question on this page http://writersrelief.com/blog/2013/11... following their article there, titled, "What Is Considered Previously Published?" ... so I'll see if I get a reply.This was what I asked:
IS A PODCAST CONSIDERED (LEGALLY) TO BE 'A PUBLISHED WORK'?
Does a podcast of a micro story (750 words or less) being read automatically put that story in the category of "previously published" (for the purpose of later submitting the written format of the story to magazines or writing competitions and the like, that have a requirement of entrants not submitting anything that has been 'previously published')?
And does it make a difference if it is the author of the story reading their own work on that podcast? (That is, if the reader is also the writer of the story might the podcast be legally considered as 'conversation' or 'performance art', as opposed to 'published'?
And do any such legalities vary in different countries/regions, or is there some universally accepted rule regarding podcasts and publication status?
Thanks for any answers.
I emailed Rob Hubbard Writers of the Future contest:"I'm launching a new podcast where I'll be reading short stories, mini audio books if you will. Would reading your short story in audio form such as a podcast be considered "previously published" and thus ineligible for submission?
I would think not but podcasts are still so relatively new I think it's a gray area since the words aren't searchable unless you post the transcript.
So I thought I'd better ask.
Thank you in advance!
Carrie"
The response:
"Good question but no, that does not count.
You are right, they are too new to be on the radar actually.
Best,
Joni Labaqui"
That's interesting, Carrie. I suppose it will take getting replies from several such sources to get an idea of where things might be going, as the future unfolds. There was a lawyer (who is also a writer) whose web page I was looking at ages ago. I'll have to see if I kept a record of that website. But writing to someone like her might also give a good overview of the lay of the land.Also at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcast it mentions that it is already established practice, by some novelists, to actually use a podcast to in fact secure publishing deals ... by demonstrating to publishers that their podcasts have built an audience.
In WIkipedia's words:
"Some podcast novelists give away a free podcast version of their book as a form of promotion. Some such novelists have even secured publishing contracts to have their novels printed. Podcast novelists have commented that podcasting their novels lets them build audiences even if they cannot get a publisher to buy their books. These audiences then make it easier to secure a printing deal with a publisher at a later date. These podcast novelists also claim the exposure that releasing a free podcast gains them makes up for the fact that they are giving away their work for free."
See that's awesome! I've been tweeting and mentioning it on facebook and have several people interested in listening.I think a science fiction specific story story podcast would go over rather well.
Especially considering the caliber of writers that participate in this contest in addition to the back catalog.
Yes, and the more people respond so positively to such podcasts, even to the extent of venturing into the written versions, the more pressure will be put on those magazines, writing competition arenas, and publishers generally to indeed welcome The Podcast as their friend ... rather than gradually push for it to go the other way, of being behind a possible future push to have podcasted works lumped under the label of ''previously published."
Here's a couple of examples of paying sites that would probably accept private group submissions but not public ones:http://everydayfiction.com/submit-story/
"If you publish a story on a blog, even your own personal blog, or any website accessible to the general public (i.e., if the story can be found and read online without a password or friend status or other limitation), it is considered published and therefore inappropriate for our market."
http://dailysciencefiction.com/submit...
"We do not accept reprints. Unfortunately, if you have placed a story on your website, where it is open and available to the multiple billion people who have access to the internet, that constitutes publication."
Some of you have done this already, but I wanted to see for myself. I did a little test on whether or not my stories sent to Jot's contest can be Googled. Short answer is I didn't find mine. I found my novels and an interview I did for an international blogger. Soooo if you wonder, Google. If you don't find it, well, then decide for yourself.
I've done that and the GR stories are accessible, the LI ones aren't. It doesn't matter if they are deleted later; if they were accessible at some point, that's considered first publication.For example, typing "Goodreads Rezigna" returns my November story. That's what my concern comes down to: if you post stories in this group, you can't submit them for first publication. That's the only reason I suggested the group should be private.
I agree the group should go private. But I have said that earlier.
Just repeating: I also think the group should go private. (There are a few publications that will accept a writer's previously published works, but the writer usually gets paid less.)
I think I'm leaning towards the going private option too, now, after checking out some writing competitions I might like to enter and seeing that they have stipulations around publication history.I did suggest very early on in this thread that we could compromise and have just some open threads - eg a "Welcome & Invitation to Join the Group" thread, a "A Members and Guest's General Comments" thread, and an "About Us" thread (where we could even have a few excerpts of entries from previous months) ... even all bar one of the other threads could be public threads, so that prospective members, or others who are interested, could see things like ''the critical eye'' at work (to pinch a term from Sharon.)
But the thread where the actual contest entries are posted would be the one that is made private.
And after all its not as if there's some difficult entry exam to join! So people could see enough from the publicly visible threads to know whether they want to take the very simple action of clicking on a link to join the group - to participate in it and/or just become entitled to read the entries.
AND, if Carrie gets the podcast site up and running AND if it is OK to refer to it or link to it in one of the publicly visible threads AND if it is correct - as it is looking likely to be - that podcast versions of stories are not considered to be 'published', but rather as an aide to later publication (because the publisher sees that an audience for the work exists) then that goes a long way towards having our works known about, without violating (unless we find out to the contrary, and I know I for one will keep trying to find where we can have that unequivocally confirmed or denied) any of the 'not to have been pre-published' rules that a lot of publishing entities have.
So, to re-quote from the Wikipedia link I posted in message 61 above, in order to illustrate the point, that the open-to-the-public factor would be taken care of by having podcasts of our work:
"Some podcast novelists give away a free podcast version of their book as a form of promotion. Some such novelists have even secured publishing contracts to have their novels printed. Podcast novelists have commented that podcasting their novels lets them build audiences even if they cannot get a publisher to buy their books. These audiences then make it easier to secure a printing deal with a publisher at a later date. These podcast novelists also claim the exposure that releasing a free podcast gains them makes up for the fact that they are giving away their work for free."
@Heather: Very good points, Heather. Thanks.One idea: While the contest could be private, the site could post publicly on the main page a story per month from the two anthologies that Jot & Co. published. That way...
1) Outside readers and potential writing contestants could see the type of scifi/fantasy stories that are submitted to Jot's contest.
2) This could be another way to promote, promote and promote the anthologies. We might actually attract sales for volumes 1 and 2, as well as buzz for the upcoming volume 3.
Why not check with the Authors Guild re how podcast or GR postings affect (1) copyright, (2) in their members' experience, subsequent publication? --I don't have time to do this, right now, but anyone else here who's a member and has time, please do. And I'd certainly take seriously the response Carrie got from Ron Hubbard Writers of the Future.
Ron, so far I've no reason to think any publisher checks whether stories that appeared in vol 1 (at least) of our anthology have been published. But that might change if we posted them publicly on the contest main page (in fact, I worry when this is done for each story when it wins, on the "help congratulate. . ." page).
Good idea, Ron, yes it does make sense to have a compromise solution. Its just a matter of getting 'the best arrangement of the components', of the solution, in order to get the best solution! And the arrangement you've suggested sounds pretty good.
Paula,
wouldn't it not matter so much whether or not "any publisher checks", what has or has not been published, so much as the fact that we have to sign a document declaring that we have made no false statements re publication history, that it is our own work, that ... whatever other stipulation the competition, magazine etc we might be submitting our story to requires?
I'd find it nerve-wracking to build up a stack of such 'false declarations' relying on "oh well, no-one checks anyway."
The fact is those stories have been published, so Ron's idea to use them as the examples of our work is very sound, I think.
And, in general,
also, if we adopted 'the compromise' (re private and public), say in exactly the way Ron has suggested, then we'd all know where we stand ... and so could, if we choose to, 'sacrifice' certain of our stories of our choosing (ie ones we write from this year on) to be used in this way, so we've always got a fresh supply of such 'example stories' to display. Most of us probably know in our heart which are our 'that-experiment-has-now-ended' stories and which are the ones we want to be sure have a true 'unpublished' status so we can develop them for later use, without worrying about that status.
In fact, its already an issue for me with this month's story. I have been trying out a certain literary device and am quite pleased with how its going in my story ... and would love to enter it in this month's GR contest, as I had planned to do (not least of all because I might get some feedback on whether or not my interpretation of that device has worked.)
But then I went to the Ron Hubbard Writers of The Future site to check it out (since I had never heard of it till Carrie posted it) and thought that I'd like to lengthen the story and submit it there!
(From reading their contest rules, they require more that the entrant hasn't ever had more than any two short stories published, rather than whether or not the specific story being submitted to their competition has been published, if I read the rules correctly (which I'll go and check again before I post. I must also ask them whether published 'flash fiction' counts as published 'short stories'. I already wrote to Joni, at Ron Hubbard's, about something and she replied very promptly, so I'll also ask her whether submitting my flash fiction form of the story on GR counts towards their 'published short story' count.)
But it's just such a pain worrying whether the GR contest stories I write this year (as a way to try to improve my writing) are going to come back and bite on the bum any chance I might otherwise have in other competitions (including ones with money prizes.) Yes I know some here say they 'don't care about the money', but although I care most about the art ... ie., the opportunity to grow into being able to express, as well and entertainingly and intriguingly as I possibly can, those things that I passionately feel need to be said ... I am still broke enough to 'care about the money!' (even if the probability of my actually winning such a prize is low.) And if leaving all bar one critical area (the actual contest page) of our GR pages/threads public potentially helps me in that regard, then I am for that: keep our GR group mostly public, but make the contest stories page private!
Paula wrote: "Why not check with the Authors Guild re how podcast or GR postings affect (1) copyright, (2) in their members' experience, subsequent publication? --I don't have time to do this, right now, but any..."Paula:
I'm not sure what you're concern about regarding volume 1 and republishing stories from that anthology on the website. It's just a suggestion anyway in how to promote both our works and the anthologies.
My concern, Ron, was the same one we've been discussing here--how it may affect future publication. Keep in mind that if one makes considerable substantive changes to a story, at some point it becomes a new story--not only legally but in one's own sense of it. And that can happen between the story is in one of the anthologies and the (running) present when one might want to post the story. Well, as long as the author's permission must be asked first, there's no problem.
By the way, on a somewhat related issue - copyright - does anyone know 'the rules' re titles? For my February story, I've been toying with several possible titles and one that I thought of would have the words "The Parallelities" in it. (Its of the form, "The Parallelities and The ..... ........ .. .... ".) So I googled to see if 'parallelity/parallelities was even a word and discovered that in fact "Parallelities" is the name of a 1995 sci fi book by Alan Dean Foster http://www.amazon.com/Parallelities-A... which I had no prior knowledge of at all. And from what I can see its not like my story at all (apart from having some parallel realities and being sci fi.)It is a word that is in the dictionary and I have used it in a completely different combination of words to his 'one word' format for his story's title. But still, I am just wondering where the boundaries are re titles and the words in them and copyrightability ... if anyone knows? Thanks
Unlike series titles, titles of a single work, whether a book, periodical, song, movie, or television program, normally, will not be protected under either trademark or unfair competition law.www.copylaw.com/new_articles/titles.htm - See more.
Nothing makes me think that private is helpful, except it the case of a work that is intended for conventional publication. I can't image for a minute that any story under 1000 words can't be re-written at a drop of a hat, with enough to make it novel. And nothing here is going to make any difference to self-publishing/independent publishing. As to competitions- I would always write a new story for anything under 1000 words. That's only a day's work even for a slow coach like me.
Some of you seem to be losing sight of where we actually are.
Private may work- BUT - most private groups wither on the vine.
Being read is what matters- isn't it? It is to me.
It's a balance- I guess it comes down to how many are only prepared to write stories in private, and how many would rather be read and perhaps risk losing out on being the next Ray Bradbury- because a story was just so... um... brilliant that no publisher would dream of accepting it because it's appeared on the www- virginity lost somewhere in a trillion miles of virtual paper.
Richard,Jot managed the group as private for three years without it withering; it was excessive pruning that forced us to move. And there are probably ways to just make the stories themselves private, as Heather suggested. Snooping around, I've seen groups broken up into folders, even personal "lockers". Perhaps there could be a group members-only folder for the stories while the rest is public, including Ron's suggestion of an anthology showcase.
edit: After some thought, I realized there's some glossing over in my argument against "vine withering". On LI, the contests were topics on a private group that went from 5K to 11K members over those three years, so it was not limited to just our gang. So Ron's suggestion of keeping the group public but sequestering the stories themselves to some private area somehow is worth exploring.
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, J.F., the overall group, when it was on LI, (which, within it, just happened to contain 'our gang' of regular contest writers/occasional contest writers/regular or occasional contest readers) was still deemed "private" overall, even though it had such a large and growing number of members? That's good, because presumably the stories would still be considered 'unpublished' (because even a very large group can be considered 'private and it's work therefore considered 'not published' to the general public?)
So those - like Richard - (well, are there any of us like Richard? just kidding:) ) who prefer a completely public group where the stories can be read by anyone at all, are not 'left out' if we "keep the group public but sequester the stories themselves to some private area" because we know, by our LI experience, that a private area of The Public (group) can just keep expanding, as more people keep finding it via the open-to-the-public space that surrounds it? Is that what you mean, J.F. ?
It certainly would be a good argument in support of ideas like Ron's, re 'the anthology showcase', and Carrie's re 'the podcast version of our tales' (if podcasting proves to be, as it seems it is being proved to be, deemable as 'unpublished') ... all such ideas being sort of like a spruiker standing out the front of the private area, in the public space, calling "Roll up! roll up and try our wares! Pay your penny (that is click on this link to join) and read our stories!" The best of both worlds! We get to keep the define publish vs not published rule-based world happy and hence protect those of us who want that protection AND have the ability to attract more and more readers of our stories! (And that attraction of more readers is not mere wishful thinking! People are attracted by intrigue and originality and 'well thought out effort'and dynamism! And that's what this proposed model contains!!) It is an entirely different kettle of fish to a situation where the public is just completely and utterly shut out of a private, unwelcoming, secret society of writers ... which is what I think Richard, and perhaps others, sees it as being in danger of becoming.
re story/book titles, thanks Richard and Ben for that input. But on going to that link you posted, Ben it looks a bit scary ... since a title, it seems can be trademarked!! (which is potentially a help and a hindrance to authors ... especially in an increasingly connected world.)In the article at http://www.copylaw.com/index.html (which can be reached via that link you posted) called,
"How to Use Trademark Law to Create Multiple Passive Income Streams & Avert Legal Battles" By Lloyd J. Jassin, the author says,
"A great title can contribute tremendously to a book’s success. It can also create opportunities for multiple passive income streams from licensing the sale of book-related merchandise and paraphernalia. In this article, I will share with you valuable tips on how to determine the availability of a title, secure its ownership, and develop passive revenue streams through trademark licensing. I will also explain how to protect against unauthorized use of your title by intellectual property pirates ..."
and
"Searching for the correct titles is like searching for hidden gold. Properly selected and maintained, your book’s title can be your most valuable intellectual property asset.
and
"To the chagrin of many, the courts and the Copyright Office have made a bright-line policy determination that titles, names (including pen names), short phrases and mere listings of ingredients (as in recipes), no matter how clever, do not possess enough original expression to warrant copyright protection. Fortunately, there is another way to protect the commercial magnetism of your title and to cash in on it."
(by also trademarking any sort of paraphernalia that might also be able to be sold under that title.)
I'm not sure though whether that means it's a word or a combination of words that can be trademarked (re book titles) and whether a one word title, like "Parallelities", is trademarkable to the exclusion of any other title that contains that word in some combination of words?
If any one word on its own is trademarkable then theoretically anyone (with enough finances to do it) could go through the dictionary(ies of every language in the world) and select every word that they think might have a future (or present) trademarkable value then 'whip up' or pay writers to 'whip up' a whole production line worth of short stories that would each have one of those selected words assigned as its title. Each of those title 'words' could then be trademarked!! And in that way others couldn't use it as a title, or within a title; effectively shortening the dictionary for most writers! it sounds a bit of a science fiction scenario in itself, but is still theoretically possible!
That article's author gives some examples of 'reasonable trademarking' of titles:
"trademark and unfair competition law are the foundations upon which the best selling Chicken Soup for the Soul, Dummies and Hardy Boys series franchises are based. All three, of course, are federally registered trademarks".
The potential scariness of such a scenario - of someone just vacuuming up all the potentially great title words, using a vacuum cleaner called trademark law - might be countered by such a device as anti-competitive behaviour law, but still 'this whole realm of trademarking of titles' is just another (indirect) argument in favour of thinking that there is some wisdom in 'being a bit cautious', in general, for writers! And the 'proposed model', in the posts above, for "sequestering the contest stories to a private area within a public group" does incorporate that general principle of 'be a bit cautious', without going overboard about it.
p.s., Ben, that link http://www.copylaw.com/index.html (arrived at via the link you posted) has lots of other interesting articles re writing and the law ... eg what happens when you base your story on real life characters. So thanks again for that.
Nestlé is a trademark- but I'm not barred from using the word, in a title or anywhere else. Trademarks are specific- I can't trade as Nestlé, or in any way apply that I anything to do with them- that is all. I can use dummies in a book title- but may infringe in some territories if I title a book Crap for Dummies so I won't. Actually, I might!To trademark a language one would have to trademark every word for every use in every grammatical construction in every font and then apply it in every jurisdiction on Earth. Even the biggest companies on Earth struggle to do that for single words- and it costs them one heck of a lot of money.
I got a reply back from writersrelief.com after I asked them could they clarify whether podcasting constituted publishing (after reading their article called "What Is Considered Previously Published Writing?"They said,
"Thank you for your inquiry, Heather. We are not lawyers, so we cannot offer any legal advice. In our experience, the area of podcasting is still relatively new, and we haven’t seen it addressed in literary submission guidelines. However, if a podcast has a written transcript that is available online and includes the story, it may be considered previously published since it can be found online. We would recommend consulting a lawyer with experience in the publishing industry for more information."
Just a side note I received this response from Readers Digest regarding a podcast:"No, I'd say you're safe to say that doesn't count as being published.
Best,
The WD Editorial Team"
Maybe check also with P&W and also with SFWA, which may have particularly relevant info, re podcasting? btw, Richard's description of the relevant trademark issue sounds straignt-on.
Paula said,"Richard's description of the relevant trademark issue sounds straignt-on"
but then why would the author (you can find more about him here http://www.copylaw.com/aboutus.html ) of the article at http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/t... say the following?
"Brand It! Own It!
If you are an author, it is helpful to think of your book as the headwaters of your very own intellectual property Nile. Best selling author, Robert G. Allen refers to it as “infopreneuring.” As an info-prenueur, the goal is to create multiple merchandise licensing revenue streams that flow from your book (and book title). Your focus is not just creating a best selling book, but best selling book byproducts. Lucrative speaking careers – which can dwarf the royalties your book generates -- often start out as books. From books flow distance learning courses, income generating websites, subscription newsletters, audio products, film and television and other opportunities.
Trademarks & Book Contracts
If you aspire to be a published author, or, if you have been offered a book contract, remember, you, not your publisher should retain trademark licensing rights to the title of your work. Merchandising rights -- which is a category of rights a publisher will seek -- includes the right to license the title of your book, and the characters contained in it ..."
.........
Also, Richard brought the trademark of a food industry company, Nestlé, into the conversation, but that's not really the same as someone specifically trademarking a book title with that business name in the title! (... as far as I know). I don't know whether Nestlé or anyone else has already trademarked such a book title (as opposed to 'just' having trademarked a business name.) But IF such a book title has been trademarked, then - according to what is written at that site "copylaw" - then no you couldn't use it in a book title without the danger of being sued!
And, one of the specific examples that the copylaw author give IS "Dummies" ... but if Richard is brave enough to try using it in a book title it will be an interesting experiment for the rest of us to follow to see if the litigation machine is rolled out. Good luck, Richard.
And, I wasn't suggesting that anyone could trademark a whole language! (as Richard seems to have taken it.) I was questioning whether or not single word book titles can be trademarked? (Because it seems to me that the intellectual property entitlement should come NOT from being able to select a word that is in a dictionary (that, by some sort of natural law,) is, and should remain, freely available to everyone, BUT rather from the creativity of constructing a unique combination of words!! The point I was making was that IF a single word title can be trademarked it would have the effect of reducing the scope of the dictionary - and therefore the language - that is freely available to all (writers).
I don't mind people countering my arguments. But it is a bit weird when they counter argue something that I wasn't even saying in the first place!
And, my purpose in bringing up the matter was not to engage in some sort of silly to-ing and fro-ing. I genuinely want to know about the legal issues around book titles because that's an issue on my mind now with my own writing. I just was looking for any genuine knowledge or ideas anyone here might have, since, like all intellectual property type matters, it seems to be full of twists and turns and potholes. I don't really care, nor find it helpful to know, whether or not Richard wants to stick his neck out and write a book called, as he said, "Crap For Dummies." I don't see anything "straight-on" about knowing that that is what is in his mind at all!
The only way to own words is through trademarking. That is all. If a publisher wishes to recognise the use of a word pattern in an earlier place as evidence of prior publication that is up to them. This has nothing to do with law as envisaged by most legislators. By talking up the myths around what is publishing writers do themselves a miss-service. We are building a system of case law against ourselves.
In universities now -they use computers to mark work and worse to measure the level of plagiarism in the content- I don't think many people have really thought were that leads. If scripts/essays are rejected at more than 25% plagiarised- that word pattern found in the ever expanding source material, which includes past years student efforts- well actually within a very short time it's going to become impossible to write anything- especially in non-fiction areas without being open to legal attack from some corporate entity or another. That won't be writers making legal cases, I might add, but the corporations we sell our words to. We are disenfranchised in the modern world like 99% of the population by lack of money. Yes- that is tangential- but it is also important to the issue.
It has to be noted that the language territories that are keenest of follow the published issue to the Nth degree are Anglophone- were we have a vast dichotomy of same meaning words. Not all languages are so verbose. But even in English- how many of this months stories would actually fail plagiarism tests- so show up as 'theft' from the already published. Perhaps none- I don't know- I haven't got any of that sort of software- but in ten years time. So lets not make things even worse by letting the clowns of publishing use laws in a way they were never designed to be used, by talking-up and creating a problem that the democracy of writing needs like a hole in the head. Words that appear on social media platforms are not published- to consider them as such is to turn not just publishing- but democracy itself, which depends 100% on a free press, into the biggest legal turd fight on Earth. And don't think for a minute that spoken language- including podcasts aren't a part of the turd pile either- word patterns that can only be used once every 70 years- God help us from the road to publishing madness. The lunatics are in the machine.
As to where we are in practical terms- today- **** knows- ask a lawyer or better still- a million - and then publish an average result that has never been used before except in the confines of the courts own evidential case law.
Generally I think in the US people are more aggressive about trade marking than in the UK or the rest of Europe - and more litigious.I don't know whether Harry Potter the character is trademarked - I would guess he is - but I remember reading that Warner Bros has trademarked Quidditch and a whole host of characters form the Harry Potter world. So if any of those names appears in a title (or any other part of a work) - they'll be after you.
Bloomsbury, which used to be a nice, genteel, financially precarious press, is now supper-aggressive re copyright and goes around bullying fan sites, for example.
The reason UK trade mark practice is more laid back is because you don't need to trade mark something to have protection, just have prior and significant (and reasonably current) use of a term to protect your brand name, slogan or product. Someone else using it can be found guilty of "passing off" something that they have no rights to as their own.
So if Richard were to be seen as 'passing off' his book as part of the 'for Dummies' series, then there would be an issue with or without a trademark.
However, exceptions are allowable in the case of documentary work and satire - though you can run into libel issues there instead!
Warner and Bloomsbury both use the courts to require potential opponents to lodge huge sums of money in advance with the courts to guarantee they would be able to pay court costs should they lose. This forces smaller fish to give up the fight. So who is in the right and who is in the wrong can be of little importance when the other guy is much bigger...
On the other hand - if neither side in a dispute has very big pockets, then it will probably never come to court ...
trade marking doesn't reduce the usable language, though - as the trademark has to refer to a context and type of usage.
Commonly used single words can't be trademarked. e.g. my company is Flexibility.co.uk Ltd, but I couldn't trademark the word 'flexibility' .
I could however trademark 'Smart Flexibility', which is the title of my management book, as it also describes a particular approach to changing working practices and workplaces. If I were to be suddenly rich and successful with it, I just might ... :-) But for the moment general copyright protection is good enough.
"And the key is that copyright isn't publishing, and a copyright status isn't created by any unique release of data to any number of individuals, otherwise no one could say, I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its... for another, what is it, twelve years.""Note that I quote the whole thing just to cover myself- bugger I had better quote mark this sentence as well."
"So for a publisher to claim that these words are previously published and therefore they won't touch them is just downright bazaar. Bugger- nearly forgot again."
Hmm, the sun goes over the yardarm earlier in Switzerland, does it Richard? lol :-)I actually broadly agree - best just to get on with it and worry about the legals later, for the most part. Later being when signing contracts, if the day ever comes.
Basic protection exists against plagiarism, though difficult to enforce, and trade marking is really only worthwhile for high value brands and products.
However, anything written online can be considered 'published', to an extent, in that it is put out for viewing to varying extents. So there are some things to be aware of, but not to be over-egged.
"This comment is at little a little bit published, because it first appeared on Good****© (social media)- be warned! I'll sue the hide of anyone who copies these words (© Richard Bunning 2016 and for the next 70 years)."
"That's a satirical piece." (quoted from a million sources)
Thanks, both Richard & Andy. Now, having read what you said, I'm seeing more of "the lay of the land" (I'm sure someone has used that terminology before! :) ) ... AND, that that 'landscape' has not so much that which can be called 'twists and turns and potholes' on our one-world's legalistically laminated surface, but, rather, simply looks different when viewed from different 'worlds'; the world of the rich, the world of the poor, the world of the fearful, the world of the brave, the world of the pragmatic, the world of the idealist ... and however many such worlds there are.So, if I'm understanding you, Richard, a bit better on this matter, are you basically saying that you believe in looking at this situation from the world view of the brave and idealistic ... because from that perspective, what's going on re writing and publishing (generally - from students to amateur writers to more established authors) looks like its all happening in a mad world that needs to be challenged, AND that one such way to do that is to vote for this group to remain completely public?
Sharon, that's very interesting. I'm going to have to the same. I've severely neglected my FB page and still managed to get likes in the interim. FB must be used to our advantage to plug all the stories here - given the diverse tastes within and without.
I've changed my vote back to wanting the group to stay public. I gave my reasons over on the podcast thread since it was after reading around via a link there that I decided public was better. (And having just now finished watching a documentary called "Shadows of Liberty" I'm even more convinced.)
Here's another very interesting article that, to me, has many "fragments of knowledge ... [which when joined up]" argue in favour of 'openness to all' re the creative process and output, https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/09... In it, Vera John-Steiner (a psycholinguist) is quoted as saying "In the course of creative endeavors, artists and scientists join fragments of knowledge into a new unity of understanding".
But its not only artists and scientists that can do this! 'The inherent creative', in anyone, can, IF there is mutual help to gather the (story form) fragments of life that invite each other to re-write our own life-fragments into a new "unity of understanding." That way we can each become an embodiment of change! (Perhaps this is the only way we humans can realistically contribute to ''saving the world!'' AND find our own happiness - by telling someone/each other enough (the critical mass of) stories of our own making, not stories that are 'etched' by a seemingly more dominant force; the era's(/the political-&-business system's/the company's/the family's/the whoever's) author (& broadcaster) of societal, and personal, reality.)
So irrespective of whether we want to earn from our writing, the free and open and public presence on the web of at least some of the ongoing, current, cutting edge attempts/exploratory work attempts within the body of work of any writer, from any walk of life, is an ultimately societal healing (win win) thing to do ... no matter how small a thing it seems on its own, in my opinion ... from my 'joining up of the dots.'
bugger - this next page thing got me again. I thought Sharon's was the last page and now I see I'm in the midst of the private/public discussion. I'm far too lazy to do all that research, so well done to the rest of you. I'll still print my stories in a collection if I feel the need, and let the buyer decide. I'll also write fresh ones that haven't been published before. They're just short pieces of introspection for me.
So is that a vote for 'keeping the group public' or 'making it private' or 'don't care', JJ?p.s. re "research" vs "introspection": (I know some have done research re publishers etc and I appreciate that too.) My own 'approach' however is mainly introspective (eg the last two paragraphs of my last post above are introspective) plus a small amount of stumbling upon what has been published somewhere/shown on the telly/etc that just 'makes sense' or 'ties it altogether' (eg the quote about the role of the artist being to "join fragments of knowledge into a new unity of understanding" ... an absolutely brilliantly succinct way of putting it!)
[The only reason I'm mentioning it now is that that is what I find useful and intriguing in these discussions; discovering other people's introspections too ... and some of what they have found (eg links to good articles that can lead to more introspection.) I have found that if some think you are 'industriously researching', as opposed to 'finding out and thinking and having fun doing that - all simultaneously' - they can start to imply a label like "you're a try-hard" ... which doesn't matter one jot, except that it quickly renders the conversation into the opposite of a creative and interesting exchange of "fragments of knowledge" that have the potential to be "re-unified into new understanding" and output ... which is the fun part of being an artist, in my opinion]
Mod
First, many of you may remember me from the LI group. I left LI over a number of issues, none of which have to do with the group, only what Linked (not) In was doing to the groups.
Second, flash fiction is very short and unless it is going to be published by the author as part of a collection, publishing it here or on LI (even when the group was "private") doesn't make any difference. Any TOS on any site where you can participate has similar provisions.
Regardless, I have no problems leaving this group public. It provides an avenue for bragging rights when a person wins the monthly contest.
Best regards to all,
Tom Huber