Brandon Bell

This is a guest post by Brandon H. Bell, editor of Fantastique Unfettered, which he publishes under a Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license.  In this post he explains why.  We’re running it not because we agree with everything in it, but because we agree so strongly with his main points: that releasing works under freedom-friendly terms is compatible with profitability and helps deserving works avoid obscurity.  It’s great to see a small press fully embrace this.  The rest is by Brandon H. Bell…

Hail Caesar: Creative Commons and the Small Press

“It is not these well-fed long-haired men that I fear, but the pale and the hungry-looking.”
            –Julius Caesar

  1. Write story
  2. Get said story published
  3. Profit! Karma!

I believe short fiction is important. The small press magazine I edit (Fantastique Unfettered, aka FU) uses a Creative Commons license, CC-BY-SA, for reasons related to this view, and in service to the dual end-goals of money and karma on behalf of the writers we publish.

Our alignment cover of Fantastique Unfettered, Issue 1is not indie against corporate, small against large, or fan against pro. Those are foolish stances. Our alignment is one against obscurity [1], expressed via a pragmatism that acknowledges money may or may not follow our good karma. We certainly hope it does: our goal, after providing quality fiction to our readers, is to pay writers professional rates.

This article will appear in the second issue of FU, but I hope it’s not where you originally read it. You see, it carries the same CC-BY-SA license. A Creative Commons, Attribution, ShareAlike license, meaning that others can do pretty much anything they want with the article, but they must give attribution and release under the same. Each instance of a presentation, adaptation, or derivative of the article is, essentially, a finger pointed back at FU. Um, not that finger.

The old world-think of walled gardens and content farms suggests the only way forward is copyright extensions, possibly to perpetuity. Our old-thinkers recognize the current audience is merely the first audience. It’s a numbers game, and while individual creators will not make much to crow over statistically, the bulk IP of the mass of creators certainly will. These Caesars would own human culture, every song a commercial jingle, every myth protected by a (TM).

I’m not an ideologue; I’ve stated in blog posts that I don’t know how well CC-BY-SA scales, and for the Stephen Kings of the world, traditional copyright may be the only reasonable default for their work. Creative Commons is a tool, in a toolbox that includes traditional copyright, and I have no prohibition against the latter (though even if I reach “rockstar” level, I would ensure my work returns to the culture at some point).

With Aether Age (our first CC-BY-SA project, a shared world of space-faring Greeks and social revolutions in Egypt) we’ve made the work immediately available to the culture. The same is true of FU. The same will be true of my novella, Elegant Threat, to be released in the M-Brane Double #1 later this year. The New People by Alex Jeffers, the other half of the Double, will carry a traditional copyright. My first novel may carry a traditional copyright, depending on the publisher.

cover of Fantastique Unfettered, Issue 2Writers deserve to be paid for their work, and we hope that you, dear reader, will take an active interest in supporting short fiction. If not FU, then some other venue. As a writer, I hope to someday make loads of cash at my craft and to have people bemoan my place on the NYT list. That hack, they’ll complain as I laugh my way to the bank. (Yeah, it’s a writer thing.) So, a final reminder that our use of Creative Commons licensing is not purely ideological or a revolt against traditional publishing.

Creative Commons licensing does not rob writers of ownership of their work, the ability to publish it in anthologies, collections, or even to waive the license to accommodate incoming requests to publish/adapt under other terms.

The license is a tool to reach readers, and to proclaim cultural relevance to the future. Maybe our work, and work like it, becomes an island of open/libre culture in a future of copyrighted IP masquerading as culture. We intend to run FU much like a nonprofit (though it isn’t a nonprofit), to not profit off the periodical ourselves, but to use any incoming funds to make FU self-sustaining, then better pay our contributors.

CC-BY-SA is a tool for proactively freeing art to the culture, and will be right for some projects, and wrong for others. It is a tool for generating karma and reaching more readers. The other CC licenses and traditional copyright are also valid tools.

While the small press is a valuable part of the greater cultural ecosystem, big publishers (and big writers) are our heroes. Copyright is, ultimately, agnostic, insofar as it allows creators and their families to benefit from their work. The same is true of Creative Commons, and use of CC licenses does not preclude profitability.

It would be easy to stop there, with that pithy statement ignoring the real challenge we face in obscurity. The small press is a playground for the new, the odd, the possibly non-commercial (or not commercial right now), the niche. The small press bears the responsibility to pursue the mandates of a given niche while striving for a quality of content, presentation, and a dedication to the idea that if anyone should be hungry and unsatisfied with imitation and shallowness, the merely commercially viable, it is us.

To close on a theme, perhaps our Caesar is that societal voice addressed to those who would participate in the culture, that suggests: you are a consumer, only.

We have come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him.

Please steal this article and post anywhere you like, just provide attribution and keep it under the same license. Encourage others to do the same. [2]

Footnotes

[1] See the Tim O’Reilly article here http://openp2p.com/lpt/a/3015

[2] CC-BY-SA for the license, and for attribution: Brandon H. Bell, editor, Fantastique Unfettered, http://www.fantastique-unfettered.com/.

Contact Brandon at editors {_AT_} fantastique-unfettered.com and check out “our first CC-BY-SA project, The Aether Age: Helios, edited by Christopher Fletcher and myself and published by Hadley-Rille Books.”

The Free Motion Quilting Project logo

Why are we loving Leah Day’s Free Motion Quilting Project right now?

It’s easier to quote than explain:

“Please feel free to use any of the designs shared in The Free Motion Quilting Project within your quilts.  There are NO restrictions on where you can use these designs: for sale, show, gifts, or personal use.”

But wait, it gets better:

These quilting designs aren’t even copyright-able!

All of the designs from The Free Motion Quilting Project represent ideas.
Think of it this way: how many times in your life have you seen a spiral? …

The rest of her copyright page lives up to that promise, too. It’s such a pleasure to see an artist so completely get it.

Another instance we’ve seen recently is Arrangers Against Copyright (or as one might call it, “Musicians In Favor of Being Allowed to Earn a Living”).

Is it Spring, or did freedom come early this year? Let’s hope the trend continues…

regretsyRegretsy received a nasty-looking lawyergram claiming copyright infringement, requesting retroactive licensing fees and implicitly threatening a lawsuit to collect damages.  What was their sin?

Apparently, that they had used the images in question for purposes of commentary — specifically, negative commentary.  Regretsy posted a mocking review (okay, a really, really funny mocking review) of objects being offered for sale, reproducing the seller’s own photograph of the objects.  The seller tried to shut down the negative review by claiming that Regretsy didn’t have the right to reproduce the photograph.  But the seller had never claimed copyright infringement on other, positive reviews elsewhere — as Regretsy delightfully pointed out, in several instances she had even posted in those other forums herself thanking the reviewers for their kind comments.  So this was clearly not about copyright.  This was about silencing a critic, using copyright as a tool of censorship.

We take no stand on whether Regretsy’s claim of “fair use” is legally accurate (we don’t even much like the term), nor on the quality of the objects or the photograph.  And we certainly don’t mean to imply that Regretsy takes any particular stance on copyright reform themselves (sometimes they even confuse plagiarism with unauthorized copying, calling them both “stealing” when only the former is.)  But they knew censorship when they saw it, and they called it what it is, in style.

We see examples like this overzealous seller all the time.  How often is copyright used as a cover for censorship, commercial or otherwise?  It’s hard to say, because unfortunately , even though copyright is a government-granted monopoly, the governments that grant it make no requirements for tracking how it’s used.  If every claim of infringement had to be delivered through (or CC’d to) a database at the copyright office, so we could see exactly how these monopolies are wielded, that would be give us some real information about whether copyright principally serves even its nominal goals.  Also, people might suddenly become a lot more conservative about claiming “infringement”.  Right now, all it costs to intimidate someone is the time it takes to send a letter (and the larger intimidators have automated even that part, so the cost is very close to zero for them).

In any case, hats off to Regretsy for publicly calling out censorship when they saw it.  Monopolies on information and culture inevitably lead to infringements on freedom of speech and commentary; it’s great that Regretsy didn’t take the easy way out when someone tried to censor them.

Authors Against DRMDear Authors,

You probably saw the New York Times story today about publishers imposing still more artificial scarcity on e-books by liming the number of times they can be “lent” (a verb already odd enough in the context of e-books).

Ask yourself, in all seriousness: is this helping you?

If you’re an author who makes their whole living from royalty income, then at least in a short-term economic sense, this policy might help you in a way (though the system is still hurting you in other ways).  But for anyone else, if you’re not lucky enough to have a publisher who gets it, and instead you have a publisher like HarperCollins who apparently thinks their job is to limit the number of people who can read your book, ask yourself how exactly this helps you.

HarperCollins has become a filter that prevents people from reading its authors books.  This is a historical reversal from everything a publisher should be.  The last thing I want, as an author, is someone who thinks it’s their job to stand between my readers and my writing.  There are already enough forces in the world doing that, starting with all the other demands on my readers’ attention.  Why on earth would I bring in a special service to do it even more?  That’s crazy.

Just say no.  HarperCollins can’t do anything without you.

Nina Paley, our Artist in Residence, has created a powerful image against DRM for the library community’s action “Readers’ Bill of Rights For Digital Books.” 

Librarians against DRM Despite the stated revolutionary potential of E-books for widespread access, E-books have been increasingly restricted due to DRM and draconian licensing agreements from publishers. Recently, HarperCollins announced its new policy in which ebooks they supply to Overdrive (a vendor to public and academic libraries across the US) would disappear after 26 checkouts. In response to this, librarians have been reclaiming readers’ rights and challenging publishers who insert DRM and demanding licensing agreements that do not restrict libraries and users from downloading, sharing and preserving ebooks. Here are some voices from the library community:

eBook Users Bill of Rights

Readers’ Bill of Rights for Digital Books

Barbara Fister, “A Library Written in Disappearing Ink”

Please help spread the word and support your local librarians. Blog it, Tweet it (#ebookrights), Facebook it, email it, and post it on a telephone pole.

Thanks Nina for the wonderful art!

The Academy Awards happened Sunday night, as you, and perhaps James Franco, may be aware. Over breakfast Monday morning, I reviewed the hilarious snark about the Oscars that had filled my tweetstream overnight. Among the catty epigrams, I found the intriguing observation that in awarding the Oscar for Best Original Score to Atticus Ross and Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor for The Social Network, Hollywood had given its approval to a musician who has capitalized on remix culture in recognition of work that lifted straight from a classical composer.

On February 24, 1876, Henrik Ibsen’s play Peer Gynt, loosely based on a Norwegian fairy tale, made its debut with incidental music by Ibsen’s countryman Edvard Grieg. “In the Hall of the Mountain King” has since joined the canon of Classical Music’s Greatest Hits. It has been used in movies, TV shows, commercials, and video games, and has been arranged and covered by numerous musical artists outside of the classical genre. In last year’s The Social Network, Reznor’s version of “Mountain King” made the “Winklevii”’s Oxford boat race one of the film’s most memorable scenes.

Did Grieg get name-checked by the Academy alongside Reznor and Ross on Sunday night? No. Did the duo have to license “Mountain King” from Grieg’s family (or, more likely, from TONO, Norway’s music copyright collection society) before including it in their score? No. Grieg’s Peer Gynt is in the public domain. “Mountain King” has long since joined the European fairy tales that motivated Ibsen in the shared cultural treasure trove to which artists in America and elsewhere continually turn for inspiration and raw material, whether intentionally or unconsciously.

Reznor clearly understands the value of a vibrant public domain. As Nine Inch Nails, he achieved fame through his artistry with samplers and synthesizers before becoming one of the first big-name acts to recognize fans as creators, not just consumers. He has sampled everything from Star Wars to the “Amen” break and credits punk legend Iggy Pop for informing the driving beat to “Closer,” NIN’s biggest hit. For 2007’s Year Zero, NIN released several tracks as audio files for fans to remix, subsequently creating an interactive website devoted to fan remixes (including mixes of The Social Network tracks). NIN released its two most recent albums under a free-for-non-commercial-use Creative Commons license, allowing downloads free of charge, and has distributed high-definition concert footage through torrent files.

GothEric's photo of Trent ReznorThe result: thousands of remixes and millions of downloads. Relinquishing tight-fisted control of his work, distribution, and revenue stream has not caused the demise of Reznor’s livelihood. Trent Reznor is still a rock star.

And now he’s an Oscar winner too, thanks to the same interest group responsible for the remarkably effective industry capture of national and international lawmakers with respect to copyright issues. Lobbying by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), among others, resulted in the passage of the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which, besides doing what its name suggests, also pulled back under copyright works that had already fallen into the public domain. On the international stage, the proposed Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement calls for criminal penalties for copyright infringers and could subject Internet Service Providers to liability for their subscribers’ actions. (The MPAA was one of the few outside entities to be made privy to the draft text of ACTA, whose negotiations have been conducted in secret.) If adopted, ACTA’s chilling effects would make it much more difficult for artists such as NIN (and its fans) to share and build upon each other’s work, even when their activities are entirely legal.

With its sinister melody and increasingly frenetic pace, “In the Hall of the Mountain King” would make the perfect theme song for Hollywood’s escalating efforts to impose its supramaximalist view of copyright on the entire globe. Yet on Sunday, Hollywood gave its highest award to the poster child for remix culture. In an age when Disney claims to own the rights to ancient fairy tales, the Best “Original” Score includes a version of a public-domain piece written for a play inspired by folklore.

The immense irony of the award evidently got lost during the commercial break, and the Academy called in thirtysomethings’ nostalgia for their gothy teenage years as a seat-filler. And so the battle for enclosure of the cultural commons raged on unacknowledged in the background Sunday night. Meanwhile, Reznor accepted his Academy Award, his fans uploaded more remixes of his winning score, and Edvard Grieg’s descendants slept soundly in Norway. They weren’t waiting for Reznor outside the Kodak Theatre with their hands out for royalties, 135 years almost to the day after Peer Gynt’s debut. Yet locking up our cultural treasure chest seems to be exactly where we’re headed, if the people who fill out the Oscar ballots have their way. Now that’s a nightmare worthy of the Trent Reznor treatment.

UPDATE 3/7/11: The Supreme Court has granted cert in Golan v. Holder. This will be a case to watch!

(photo of Trent Reznor: GothEric, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike)

(The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences would like us to remind you that, as the copyright owner of the Academy’s “Oscar” statuette, and owner of its trademarks and service marks, including “OSCAR®,” “OSCARS®,” “ACADEMY AWARD®,” “ACADEMY AWARDS®,” “OSCAR NIGHT®,” “A.M.P.A.S.®” and the federally registered “Oscar” design mark, it believes that it is required to protect its properties against unauthorized uses and infringements. While we think that the use of the image in this article falls within the purview of fair use, the statuette is ©Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences®.  We thank our parents, our lovely families and friends, our wonderful colleagues, everyone on the crew, and especially the Academy for giving us this opportunity to use the Oscar Statuette image.)

A musical note, in copyright jailThree missives, from a world in transition from monopolistic to freedom-based distribution.

From Salon.com: twelve years ago, a Russian author wrote an amazing transformation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, retelling it from the villain’s point of view.  But he didn’t dare have it translated into English, for fear of the Tolkien estate. For ten years, it got translated and sold in other European markets, but the English-speaking world was deprived. Now a fan has translated The Last Ringbearer for free, and released it for free as an ebook, with the disclaimer “For non-commercial distribution only”.

If you’ve read Karl Fogel’s “A Tale of Two Authors: Why Translations Happen, or Don’t”, you’re sighing and nodding along. This artwork has a multinational fanbase, interesting things to say about an influential cultural artifact and the society it reflects — and no English translation, till now. Tolkien, who’s dead, doesn’t get any more or less money. But Kirill Eskov, a living author, is deprived of an opportunity to benefit commercially from his efforts (likewise for Yisroel Markov, the translator).

 

From The New York Times: it’s amateurs, not big publishing companies, who are crowdsourcing free access to the sheet music of the Western heritage. Where can a student, musician, or teacher anywhere in the world find scores from hundreds of years ago? The International Music Score Library Project. At least one music publisher has tried to arbitrage different countries’ copyright laws to sue IMSLP. As commenters note:

Astro Zombie: “If your business model is based on selling something that is in the public domain, perhaps you should have revisited this the moment something called the Internet was invented.

anthill: “Most did, by redefining the public domain.”

And from The New York Times again, Randy Cohen as The Ethicist touches on several major problems with copyright as currently practiced. Highlights:

[T]he new Hollywood operates less by stealing other people’s ideas than by girding its own with mighty armies of lawyers who claim everything the studio produces as its perpetual possession, a sort of legalistic King Midas: Everything I touch turns to mine. Forever. This is a major expansion of copyright, and it stifles creativity….

The added twist is that while Disney, like its industry cohort, seeks an eternal hammerlock on its productions, many of them originate in our common literary heritage — “Cinderella,” “Snow White,” “The Little Mermaid.” Such an overreaching concept of intellectual property obstructs the exchange of ideas, the referencing and reworking of earlier works that stimulate invention. For Hollywood to thwart this by appropriating our common cultural legacy is as ethically dubious as plagiarism — innovation, perhaps, but not actual progress. Like 3-D.

I’d go further and say it’s worse than plagiarism, but all the same, I welcome Cohen in the battle against copyright maximalism.