Blogcritics: Comments on A Writer's Viewpoint: The Witches' Voice Needs To Brush Up On Copyright Law

Comment by Cerulean

Thu, 2 Jun 2005 05:12:27 EDT

Before I did any of this I thought about whether my copyright notice caused any of it it didn't seem to. Their general reprinting behavior and other behavior seemed to be consistent and with what they usually do. Thought was given to this issue before I wrote to them or wrote this article. If my copyright notice did indeed cause any part of this then I am sorry for that. If so, I apologize to Witches Vox for that. The term "not for profit" used by me in this instance was referring to not charging for the work. I never invisioned a REAL non profit wanting to publish my subversive, caustic writings. That was something that could not be anticipated. I had seen the Witches Voice a number of times before and not noticed any satire or caustic wit before. People running another pagan organization thought this work was too salacious and wicked and condemned it. It's publishing by an actual non profit is not what the copyright notice was referring to. For all I know, the United Way will be taken over by subversive pagans and will be printing it next. When I was last published a lot, it was a while ago and was in print. There were certain conventions and understandings that could be taken for granted. Those understandings, which I was operating under, had lasted for much longer than I had been alive.

Comment by elfwreck

Fri, 27 May 2005 10:40:49 EDT

Of those 120,000, how many are people that you, personally, would love to circle with? How many would you invite to your house, and hand them the keys while you went out for the day? I'm not in it for the numbers. Lineaged, initiatory, oathbound trad, and all that... my better stuff is friendslocked at LiveJournal; I don't want strangers reading it. I certainly don't need the adulation of the masses. The people who like & respect my writings don't expect them to be neatly collected in a single place. But I notice you ignored the copyright issue: You have a blanket permission on your site for anyone who's not selling your work to use it. Witchvox is not for profit--you'd already given permission. You just got upset that "not for profit" doesn't mean "tiny and obscure." And more upset that they'd rather drop an author than deal with one who can't remember what permissions she's granted.

Comment by Cerulean

Fri, 27 May 2005 04:53:43 EDT

Thanks Cybele. Having a bad day, Elfwreck? 7,000 people read that clipping on their site in the brief time it was there. Up to 120,000 have read my stories in magazines, and liked them. Their content tends to be something you couldn't remember the next day. If memorable well-written writing isn't a loss to them, it is a loss to their readers. But if you don't like my writing, write something brilliant and post it so we can see what YOU'VE got. Go ahead. I'd like to see that.

Comment by elfwreck

Fri, 27 May 2005 00:54:24 EDT

The original blog includes a note at the bottom of each piece: "You can share this on a not for profit basis until further notice. All other rights reserved." How was Witchvox violating this? They are not for profit. They probably didn't think they needed to ask for permission, since permission to share was already mentioned. Getting yelled at for "violating copyright" when a blanket permission was included on the author's site probably just convinced them to never link to your stuff again... certainly, Witchvox won't be hurt in the long run by that decision.

Comment by Cybele

Thu, 26 May 2005 19:59:13 EDT

Copyright abuse is so common in the pagan community that protesting it can get you threatened. That happened to me in a pagan Yahoo group I used to belong to. Yahoo took the stance that if the author didn't complain, it wasn't their problem. I quit over it. How can anyone expect good research and honest books if everything gets swiped and/or copied everywhere? The incentive is to rewrite the wheel like too darn many books already do. Just look for a copy of nearly ANY popular writing online. You'll probably find multiple copies of it available. Witchvox would be doing the community a service to apologize to you very publicly. But their lawyers have probably advised against this in fear of advancing a lawsuit. This too is common. Sigh.

Comment by Cerulean

Thu, 26 May 2005 06:04:00 EDT

Gee, thanks everyone for your kind and insightful comments. I was worried because of how this site can be. Good point, Thomas Sipos. To: Achriel, in the United States, there is much guidance and case law. For a book length work, Fair Use is generally acknowledged to be about a 150-250 word passage with smaller quotes here and there. For a smaller work, a smaller sample is indicated. For the brief work reproduced by the Witches' Voice, I would say about three sentences, or a small paragraph, or 50-75 words or so would have been fair use, but not half the word count. Under American law, fair use of a one and a half page article would never be half the word count. Actually the Witches Vox person acknowledged to me that she knew it was more than fair use allowed. Actually asking for reprint permissions is part of being a writer and editor. They have forms for it, although you can use your own format. I have received permission to reprint everything I asked for, and in my case they were sent promptly too. I was very respectful and flattering in my approach. Most writers are glad to know that you like their work. I also sent them copies of the finished work. Such courtesies are the way it should be. I have a relative who writes reference type books and he is frequently seeking reprint permissions. Just because a writer's work is up on the screen or in your home, doesn't mean it is yours to do with what you will. To: Nicolette Rivers, It DID cross my mind although I was sure that reminders of the wiccan rede would be as just poorly received as was my other communications, if not more so. Incredibly, they had an article about personal responsibility on their front page all during this. To: Jeff Watson, I'm sorry that happened with your writing. You deserve better. Thanks for the perspective on the aforementioned site. I frequently wish there were more good places to hang out online too. Drop by my threads anytime. I promise not to steal any of your copyrights.

Comment by Jeff Watson

Tue, 24 May 2005 20:08:48 EDT

This same sort of thing happened to me not too terribly long ago. I worked through about 3 months of steadfast research in creating a glossary of common terms. I wanted the terms to be accurate, yet not too wordy. When I was finally satisfied with the draft, I published it on a site of mine (now defunct). About a year later, I created another site and put the same glossary up, only to find that someone else had put my glossary up, word for word, not even removing references to my own tradition. I informed them that it was my glossary and that if they put a notice that the article was copyright by me, then they were free to publish it. Instead, they said that it was a compilation that SHE had done. When I pointed out her error, she changed her story (to her readers) that it was a compilation from a whole lot of people and that she found it bit-by-bit on the net and that I was harassing her. It took my threatening legal action before she finally changed it so much that it only resembled my work. Shortly after that, her site went down. The nerve of some people! Here I was, being nice, offering her full permission to reprint, and she attacks ME about it! As for the Witches' Voice, they have become very jaded and elitist over the years. Sad, really, considering that they were initially the preeminant source for news about Paganism and Wicca. Now, if you politely, diplomatically point out to some of their posters screaming up and down about this, that, or the other thing that they are by no means following the Rede, YOUR post gets deleted. This has happened to me on more than one occasion over there. Needless to say, I don't post there anymore. I guess they don't like hearing that they've become a bunch of jaded ***holes. :-)

Comment by Nicolette Rivers

Tue, 24 May 2005 17:43:35 EDT

Did you quote them the Wiccan Rede? (Oh, and then link back the discussion of it on their own site!)

Comment by Temple Stark

Tue, 24 May 2005 17:21:55 EDT

You are avoiding the idea that there have been court rulings. Maybe more are needed to re-inforce the point?

Comment by Achriel

Tue, 24 May 2005 17:18:06 EDT

Hmmm. There is of course this:

People such as critics, reviewers and researchers often quote works by other authors in articles, books, and so on. Are they infringing copyright? Not necessarily. The Copyright Act provides that any "fair dealing" with a work for purposes of private study or research, or for criticism, review or news reporting is not infringement. However, in the case of criticism, review, or news reporting, the user is required to give the source and the author's, performer's, sound recording maker's or broadcaster's name, if known. The line between fair dealing and infringement is a thin one. There are no guidelines that define the number of words or passages that can be used without permission from the author. Only the courts can rule whether fair dealing or infringement is involved.

which is specific to Canada but probably more importantly (as WitchVox tried to tell you in the non-profit comment):

'fair dealing' and 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Part III Section 29 of the Canada Copyright Law and section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with the sections titled 'Acts Undertaken Without Motive of Gain' (Canada) and Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 (U.S.)

For the most part it's easier to skip an authour completely than delay posting for permission on a few scant paragraphs of text linked to the original document. I personally put in 2-4 hours a day trying to keep people informed and don't make a dime off it (in fact I pay for the privellege). You can't have it both ways, exposure and expect these same site administrators to spend even more time to do what is a suprisingly thankless job.

Comment by Thomas M. Sipos

Tue, 24 May 2005 16:22:57 EDT

We internet authors should launch a campaign on Fair Use, since there's so much ignorance out there. Some sites steal whole artcles and images, then state: "Copyright by [the author]. No infringement intended." As though stating that no infringement is intended means that no infringement occured. Then there are those who think that if a site is nonprofit, or if an article is posted merely for discussion, or for educational purposes, then it's Fair Use. Few understand that Fair Use means EXCERPTS ONLY.

Comment by Temple Stark

Tue, 24 May 2005 15:03:15 EDT

Not too much to ask at all. The site should have more of a clue - and down the road may be in deep. If they just take something off the site every time an author mentions it - then they have repeatedly acknowledged their error. If the article has been up there for any length of time, well, like you say - being asked is always part of what needs to be done for use beyond fair use. Anything that is fair use, telling you is only a courtesy and I can understand how that would be difficult with many excerpts. God job. - Temple, journo type

Comment by DrPat

Tue, 24 May 2005 13:29:37 EDT

Free ASINs: 1401842879 (Intellectual Property for Paralegals: The Law Of Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents, And Trade Secrets), 0805073787 (Every Writer's Guide to Copyright and Publishing Law), 0471146544 (The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook)