2016 White Paper Concludes That Online Consumers Don't Understand Copyright

You don't say!

In January of 2016, a government task force concluded in a White Paper on Remix, First Sale, and Statutory Damages that, when consumers download ebooks, music, movies etc, they do not understand what they can legally do with these copies (or what they cannot do).

https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/white-paper-remixes-first-sale-and-statutory-damages

Now, on April 18th, 2017, this government task force is going to talk about it.

How long has online piracy been a problem for authors, musicians, movie-makers, artists, photographers? Since 2003? Should we say "better late than never"? Anyway, on April 18th, 2017, the government is prepared to "facilitate a dialogue" with the public about whether or not the government can help.

If you happen to be in Alexandria, Virginia, you may attend in person, space permitting. Registration is free. The event will also be webcast, so you may watch. Webcast information is on the USPTO's event page.

https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/consumer-messaging-connection-online-transactions

Forgive my snark, but it appears that the copyright notices that every ebook publisher prints in the front matter of every ebook is no protection whatsoever, and copyright infringers who "share" entire ebooks including the copyright page, may be "innocent infringers", and ought not to be fined as much as the law currently allows if they are caught.

It seems that "all rights reserved" and "no portion of this work may be reproduced" and "this book... shall not be lent... resold... hired out... or otherwise circulated..." is not clear and understandable. 

So, this meeting will focus on "identifying what copyright-related terms and conditions are important to communicate to consumers...".  Unfortunately, instead of communicating to copyright infringers what the law says, the liberal USPTO intends to discuss how many "lends", "resales", "shares" and "transfers of ownership" are reasonable and ought to be allowed.

The Task Force will also facilitate discussion on whether a "Buy" button ought to be called something else, if the author does not intend to transfer all rights including copyright and resale rights.

Here is some excellent advice for self-publishing authors about their front and back matter.
http://selfpublishingadvice.org/writing-front-and-back-matter-for-your-self-published-book/

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Lessons From A Pyrrhic Victory

While it would not be exactly true to say that I have a "fondness" for any underdog in any fight, I dislike unfairness, particularly when the Media piles on and stirs the pot with half truths and --what I perceive as-- maliciously inaccurate reporting.

I am talking about a recent libel suit against the estate of a deceased author, in which the majority of a jury allegedly found for the plaintiff.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/07/29/jury-awards-jesse-ventura-1-8m-defamation-case-american-sniper-author-chris-kyle/

Almost every talking head that I have heard has vilified the plaintiff and focused on emotional buzzwords equivalent to "motherhood" and "apple pie" to suggest that the outcome of the trial was an outrage simply because of the buzzwords associated with the defense.

This might give comfort to authors who may consider libelling (or allegedly libelling) a public figure for profit, especially when pundits on TV asseverate that anyone can publish anything (regardless of truth) about any public figure.

Perhaps the supermarket tabloids do so with impunity, but perhaps they have better insurance policies than the average debut author.

Reality check. Word Castle Publishing kindly purblishes online a sample contract, so I have made fair use (I hope) of a couple of pertinent clauses which are typical of my experience with four other publishers whose contracts I have read, but which are supposed to be confidential.

Author Warranties

3.        The work does not infringe upon any copyright, privacy rights, rights of a third party, or any common law or statutory law.

4.        The work does not contain any material of a libelous or obscene nature.

http://www.worldcastlepublishing.com/sample-contract.html

And....

B.       Author Agrees to hold Publisher harmless and indemnify the Publisher against any claim, demand, action, suit, proceeding or any expense whatsoever, arising for claims of infringement of copyright or proprietary rights, or claims of libel, obscenity, invasion of privacy, or any other unlawfulness based upon or arising from the publication or any matter pertaining to the work.

C.       Author warrants and represents that to the best of Author’s knowledge and belief, all statements of fact contained in the work are true and based on appropriate and diligent research. A note may be added to the work to show proof of research completed if Author so desires.

http://www.worldcastlepublishing.com/sample-contract.html

Please notice such words as "privacy", "libellous", and "based on... diligent research". Also notice "indemnify the Publisher" and 'hold Publisher harmless". In theory, that means that the Publisher and the Publisher's insurance company will not pay out.

Notice also that most publishers put the entire onus of any breach of the above-mentioned warranties on the author and the author's heirs and assigns.

Interestingly, there appear to be three authors of the book, but only one is mentioned as the plaintiff. I wonder why. No matter.

Check your own contracts. Then read this account of the controversial trial. It is probably not typical.... in that the Publisher and the Insurance company is paying up.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/07/29/jury-awards-jesse-ventura-1-8m-defamation-case-american-sniper-author-chris-kyle/

I visited Amazon to check out the front matter of the allegedly true memoir in question, but Look Inside is not available. Preview is not available on Barnes and Noble, either.

Scribd came through with the front matter disclaimer:

"The events that happened in this book are true, recounted from the best of my memory.... we've reconstructed dialogue from memory which means that it may not be word for word...."

http://www.scribd.com/read/163638913/American-Sniper-The-Autobiography-of-the-Most-Lethal-Sniper-in-U-S-Military-History

I guess, if you put dialogue into the mouth of someone else, and you admit in the front matter that what you remember that he (or she said) may not be word for word.... you shouldn't have a legal leg upon which to stand.

This has been a highly instructive saga.  We could all do well to learn from it, even if most of us write  science fiction and fantasy, and our front matter disclaims any resemblance of our alien characters to any real person alive or deceased.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry
SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/ 

alien romances