Showing posts with label fungible charity donations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fungible charity donations. Show all posts

Sunday, August 11, 2019

Traps, Treats, Trickery, and Trolls

This week, there's no theme... beyond writers' rights. It's a smorgasbord!

Victoria Strauss posts on Writer Beware about an alleged pirate site named for osculation.
https://accrispin.blogspot.com/2019/08/kiss-library-pirate-site-alert.html

These alleged pirates behave differently from the average pirate --nicer manners-- but as with most pirates, "Reader Beware", especially if the price of a "free ebook" or a book acquired from a site that does not pay authors is your credit card info.

Following the thread of online payments, Vox Indie has a heads-up for the charitably inclined.
https://www.voxindie.org/google-tricks-search-users-to-redirect-amazon-smile-charity-donations/

Apparently, those sophisticated West Coast tech folks seem to think that charity money is fungible, and the would-be donor does not really mind if their gift intended for one charity goes to another one instead... one that pays for placement.

Just because we are all wordies here, here's a lovely, informative blog from Cecilia Watson about punctuation: the semi-colon.
https://themillions.com/2019/07/9-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-semicolon.html

And, here's a real eye opener from Bloomberg's Susan Decker and Christopher Yasiejko  for those who thought that copyleft activists such as EFF were full of it when they fulminate about copyright trolls.
https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/porn-purveyors-use-of-copyright-lawsuits-has-judges-seeing-red

Apparently, copyright trolling is --or has been-- a highly profitable thing, for a small subset of pornographers, but judges may be bringing the hammer down on the funny business.

For the very few of us who worry about whether or not we could get into trouble if our individual, single-author websites are in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the legal bloggers for Buckley LLP  pen a reassuringly non-committal article.
https://buckleyfirm.com/blog/2019-08-02/senators-ask-doj-clarify-website-accessibility-under-ada#page=1

also on Lexology:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=812fa517-be53-4caa-91b2-f4f0d0dd855d&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2019-08-09&utm_term=

The DOJ quote is a fascinating example of where the double negative is alive and well, and thoroughly useful to this day.
“absent the adoption of specific technical requirements for websites through rulemaking, public accommodations have flexibility in how to comply with the ADA’s general requirements of nondiscrimination and effective communication. Accordingly, noncompliance with a specific voluntary technical standard for website accessibility does not necessarily indicate noncompliance with the ADA.”

Finally, whether you --as a writer-- decide to take on a ghostwriting gig, or whether you --as a highly successful and prolific author-- decide to hire a ghostwriter, the law has become quite precise about what qualifies a work as "work-for-hire".  You should read this Warning from Craig B. Whitney, legal blogger for the law firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC.
https://ipandmedialaw.fkks.com/post/102fowf/warning-make-sure-your-work-for-hire-agreement-is-signed-in-advance

Or, on Lexology:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=bd99d2f5-7c22-421d-9bde-61c25827d776&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-08-08&utm_term=

All the best,

Rowena Cherry