On Dit

"On Dit", or "on-dit":  readers of Regency romances will be familiar with the term, from the French, loosely meaning "they say...."  We might think of it as a non-legally protected disclaimer preceding some salacious gossip.  

"Allegedly" is always safer.

On dit that a one does not have a first amendment right to express one's thoughtful views about a book on the Amazon  platform. 

The ever-interesting Angela Hoy has the scoop on WritersWeekly.

One wonders, is that compatible with Safe Harbor and the DMCA?

Regarding copyright, someone somewhere is asking about copyright and photographs of current political figures. 

One assumes that, since copyright belongs to the photographer, (or sometimes to Getty Images), one should seek out the photographer for a license.  It is always possible that a photograph may be been released through Creative Commons, but one should not trust the internet because some sites accidentally or deliberately (on dit) crop inconvenient and unsightly copyright wording from an image.

See here:
https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/photographer-wins-lawsuit-against-buzzfeed-sets-major-dmca-precedent,171750

Or read the full version by D L Cade  here:
https://petapixel.com/2020/08/18/photographer-wins-lawsuit-against-buzzfeed-sets-major-dmca-precedent/?utm_source=API+Need+to+Know+newsletter&utm_campaign=7bbbfa200e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_08_20_01_00&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e3bf78af04-7bbbfa200e-45875139

For more fascinationg insights, on dit that copyright in photos is not such monkey business when it comes to the orang utan (literally "orange man").

"On" in this case being Dr. Julie Nixon

Lexology link:

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fb143697-b347-4b80-be5d-f6f5a47a5d3b&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+em

Morton Fraser Link.
https://www.morton-fraser.com/knowledge-hub/copyright-in-photographs.

Talking of "Orange Man", on dit that Survivorman Les Stroud is going after Bigfoot (who looks a lot like Chewbacca).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-ILD09_iK0&t=4s

Happily, there are plenty of amusing comments from Survivorman's fans to entertain one until one is able to skip the political ads and get to the good stuff.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/

Death and Your Photographs

Legal blogger Ally Tow, writing for Boyes Turner LLP, discusses a case of sudden death, and denied access to the deceased's albums stored with a secretive social media giant.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9fd55912-7b0a-4ce1-824e-9212709973b7&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-05-20&utm_term=

or
https://www.boyesturner.com/article/accessing-a-deceaseds-digital-accounts

No matter your age or excellent health, you should have a Will, a Living Will, a medical Power of Attorney, a clause in your Will giving your heirs legal access to your social media accounts, and --if you are a writer-- you should assign your copyrights.

Be sure to leave your certificates of copyright registration and any copyright reversion letters from former publishers in a safe place, and also perhaps, a list of your internet accounts and passwords.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry
SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/ 

Perils of Posting Photos... Even of Yourself

The copyright of a photograph belongs to the photographer.
Photographed persons have the right of publicity (which means that their images are not free for advertisers to use to promote services or products.)

For authors, this might mean that a selfie is the best possible photo for the back matter.

Legal bloggers Linda A. Goldstein and Amy Ralph Mudge, posting  for Baker & Hostetler LLP discuss yet another celebrity being sued for adorning her social media pages with photographs of herself without the permission of the person who took the lovely shots.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1d6c17b9-b872-45f3-8e01-0054b21f1494&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2019-02-15&utm_term=

There might have been a time, early in self-publishing, when author-convention-goers might have been tempted to snap a photo of a cover model, and later to use that photo on a book cover. Models' rights and photographers' rights are much better protected these days.

Might this mean that copyright infringers face double trouble if they use an author's portrait to promote pirated ebooks?

On the topic of models' rights, Rick Kurnit blogging for Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC last week discussed the case of Cozzens v. Davejoe Re and models' Lanham Act claims in addition to their allegedly violated rights of publicity because a company made permissionless use of six ladies' likenesses on a Facebook page.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0aea81c0-40cd-4253-aa06-ac1d853ebc2b&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-02-14&utm_term=

The Lanham Act concerns false advertising.  If a photograph suggests to the audience that the model, actress (or author) endorses or participates with the service or product being offered, that is false advertising and triple damages and attorneys fees may be awarded to the wronged beautiful person.

And then, there is the Australian defamation case that really could break the internet if it succeeds. Michael Bradley, writing for the Marque Lawyers takes a position on how likely it is that "news" sits and social media platforms could be held liable for defamatory, user-generated comments.

Why is it that tech companies can set up highly profitable fora, but have no duty to monitor them?  On the other hand, it is good to remember that individual users who generate comments can be sued for defamation... at least in Australia.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Flotsam, Jetsam, Great Stuff You Find When Surfing...

Let's extend a maritime metaphor --"surfing the internet" -- to the interesting and useful treasures that you may find floating about online.

Jetsam is the good stuff that someone deliberately abandoned. Anyone who finds it, can monetize it.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/flotsam-jetsam.html

Flotsam, on the other hand, is good stuff that floated out of the custody of its owner by accident or mishap. The owner did not intend for it to be released into the wild, and the original owner retains rights to it.

If marine law has a term for stuff that pirates filch and dangle in the deep for bait to entice and entangle treasure hunters, this writer is not aware of it.

Legal blogger Terri Seligman, writing "The Real Deal: Using Found Content" for the prestigious law firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC (which represents some of the world's best known celebrities and creative content creators, publishers, and providers) explains that all that glitters online is not necessarily yours to take.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=98c3332b-418c-4f19-b4ec-f94f5c11339b&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2018-08-03&utm_term=

Check out and memorize Terri Seligman's eight easy rules to follow before you use for commercial purposes that amazingly real and authentic photograph that you "found" online.

If you should be wary about using a photograph taken by someone else, and also a photo of someone else, and also of a photo that includes any artwork (or graffiti) in the background, you should also be careful about re-using old school yearbooks.

Angela Hoy explains:
https://writersweekly.com/ask-the-expert/can-i-use-old-yearbook-photos-in-my-book-or-online

For our Australian friends, (and authors doing business in Australia) legal bloggers Gordon Hughes and Andrew Sutherland, writing for Australia's leading intellectual property legal practice  Davies Collison Cave
give advice based on that card game at which Han Solo excelled.

See "App Developers Turn To The Dark Side."

Just because a copyright owner does not notice someone else's copyright infringement (perhaps a meme .gif) or even ignores one copyright infringing use by someone else.... does not mean that the copyright owner forfeits their copyright and their right to sue another copyright infringer.

Podcasters also need to be careful, in this case, about the music clip they found online and may want to use.
Legal blogger David Oxenford, writing for the law firm Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP has a series of articles on podcasting, and the pitfalls of podcasting without knowing who owns what.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dd85dd95-dbbf-416d-b965-0fef55c13d36&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2018-08-08&utm_term=

Yes, one has to pay the piper!

All the best,

Rowena Cherry

Con Report - Westercon70 by Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Con Report
Westercon70
by
Jacqueline Lichtenberg

Over the July 4th weekend in 2017, I went to Westercon in Tempe, Arizona.

I expected to have a good time. Instead, I had a GREAT time.

I hung out in the Star Trek party suit, the Sime~Gen Party, the Con Suite, and was on a number of panels, and an autographing.

It was a busy weekend, but I managed to grab some phone-photos for our historical archives.

You can see some of them below.

Freebie Table

Hall outside Dealer's Romm

Hosts of Star Trek Party with Bjo Trimble GoH

At ongoing Star Trek Party

 Bjo Trimble and me (in blue and black)

Bjo, her husband, and our Party Host

Con Suite

Before Sime~Gen Party

Sime~Gen Party Hostesses

Sime~Gen Party Begins

On a Panel

The panel audience

Another panel

I kept forgetting to take pictures because I was having such a good time!

Jacqueline (happy) Lichtenberg
http://jacquelinelichtenberg.com

Attribute, Attribute, Attribute

And if you cannot attribute...obtain a license and a waiver.

Photographers have moral rights, unless they waive them. They also have copyright, unless they assign it. Do right by everyone, and above all, protect yourself.

There are two photographs of yours truly that are beyond my control on the internet. One is of "Rowena Beaumont Cherry" and was taken by Alex Law, an excellent Canadian photo-journalist. The other is of "Rowena Cherry" and was taken at a Pebble Beach concours d'elegance by the amazingly talented Robert Puffer.  In both cases, the photographers granted me eternal, unlimited, irrevocable written permission to use, publish and distribute the photographs of myself without attribution, and without payment.

I had good legal advice, and the privilege of being acquainted with true gentlemen. When Alex Law and Robert Puffer took their photographs of me, I was unknown and newly under contract to be published, and social media did not exist. Nor did copyright infringing pirate sites that scrape copyrighted photographs and use them to suggest that the author in question endorses their illegal activities.

For readers, this is not necessarily the case. If you desperately want a particular ebook, you would do well to acquire it from a reputable site such as Apple, Kobo, Amazon, Powells, Barnes and Noble,  Chapters-Indigo etc or from your local public library.  Or from the authors' own websites, or the authors' publishers' websites.

For authors, even if the best photographer in your world is your boyfriend, or husband, or girlfriend, or sister... get the rights in writing, and make sure your rights are perpetual and unlimited. You cannot  foresee what will happen to your relationships with your friends and family, and you cannot foresee who will use that photograph of yourself with or without attribution and whatever watermarks you might have tried to put on that photo.

Gigi Hadid, and also one of the Kardashians are an object lesson in what can go wrong if someone posts a photograph of herself --that was taken by someone else-- on a social media site such as Instagram or Pinterest.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2e4a716e-319b-42c5-b7a0-a9974906f6ed

Legal bloggers Njeri Chasseau and Jason Gordon for Reed Smith LLP analyse Khloe Kardashian vs Xposure Photos Ltd.

And... legal bloggers Howard Ricklow, Helen Ingram and Chandni Ranfior for Collyer Bristow LLP  discuss Gigi Hadid and her use of a photograph taken by someone else, without giving attribution to the photographer.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6034ef9b-7a5a-42df-8a87-2cdfd7c1406e&utm_source=lexology+daily+newsfeed&utm_medium=html+email+-+body+-+general+section&utm_campaign=lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=lexology+daily+newsfeed+2017-09-21&utm_term= 

As with the copyright case involving the monkey selfie, the person who takes the photo is the copyright owner, not the being who is the subject of the photo.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

All For Nothing

Another week, another slew of bad news for creative people...

By nature, this "alien romance" author is a cup's-half-full type. However, am I alone in thinking that 50% royalties would be a fair deal for the person who puts the time, energy, expertise and talent into creating entertaining works. Works that middlemen call "content"!  After all, what would content distribution sites do, if there was no "content" for them to distribute?

A Bad Week For The Warners Of This World

Warner Musicians got screwed last week, mostly because the DMCA protects piracy by proxy. Can one really be called "a willing seller" (of one's work) if one's choice is to agree to accept crumbs for the legal exploitation ones work by others or refuse to agree to the exploiter's terms and get nothing, and still have one's work exploited?

https://artistrightswatch.com/2017/05/06/internal-warner-music-memo-shows-googles-notice-and-shakedown-business-as-usual/

".... compensation and control for our songwriters and artists continues to be hindered by the leverage that 'safe harbor' laws provide... user-uploaded services.  There's no getting around the fact that, even if YouTube doesn't have licenses, our music will still be available, but not monetized at all...."

Another perspective on the same leaked internal email.

https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/warner-youtube-sign-new-deal-difficult-circumstances/

Meanwhile, Huffington post blogger Brooke Warner sheds light on something similar taking place on Amazon, where used books can be sold "in new condition" by third party sellers, and these "in new condition" books can bump in-print, genuinely new and never-before-sold books made available by the authors and publishers so far down the page, they might as well be off the site.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/third-party-sellers-can-now-win-the-buy-box-on-amazon_us_590b309be4b05279d4edc31f

Authors are not paid royalties for books sold "in new condition" by third parties. Authors are also not paid for "lends".

When Is Safe Harbor Not Safe Harbor?

Law bloggers Thomas J Kowalski and Alain Villeneuve (writing for Vedder Price PC) pen a heartening and useful article about five occasions when a bad actor cannot claim immunity from prosecution for copyright infringement under "Safe Harbor".

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=37879d23-5583-4680-b6e7-059ba5d82c52&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-05-05&utm_term=

The article starts off discussing a case where a popular real estate related website that displays user-uploaded content was sued for copyright infringement and waited over a year to inform its insurance provider, thus forfeiting its insurance coverage!

Then, it turns to circumstances where Safe Harbor does not apply.  At least two (#2 and #4) of those circumstances would appear to me to be of interest to Warner Music.

Sympathy For A "Bad Actor"

Finally, and perhaps this author should add as a disclaimer that the only "reality" shows she watches are "Survivorman" and "The Weather Channel"... a reality show celebrity found herself in legal jeopardy (financially speaking) for posting a photograph of herself for her tens of thousands of fans to admire.  That hardly seems fair, does it?

Thanks to Jaimie Wolbers of law firm K&L Gates for the legal cautionary tale.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=437a7966-2db9-4d62-9d67-750d7b54a975&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-05-04&utm_term=

Whether the photo is of oneself, one's house, one's garden, one's cat or dog, one's book... if someone else took the photo, the rights belong to the photographer, and one must have the photographer's permission to use it.

Even a paparazzo has rights!  That is a useful lesson to us all.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry

Other People's Faces...and Stuff.

The most interesting copyright-law related blog of the week was penned by Kimberly Buffington of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.  The cautionary tale concerns a young lady who was photographed without her knowledge or consent while she was eating. A photographer emerged from hiding and asked her to sign a waiver, giving him permission to make use of her likeness, and she refused.

Six years later, the young lady started to see her unmistakable likeness on posters in franchise outlets of that same restaurant. What is more, some posters had been photoshopped to make it look like she was partying with alcohol and other people.

Curious? Follow this link for the skinny.
Link

And in case that did not work for you:
 http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=64d455f5-e1ba-4637-9b95-9235d395232b&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-01-23&utm_term=

I think the young lady has a point. What if her career depended on teetotalism? What if one of the other persons--and any of his apparent acquaintances--turns out to be of interest to the authorities?

Not only does this cautionary tale warn anyone who uses for commercial purposes the photographs they have taken, it also inspires my imagination with at least three stories. Which reminds me of The Rumpelstiltskin Problem by Vivian Vande Velde.  (Google Books cannot find reviews, but there are plenty on GoodReads.com).

It is not quite too late to submit your comments on the qualities and passions you'd like to see in the next Register of Copyrights.

Opine here. https://www.research.net/r/RegisterOfCopyrightsNR

One of the most important points to consider making (perhaps) is that additional weight ought to be given to the unique and thoughtful responses from creative persons who depend on copyright protections of their own work for their livelihood.

Finally, one can no longer rely on glaringly bad spelling and grammar to flag phishing attempts and spoof emails. Beware. This week, I've been bombarded with some clever ones purporting to tell me that I have purchased some very expensive sporting gear celebrating a certain Florida football team named after a large member of the cat family.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry

Here Be... Cookies, To Turn A Phrase, and Ivanka Trump

Periodic reminder:
European law requires us (the authors of this blog) to remind European visitors that Google, host of Blogger, places cookies on the devices of all visitors. We (the authors) have no control over the cookies that Blogger/Google places on your devices, and if you visit this blog, we assume that you consent to the cookies.

Talking of European cookie law:
The law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP recently wrote about European proposed e-privacy rules that may be adopted early in 2018.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=27f712c9-a547-4253-8a9e-566518dbfe29&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-01-13&utm_term=

Honestly, I do not believe that the authors of this blog have any access at all to visitors' data, email addresses or anything else (unless you leave a comment, and mostly, you don't).  There does seem to be a visitor counter at the very bottom of the blog page, and according to the above referenced law firm, visitor counters do not require the consent of visitors.

On "60 Ways..." not to leave your lover but "To Turn A Phrase":
In an interesting article about how he advises clients on creating unique and memorable trademarks, Nexsen Pruett refers to "Figures of Speech or 60 Ways to Turn a Phrase" by Arthur Quinn.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a95e16c3-9634-4602-929a-982ac0f267a8&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-01-13&utm_term=

Read Nexsen Pruett's blog if you are thinking of getting a trademark (mine is Space Snark and I did not take this expert's advice).  I'm thinking of buying the late Arthur Quinn's paperback.  However, it is short and expensive, and Google Books helpfully reveals quite a lot of the content (very interesting content on use of misspelled words),  Pages 12-24 consecutively and in full, for instance.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Figures_of_Speech.html?id=jjfAJwB6FoUC

And a search of "And" reveals "To And or Not To And" pages 1 to 9 inclusive. It's a mystery to me how Authors Guild lost that lawsuit, and this is totally lawful.
https://books.google.com/books?id=XFLFiE2kn1QC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Last but not least,
I bought an Ivanka Trump dress last week. It was marked down at T J Maxx, and was well made, flattering, and a modest length. I cannot say the same about the length, of a Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP law firm's article about artists piling on Ivanka Trump because their artwork shows on her home's walls in the background of her selfies.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0a40e7d1-2a79-4216-b364-505f79e9d2fa&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-01-11&utm_term=

If the late Prince and his music publishers could not prevail in the Dancing Baby case for his music playing in the background of a home movie, it's even more likely to be fair use for whatever one has permanently displayed on ones walls to be in the background of personal photographs.

It might be a different matter if the lady were taking high quality photos of just the artwork and selling prints, but she is not doing that.

The legal blogger (Ms Pillsbury) makes excellent points about Fair Use as regards background images in non-commercial social media type posts on Instagram.

Authors might extrapolate something to consider before taking photographs to promote their own books if there are prominent and clear images of more famous authors' works in the background. It's not cool to use--or tag-- another author's name (without permission) to promote oneself.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Getty Images Is Sued For One Billion Dollars

Getty Images apparently tried to shake down photographer  Carol Highsmith for using one of her own photographs on her own website.

http://hyperallergic.com/314079/photographer-files-1-billion-suit-against-getty-for-licensing-her-public-domain-images/

Now she is suing them for a billion dollars (triple damages). This may be the tip of the iceberg! Something is very wrong with the DMCA and the morality of tech businesses that appropriate other people's works from the internet, and claim exclusive rights to those works.... and do not pay the creator, do not seek permission of the creator, and even seek to accuse the very creator of copyright infringement of their own works.

Getty Images was apparently sold a couple of years ago for over three billion dollars.

Here's an interesting discussion of what to do if Getty Images tries to demand a fee from you for images you are using.

http://artlawjournal.com/tips-responding-getty-images-demand-letter/

Maybe, if you get a letter from Getty, you should first check the Library of Congress, to see if the image in question is one of the tens of thousands that the public has the right to use without paying anyone.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Preserving Worlds That Have Been Built

Most people didn't think of Star Trek: The Original Series as "alien romance" but I'm telling you the FAN WRITERS did! It might well be billed as the first AR on TV. There have been some interesting follow-ups like Forever Knight and now Moonstruck. Alien Nation comes to mind, but more as family drama than romance.

So it's time to capture for future generations some of the origins of our genre, bits and pieces scattered here and there that build up to what the authors on this blog are now able to publish -- stuff that would have been banned a few decades ago.

Appropos of that, on May 21, 2008 I got the following GOOGLE ALERT (by having signed up to get notices when my name appears in a google search)

-----------------

Google Blogs Alert for: "Jacqueline Lichtenberg"
please help identify these costumers
By angeet(fanac)

Also from DisCon 2--3 individual costumers--I'm pretty sure that's Star Trek author, Jacqueline Lichtenberg on the right--any ideas of the other 2 and/or their costumes? Thanks, ...
FANAC - The Fan History Project - http://community.livejournal.com/fanac/

------------------

Well, so I had to go look at the photo because I think I remember DisCon 2. I believe that was the WorldCon where I was nominated as Best Fan Writer for my Star Trek fan series, Kraith.

http://www.simegen.com/fandom/startrek/kraith/

I didn't win the Hugo, but it turned out the person who did win needed it more than I did.

And it turned out the photo wasn't of me.

So I dropped a note on the livejournal site to that effect and got a nice email back from -- an old friend! Angelique Trouvere!! The famous costumer who wowwed crowds at Star Trek conventions for years.

She said:

Hi Jacqueline,

Thanks for clearing up my mistake about the DisCon 2 costume! I inherited a ton of photos from Jeff Maynard who recently passed away and most are not identified other than the obvious like Shatner addressing the crowd at a 1975 Trek con, or Nimoy at a 1973 con, etc. So I’m trying to figure out the who’s who & what’s what.

-----------------

We exchanged more quick notes, I invited her to connect with me on LinkedIn and she said:
-------------------
While I’m not sure what to do with Jeff’s massive collection, I’d be happy to be listed if that would help.

Ideally, I would like to see his collection in some sort of Trek archive open to the public and dedicated to Jeff’s memory.

-------------------

So a new project on my desk is finding a home for these photos online where they can be enjoyed (Jeff took hundreds of photos of fan costume contests that will knock your eyes out, and snapped some famous people in interesting poses!)

So spread the word as far as you can. Angelique Trouvere is

http://angeet.livejournal.com/

And she has contributed a comment to our page about Joan Winston's contribution to Star Trek. Another piece of history we'd like to see preserved -- The Making Of The Trek Conventions.

http://www.simegen.com/sgfandom/rimonslibrary/cz/cz24/JoanWinston.html -- see the index at the bottom of the page. Comments are collecting nicely. To add yours email simegen@simegen.com with your memories.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg
http://www.simegen.com/jl/