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

Oh, Arrgh and Blasty!

There's a new service on the horizon to help authors locate and scupper pirate links on Google. It's in Beta, so is free to the patient and those willing to provide feedback... and to the impatient for a fee of $19.99.

It's Blasty.co
Note, it is dot co , not dot com!   
https://www.blasty.co/invitation/wr4dTA9d

So far, I am impressed. When I applied, I was asked to name one of my titles, and to give my author name. Once I was accepted, I was allowed to create a password, upload my covers, add the rest of my titles, and to start "Blasting" copyright infringing search results on Google.

The site only works with Google Chrome. One can apply without using Chrome, but the findings and the choice whether to Blast any given link or whitelist it only work in Chrome.  I am not clear whether the service actually sends a takedown to the hosting site, or only to Google so this service might be a supplement to a service such as Muso.com or DMCAForce 

However, even if it removes Google search results, that makes it harder for most pirates to be found by "valuable traffic" and to make money off other people's works without paying them. Many of the links go to sites that are obviously hosted overseas, and that have no intention of honoring the DMCA in any case. Some post the legal blurb that they are required to post, and warn copyright owners of severe penalties for sending a DMCA notice in error.

Many post a cover and some blurb and big "DOWNLOAD" links. Authors should understand that they only have to have a "good faith belief". The DMCA does not require that authors download malware or infringe other people's copyrights (where multiple ebooks are hosted in one place) in order to suspect that their ebooks are being published and distributed in violation of their rights.  There are scam sites that probably don't have any ebooks at all, but hope that people who know they are behaving immorally if not illegally will provide credit card information to "subscribe", or else will download ransomware in hopes of a free read of something erotica.

(If you look closely at the blurry pages sites that purport to have a certain title, you may see a tiny disclaimer that they may not have that title, but will have something related and equally interesting.)

Surprisingly, some Google results are .pdfs that are pages of live links to where ebooks may or may not be hosted.  Anyone trying this service will have to take the time to look at all the results before taking the decision whether to Blast, to WhiteList or to leave it for later.

So far, I've Blasted 54 links, and although one cannot believe the copyright infringing sites' boasts about how many happy people have downloaded each book, it looks like I could have lost tens of thousands of potential sales (which, if on Amazon, might have resulted in tens of thousands of returns, to!!!).

My bottom line: after trying this new service for four days, I am inclined to heartily recommend it.  I would suggest, though, that if any alien romance authors (or authors from any other genre, but I like to hit my metadata!!!) that you copy and paste the urls you find suspicious and email them to yourself , because once they are gone from Google, you might want to see if they are still on Bing and Dogpile and the other search engines. Or, you might want to send DMCAs to some of them.

Happy hunting,

Rowena Cherry

EMF 24/7

Can one prove something that one does not want to prove?  Of course, but there will be a bias, and the bias may skew the results. Moreover, those reading the studies may read them with bias.

No one wants to prove that cellphones cause diabetes, brain cancer, dementia, pathological anxiety,
lowered IQ, childhood cancer, erectile dysfunction, reproductive problems, ringing in the ears, insomnia, migraines.....etc etc. But, what if they do?

In 2011 a working group appointed by the World Health Organization classified cellphone use as "possibly carcinogenic to humans".

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

Four prestigious American organizations concluded that there was not enough evidence/strong enough evidence/conclusive evidence/definitive evidence/replicable evidence. So, they will study the possibility for the next 20-to-30 years.

Meanwhile, a Chinese group of scientists did duplicate the Swedish studies.... and no one is talking about it.  https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/cell-phones-and-blood-brain-barrier-chinese-scientists-confirm-findings-of-swedish-salford-group/

During World War II, governments gave cigarettes to soldiers. Presumably, smoking the cigarettes wasn't compulsory, but even for non-smokers, there was no way to avoid second-hand smoke so they might as well have been compulsory.  Now, we have cellphones, and even dinosaurs who refuse to use cellphones cannot avoid the EMF of other people's cellphones.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/20/radiation-from-cell-phones-and-wifi-are-making-people-sick--are-you-at-risk.aspx

What will humanity look like in thirty years' time after we have been "whole-body irradiated by man-made electromagnetic fields for the entirity of our lives"? Already some individuals are more sensitive than others. And perhaps children are most at risk.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11486167/Are-smartphones-making-our-children-mentally-ill.html

Science fiction is full of dystopian worlds... and mostly-heroic mutants. Maybe EMF 24/7 is as good a way to explain the backstory as anything else.


And now for something completely... outrageous.

Seen on a blog that is well worth following
http://musictechpolicy.com/2016/04/29/youtube-creates-financial-incentive-for-counternotices-that-profit-youtube/

In a nutshell, it is probably a conflict of interest for a hosting site that makes money from copyright infringement to encourage alleged copyright infringers to file DMCA counternotices. When a counternotice is filed, the copyright infringing content goes back up, and stays back up, unless or until the copyright owner finds the financial wherewithal to commence a federal lawsuit.  Most copyright owners simply cannot afford to do that. The result is that their pirated works remain permanently available for the financial benefit of the site and the pirate, and the copyright owner gets nothing.

Here's a link from the recent World IP Day with an interview with Authors Guild President, Mary Rasenberger. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/04/26/balanced-ip-system-content-creators/id=68646/

Happy reading. And writing!

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

Of This And That....

This is my take on topical matters, mostly to do with copyright --as is my wont-- but with a few petty rants thrown in for good measure.

I'll save "the petty" for last.

For readers of this blog, it is possible that you may be considering use of images to decorate your own blogs, book trailers, vlogs, or even book covers. You probably are aware that everything on the internet is not necessarily "in the public domain" and free for all to use. If you are interested in the potential extent of your liability, consider visiting stockphotorights.com and check out their FAQ pages. They really are excellent.

"But, what," you may ask, "about Old Masters and photographs of Old Masters?" You might also do an internet search of "slavish" reproduction or copying. These may help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.

http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2013/06/14/museums-can-get-copyright-right/

If you are a celebrity, or are thinking of exploiting a photo you took of a celebrity, check out "image rights" as a search term.

While on the subject of blogs and vlogs, have you considered getting a trademark for your Blog name? (I did for my "space snark" blog on the assumption that one day, "snark" will be considered a positive.) It is not a cheap process, but this article on Lexology.com explains the advantages.

If you are an alien romance author (or any other kind of author... but I have to get my metadata in) who is trying to build up a following, beware of paying for Likes and Tweets. When social media was new-and-all, it seemed like everyone was bribing others to like them and to talk about them. Now, there is enough of it that a government agency sees the possibility of a revenue stream for the Treasury coffers. So, beware!

Isn't it odd that, when one spots one incorrect spelling on a site that ought to be reputable, more examples crop up in rapid succession? On April 7th I spotted a "recieve" on an official Amazon page (the Associates Central sign up page). I wrote to Jeff Bezos (kudos to Jeff for reading his incoming mail) and received a reply from someone named Bhaskar who assured me that it would take a bit more time than usual to look into the problem. Bhaskar promised to write back to me with more information. Well, it has been ten days, and the difficult research into how to spell receive correctly... has so far eluded them.

Mind you, it's probably not as simple as one might think. One of the most prestigious educational establishments in the country sent me a fund raising mailing, promising me that if I donated an obscene amount, I would "recieve" an ornament.

I blame the popular news media and their live streaming transcription services. One cannot be immediate and excellent as well. Editing takes time.

All the best,
Rowena Cherry

If You Value Your Domain....

We've heard of "eminent domain", but I'm considering a pun on "imminent domain", as in "imminent domain name expiration".

According to a Walker Morris LLP legal blog entitled "Jeb Bush, Donald Trump and a domain name" (which you can read by clicking here....  the eminent domain enthusiast (Mr. Trump) had keen-eyed staff looking out for the status of his GOP Presidential candidate rivals' domain names.

Apparently, Jeb Bush's campaign team lacked the enthusiasm to keep on top of the domain name "jebbush.com" or perhaps they lacked the imagination to consider what could conceivably happen to "jebbush.com" if they did not renew it. The Trump campaign paid for it, and now, Walker Morris LLP tells us, "jebbush.com" folds into "donaldtrump.com" and anyone wanting news about Jeb Bush finds themselves reading about Donald Trump's latest and greatest exploits.

For alien romance writers (science- or any other genre of fiction writers), it is important to register your own author name --or names-- before a would-be cyber-squatter gets them. If you invent a niche genre, you might want to buy the domain name for that. If you have the foresight and a career arc in mind, you might want to buy the domain names for your future book titles. You cannot copyright a title, and nor can the person who thought of a killer title that you hope to use one day, but if you own, for instance "Knight'sFork.com" at least no one else can own that domain name.

Just for the fun of it, I typed President Obama's "dreamsfrommyfather.com" into a search bar. It folds into PenguinRandomHouse, so don't bother.Hillary Clinton's "HardChoices.com" on the other hand seems to be redirected to a site advising elderly people on end-of-life decision-making. "TheArtOfTheDeal.com" gave me a service 503 message. "ArtOfTheDeal.com" took me to a static page. "ATimeForTruth.com" ....is for sale.
Ted Cruz is exposed. What an opportunity...  But, I've looked at 2 authors from each side, so I think I've been fair and even-handed.

It's also smart to occupy your own authorname on any social network. You may never actually use that network, but in theory it prevents the site from setting up a robo page about you, that is not run by you.

Best wishes,
Rowena Cherry

Fish Out Of Water

I'm not talking about the Australian "Climbing Perch", the mangrove rivulus, or the mud skipper. 

I'm talking about creative people who are being forced--indirectly-- by "the sharing economy" to perform unnatural acts... like performing.

If you can access it, read Authors Guild president Roxana Robinson's piece "Should Writers Be Performers?" in which she memorably retorts, "Going to a local restaurant and asking them to find 10 people who are willing to pay $150 to watch you eat is a really different thing. It's hard enough for a new writer to ask a local bookstore to stock her book."

My favorite musician-blogger is David C Lowery, for his music-business-related blogging. His blog has long talked about the upending of the music business, where touring once was a promotional activity to spur vinyl sales, and now is the bread winner; while pittance-paying digital plays are the promotion.

Last week, he compared free streaming to the cut-out bin.... and struck a chord with me.

http://thetrichordist.com/2015/12/07/free-streaming-is-the-modern-cut-out-bin-you-deserve-better/

The cut out bin is the musical equivalent of the Remainder Bin. Amazon and the DOJ (which appears to me to be Amazon's enforcer) have convinced many writers to publish their new works directly into the ebook equivalent of the bricks and mortar bookstore remainder bin. That is totally backwards. New works should not be priced like overstock that cannot be sold into a saturated market.

I'm afraid that ebook subscription models are very much like streaming. IMHO, the purpose of copyright is/should be to protect quality in that which is created.However, there is some (more) positive news from Europe:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6261_en.htm

"Overall, the Commission wants to make sure that Europeans can access a wide legal offer of content, while ensuring that authors and other rights holders are better protected and fairly remunerated." 

(They will) "....work on a European framework to "follow-the-money" and cut the financial flows to businesses which make money out of piracy. This will involve all relevant partners (rights holders, advertising and payment service providers, consumers associations, etc.)"

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

Be Careful What You Retweet, Pin, Share, or Like

Inadvertently Liking, Re-Tweeting, or Sharing Infringing ContentIt should be no surprise that much material posted online violates copyright laws. The copyright owner sometimes launches a lawsuit against the person or company that posted the infringing material. The forum – such as YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook – on which the material is posted has typically taken advantage of the safe harbor provisions offered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and is, therefore, insulated from any copyright infringement liability stemming from infringing material posted by its users.
But what happens if we – without realizing that the material is infringing - re-tweet, pin, like, or otherwise share infringing content?

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=93f6f876-002a-4a69-a1aa-6635810c65a0

Excellent article by the law offices of Joy R Butler.

Another interesting legal article about the explosion of copyright infringement and when an OSP does not enjoy Safe Harbor

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9cc03161-16fc-4e34-96b9-ab76d694537a&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2015-11-06&utm_term=

And.... word to the wise, if you are an author with a YouTube presence that you do not actively monitor, check it out. Pirates are using the comments function on videos to post links to infringing sites and illegal copies of your books.

My best wishes,

Rowena Cherry 

Invisible Hero

Invisibility is a great ingredient for science fiction, and for implausible action movies.

James Bond had an invisible car. Harry Potter had a cloak of invisibility. In my earliest book (Forced Mate) one of my spaceships had a virtual invisibility mode. Many science fiction movies and series have "cloaking", which is explained in various ways. Or not explained.

I'm considering paint.

A few weeks ago (maybe more), I read about fish that see colors that humans cannot see. It was in a DISCOVER magazine article.

In the last couple of days, I've been pondering how a heroine who does not know that she is not human, but an alien djinn might describe a hero whom she can see, but no one else can. Obviously, he is a color for which there is no name in the human language.

I want a type of blue, because there is an English phrase (for depression) "blue devil". Owing to my sense of humor, which is a bit blue, too, I considered her thinking that he is the color of urine trails in a public swimming pool.... but I was reluctantly censoring myself, because that is just not Romance.

Today, I saw this:
My thanks to Houzz.com and to Rhiannon L. Crane

Backyard Birds: Create a Home for American Kestrels

"The American kestrel can see ultraviolet light. It enables them to locate the urine trails left by voles..."

So, should my heroine see urine trails?

My best wishes,
Rowena Cherry

Are You Thinking Of Joining the Authors' Guild?

The Authors' Guild is a professional association for authors which offers such benefits to members as:

• Free legal help on writing and publishing matters-including written book contract reviews.

• Author website building with our exclusive Sitebuilder software and low-cost hosting (in most cases just $6 per month).

• Free seminars, covering topics such as marketing and publicity, movie deals, estate planning, and more. 

• Medical and dental insurance group policies through TEIGIT 

Authors' Guild is active in advocating on Capitol Hill and in the law courts for authors' copyright protection, with publishers for fair contracts, and for protection against predatory practices that erode copyright. There is also a charity run through Authors' Guild to assist distressed members.

Annual membership fees increased to $125 this year, but for a limited time, eligible new members can join for $100 through this link.

http://www.authorsguild.net/services/join?rc=2161c5f8487abc08 

(Full disclosure: if you use this particular link, you will save $25 off your first year's membership fee, and you will also save ME $25 off my membership fee for 2016. Thank you!)

Not only traditionally published authors qualify for membership; self-published and freelance authors earning at least $500 in writing income can become members of the Guild. Learn more about eligibility criteria here. 

Thank you,

Rowena Cherry

On "Maleficent"

I've always been intrigued by stories that take the traditional villain, and re-write the tale from his, or her, point of view. In my twenties, I rewrote the part of Homer's Odyssey dealing with the Cyclops, and wrote from the point of view of Polyphemus the landowner dealing with trespassers, cattle (or sheep) rustlers, and murderous home invaders.

In my forties, I discovered the writings of Vivian Vande Valde, and was especially enchanted by her collection of short stories wherein she told the tale of Rumplestiltskin four or five times, each time from the viewpoint of a different character: the King, Rumplestiltskin, the girl's father, and so forth. The Rumpelstiltskin Problem (apologies for the single link). What a fascinating exercise!

I was hopeful that Maleficent would follow in Vivian Vande Valde's vein. (Irresistible alliteration.) I enjoyed the spectacle, but was disappointed on a couple of technicalities.

Who suffers most?
Maleficent does. If you don't want to read any spoilers, stop here.

Who suffers first?
Maleficent.

Who suffers most often?
Maleficent.

Her first love --perhaps we should call him her first pash-- drugs her on their first date, and uses an iron chain to burn off her eagle-like wings, leaving her in crippling physical and emotional agony.

As is common with persons who wrong someone else, King Steffan subsequently treats his victim badly, not inviting Maleficent to his infant daughter's christening.... although he does invite other magical creatures. She is mocked, insulted, threatened. Later, her realm is attacked, many attempts are made to trap and kill her. It is Maleficent who suffers remorse and sheds tears of penitence and heartbreak

Who suffers most in your story?

That most tortured of your characters ought to be your POV character, at least for the scene in question if you are writing Third Person, Limited, Multiple POV.  I forgave Vivian Vande Valde, because there is no way that the Miller (father) could be any kind of hero. The Rumpelstiltskin Problem was an academic exercise.

Unlike many of the harshest critics of "Maleficent",  I don't mind about the departures from Disney "canon", after all, the preamble and colophon inform the delighted audience that the original account was the distorted view of prejudiced witnesses.

Let us tell an old story anew, and we will see how well you know it. Once upon a time, there were two kingdoms that were the worst of neighbors. So vast was the discord between them that it was said only a great hero or a terrible villain might bring them together. In one kingdom lived folk like you and me, with a vain and greedy king to rule over them. They were forever discontent, and envious of the wealth and beauty of their neighbors, For in the other kingdom, the Moors, lived every manner of strange and wonderful creature. And they needed neither king nor queen, but trusted in one another. In a great tree on a great cliff in the Moors lived one such spirit. You might take her for a girl, but she was not just any girl. She was a fairy. And her name was Maleficent.


I do mind that it was Aurora and not Maleficent telling us this. This intrusive editorialisation was not in character with Aurora who seems to be an intellectual lightweight... as most sheltered sixteen-year-olds are. Moreover, given that Aurora in this tale was brought up by idiot pixies in the woods, one wonders whether she would have used the Royal "We".

One word about casting; for me, it was jarring to see Dolores Umbridge (the child torturer of Hogwarts) entrusted with the infant Princess Aurora. Perhaps "Harry Potter" will be to Imelda Staunton what "The Sound of Music" was to Christopher Plummer.

The shapeshifter, Diavel, was the next most interesting character after that of Maleficent, and his scars were intriguing hints that there might have been some thought about the cost of magic (a convention one should respect: there should always be a serious price to be paid for the unfair advantages of sorcery.)

The movie was weak on logic and the quality of dramatic inevitability that a Cambridge professor used to call "thusness".... and,  at least for me, the ending fizzled.  Aurora and her prince appeared to inherit the flowering moorlands, but there was a hint of something interesting for Maleficent.

All things considered, I would recommend seeing "Maleficent". It was strong on spectacle, and therefore enjoyable. Moreover, for those considering a similar experiment --perhaps with a villain from a public domain work-- it might be instructive to also study the reviews. This movie aroused powerful feelings... and make a lot of money!

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

Crime, Retribution And Punishment (in SF/SFR)

How does a convicted criminal pay "their debt" to society... in our world, or in imagined alien worlds whether they are utopian or dystopian?

"Justice" has several possible purposes, some only subtly different: Revenge, Restitution, Retribution,  Rehabilitation, Incapacitation (or preventing a recurrence),  Deterrence, Social Engineering.

1.  Revenge may be intended to be cathartic, depending on the involvement of the victims, but a civilized society may make the process so relatively "humane" and long-drawn-out and expensive that a death penalty, for instance, most likely fails to provide satisfaction for society or for the victims.

2. Similarly, a lengthy incarceration might cost taxpayers a great deal, but prevent the evil-doer from earning the wherewithal to make financial restitution to his or her victims.

Solon of the ancient Greek world, suggested that persons who could not pay their debts could be sold into slavery, which might be a profitable form of incarceration with hard labor.

Some criminals would be too dangerous to be slaves, and there are reports that ancient Roman homes included safety measures to ensure that house slaves did not murder their masters in the night.  Possibly, some of the most dangerous "debtors" could have been sold into gladiatorial schools, assuming that the barbaric public would pay to watch gladiators' entertaining deaths.

3. Rehabilitation, IMHO, is a bit of a non-starter in fiction. One has to have gross institutionalized unfairness, or an underdog anti-hero is not sympathetic; and if there is no fighting/conflict, it's hard to write a page-turner. Most science fiction convicts are unjustly accused good guys, such as Kirk, Starbuck, Buck Rogers, Spock etc. And, if one was not guilty in the first place, one cannot be rehabilitated.

4. Incapacitation (or preventing repeated crimes) is vividly demonstrated in One Flew Over A Cuckoo's Nest (not SF). Many SF examples of incapacitation are not successful by design, such as the Superman villains Zod, Non, and Ursa (??) who were entombed alive, to float in space forever... until they were rescued.  A similar incapacitation method was tried in V, also with Merlin --trapped inside a tree--, also with the villain in EPIC who.... spoiler alert... was engulfed in a tree wart.

Historical and futuristic versions of incapacitation might be some of the more extreme versions of exile, to prison islands, prison planets, prison ships, prison spaceships as seen in The Chronicles of Riddick, in Star Trek, etc.

5. Deterrence (and Social Engineering) may not necessarily involve a convicted evil-doer at all, as in Hunger Games where a society is repressed and eternally punished for a rebellion, while also providing an elaborate, entertaining, and possibly profitable spectacle.

Horrific and barbaric public executions also serve to deter would-be troublemakers, but we don't see a lot of that in Romance or Science Fiction. It's the stuff of the Horror genre.

Random and spontaneous executions (Flash Gordon, Star Wars) probably are not as psychologically successful for deterrence, judging by the rebellions they inspire.

And then, there's LEXX.
Criminals and rebels had their useful organs harvested (by machines, without anaesthetic, on a conveyor system), and the rest of the bodies were processed as food for the LEXX. However, since the LEXX was a sentient dragonfly-machine that destroyed planets, it is not easy to categorize the thinking behind justice system. I was too revolted to watch enough of the series to understand whether the harvested organs were transplanted into good members of society.

Please enlighten me!

Science Fiction (and Science Fiction Romance) deals with advanced technology and issues of alternative or shifting morality. Did the civilized Star Trek society send Kirk to a prison planet so that he could fight to the death or be assassinated out of sight, because it would be uncivilized to kill him directly?

If technology means that we can print off new organs or body parts, or create a personalized chemical cocktail to replace blood, then we don't need to use criminals as perpetual blood donors, or one-time heart donors, and cannot use expediency as moral justification. What happens to the motivation of futuristic good vampires, if there is no reason for them to drink blood from a human?

Let me know what you think.

Rowena Cherry

PS  Some interesting resources:

The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy: ...

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0313329516

Gary Westfahl

Crime and Punishment - The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction

www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/crime_and_punishment 

Sci-Fi on Trial: A Survey of Crime and Punishment in the ...

https://johnkennethmuir.wordpress.com/.../sci-fi-on-trial-a-survey-of-cri... 

NaNoWriMo

It's the second day of NaNoWriMo which is approximately National Novel Writing Month, and writers all over the world have signed up, and are still signing up, to meet the challenge of writing the first, unedited, draft of a 50,000-word literary work.

Join in. Visit nanowrimo.org

If you do join, I am RowenaCherry and I welcome "buddies". My word count is negative. I just threw out an entire prologue, a chase scene, and a fight.

My best wishes,

Rowena Cherry

Copyright Compendium (and... Authors Beware Click-Through Contracts)

The latest (third edition) draft of the Copyright Compendium is available for public comment before the final form is released in December 2014.

Read the Copyright Compendium here: http://copyright.gov/comp3/docs/compendium-full.pdf


If so moved, having read it, leave a comment here: http://copyright.gov/comp3/comments.html

This is the section that interested me, because I worry about websites and blogs that appear to be legitimate, that post copyright notices in their footers, but that display copyrighted ebooks either for reading on the site or for download, and that claim immunity because the ebooks are "User Generated Content" or "Uploaded by Authors" or "Uploaded by Users".

http://copyright.gov/comp3/chap1000/ch1000-websites.pdf

Some of these sites, like certain auction site vendors, claim that collections of ebooks written by popular (and not-so popular) modern-day authors are their own, unique and copyrightable compilation, like a "playlist" because of the way the ebooks are sorted and grouped. Or, like torrents that collect together a few hundred "paranormal romances", for instance, on the assumption that no individual author of one of the hundred ebooks can claim ownership of the torrent.

Does this Compendium protect them?

Here's a small passage from a legal blog that caught my interest;

The new Compendium confirms that website users are “authors” of their original user-generated content (UGC) for copyright purposes. Therefore, to obtain ownership of the copyright in the UGC, a website needs a signed agreement that transfers the user’s rights and, therefore, should include an assignment provision in its “click through” terms of service. If the website owner desires to file an application to register that UGC, it must name the authors in the application and maintain records of the authors who transferred ownership rights

Credits: Sourcing@MorganLewis

Find the article here on Lexology (a very informative site for pro-copyright activists and lawyers):
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b5459593-61ae-46e5-bff3-859793eaeb9c&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2014-10-10&utm_term=

Scribd used to call its uploaders "authors", even when they were obviously copyright infringers uploading unauthorized copies of copyrighted works to the site.  Last time I looked, it seemed to me that many of the allegedly illegally uploaded "documents" that are scans of e-books and of paperbacks remain available and monetized by Scribd as orphan works after the allegedly piratical original uploaders apparently have been removed as members.

If a click-through contract might confer copyright to the website, I think that copyright owners should be particularly wary of clicking "I Agree" when visiting any website.

From what I've seen, many pirate sites will not permit copyright owners to see the site or use the Search feature of a site unless they register and agree to the terms and conditions. Often, by agreeing to those terms, the new registrant agrees not to use anything they find on the site to sue the site (that is a simplification, but what a potential Catch-22).

What if a copyright owner clicks-through in order to discover whether some other user has uploaded that copyright owner's works to the site?  What if the act of clicking "I Agree" then grants permission for the site to continue in what was previously piracy?

According to this Compendium, a website cannot copyright User Generated Content without naming the author, so uploader "aliendjinnromancefangirl123" cannot be listed on a copyright application.

Will sites keep a record of what "aliendjinnromancefangirl123" uploaded and gave them implicit permission to share? What happens if Rowena Beaumont Cherry foolishly "Agrees" to their contract, uploads nothing, but under the wording of the contract, trasnsferred ownership rights to Rowena Cherry content that had been uploaded by someone else?

Color me paranoid, I guess. What do you think?

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



.

Jacqueline Lichtenberg will be Rowena's guest on Crazy Tuesday internet radio

     The Sime~Gen novels by Jacqueline Lichtenberg and Jean Lorrah are being turned into a video role-playing game, taking the series off Earth and into space. In this episode of EPIC award winner (Friend of E-Publishing) Rowena Cherry's radio show, Rowena  interviews Jacqueline about this fascinating process, as well as worldbuilding science fiction. Tune in for more about Sime~Gen and the new story-driven game, Ambrov X.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pwrnetwork/2013/09/10/crazy-tuesday

Fatal Courtesy

My post today is about the disastrous consequences of inappropriate language in the cockpit, but IMHO it has interesting applications for world building, for dialogue, and for plot and character development, for alien romances and non-alien fiction as well.

We're talking dangers degrees of deference, and exaggerated awe of a higher ranking officer... which happens to be a theme that interested me in my God Princes Of Tigron series where the god-Prince Tarrant-Arragon was aware that cowed Star Forces officers were a liability on the Bridge of a war-star. This is one reason that he took a shine to the human, Grievous who shot off his mouth first and worried about the social graces later.

I am reading "OUTLIERS" by Malcolm Gladwell... and I think you should read it, too. The chapter on "The Ethnic Theory of Plane Crashes" is fascinating to me. Basically, the theory is that Korean pilots used to crash more than pilots of other countries because of their strict social structure (high Power Distance Index), the complexity of their language, and their respect for authority... including abrupt air traffic controllers.

Apparently, all planes are safer if the less senior officer is flying the plane and the more senior pilot is watching everything and talking to the air traffic controllers. It sounds counter-intuitive, but if there is ice on the wings, or the fuel is running out, or there's a storm up ahead, there is no time for parsing gentle hints such as "the weather radar has helped us" and translating that into "we're about to hit a mountain!"

Just as many How To Write Romance tip sheets suggest that before a hero and heroine can have plausible, loving sex, there has to be a progression of touches in five if not seven progressively more intimate places, so there is a theory that no catastrophic airplane accident is the result of one problem.

Usually, there is a critical mass of at least three preconditions: a minor technical malfunction either of one system of a plane or of an airport system; bad weather; a tired pilot. If these three conditions exist, the pilot needs perfect cooperation and communication with everyone in the cockpit and on the ground. He needs to be able to ask clearly for the exact help he requires, and to get it.

I had not heard about "mitigated speech" before, but apparently there are 6 ways to warn a pilot that he is about to fly into a thunderstorm.

1. Command. Example, "Turn thirty degrees right."
2. Crew Obligation Statement. Example, "I think we need to deviate right about now."
3. Crew Suggestion. Example, "Let's go around the weather."
4. Query. Example, "Which direction would you like to deviate?"
5. Preference. Example, "I think it would be wise to turn left or right."
6. Hint. Example, "That return at twenty-five miles looks mean."

This is quoted from Outliers, which quotes from a study done by Ute Fischer and Judith Orasanu, "Error-Challenging Strategies: Their Role In Preventing And Correcting Errors."

There are three sample chapters free on the Gladwell website including the chapter that explains what an Outlier is http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/outliers_excerpt1.html
also why some perfectly pleasant neighbors suddenly lash out (especially if they are Kentuckians, or have Scots ancestry) http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/outliers_excerpt2.html

If you want to read the chapter to which I refer here, "The Ethnic Theory Of Plane Crashes", you will have to obtain the book. Barnes and Noble has a used copy for $1.99 or you can rent it for 60 days for $8.37.

Rowena Cherry

Search engines dedicated to copyright infringement

Copyright infringement is hugely profitable for everyone except the authors of the content which is being infringed and monetized. For more information, please visit www.copyrightalliance.org and www.thetrichordist.com

Unscrupulous opportunists take advantage of the ignorance of the masses to cite Google as their inspiration, presumably in the belief that, if Google does it, it must be legal.

Here are two enterprises that, in my opinion are dedicated to copyright infringement because they specialize in directing their Members and Users to where illegal downloads can be found. 

DISCLAIMER : EbookScam (not its real name).com is a search engine of ebooks on the Internet and does not upload or store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites much like how Google works.

Note: FREEBIESCAMMER (not its real name) does not host any files to items listed. We simply index file links we have found on other websites on the web (similar way to how Google works!).

They are wrong, in my opinion, and should not be imitated or followed.
See
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp105&sid=cp105v6n3H&refer=&r_n=hr796.105&item=&&&sel=TOC_60600&

Google is a Search engine that locates all sorts of information. It does not discriminate. It is automated. It does not select which images, blurbs, and links to show, and it does remove infringing links in response to lawful notices from copyright infringers (although, those infringing links are still made available to all the world on a separate Google-sponsored site), and Google does list a DMCA link and a means to reach its copyright agent.

EbookScam (not its real name).com  and FREEBIESCAMMER (not its real name) do not, in my opinion, pass the smell test listed on the thomas.loc.gov site because:

1. They are dedicated to helping freetards find places to download ebooks without paying for them. (In the case of the Freebiescammer, they also point freebie-seekers to movies, music, magazines and more in addition to ebooks.)

2. They post images of the ebooks' cover art, also reviews and blurbs even though they claim not to host or control the actual files. To that extent, they choose and control the content and actively "know" or could be reasonably assumed to know, what they are doing.

3. They do not post the name of a copyright agent. 

Both these so-called seach engines for ebooks make money from advertising, and from pay-per-click type monetization of traffic, and from donations..... Unfortunately, I cannot help but conclude that at least one of them is also an Amazon affiliate and may be paid by honest readers who use his links to visit a legal buy-the-book page.

Just to illustrate and comment on the irony of these "giveaways" for the purposes of education and --yes-- commentary, one of them is giving away an issue of the Economist. I will share the image (on the popular assumption that a thumbnail is public domain)

 
 

And the other, is giving away a book by a former colleague of mine, along with a review that seems to me to be the absolute epitome of irony.

 "The book is superb, Jana DeLeon is a huge talent and more people should know about her. Unfortunately, I can't recommend buying her book from here because the ex-publisher, Dorchester, no longer owns the rights to sell it and is now effectively stealing from the author."

 

It all goes to show, in the minds of these internet exploiters, two wrongs make it all right for them to rip off authors and content providers.

 By the way, EbookScam (not its real name).com  is asking Users to "Help others and Let the good reciprocate! Earn the respect of thousand of eReaders by submitting a verified download link to this ebook" which seems to me very much like a blatant solicitation of copyright infringement.

Best wishes,
Rowena Cherry