Dear Author: Romance Book Reviews, Author Interviews, and Commentary

While most of the literati seem firmly in Obama’s camp, the AAP sent out a warning about what an Obama presidency could mean for publishing (bad, in other words).

AP is concerned, for example, that based on their past academic relationship, Senator Obama might choose among his appointments a divisive figure such as Larry Lessig - a law professor and leading proponent of diminished copyright rights.

I am a big fan of Lawrence Lessig and diminished copyright rights myself.

Right to Write is an organization which helped to defend Roger Rapoport, one of the Defendants in the suit brought by JK Rowling to prevent the publication of the Harry Potter Lexicon

The Right to Write Fund will also establish an educational repository and serve as a clearinghouse focused on fair use and other First Amendment issues confronting authors, especially when works move between print, the Internet, film, the fine arts and new media.

Via Publishers Weekly.

JK Rowling won a copyright suit against Steven Vander Ark and RDR Books with the district court enjoining the publication of the competitor's encyclopedia and reference guide along with $6,750 in damages.  The court found that the Lexicon used too much of the original creator's work to be considered fair use although reference works in general should be "encouraged rather than stifled."  No word yet whether the ruling will be appealed. Thanks Emmy, for the link.

One of the search terms that brought a reader to the site in the past week was why plagiarism bothers authors. Given the size of the recent panel on plagiarism at RWA, it appears that it doesn’t bother some authors. Or is that the wrong assumption to draw? Needless to say, the panel was not well attended. The room seated about 200 and it appeared that there were 40-60 people there. I did see editors from a couple of different houses which was encouraging. I will admit that I never thought a panel that I sat on at RWA would fill a room of 200 but I did believe that Nora, who hasn’t spoken in room that wasn’t standing room only, would be greeted with a full crowd.

I know that Nora was disappointed and she voiced her disappointment from the podium. The room should have been full. The reason I say that is because I think that not everyone understands the difference between Plagiarism and Copyright. And I don’t know that everyone understands the reason why plagiarism isn’t such a good thing. …

The current copyright protection allows for libraries to copy “a work in their collections that is damaged, deteriorating, lost or stolen or whose format has become obsolete” three times. As Ars Technica notes, this means that no copying can be done until destruction or damage is actually underway. The Library of Congress has noted in a new 200 page report that the current state of the law is hampering archiving abilities and offers recommendations for change. Ars is doubtful that Congress is very interested in this issue. Via Ars.

A company called Edson.financial.group has a books and music and other media ebay store. Over 200 products are reviewed, however, it has been discovered that many of those reviews are copied word for word from reviewers on Amazon. Jennifer Ray from Wild on Books Reviews has had three reviews copied and reposted under Edson.financial.group’s name.

Kiss of Fire review by Jennifer and the unauthorized copy at eBay.
Shifter review by Jennifer and the unauthorized copy at eBay.
WitchBlood a review by Jennifer and the unauthorized copy at eBay.

Jennifer has reported this entity to eBay but hasn’t received a response. Another reviewer noticed the same problem and turned to Amazon for help. As always, Amazon has a piss poor response:

Greetings from Amazon.com. I apologize that your review for an item on Amazon.com was posted on another web site. In this instance, please know that we did not give permission for this to happen. Unfortunately however, we are not able to take any actions to have the review removed as the review you are referencing is on a different web site than ours or one of our …

moar funny pictures

In tuth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before.

Justice Story in Emerson v. Davies, 8 F.Cas. 615, 619 (No. 4,436) (CCD Mass.1845).

One of the terms that has been bandied about during and post Savage Gate is “fair use.” In the Signet response to my inquiry regarding the allegations against Cassie Edwards regarding copying, I received a strange and bit confusing reply:

The copyright fair-use doctrine permits reasonable borrowing and paraphrasing of another author’s words, especially for the purpose of creating something new and original. Also, anyone may use facts, ideas and theories developed by another author, as well as any material in the public domain. Ms. Edwards’s researched historical novels are precisely the kinds of original, creative works that this copyright policy promotes.

This mixing of public domain and fair use is a bit misleading and it seemed to me that there was quite a bit of confusion about what …

I just read on GalleyCat that some prime legal minds will be representing RDR in the defense of the Rowling copyright infringement lawsuit. If you aren’t up to date on this, the facts, briefly, shake out as follows:

Harry Potter Lexicon site starts up in 2000
Promotes Pottermania and is used by Rowling and Warner to promote Potter related stuff
Lexicon decides to publish book on Rowling stuff
Rowling files suit
Fandom is angry at RDR (Jane owes Random big post and will do so soon)
Jane looks up suit on Pacer and sees that RDR is a tiny company that is not well situated for a protracted legal battle with Rowling. Worries.

The RDR legal team now looks like this:

Lead Counsel: Ex-federal prosecutor David Hammer
Anthony Falzone, Stanford University’s Fair Use Project executive director.
Julie Ahrens, Stanford University’s Fair Use Project associate director
Lawrence Lessig, the author of Free Culture

I so hope that this goes to trial and is not settled because the legal precedence of this case could be vitally important to the measurement free use v. copyright.

A lawsuit was originally brought and decided in 2001 over the digital reproduction of work by freelance writers. The Supreme Court found in favor of the writers and the publishers began to remove the work from the archives. There remained, however, the issue of damages. A settlement had been agreed to but was voided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday on the grounds, according to the Times, that the federal copyright law only allows damages to be awarded to those writers who have registered their works with the US Copyright Office. Because the majority of freelancers did not register their works, the court could not adjudicate the claim.

The writers have vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court.

This has far reaching implications. If the right of damages, which is the teeth of the Copyright Act, is dependent on registration, then all writers, including bloggers, might need to start registering their works. What a hassle.

Via NYT.

What might be one of the most important copyright decisions since Sony v. Universal Studios is the case against Google for scanning books. I’m guessing that Google is operating under the belief that the scanning of the books and then offering portions of it in digital format for searchers is transformative enough to escape copyright infringement.

Google’s position has been enhanced recently by the public statements of the University of Michigan’s head librarian, Paul Courant. Mr. Courant recently posted a response to a query by Siva Vaidhyanathan, a professor at the University of Virginia, regarding the legalities of Michigan’s participation with Google.

Vaidhyanathan calls it “audacious infringement of copyright.”

Courant responds:
“I must say that I am troubled that the author of a very sensible book about copyright is so enthusiastic about trashing Google that he is willing to give up on the uses, notably scholarly uses, that are permitted in the higher-numbered sections of the Copyright Act,” writes Courant. “As my institution’s copyright lawyer says: ‘FAIR USE, it’s the law.’ And my institution believes that when we have Google digitize our holdings we do so under the law and in order to make uses that are not only lawful, but …