Saturday Chores #8, Saturday, July 26, 2014.
The early birds.
Saturday Chores #8, Saturday, July 26, 2014.
The early birds.
Chiune Sugihara. This man saved 6000 Jews. He was a Japanese diplomat in Lithuania. When the Nazis began rounding up Jews, Sugihara risked his life to start issuing unlawful travel visas to Jews. He hand-wrote them 18 hrs a day. The day his consulate closed and he had to evacuate, witnesses claim he was STILL writing visas and throwing from the train as he pulled away. He saved 6000 lives. The world didn’t know what he’d done until Israel honored him in 1985, the year before he died.
Very cool to find out about.
Via tastefully offensive:
'Fair dealing for the purposes of humiliation, embarrassment & mockery' is a bit of a contradiction in terms.
That’s what AJ Hall, British lawyer/IP specialist/fanfic writer said on Twitter this morning.
As fans and fanfic writers, we’ve been discussing Caitlin Moran’s objectionable actions at the BBC’s Sherlock screening in requiring Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch to read a piece of John/Sherlock slash aloud with a slightly different perspective.
Ethically, what Moran did was wrong, and that’s been discussed by the awesome author of the fic in question, on tumblr, on blogs, and on Twitter. (This won’t be the first time she did something awful, btw.)
But legally, did she do anything wrong?
The answer is, under English law, probably.
In all of the English-speaking countries, a fanfic writer holds the copyright in her exact word choices fromthe moment of creation. That doesn’t mean she gets copyright in the characters that come from others’ works, or in the lines that she quotes from the canon or from other sources, or in short phrases or names, but in each sentence that she pens, she owns some rights; posting a story or image or article online does not put that work in the public domain; it simply means that the work “has been made available to the public”.
In other words, had Caitlin Moran read a few sentences from this fanfic, or even a few fanfics, that might have been unethical or immoral but it might not have been infringement. However, reading a significant portion of the story could be seen as a “public performance” of the author’s work; as it was done without her permission, it would be infringement if it wasn’t covered by any of the elements of “fair dealing”.
A copyright-protected work can be quoted, publicly performed, etc. “for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work.” Acknowledgement is required (and did not happen at the Sherlock event) except in limited circumstances. Fair Dealing might have applied in this live Q&A situation, except for the fact that the way Ms Moran handled it here may have infringed on the author’s copyright and/or moral rights.
Along those lines, if the BBC wanted to release this Q&A on a DVD at some point in the future, or put it on YouTube, could they do so without cutting most or all of the fanfic, or getting permission from the author?
While we think they can include a few sentences, we believe that using all of the reading without permission from the author, in the context in which it was used at the Q&A ,would infringe on her copyright and might also infringe her moral rights, which are an element of UK copyright law that does not have a parallel in the US.
As the UK Copyright Office says:
Ms Moran’s commentary during this portion of the Q&A could [easily] be deemed derogatory, and given what the author said in her posts yesterday, the use of her story in this context can be viewed as a distortion of the honour of the author.
The author did not wish her real name used, so the moral right relating to “being identified” as the author is less relevant than the second right, namely “the right to object to derogatory treatment.” It is clear from the author’s own post on Tumblr that she regards this moral right as having been infringed, and there seems good grounds for her to take this view.
She wrote this story, and others, to share with friends and within the fandom. Is it distorting her honour to take her “writing out of context without permission, belittling it and using it to embarrass actors who I deeply admire”?
As a matter of law, it may very well be.
[ETA: We wonder if this has occurred to the BBC and is part of the reasoning behind their request that people pull down video of the Q&A. We also wonder if video of this portion of the Q&A might be distributable pursuant to Fair Dealing in connection with reporting on the topic, or commentary or criticism thereof.]
You don’t have to get a job that makes others feel comfortable about what they perceive as your success. You don’t have to explain what you plan to do with your life. You don’t have to justify your education by demonstrating its financial rewards. You don’t have to maintain an impeccable credit score.
You have to pay your own electric bill. You have to be kind. You have to find people who love you truly and love them back with the same truth. But that’s all.
I wish I could “Like” this (whole series of posts) much more than once!
Big spoilers for all episodes of “Sherlock” series 2 below the fold, including the ending of “Fall”. Thanks to all the usual suspects—Blinkpink, Neffinesse, and Bittergrapes—for the support, help, and fanwanking y’all have provided me. Apologies to Dusky, and anybody else who read the first draft, which I unceremoniously scrapped. This essay goes out to Brynncognito, who volunteered to read it first and tell me if my ass is showing or not. As I suggested pre-series 2, today’s subject is Allistic Fails. When “Slumber” is done with, I’ll go through 1-3a and add in any relevant points from the second season.
I just happened across this today - love it!!
So back in September of
‘10’11, I began this series of essays on BBC’s “Sherlock”. The original intent, as stated in the prologue and repeated many times since, was to explain autism to allistics, using “Sherlock” as an extended metaphor. I wasn’t aiming to convince anybody that Sherlock was…
Opening for the London 2012 Olympic Games 2012 Countdown Coverage on the BBC, presented by Benedict Cumberbatch.
Kurt Vonnegut’s Rules for the Short Story
1. Use the time of a total stranger in such a way that he or she will not feel the time was wasted.
2. Give the reader at least one character he or she can root for.
3. Every character should want something, even if it is only a glass of water.
4. Every sentence must do one of two things–reveal character or advance the action.
5. Start as close to the end as possible.
6. Be a sadist. No matter how sweet and innocent your leading characters, make awful things happen to them–in order that the reader may see what they are made of.
7. Write to please just one person. If you open a window and make love to the world, so to speak, your story will get pneumonia.
8. Give your readers as much information as possible as soon as possible. To heck with suspense. Readers should have such complete understanding of what is going on, where and why, that they could finish the story themselves, should cockroaches eat the last few pages.
|—||via advicetowriters.com (via kadrey)|