(an allusion for REM fans):
:They NEED to be written
>in with as much strong and one-sided language as possible if the
>intellectual property owner wants to have any real ability to enforce
>his or her rights by a court without bankrupting the owner in the
>process. Compared to the language some of my clients have used (and
>frankly some of the language I've written), the Issaries policy is
>very mild.
This is most reassuring to hear. I look forward to hopefully seeing some practical examples and perhaps non-legalistic explanatory notes, examples, or clarifying statements from Issaries.
We all have a great enthusiasm for Glorantha, for the creativity of Greg and so many others, and for the company we've done so much to support. I'm sure we all want to see the policy properly understood and implemented to ensure fairness, consistency, and respect for the intellectual and creative rights for all concerned: publishers and authors both.
With Jeff's advice in mind, a note to all authors and would-be authors, be it for Issaries, Ye Booke of Tentacles, Better Homes and Gardens or Anarchist Today.
(The usual rejoinder applies: I am not a lawyer, but am an editor with a deep practical concern for these matters.)
Rights of course are vested in *both* parties to an agreement. An author possesses rights in his or her own work, including copyright and moral rights. These rights are generally protected in law, though they vary even among nations who are signatories to the Berne Convention. Copyright can be assigned to other parties (or reside from the beginning with an employer/publisher for commissioned work), while moral rights generally remain with the author and can *not* be signed away. Copyrighted materials are covered by legal guidelines which include the concept of 'fair use'. The Issaries Fan Policy notes, but does not expand upon, some of these concepts, which are in fact crucial in understanding what the policy actually entails.
For instance, the Fan Policy states that it does not intend to infringe upon "fair use" laws. 'Fair use' is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work. So selective quoting from a publication - properly attributed of course - may well fall within 'fair use' without any further action being necessary
An author also has moral rights in his or her work, and this of course also applies to both parties. (A note of caution here: the legal application of moral rights vary somewhat from country to country). They always reside with the author, and cannot be signed away. There are several classes of moral rights, but the key one in present circumstances is the right of attribution - that is, that the author be named as the author/creator of their work.
I encourage those interested in these matters to do some reading on copyright, fair use and the moral rights of authors. Google can be your friend. And I look forward hoping that Issaries will soon clarify both the scope and implementation of their policy.
My *possible* concerns concerning the Fan Policy are the following, though I am hopeful that they will be clarified by Issaries. Firstly, does the policy seek to extinguish an author's moral right to be named as the author of his or her work, or of a certain key corpus of material? I don't believe that crediting an author is a particular onerous or difficult task. I would certainly hope that Issaries extends the same courtesies and rights to its contributors as it expects others to respect for itself, for instance in Section B, point 3. Secondly, in practice, what sort of timelines and delays can be expected in processing requests? What sort of negotiation will be possible if Issaries demands changes (or indeed says no) to a submitted work? And what will be the practical options if a fan work has a particular deadline, for instance a freeform for a convention, or a fundraiser for a convention (and I can think of two real examples just in the last months)? Is the process likely to take weeks, or months? Who will be vetting material? Will it be done on legal grounds, or on some other, more subjective criteria? And finally, does this (on paper at least), new micro managment indicate a return to a working concept of 'One True Glorantha'? where alternative fan versions are discouraged or banned?
We have (most) of the legal bits of the new policy. Some explanatory guidelines would be *greatly* appreciated.
Cheers!
John
(Editor, author, struggling artist, fan publisher, Gloranthan website maintainer, and dedicated Gloranthaphile. So where do I start? :))
Powered by hypermail