Copyright office backlog

Rumor has it there is a serious backlog at the U.S. Copyright Office right now. Registering a copyright is now taking 18 months, instead of the normal three to six. With the exception of big publishing houses who can afford to pay the expediting fee, of course.

I wonder what that means for writers who start the process to register a copyright, but then have someone steal their work before the 18 months are up? Since a work has to have a registered copyright before you can sue for copyright infringement, I'm sure this is probably going to be a problem for some people.

By the way, notice the story about the woman whose sample ad was stolen by an ad agency? That is why you don't write samples for a potential client. No matter how reputable they might seem.

J.K. Rowling wins copyright infringement suit

A while back I blogged about a lawsuit J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, had brought against the publishers of a Potter encyclopedia. Yesterday NPR reported that Rowling won the case against the publisher of The Harry Potter Lexicon.

I found this story on NPR particularly interesting:

Harry Potter Encyclopedia Barred from Publication

An expert on the show discusses what qualifies as fair use and takes some questions from listeners. Apparently the judge in the case was careful to specify that this book qualifies as copyright infringement because of material it takes verbatim from J.K. Rowling's books. In other words, the ruling does not ban reference guides and literary commentary as a whole — it simply draws the line on how much your guide can depend on the intellectual property of the original author.

Copyright ignorance

I recently ran into the most infuriating example of people's ignorance regarding copyright laws and fair use.

I belong to several Yahoo! groups for vintage dolls (doll collecting and doll repair being one of my hobbies). In one of them, someone was talking about posting scans of the pictures in a doll book, as reference for the other members. She asked if everyone else thought it was okay, since she wasn't reproducing the pages for profit, and another member gave her the go-ahead.

Maybe I care too much about copyright infringement, but it seems to me that most people on the Internet don't understand copyright law, so I felt it my duty to speak up. I explained that profit is not the only determining factor in determining copyright infringement, and summarized the rules of fair use. I then asked for more information on the book, and offered to research the current copyright status for them. I also advised that they not post the scans if they were available to the Internet at large, but make the information accessible only to members of the group (which has all of 7 people in it right now).

To my utter shock and dismay, the responses I received varied from sheer ignorance to outright hostility toward me for speaking up. The moderator wrote to me directly and asked me not to discuss copyright issues because it would deter other members from uploading "research materials" (read: potentially illegal reproductions).

The other members' reactions represent almost every facet of copyright ignorance found on the Internet:

MYTH #1: Only published works are copyrighted.

"We are not speaking of a published work here - we are dealing with COPIES of old catalog pages similar to a Sears catalog..."

MYTH #2: Copyrighted works have to make some kind of statement to the effect in order to be protected.

MYTH #3: That out-of-print works are no longer protected.

"No where [sic] in this bound copy of the catalogues is there anything stated about copywrite [sic] --only thing ever noted is that copies are available from the Mme Alexander Company---I understand the concerns, certainly, but since one can't readily purchase this out of print edition of the reprints, does it seem as if we are infringing on anyone, save perhaps Madame Alexander, who nowhere states, in this catalogue, that copies may not be reprinted?"

MYTH #4: You have to make a profit in order for it to be copyright infringement.

MYTH #5: The reproduction has to actually be printed (on paper) in order to be copyright infringement.

"I sincerely think that because we have no intention of printing or distributing or offering for sale anything from this publication... " (stating why she thought it wouldn't be copyright infringement)

MYTH #6: Copyright law doesn't apply to me/If I don't understand it, I'm not liable.

"There is the teeny tiny copyright symbol at the top left of the "A" of Alexander Doll Company, Inc. which simply means (to me) that the name is copyrighted."

Of course, all of these myths are just that — myths:

1) Catalogs CAN be protected by copyright (any intellectual work can — and is automatically, these days)

2) Works ARE protected whether or not they make a statement to that effect,

3) Out-of-print works DO retain their copyright protection for the entire term,

4 and 5) Reproductions do NOT have to be printed on paper or generate profit in order to be considered copyright infringement, and

6) Stupidity is NOT a defense.

Now remember that I was simply making the suggestion that they make sure that the scans aren't available to anyone but group members (which, as it turned out, they aren't). I even offered my own time and effort to research the book's copyright status, yet the group responded with thinly veiled hostility — the moderator even deleted my message and all related posts from the forum!

This has been an eye-opener to me. I've always preferred to think that much of the copyright infringement on the Web is due to a lack of education and understanding of copyright law, but maybe that is too generous. Because it certainly seems that I've run into 6 people who would prefer to look the other way.

UPDATE: First Chapters Writing Competition

Just yesterday, I posted regarding a book competition for unpublish romance novel writers, Gather.com's First Chapters Writing Competition. Although a representative of Gather.com had asked me to post on the contest, my biggest point in the post is the need for writers to thoroughly research contests before submitting.

One problem I've seen before is contests taking all rights to all submissions, whether or not you are a winner. I think contests like those are simply attempts to get a whole bunch of copy for free.

The other thing I was concerned about with First Chapters is the requirement of posting your chapters online: online posting can be counted as first publication, ruining your chances of selling first rights to your work. The exception is if the work is posted in a membership-only forum -- that's considered pretty much the same thing as emailing your work to a select group of friends or a writers' group. Fortunately, in this case the contest submissions are open only to Gather.com members, so I decided the contest was "safe."

However, I have an update on the First Chapters Writing Competition. While reading Writer Beware this morning, I noticed a post regarding the contest. While Victoria Strauss found no problem with the rules of the First Chapters Writing Competition, she did note that there have been some problems lately with Simon & Schuster contracts. Since by submitting to the Gather.com contest you are promising to give Simon & Schuster first dibs on your book until you are eliminated, this could be a problem -- after all, if they know they have you between a rock and a hard place, how willing to negotiate will they be?

Please keep this information about Simon & Schuster in mind if you decide to submit to the First Chapters Writing Competition!

Writing competition for aspiring romance novelists

I had an email this morning from Gather.com about their First Chapters Writing Competition, and I thought I'd post the information in case any of my readers might be interested. The contest goes from August 1st through the 22nd, and the winner will receive a guaranteed publishing contract (with a $5,000 advance) for their romance novel with Simon & Schuster's Pocket Books.

Be sure to read the full contest guidelines and the FAQs.

As a copyright-conscious writer, my first question to them was where I could link to the contest guidelines -- I wanted to verify what happens to the writers' rights to their submissions, particularly if they don't win. I saw one contest a little while back that took the copyrights to all submissions, whether you won or not, so I am a little wary of these things.

Basically, the only condition concerning copyright that I see is that you are agreeing not to submit the novel elsewhere until you are eliminated from the competition; in other words, until you are eliminated from the competition, Simon & Schuster has first dibs on publishing your book. Seems fair enough -- after all, that's why you're entering the competition anyway!

The other concern is that in order to compete, you have to publish your first chapters in the First Chapters Romance Group. The concern here is that posting your writing to an open forum can hurt your chances of selling first rights to the work, but usually not if it's a membership-only forum (i.e. a way for you to share your work with just a few people, without everyone else online reading it).

No worries with this contest -- submissions are viewable only by other Gather.com members. (Yes, you have to be a member to enter, but it's free.)

Basically, what I'm saying is that I've done the research for you, and I've verified that the First Chapters Writing Competition looks like a valid contest. I suggest reading the guidelines and FAQs for yourself before commiting to anything, but I am satisfied that the two main problems I usually see in writing contests aren't present in this one.

Update on Nathaniel Hammel and RobinHood Press

I received several comments and emails today regarding RobinHood Press and Nathaniel Hammel. (Thanks, by the way, to everyone who has gotten involved and shown their support!) I also discovered that the announcement (and the graphic next to it) has been taken down from his site. I'm not sure what precipitated that, but I hope it was other writers taking my suggestion and emailing him! :o)

Don't think that this means he has reformed, though - also this afternoon, I received an email from him in my inbox, still maintaining that he is right. Here's a sampling of what he had to say:

Don't be mad because there are people out there who agree with me.

Don't respond to this letter please, I have alot of wonderful people to be serving inspiration to, people who love art and writing not nick-picking

Aside from his spelling errors, his email reminds me of those employers who accuse us of caring about money instead of writing, simply because we want to get paid for our work. Clearly he hasn't changed his attitude one iota, no matter what he's done to his website.

What a joke: RobinHood Press and Nathaniel Hammel's latest rebuttal

It's so pathetic it's funny. In my last post about Nathaniel Hammel and RobinHood Press, I mentioned that "fair use" of copyrighted works usually has to be in the form of criticism, comment, education, etc. Here's his response:

All graphic used on my site are for educational purposes to expand the creativity of the Writer's and Artist's mind, after all my website does allow people to share their stuff through the writer's club for free.

Somehow I don't think I'll be able to explain to this guy that's not what the law meant by "educational purposes."

He also accused me of just wanting to bash him, which is interesting since all I have done is to inform him of copyright law and quote the actual law to him. Equally amusing is what he said in an earlier email:

water off a ducks back. I am a proffessional, and don't need to go back and forth with you.

Maybe he should learn to spell professional before he calls himself one.

And, finally, a threat:

I've talk to my Lawyer, and he will personally write a letter to you telling you that what I said is right. I also have a few Authors and artists who will put a letter together for you to read too.

Well, if his lawyer has the same degree of "proffessionalism" as he does, I'm not too worried about what he'll have to say.

Of course, I maintain my earlier advice: Stay away from RobinHood Press and Nathaniel Hammel, and do everything you can to warn other writers and graphic artists!

More on RobinHood Press and Nathaniel Hammel

I couple of nights ago, I blogged about RobinHood Press and Nathaniel Hammel, a supposed "publisher" who has acknowledged using other artists' graphics on his site without their permission.

I also indicated that I had emailed him in outrage that commit such blatant copyright infringement. After exchanging several heated emails with this guy, I am become more and more convinced that 1) he is really, really stupid, and 2) he either doesn't understand copyright law, or doesn't care to understand, or both.

By way of warning fellow writers to stay away from this guy - and any graphic artists who run across this blog to check his site for their work! - I am going to reprint some of our email exchange here.

My first email to him consisted of the following:

I visited your site, where you say that the graphics are not all yours and that you don't remember where you got them. THEN DON'T USE THEM!

As a PUBLISHING COMPANY you ought to know that unless you paid the artist in a work for hire arrangement, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THOSE IMAGES. Giving acknowledgement to someone whose name you don't even remember doesn't make it any more legal. Even if you DID remember their name, it wouldn't be legal. The copyright belongs to the artist unless you have a contract with them that states otherwise.

I would never publish my work with someone who displays such blatant disregard for copyright law.

Sincerely,
Katharine Swan

His response was littered with the same types of mistakes that I noted in my earlier post. More disturbing, though, it betrayed a huge lack of understanding for copyright law:

That is only true if I was useing their graphics to make money. I've read these laws before I posted anything, as long as I do not claim them to be mine it is legal. The sites and place; however that I do go to, are sites where alot of people share pics, and most of them do not have destination of who's they are. I think too, that Thiose artist would be pleased to note that their artwork was apreciated. When I read the law book of copyright, which you can get from www.loc.gov, will tell you you can not claim any artwork, writing, or copyrighted material, and states what you should post when your artwork is not yours.

Still in the hopes of making this guy understand that he really can't do what he is doing, I wrote back with a summary of the "fair use" doctrine, which I got from the very site he sent me to:

You need to reread your copyright law. You probably should hire a lawyer to help you understand it.< Use the falls under the definition of "fair use" is the ONLY way you can use someone else's work without permission. "Fair use" is defined by copyright law to be "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research."

Your site definitely does not fall under these categories.

Copyright law also states that these factors should be used in determining whether use is "fair" or copyright infringement:

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

I have news for you - a website IS commercial, meaning that you have violated the first point.

You are publishing the entire images (after all, you can't quote art), which is a violation of the third point.

Additionally, you are publishing those artists' work, which could affect their ability to publish or sell the artwork in the future. Therefore, you've also violated the fourth point.

Your disregard for copyright law is as astounding as your refusal to read it correctly. There is absolutely no way that your use of these artists' work is fair.

His response indicated something much more serious than a misunderstanding of the law: a refusal to see it any other way, not to mention a complete disregard for other people's rights:

First off, you are being very rude to the artists, I have never recieved any complaints before and you are intittled to your oppinion, but I must point out you just verified my point the last time, I have not published the images, only shared pictures or images there is nothing wrong with that. I also do not claim any picture to be mine. I do not make any money off other's art work, and if you have seen my sight and the copyright guide I have posted. Now I am a Publisher and Printer, I have created a site for poeple to share their works for free, and invited you to do so. Lets say you have a poem out there and I come accross it, I can post it, and If i don't know it's yours, all I have to do is write at the bottom "Anonymous" and it would be legal.

You are talking to a person who went to school for 4 years to help become what I am today. Sorry you have taken offence and you may do what you please. And... I want to point out something elso for you, I could have Copyrighted my web-site but didn't, because my web-site is everyones!

Of course, by this point I am completely and utterly furious. I am reminded of something I read on Writers Weekly once, that there are people who think that everything on the Internet is free for the taking. This guy goes a step beyond that and says that the Internet is not real publishing...at the same time as he is apparently offering writers a chance to publish their work "for free" on his site.

I wrote the following response:

No, actually, you CAN'T post someone's poem if you run across it. It is NOT legal. And yes, posting writing and graphics on the Internet is PUBLICATION.

Unless you created the image or poem, or have a document stating that you own the copyright, or it came from a copyright-free site, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH IT.

Yet another point of copyright law that you obviously don't understand: you don't have to file with the copyright office for the work to be protected under copyright law. An artist or author automatically owns the copyright to any work he or she produces, without having to register it.

I am not at all being rude to the artists - I am protecting their rights. You should be ashamed of yourself. I guarantee your "publishing" business will never go anywhere if this is how you operate.

I also included a link to a Writers Weekly article on copyright law. I'd like to think he'll read it and realize the error of his ways, but I highly doubt that.

I do business on the Internet every day. I communicate with my clients via email and Internet, write content for them to post to the Internet, and keep several blogs. Despite this, I have had very little problem with people stealing (or trying to steal) my work.

Even so, Nathaniel Hammel and RobinHood Press serve as a sharp reminder that copyright infringers do exist. It's scary to think that some people are so nonchalant about stealing other people's work, and it's those people who make writers wary of posting anything to the Internet.

For those of you who are as infuriated as I am about this, I ask you to do the following things:

1) Write to Nathaniel Hammel and RobinHood Press to tell him that publishing other people's work without their permission is not okay! You can contact RobinHood Press on myspace or from his website.

2) Spread the word! Post on your own blog, send out a mass email, etc. - do whatever you do to get the word out about something important.

3) Tell every graphic artist you know that they had better check this guy's site and make sure their work isn't there - and tell them to pass the word on to their friends!

Writers Beware: RobinHood Press and Nathaniel Hammel

Not that I think this company will even get off the ground (it's that awful), but I still feel it my obligation to pass on this information. Plus, it's too funny, in one of those you've-got-to-be-kidding ways. (And with a little "Screw You!" thrown in.)

I think some of you know that I have a MySpace page that I set up for networking. Well, this evening I found the following email in my MySpace inbox:

Congratulations for your acheivement [sic] in writing.

RobinHood Press, Inc

Hello, My name is Nathaniel Hammel. I am the proud owner of RobinHood Press, Inc. We offer a beautiful and specialized Publishing and Printing Pack for the Author(s) of the later day.

We provide awesome tools for the Writer to either, market themselves, or let us market for them through our Print on Demand Pack, saving time and money.

We also have an exclusive Writers Club, featuring a News room and discussions, a place for Authors to post there writing for free, join in writing competitions, and much more!

Please give us the chance to be apart of your life, and pass the word on of us and our company.

Visit: www.robinhoodpress.biz

Please and thank you for you time in reading this, and I hope it will do you good.

Sincerely,
NATHANIEL HAMMEL , Owner

I have a knee-jerk reaction when I receive spam on MySpace: I delete it. That's exactly what I did with this note, before I really even read it. Then I found a friend request from him, too, and decided to visit RobinHood Press's MySpace page. It's nothing to write home about, so to speak, so I also clicked over to the Robin Hood Press website.

This is where it gets scary. Nathaniel Hammel apparently fancies himself both a writer and a graphic artist. The main page of his website states:

All artwork and graphics are not all mine, like the one to the left. I do not remember where I received these images due to the fact that I go through so many, but I give respect and acknowledgement to all the artist which [sic] created these pictures and graphics. The only graphics I claim Are the ones located in the My Graphics Page.

Basically, he's announcing that he's using other artists' work without permission - without even knowing who they are! How does someone with absolutely no understanding of copyright law even think he can go into the publishing business?

After the outraged email I sent him, he may remove or change the text - but whether he will remove the artwork, who knows.

After sending him my email, I browsed his site a little more. I was appalled by how bad the writing is - simple words are misspelled, commas are misused, etc. After noting the frequent mistakes, I checked the email I had deleted, and sure enough - that has several mistakes, as well.

I think Nathaniel Hammel is a scumbag for using other artists' work without their permission, not to mention mildly stupid for allowing so many mistakes in his portfolio, website copy, and even the "marketing" letters he sends out. And like I said, I highly doubt that RobinHood Press is going to go anywhere. Even so, I recommend that my fellow writers stay far, far away from anyone who shows this little professionalism.