This is a tricky situation, especially with regard to the Web,
and I was assessing it as part of my recent MSc dissertation.

Firstly, copyright --

"copyright is a social contract.  More than any other type of property, it
depends for its existence on the consent of all parties."
http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/04-03/strong.html

Problems arise due to the fact that there *is* no common
consent across the board, among writers, publishers, teachers, etc.

Second, poems are what may be described as mobile,
autonomous units, not 'extracts' from their parent volume --
a 2-line poem may be a whole poem as much as a 200-line
poem, and thus liable to copyright law in the same way.  This
more than anything makes them vulnerable.  Also, being whole
units, and being poems, their 'success' (for want of a better word)
*depends* on their totality to some degree, i.e. reproduction
in full.  Unless you're quoting a section from 'The Man with the
Blue Guitar' . . . even so, a section may be a whole in itself.
In general, quoting a poem with the final stanza missing is to
disfigure the piece -- and since poetry resists paraphrasing
to the death, it's not as if there's any workable options.

The Web -- you can argue that the dissemination (visibility) of
poetry is the *one* thing that will generate book sales -- not
publisher's blurbs or reviews by others.  Take the example of the
old thread 'Recommendations' -- I bought two books on the
strength of reading one poem by each author, authors whose
work I wouldn't otherwise have had access to (US authors, not
in the local library, nothing on the bookshelves).  The questionnaire
I sent out to some members of the list -- over half the respondants
said they'd buy a book on the strength of reading *one* poem.

There are specialist publishers on the Web (technical and medical)
who now publish *entire* books online, while also providing  the
opportunity to buy the print version.  Guess what?  Print sales of
those books have increased.  Nobody wants to read a book from
a PC screen -- access to the full text, however, provides a means
of accessing the contents in the same way as you'd browse in
a bookstore, and thus make an informed choice before making
a purchase.

I think the difficult fact of the matter is that as long as poetry is
consigned by copyright to the pages of a book only, sales will
continue to be minimal.  How else is poetry to be accessed?
TV?  No . . . . radio?  Hardly . . . national press?  Rarely.  On this
point, and since Muldoon sparked off this topic, I first bought
a book of his after reading one of his poems in the Sunday
papers.

Potentially, the Web can do the same for book sales.  As it is,
companies like Faber are constantly policing Web sites for
Hughes, Plath and Heaney poems, posted on home pages for
the sole intention of expressing what has become meaningful
for people . . . and potentially meaningful / important for others.
One poetry editor I spoke to mentioned that any poems
published on their site would be "protected against downloading" --
which is impossible, unless the text is uploaded as an image
file.  Shows the amount of nervousness and also ignorance
about the matter.

The issue of 'protection' -- isn't there a danger of relegating
poetry to a copyright Zoo?

Personally speaking, if anyone wanted to reproduce any one of
my poems for any reason (Web, photocopy) I'd be OK with it.
If nothing else it's free advertising!!  The only problem I can see
would be if someone was gaining financially from this act
(Sheenagh's point about anthologies).

Poetry will never sell unless it's visible and accessible . . except
to those who already know what they want.  Potential new
readers will be just as much in the dark as they've ever been --
and the Web provides an astounding chance to spread the word
and -- ultimately -- sell books.  Which is what it's all about, isn't it?


Andy



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%