Peter Howard wrote:
>Er, um...
>
>Is this the same Wannabe Inciting-to-Riot Grrl who took the piss out of
>me something rotten a while back when I suggested that I'd be more
>flattered than annoyed if someone reproduced one of my poems without
>permission?
I've been expecting this all day.
Those listees who weren't around for the Beanie Baby Bean Fest to
which Peter is (somewhat confusedly) referring will have to get the
Snakeskinny on it for themselves. I'll just remind Peter that what
he actually claimed at the time was that he'd be flattered if someone
CUT UP one of his poems, threw it in a JAVA grinder with bits of poems
by others, and made a strange (but not very interesting) brew of it--
without his or anyone else's permission. That's not reproducing a
poem; it's disfiguring it--which is strictly forbidden under US
copyright law.
What's being discussed in the here and now of Hooly Tuesday is quoting
a sonnet in its entirety--hence protecting and preserving its integrity
as an artwork entitled _by law_ to such respectful treatment (not to
mention the form's being made mincemeat of by any partial quotation) in
the course of a discussion ("fair use") that's already under way among
several members of a _discussion group_, one which just happens to meet
on-line and whose members cannot therefore be handed a photocopy of the
poem, as is commonly done in off-line poetry discussion groups.
As Peter himself says here, the issues are "complex," but that's not
to say they're unclear.
Ok, JK, over to you for the rest--Candice
>And is this the same jk against copyright who has asserted his right
>under Section 77 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be
>identified as the author of this [Poems 1980-1994 e.g.] work?
>
>If you say that posting to an email list is different from publishing on
>a website, remember that all messages posted here are publicly available
>via the web for a period of two years, longer than many other sites
>last.
>
>I'm only being (I hope it's received this way) playfully adversarial,
>but I'm trying to suggest that the problem might be a bit more complex
>than a gung-ho "tear down the walls" approach might imply.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|