Many thanks, Andy, for this terrific post, from which I learned
a lot--and all the more so for the URL you include here, which
took me to the excellent JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING. Also
appreciated how clearly you laid out some very complicated web-/
print-publishing entanglements and their attendant ensnarements
for the unwary (namely, the uninformed). Your twofold point
about the need both to respect a poem's singular integrity,
qua poem, and to recognize the powerful role it can play as
part of a volume in attracting readers (who may also be buyers)
to that book as a whole is right-on (IMHO), so thanks for that
too--Candice


Andy Jackson wrote:

>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?



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