They did quote a whole big paragraph from my blog - so it was not just a
link. But I will hand with the 'fair use sense of things- - which is 300
word or so?
I will explore the Commons link.
Fundamentally you are right - that establishing everything as property will
quash dialog of any sort.
Just have to establish a difference between "conversation" and "theft."
Stephen V
http://stephenvincent.net/blog/
> On 9/20/06, Stephen Vincent <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Of course, I share my enthusiasm with a lawyer friend who says, the Guardian
>> should pay you for reprint rights. England is still a country where writers
>> have unions, etc., etc.
>>
>> I have not budged on that - you know how poets bow with gratitude with the
>> least bit of attention! Self-worth, poets and money - a foreign concept
>> that folks in power love to take for granted/ condescend to exploit, etc.
>> (that we will give anything away for attention, etc.)
>>
>
> Hmm. I suspect, Stephen that quoting you comes under "fair use" in
> copyright law. Of course, as my entire income (and my spouse's)
> derives from our creative writing, I am keen on being paid for it when
> it's appropriate. But I really have my doubts on this one.
>
> I expect that bothering The Guardian for reprint payments (not that
> they quoted me, merely linked) would probably mean the casual mention
> of the blog would simply vanish, which would be a shame: blogs live on
> links. And then, would it mean that I would I have to pay for reprint
> rights to all the blogs/articles/things of interest that I link to or
> quote? That pot might be better left unstirred...
>
> I am thinking of using the Creative Commons Licence on my blog,
> because it seems sheerly sensible and clear - up here
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/
>
> All the best
>
> A
>
>
|