 |
 |
I meant to say: I agree KEN. KS On 14/12/2007, kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I agree Mole. the issue of ownership/permission is tricky in poetry, > because it is the outcome of the writer's (sometimes questionable) > artifice & it's something the poet HAS & OWNS & loves as an entity -- > theft is a very unlikely scenario, especially for marginal or > underground-upcoming poets, but it's an automatic fear because of the > nature of a poet's work. > > copyright has come up recently for me, because I'm co-authoring a > collection of my & four other poets' work; we don't have the money to > purchase legal copyrights, but while the potential for theft of our > poems exists, it is a marginal & unlikely threat especially since our > collection will probably only find its way into the hands of a couple > hundred people, at best. the initiator & informal 'leader' of our > project, Alex Fear, said that the existence of our poems in a bound, > hard-copy, published book is enough to establish a copyright (or a > precedent, should someone be weird or foolish enough to use our poetry > elsewhere without permission *knock on wood*), even if it isn't > authorised in legal documents per se. > > what do you think, how important is a purchased copyright? absolutely > necessary? optional? not worth the trouble? > > KS > > On 14/12/2007, TheOldMole <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > I think she goes a little overboard with someone who sends copies of a > > poem to her friends, but otherwise right on. > > > > andrew burke wrote: > > > Nothing new here, but Wendy Cope attacking the non-copyright use of > > > poems on the Net: > > > http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2223830,00.html > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Tad Richards > > http://www.opus40.org/tadrichards/ > > http://opusforty.blogspot.com/ > > > > The moral is this: in American verse, > > The better you are, the pay is worse. > > --Corey Ford > > >