Btw, Douglas, I wouldn't be too sure of being too small to be part of
the Google thing. Google would be looking very hard at the long tail -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Tail - which is where people are
making money these days.
xA
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Chris et al - had some sleep now! Well, any publisher/author/maker
> who attacks their fanbase is idiotic indeed. Anne Rice herself is
> notorious for throwing a huge hissy fit at readers who thought her
> books were shlocky and said so on amazon, whereupon she was made much
> mock of. And still is. But that hasn't sometimes stopped corporations
> (not usually authors, though there are a few that take exception) from
> trying to stop fans from using copyrighted stuff. Even Warner Bros was
> forced to step back from closing all the Harry Potter fansites which
> had been going for years when the movies came out - but in that case
> Rowling spoke up for them. (Until, that is, they wanted to publish an
> HP encyclopaedia).
>
> I think most authors quite like it. When I found out about fan
> fiction, I was charmed - it seemed rather wonderful that people were
> so taken with my world and characters that they wanted to make their
> own stories/art/videos about it. Even if it sometimes gets all slashy.
> (But that's often hilarious.)
>
> As far as I know, the Star Trek base remains as enthusiastic as ever -
> it would be one of the more powerful fanbases: most unwise to piss
> them off. But this goes way beyond the Trekkie cliche - there are
> fanbases for almost every kind of writing you can imagine, not just
> genre literature. It's hard to imagine how anyone would actually stop
> the literary fan phenomenon, which is huge and often forces publishers
> to behave - witness the recent incidents where Bloomsbury has put a
> white character on the cover art of novels with a coloured protagonist
> - the subsequent online reader outrage forced them to change the
> cover. The line, which is self policed pretty fiercely in fanfic
> communities, is that people don't seek to make money from their
> derivative works, although there's a little informal selling of
> artworks.
>
> Anyway, it's fascinating stuff - at least, I find it fascinating -
> chaotic and anarchic and sometimes unexpectedly funny and charming.
> It's at the other end of the spectrum from Google.
>
> xA
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Chris Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 15:52 -0700, Douglas Barbour wrote:
>>> especially the part about not worrying
>>> about what's on the net
>>
>> I most certainly would not do anything about stopping illicit downloads
>> by fans. The lessons of what happened to the Star Trek fan base, where
>> fans where in technical breach of copyright and making up Star Trek
>> stories using downloaded footage, or something like that, and the
>> copyright holder put its foot down intending to stop this from
>> happening. What happened is the fan based collapsed as if almost
>> overnight and as a result far more money was lost then would have been
>> gained. Don't know the outcome of this, but Star Trek may still be on
>> the nose. See:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions
>>
>> Non-realist popular genres have quasi illicit characteristics and this
>> is a big part of the appeal, as against the proper and real. Anne Rice's
>> Lestat is a good example, implicitly homosexual and filthy rich
>> (vampires in gothic lit are traditionally homosexual, of course.)
>>
>> Stamp down on this quasi-illicit activity and kiss your royalties
>> goodbye... the risk is too high. The difficulty would be knowing what to
>> say if you get cornered by fans and asked about this, I would guess.
>>
>>
>> As for google, I do read the excerpts of books I am interested in
>> buying. In a real bookstore I can read as much of the book as I wish (at
>> least with my bookseller since I already have a rep as being eccentric
>> enough to do something like this.) I have recently ordered 2 books based
>> on the google excerpts, one being Liz Grosz's book. Other then this,
>> excerpts from websites I find. It is just that google tweaks the search
>> to its scans. Most of these are academic titles, and it makes sense to
>> target this by google given the very large market of more costly books
>> which helps with google's advertising revenues which is where it makes
>> its money. For myself, I would be inclined to opt in or say yes: But,
>> listening to your agent or publisher may be best advice, of course.
>>
>> I only have one poetry book which sold around 300 to 400 copies so I
>> donated my royalties back to the publisher. This turned out to be a good
>> deal since the publisher posted me 20 remainer copies which sell on the
>> collectors market for around $30. Obviously, a book is much more then
>> what I wrote, the designer was arrested and deported after his boyfriend
>> died of aids as the book went to press etc. Perhaps I should approach
>> google and ask them to digitise and put it online?
>>
>> CAL has advised not to give copyright away on the book and my lawyers
>> would probably shoot me but at least excerpts shouldn't hurt?
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
> Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
>
--
Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
|
