Friday, February 27, 2009 by Julie Cancio Harper.

Wow.

Time flies when you pick your life up by the root and once again move it across country.

It’s been since May 2008 when I last wrote here and I am astounded when I look at the tally.   A bit more than 39 weeks.  Or exactly 277 days.

The thumbnail to bring everything up to speed goes like this:

• Packed up everything and left Los Angeles.  Goodbye, 1-bedroom apartment.
• Moved back to Ohio.  Hello, 4-bedroom house for half the price of previous 1-bedroom apartment.
• [Insert period of utter physical, mental, spiritual, psychological, energetic, creative exhaustion.  Dead space.  Quiet space.  Pause.]

and . . . here we are, up to speed.

I am not quite myself yet.  But I thaw out a little more each day.  And I’m ready to begin reclaiming the blogging portion of my life — one word at a time, one foot after the other, baby steps out the door.

Thanks so much for stopping by.

Posted in blogs & blogging, balance, los angeles, youngstown, change your mind | 3 Comments »

Monday, May 19, 2008 by Julie Cancio Harper.

A colleague at the Editorial Freelancers Association asked for information on blogging and copyright in the U.S. after he read a U.K. blogger’s post at Real E Fun on “Copyrights and Copywrongs.” As a copyright and permissions editor who also blogs, I had a pretty strong reaction to the U.K. blogger’s report on copyright infringement by the Daily Mail.

It helps if you read “Copyrights and Copywrongs” before reading my slightly emotional assessment.

— Good. Now on to the copyright rant. —

The whole idea that only “professional writers” qualify for reprint fees is loony. And that bloggers are not professional writers, so their work can be used for free — bah!

Not only do many professional writers blog, but whether “you’ve been paid for it” (the only actual difference between “professional” and “amateur” writers) has NOTHING to do with copyright protection. If the newspaper liked the writing well enough to print it, then they better well pay a reprint fee. What stuffy nonsense!

(I must be miffed. Look at all those scare quotes!)

The same reasoning in the U.K. article applies in the U.S. That is, blog authors hold copyright to their work until they’ve signed a contract to transfer it to someone else. Posting content on the Internet does not place it in the public domain. If another publication (print or electronic) wants to reprint a blog entry, that publication must first obtain permission from the blogger.

I have a copyright statement on my blog that lists an email address where I can be reached to make it easy for people to write and request permission. If you like my writing, c’mon and shoot me an email if you’d like permission to run it somewhere else. I would love to hear from you. If I really, really like you I may even decide to grant you permission for FREE! Or we could barter. I like stuff. Do you have stuff? Or we can do it the old-fashioned way and you can give me money for a non-exclusive reprint license. I’d like that, too. It’s easy and fun! Let’s be friends.

You never know until you ask. But you do have to ask. Because reprinting someone else’s work without permission is copyright infringement. Which is breaking the law. Which is a crime. Why commit a crime when you can just send an email (or fax or letter by courier pigeon) and ask for permission?

My friend at the EFA writes his blog anonymously and he wondered if that had any effect on copyright issues. My answer: He still holds copyright to his blog. The downside of anonymity is that it makes it more difficult for other publishers to find him to request permission. But it does not mean that publishers have a legal right to skip obtaining permission just because he is difficult to find.

Of course, this doesn’t stop people from using the copyright-holder-is-too-hard-to-find argument and reprinting material without permission. People sometimes do and believe whatever they like until they’re caught and dragged into court. But this argument is still generally inexcusable.

(A total aside: U.S. lawmakers are still working out what we’re supposed to do about actual orphan works — and orphan works are a whole other kettle of fish that I’ll have to discuss some other time. Check out LibraryLaw Blog’s “Why We Need Help with Orphan Works” for a start.)

I find that most people who complain are not actually talking about legitimate orphan works anyway. Upon further inspection, they’re talking about regular permissions that they are too lazy to clear. I have heard many whines and grumbles — from publishing professionals and amateurs alike — about “Can’t we just say it’s fair use? Why doesn’t my single Google name search qualify as due diligence? It’s so HARD to research copyright holders and get permissions . . .”

Well, my answer is dry your tears. This is business so just do the math. You can either 1) do the work and get permission, 2) drop the material, or 3) hire a lawyer willing to fight for lame excuses in court once you’ve been sued. Your financial advisor can confirm that permissions editors are much cheaper than lawyers.

If you prefer to write anonymously as a blogger, perhaps you might consider getting a special email address you can list on your blog so that people seeking permission can contact you this way. And you can still put some sort of copyright notice on your blog, but you might shy away from the U.S. Copyright Office’s sanctioned format because it will include your name: Copyright YEAR NAME.

I don’t know how much protection you’d have by signing with your blogger identity, as in “Copyright 2008 The Anonymous Blogger.” Since I blog using my full name, it’s not been an issue I’ve had to research. But when in doubt you can always go back to the source. The U.S. Copyright Office provides many informative publications that should reveal what is at stake for an anonymous blogger. Circular 1: Copyright Office Basics is a good place to start.

Also, if you want a reprint fee for use of your work, at that point you’re going to have to lose some anonymity if you want someone to write you a check.

There is a lot of copyright education that still needs to be done — as you can tell from the U.K. author’s post, the misconception that “if it’s on the Internet, it’s free” directly affects all copyright holders. Also, as a permissions editor, I spend a fair amount of time reviewing these issues for clients and colleagues. If you have a particular question, please shout it out in the comments section or send me an email.

I’ve thought about copyright issues regarding my blog and I’ve decided that it’s still worth blogging even if being on the web makes it extremely easy for people to steal my writing. What I’ve decided to do is monitor my Internet presence through Google vanity searches. I periodically look up my name and key sentences from blog posts to see if I’ve been poached. So far so good.

But if (maybe when?) I do find someone who has made an unauthorized reprint online, I look forward to going after them (and my paycheck). As for unauthorized reprints in print publications, well, it is true that I can’t read everything ever published. But if I come across an infringement in print (or receive a heads-up from a friend), I’ll go after that paycheck as well. I’ll give no freebies after a copyright infringement.

Updated May 20, 2008: Colleagues have also pointed me to two other articles of interest on the pending Orphan Works legislation.

Today the New York Times ran an op-ed piece called “Little Orphan Artworks,” by  Lawrence Lessig.

And attorney and author Joy Butler covered the issue yesterday on her blog, Guide Through the Legal Jungle, with a post called “What Copyright Orphan Work Legislation Does and Does Not Do.”

Posted in copyright & permissions, blogs & blogging, publishing, attitudes, change your mind, books, freelance, editing, enthusiasms | 1 Comment »

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 by Julie Cancio Harper.

In the midst of the plumbing craziness, I’ve received an equal and opposite jolt! Today Lori Cates Hand, who blogs at Publishing Careers, has directed her readers to Learning To Eat — and with glowing praise. Thank you, Lori!

In her post, Lori mentions that Learning To Eat is mostly a food blog, and I would agree. But food comes in many forms. Finding your True Work and doing it with all your might brings a very wholesome sense of joy, just like preparing and eating a homecooked meal. It fills you up and makes you hungry for more.

Working from home integrates my work life and home life into one giant 24/7 occupation 365 days a year. And at times it will look on the page to be about two parts food to one part publishing. As we dig into the busy season in the coming months, the balance will shift towards publishing shop talk. And then back again towards food toward the end of the year.

This is the annual cycle of my life as a freelancer. And the cycle of learning to find work, do work, get paid for the work, pay the bills, buy the groceries, keep myself motivated and working and growing forward — this is what I mean by Learning To Eat. I’m only just starting and the scope will unfold as I blog along.

I thank you all for reading and for your comments. And I especially thank Lori as one of my earliest inspirations and supporters for sharing my freelance life through this blog.

Posted in balance, blogs & blogging, publishing, attitudes, editing, love, energy, freelance, celebration | 4 Comments »

Friday, April 11, 2008 by Julie Cancio Harper.

The Los Angeles Times sponsors a food blog called Daily Dish, which I read and enjoy (and have now added to the blogroll).

There is an unfortunate error in their post dated April 9: “Chicken and waffle feud”

What they claim is a case of copyright infringement is actually a trademark dispute, as reported in an Associated Press article available from the LA Daily News. See “Roscoe’s sues Rosscoe’s over trademark rights” for accurate yet brief coverage.

I’ve been thinking about blogs lately, and the responsibility I have to readers as a blogger. Bloggers are publishers in the sense that we put print (and other content like audio and video) into the universe. We don’t need much more than access to the Internet and basic word processing skills to do it. We each decide on our own editorial standards. We look up to our mentors and try to outshine our competitors, in a sibling rivalry sort of way.

This is a pretty loose type of writing, so there is a wide range of content and quality out here in the blogosphere. I accept that errors happen. Sometimes readers give a shout when something’s amiss, and bless them for reminding us to get it right because we’re not singing to ourselves alone out here.

But having the Daily Dish, which is staffed by professionals at the LA Times, post such a serious error is a bummer. I take my responsibility for accuracy and fact-checking seriously, even as a beginner. If it was a misspelling or a punctuation error, I would think “must be a typo” and leave it without comment. But there is a pretty extreme difference between copyright and trademark. And anyone working in any kind of publishing should either know the difference or make sure to pass on the newswire transmission word-for-word.

The U.S. Copyright Office defines copyright as “a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of ‘original works of authorship,’ including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works.” Many creative works qualify for copyright protection, but business names do not. They are protected by trademark.

According to attorney Lloyd J. Jassin who provides “Trademark Basics” at Copylaw.com, “trademark law protects names, titles, short phrases and other symbols that distinguish the source of one product (or service) from another” and affect business and marketing efforts. The “other symbols” mentioned by Jassin include business logos, such as the waffle background and chicken foreground made famous by the original Roscoe’s in Los Angeles.

See “Copyrights vs. Trademarks: Related but Different” at Copylaw.com and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for more information.

In the lawsuit involving two houses of chicken and waffles, the famous Roscoe’s in Los Angeles objects to another restaurant’s similar name and logo because those marks of trade make it difficult for the businesses to be distinguished from one another. The suggestion is that Rosscoe’s deliberately means to deprive Roscoe’s of sales. This is especially important now that the famous Roscoe’s is opening a restaurant in the Chicago area where Rosscoe’s currently does business.

So, for the record and as a public service dedicated to accuracy in the blogosphere, I present this information.

And now that I have, I’m pretty much starving for chicken and waffles. Where the heck did I put that waffle iron?

Posted in blogs & blogging, publishing, copyright & permissions, los angeles, attitudes, trademark, editing | 4 Comments »