Techdirt. Stories filed under "comics"

What We Should Learn From Comic Creators Censoring Themselves For Apple

Timothy Geigner — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:00:58 PDT

On the heels of Tim Cushing's story about Apple threatening removal of a comics app due to what it deemed to be adult content, leading me to wonder whether Apple realizes that their devices are indeed used by adults throughout the world, it's worth highlighting something Cushing mentioned somewhat briefly. Beyond the obvious problem of Apple's clearly arbitrary morality, and even beyond the struggle of that comics distributor having to parse out what to do with their product, is the chilling effect walled gardens like Apple's app store have on everyone else.

Consider what occurred the past several days with Comixology and their comics app with respect to a specific book, Saga #12. Initially there was a fervor of anger at Apple, including by the creators of the comic themselves, over what appeared to be a banning of that book due to depictions of homosexual sex. As it turns out, it wasn't Apple who had censored the comic, but someone at Comixology instead. Comixology issued a letter of apology to their customers and to the creators of the Saga series, while also noting that Saga #12 will indeed be available in the app after all.

As a partner of Apple, we have an obligation to respect its policies for apps and the books offered in apps. Based on our understanding of those policies, we believed that Saga #12 could not be made available in our app, and so we did not release it today. We did not interpret the content in question as involving any particular sexual orientation, and frankly that would have been a completely irrelevant consideration under any circumstance. Given this, it should be clear that Apple did not reject Saga #12.

After hearing from Apple this morning, we can say that our interpretation of its policies was mistaken. You'll be glad to know that Saga #12 will be available on our App Store app soon. We apologize to Saga creator Brian K. Vaughn and Image Comics for any confusion this may have caused.

It is tantalizing to take the easy way out, blame Comixology for the screw up, and all go on with our days. It wasn't Apple's fault, they say. However, you can only reach that conclusion if you fail to understand the plain meaning of words in Comixology's apology. The only way to interpret this is to say that, yes, they self-censored the content in their own app because they feared the consequences of not doing so and running afoul of Apple's sincerely illogical attempt at being the morality police. This is the inevitable result of creating the walled garden, an Eden if you will. Either you conform to the rules of whatever overlord suits you in this analogy, and you are therefore limited in your freedom and expression, or else you act free and risk being expelled from the so-called paradise. Those that wish to remain in the ironically named Apple's walled garden must not attempt at biting from any forbidden fruit and must take overly-protective steps to ensure they don't appear to. As one commentor at Kotaku put it:

A sign that Big Brother has won is when you start censoring yourself, instead of simply speaking your mind and stand the critics afterwards.

Indeed. Fortunately, unlike any Adam or Eve, Brian Vaughn and Image Comics have other, less trodden upon gardens in which they can play should they choose. And for creators of anything not aimed at school children, it's beginning to become more and more necessary that they choose exactly that, or risk obtaining the wrath of a so-called partner that sees itself as a god.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Comic Strip Documentary Filmmakers Return To Kickstarter Because They're Scared Fair Use Won't Protect Them

Mike Masnick — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:01:00 PDT

A year and a half ago, two documentary filmmakers, Dave Kellett & Fred Schroeder, used Kickstarter to raise $109,025 for their film, Stripped, all about the comics industry -- covering both old time newspaper comic artists and the new generation of web comic artists (and the ongoing transition between the past and the future). Some were a bit surprised that the two popped back up on Kickstarter recently seeking to raise (at least) another $33,560, despite the original campaign and the fact that they say the movie is done:

So here's the great news: The movie is essentially *done*. It's filmed, edited, scored, and test-screened. Even the final sound mix, color correction, and closed captioning have already been budgeted for, thanks to the support of comics creators and fans.

In fact, the film looks really quite awesome. The bits with the "old guard," bitching about how, without newspapers, they can't make money, juxtaposed with the new guard (including the awesome quote: "get with the times, old man!") talking about how much opportunity there is, really fit well with the sort of business model discussions we have around here all the time. So, if the film is all ready, why go back to the well? Copyright law, apparently. They note that many of the artists and copyright holders were extremely cool and signed off on using their works and clips and whatnot for free. But not all:

We're using over 500 separate, copyrighted works in the film (400+ images, dozens of new and existing songs, and dozens of historical clips from TV, film, and newsreels). In all cases, we're seeking the global right to use footage/music/images in the documentary, in perpetuity, in all current and future mediums the film might show in. In 98% of these cases, the copyright holders have been amazingly generous, and given permission without fees, and with huge kindness.

But, then there's the 2% who are playing Scrooge, and saying "pay me, pay me, pay me." Total bill? $51,805 to get all the clips they want. They set a lower $33,560 tier to get what they consider the "essential" clips into the film, but are hoping for all of the clips to be licensed. They even made a handy dandy chart showing exactly how much everyone wanted: But, what about fair use? Well, a few years back, I wrote about a panel discussion I attended with some documentary filmmakers, entirely about fair use, in which they more or less said that you can rely on fair use if you want, but you're basically screwed if you do, because no partners will touch the film. You can't get E&O (errors & omissions) insurance without a crazy long list of every single clip and the details of it being licensed, and without E&O insurance, no one will distribute or show the film. Basically, fair use is useless for documentary filmmakers in many cases. Yes, folks like the Center for Social Media at American University have put together a Documentary Filmmakers Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use, hoping that this will calm the fears of insurance providers and third parties, so long as the filmmakers stick to the listed "best practices," but it's still a scary world out there.

In this case, the filmmakers go through a lengthy and detailed explanation for why they don't want to rely on fair use, and most of it details the basic chilling effects we're used to: you can't be sure until a court decides, a trial is lengthy and expensive (and a distraction from everything else), if they lose, the expense from statutory damages will be massive, etc. You can read the whole statement, but here's an abbreviated version, highlighting the key points that specifically have to do with copyright and fair use:

Ultimately, it comes down to three reasons: Potential lawsuits, how those potential lawsuits limit who sees the film, and cost.... We're hoping to distribute this film globally, not just in the U.S. So even if U.S. Fair Use would allow usage in the States, we'd still need to get clearance from the copyright holders elsewhere, country by country, in places where the Fair Use/Fair Lending laws differ.... we'd need to de-encrypt it from a DVD…which is illegal under the DMCA....

There are Fair Use lawsuits still working their way through the courts, having started in 2006. So at some point you have to ask yourself: Do you want to live in court? In the chance we end up being legally in the wrong about a claim of "Fair Usage" for this or that bit of footage, the statutory damages on copyright infringement could be pretty devastating to a little indie film like this. Even the legal fees to defend one court case (from among 500 separate pieces of copyrighted work, remember) could be a huge financial hit.

Even if we were absolutely sure of our Fair Use rights, absolutely sure of our ability to win in court, and absolutely sure that we'd be willing to devote a few years and tens of thousands toward defending that in court…we'd still have to get other stake-holders to accept that same liability. Distributors, networks, broadcasters, "Errors & Omissions Insurance" underwriters -- they'd all need to be willing to take on that same risk that our Fair Use was legally sound. That could be a deal-killer: You could end up with a completed film that wouldn't be shown or broadcast anywhere.

But the biggest one, for us, is... [we] want to be artists, not litigants. We want to make a film that celebrates the art of cartooning, not fight off a Fair Use lawsuit in court.

That said, they do name two other, non-copyright (directly) reasons for this, with the key one being that they want to ask for permission out of respect for the artists. That's a perfectly legitimate argument, but given that so many others donated the license for free, it still seems a little bit ridiculous for others to hold out, even if it is their legal right (fair use, notwithstanding). The other issue is that some of the works just aren't available or aren't available in high definition, without going to someone's private collection. And, obviously, they're not going to share that content without granting permission. That's a bit more understandable, but in the end, fair use is supposed to be about making these kinds of works available, and it's shame that, instead, it's just about taking money away from the artists who created this awesome looking film, and handing it over to (mostly) giant corporations, even though the film is mostly celebrating and promoting those other works.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

When Even Hilarious Web Comic Artists Are Mocking The Insanity Of The Patent System...

Mike Masnick — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 18:30:00 PDT

... isn't it about time that we recognize the patent system is really, really broken? Courtesy of the always awesome Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal (and my friend Tom who sent this over), I present to you, yet another example of "the patent system" being a punchline: Also, I splork we had more common sense around the patent system (and, since we're splorking, copyright and trademark as well).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Protecting The Artists? Disney's Marvel Uses Copyright To Crush Already Broke Ghost Rider Creator

Mike Masnick — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:05:42 PST

Five years ago, we wrote about Gary Friedrich, the creator of the comic book character Ghost Rider, and how he was suing tons of companies, claiming that the copyrights associated with Ghost Rider had reverted back to him in 2001. As we noted at the time, there were some questionable things about his lawsuit -- including the fact that he waited years until after a movie and video game had been created and released before suddenly going legal about it. However, apparently Marvel (owned by Disney), in its ultimate vindictiveness, turned around and countersued Friedrich and won, leading to a ridiculous situation: Friedrich, who is broke, is now supposed to pay Marvel $17,000 for Ghost Rider merchandise he had sold in the past. He also isn't supposed to say that he's the co-creator of Ghost Rider any more if saying so involves him getting any kind of commercial advantage.

The full ruling in the case makes it clear that Friedrich's copyright claims were suspect in the first place, as it appears he clearly handed over the copyrights on the character to Marvel. The legal stipulation covers the specific terms, including the $17k payment, and the injunction against using the words "Ghost Rider" in connection with the sale of any goods, merchandise or services (i.e., "pay to get the signature of the creator of Ghost Rider!").

While Friedrich appears to have clearly overreached in his initial claim, the vindictiveness of Marvel/Disney is pretty ridiculous here. There's simply no reason for the company to demand $17k from a broke Friedrich, and (on top of that) make it that much harder for him to actually earn the money to pay them. As some are pointing out, you should remember this story the next time big companies claim they want to strengthen copyright law to "protect the content creators."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Barnes & Noble Doesn't Get Digital DC Comics, Throws Hissy Fit

Zachary Knight — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:21:58 PDT

In a move that screams of a complete disconnect from reality, Barnes & Noble (B&N) has decided to remove over 100 DC comics from its shelves. This move is in reaction to DC giving Amazon exclusive e-publishing rights to the digital versions of those comics.

In a statement to CNN, Jaime Carey, B&N's chief merchant, said:

Regardless of the publisher, we will not stock physical books in our stores if we are not offered the available digital format. To sell and promote the physical book in our store showrooms and not have the e-book available for sale would undermine our promise to Barnes & Noble customers to make available any book, anywhere, anytime.

Read that again. Since B&N did not get the rights to the digital version of the comics, it will be denying customers access to the physical comics. How exactly does this fulfill the promise of providing DC comics "anywhere, anytime"? How are comic fans who frequent B&N supposed to get these comics if the comics are not available in-store? This move certainly flies in the face of that promise.

With this move, B&N is hoping to 'punish' DC with fewer sales. In reality, this will only tick off its comic loving customers who will have to go to another store in order to buy these comics. While this move will probably make B&N feel better, it will not result in any real change to its partnership with DC. This is yet another company putting its own interests ahead of the interests of its customers. Much like those other businesses, this is going to bite them in the butt and they will end up backtracking soon.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The End Of Taking Business Models For Granted

Mike Masnick — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:25:50 PST

About a year ago, we had a discussion about some comments made by Garry Trudeau, the creator of the comic strip Doonesbury, which has been an institution for 40 years or so. That post was in response to claims by Trudeau that the web was no place for comics to make money, and that the only hope for comics in the new digital era was to have the newspapers "come to their senses" and gate off all internet content behind a paywall of some sort. He effectively was looking for ways to turn the new world back into the old. We noted that perhaps Trudeau should check out the success of webcomics like Randall Munroe's xkcd, which showed how a webcomic could not just exist online, but thrive online -- with a very strong business model to support it.

Trudeau recently made some similar comments in a Slate interview, where he again appeared to be dissing the whole webcomics space:

Slate: Where is the comic strip headed in the post-daily-print-newspaper age? Is the medium healthy?

There's not much future in being a strip artist now. That's quite a turnaround in fortunes, because presiding over an established syndicated comic strip used to be the closest thing to tenure that popular culture offered. If I were starting out now, I'd probably continue on the graphic design trajectory I was on before I got sidetracked with comics. Colbert-like TV would be OK, too, except you have to be brilliant. I advise young cartoonists now to get into graphic novels--or head for Pixar.

Again, in general, our response is similar to what it was last time around. Thinking that there's no future in a space where we're already seeing creative individuals carve out quite impressive models seems pretty silly.

However, there was a fascinating deconstruction of Trudeau's comments on the PVPonline blog, suggesting that Trudeau is correct... in talking about the lack of a future for those who want a career like the traditional syndicated comic strip artist. The folks who have lived off of that model for years probably don't have much of a future, because they're so used to making money in one way, that they're not quite prepared to make the jump -- even if there is plenty of money to be made.

Furthermore, the post picks up on that line about tenure, and how that's really the key here:

Boy, isn't that the truth? And isn't that the real reason that syndicates are getting less and less for their features every year? Because presiding over an established syndicated comic strip is tenure for both the creator and their syndicate partner. Just put it on auto-pilot until the artist dies, then get a new artist and put the auto-pilot back on.

In this interview, Garry discusses his friends Gary Larsen and Bill Watterson, both who felt the time had come to retire from cartooning. And having read interviews with both of those cartoonists, they seem like creators very uncomfortable with the idea of "tenure." But again, how feasible is it for a cartoonist with 20 plus years under his belt to re-invent what they do or start from scratch?

I do a lot of soul searching about what I do for a living. I think about it a lot. The last thing I want to do is take it for granted. And as I reflect on my one measly decade of cartooning, I see an obvious pattern. It's during the times I was most comfortable that things started falling apart. And it was during the moments of struggle, upheaval, change and dissatisfaction with my work that I turned the most important corners.

I think there's actually a much larger point here that applies to much of what we write here at Techdirt. So many of the legacy business models that we talk about really are a kind of "tenure." They're on autopilot. The major record labels know how to sell CDs. Give them a certain type of artist, and they can sell a huge number of units. It's autopilot. But that kind of "tenure" and "autopilot" is going away (or perhaps is already gone).

To be successful today there is no autopilot. There is no magic bullet. It involves constant innovating and refinement -- and that's quite difficult to deal with for those who have had "tenure" for years. The idea behind tenure at universities is that it encourages professors to feel free to research what they want, free of pressure from the university. And that works for some. But, for many, it also means the opposite: with tenure, you can just keep going, without working on anything special or worrying about doing anything big. And that's what we've seen in all sorts of legacy industries that effectively stagnated, due to the easy money of a "tenured" sort of position. But the new digital world is one where there aren't any tenured business models. This doesn't mean you can't make money (or even lots of money -- you can). But it involves constantly evolving, experimenting and innovating. And many of us think that's a good thing.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Interview With The Guy Who Embraced The 'Pirates' Of 4chan

Mike Masnick — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:52:00 PDT

This week, for our Case Study Series (check that link to see all previous case studies), we've got a fun one. Last week, we wrote about Steve Lieber, the comic artist who discovered his recent work Underground was being scanned and placed online in a 4chan forum. That story generated a ton of discussion, with some criticism, and plenty of interest in Steve's overall story. Steve agreed to do this interview, and to make it even better, his studio-mate Erika Moen, who jumped into the conversation both on 4chan and here at Techdirt joined the interview as well. Erika's perhaps most well-known for her comic DAR!. The top portion of this post will be the case study writeup, based on my conversation with both Steve and Erika, and after the jump I have the entire transcript of the interview if you'd like to see the full thing.

One of the points that we really try to get across here on Techdirt in discussing various business models and dealing with a changing marketplace is that one of the absolute key aspects is learning how to connect with fans (CwF) at a really deep level. That means a few things: it means going beyond just checking the boxes, but figuring out (a) what your fans want from you and (b) how you might deliver it, even if it may be contrary to your initial impression. And, part of that is often recognizing that when people are making unauthorized copies of your work, it's not because they're "thieves" or "immoral" or (as one of our commenters insists) "douchebags." Often, it's because they really love the work, and they want to experience it in a different way or they want to share that with others. What some people look at as "piracy," others realize is part of the way humans experience culture.

So, given that this is happening, there are all sorts of ways you can react. You can resort to the insults and name calling. You can call the lawyers and the FBI and send out angry announcements. You can call up your local elected official or pay for a lobbyist to "change the laws!" Or... you can embrace the fans, understand (1) what it is they're trying to tell you, (2) see if there's any way to provide that, and (3) use the sharing to your advantage. Now, when we posted Steve Lieber's story, one of the points that we tried to highlight in the post was that this wasn't just a case of "piracy leading to greater sales." That's similar to the whole "give it away and pray" concept. Instead, what made the Lieber story interesting was that it was clear that he engaged these fans (both old and new), and that's what drove them to want to support him and his work.

The moral of the story was not "gee, 'piracy' is good." The moral of the story was that engaging your fans in intelligent and meaningful ways, often where and how they want to engage can help you do much better than you would have otherwise. It doesn't mean "engage and you're an automatic success." It doesn't mean "engage and you'll never have to work again." It means "engage and you'll do better than you would have otherwise."

Lieber's case is a clear example of that. He admits that when he first heard about his work he had "the usual knee-jerk irritation," assuming that there was just some massive datadump of links to downloads. But when he went to 4chan, he realized it was something different:

I assumed I'd see a rapidshare link to a zip file with my book and twenty others, and someone posting a picture of a horse autopsy. Instead I arrived up at /co/ and saw a long thread in which "Internet Man," the guy who posted my book, had done so one page at a time. He had to hit "browse" and "upload" over a hundred times to post the book, and all throughout, he was talking about how great it was, nagging people to read it and discuss the story with him. That didn't feel like a pirate. That felt like a fan. And indeed, some people were starting to talk about it. So I did what I always do. I joined the conversation.

Meanwhile, his studio-mate, Erika, joined the conversation for a couple of reasons. Not only is she just interested in the whole business model issue, and loves to get involved in such discussions, she also wanted to plug Steve's book, noting that he had been "too much of a gentleman" to suggest people buy the physical book.

I actually found this part of Erika's response the most fascinating of all. Part of the reason she joined the conversation was to share and help others learn from the overall experience. It's a recognition of how a true community works, where different folks in the community help each other out:

The second time I spoke up was to explain the logic behind why someone would publish their book for no pay. If you have no experience in the comics world and are unfamiliar with how Image works, yes, that could look like a bad deal. The world of publishing is completely fascinating to me and I love to prattle on about it any chance I get. At the last Stumptown Comics Fest I even hosted and recorded a panel on self-publishing, because the more people that are informed, the more people can try it out for themselves. I never could have produced all my books and navigated being self-employed without all the help and support I received from my friends who had done it before me, so I like to pay it forward to anyone if I can.

Erika's definitely been a big believer not just in engaging with the community, but also in how "free" can be an important component of a business model, noting that DAR!, as a free comic, acts as an advertisement for the books of archives, which she can sell. She's also realized that free can create new opportunities, even in the physical world:

There is one active marketing tool that I do use at comic conventions that has really helped. I give away a free sampler of the comic in the form of a single sheet of printer paper, folded in half to be a flier containing four of my favorite strips. I spend about $40 on 500 copies and almost always run out by the end of the convention--which large portion of my sales coming from people who had never seen my comic before coming back to buy the book because they enjoyed the sampler. It has been genuinely effective. I can count on the fact that I will sell at least 100 books a con and I have no doubt the flier is the cause behind half of those sales.

While Steve has always been big into engaging with fans, he hadn't thought that much about the value of free works in combination with that engagement, but that's changing. He says that after this experience, he's definitely going to make more works downloadable and shareable. Some of his work is with the big comic shops (his next book is from DC Comics), and he doubts he'll be able to release those freely, but his own works are going to be available. Part of this experience was making the key realization that obscurity appears to be a much bigger problem than piracy:

Scans of my comics are sitting on hundreds of servers in countries I can't even spell. My stuff will be out there for free, no matter what. Ok. So now what? My goal is to tell good comics stories. I'd like people to read them in print editions, because I love print, and I think that's where I think my art looks best. Everything I've seen tells me that the people who have read my work digitally are more likely to pick it up in print than people who don't know my stuff at all.

Of course, the big question that caused a lot of discussion was how well did the comic actually sell, with some arguing that the following chart, without a scale or absolute numbers didn't tell very much: However, the details suggest that this little engagement did quite well. Again, even if you didn't have the absolute numbers, the key point that we've been highlighting is that by engaging, you can do better than you would have otherwise, and that seems quite clear from the chart, no matter what the absolute numbers are. However, let's dig into some of the details. First, it's important to note that, while the book got tremendous reviews, it just didn't sell very well. Steve noted that both he and Jeff Parker (the author of Underground) have decently high profiles due to past and current work, but for whatever reason, Underground just didn't sell all that well when it was released. As he noted "it happens," and said that "we gave it our best shot and it was time to move on." So they had pretty much stopped thinking about Underground until all this happened.

So, once Steve (and Erika) engaged, what happened? Well, the book went from a random sale every here and there via their Etsy store, to over 150 sales in just as few days. And that's just the versions on Etsy (which contained a few different options), with the most popular being the signed book by the Jeff and Steve. The book (unsigned) is also available on Amazon, and Steve and Jeff won't know about sales there until their next monthly statement, however, there are indications that it's been selling well on Amazon as well -- and... people have just been hitting the "donate" button on the website as well:

Our Amazon rankings skyrocketed and stayed there for days. We were listed as #7 on Amazon's manga list, (a weird classification, but whatever.) And on the charts for our own publisher, Image Comics, we were the only book to crack the top ten that wasn't a volume of The Walking Dead (source of the much-hyped AMC tv series.) The donation button been insane too. Lots of $5.00 donations with requests for another book.

The key point in all of this, again, comes back to the one thing that we started this case study off with: the engagement was key. Connecting with the fans, in combination with the free work, is what made this work. Erika noted that many of the people who ordered on Etsy or who donated left notes basically saying that it was Steve's "totally awesome" participation in the community that drove them to willingly (happily) give him their money. She also notes that Steve didn't just join in the conversation, but he really got involved. As she noted she saw him go in there "out-niceing and out-classing everyone, even the people trying to troll him." That seems to have worked wonders...

Thanks to Steve and Erika for taking the time, and if you'd like to learn more about them, here's Steve's website and his Twitter account. Here's Erika's website and her Twitter account. And, of course, here are the links to the works they discussed, Underground and DAR!, where you can find out all you need to know about their works and ways to support both Steve and Erika.

The full transcript of the interview is after the jump for those who want to read it...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

More Comics About Copyright

Mike Masnick — Thu, 7 Oct 2010 04:17:14 PDT

We recently wrote about how James Boyle, along with two other law professors, was putting together a comic book about copyright. It looks some others are thinking along the same lines (and, nicely, using Boyle's recent book as part of their inspiration). Someone sent over a link to the Jolly Roger comic book, which goes through the history of copyright in about 60 pages. Apparently, the original comic was in French, but this version has been translated to English. It highlights how copyright originally had nothing to do with artist's rights, but was initially a tool for royal censorship via printers and publishers. It highlights how copyright changed over time, and (obviously) spends lots of time on more recent happenings in the copyright world:

It discusses things like ACTA as well:

And even goes on to discuss how these same issues are playing out not just in copyright, but in many other areas concerning censorship and user rights as well:

Anyway, at 60 pages, it's definitely a pretty quick read. It's available in a web version as well as two ebook versions. My only issues with it are that I think it still focuses too much on the whole idea that copyright is about balance. As I've said in the past, it would only be about balance if it were a zero-sum game, but the evidence suggests that content is a non-zero sum game, and it's possible to look for ways to benefit everyone, rather than looking for trade-offs. Separately, while it's great that they're using a Creative Commons license, I'm a bit disappointed that they've gone with a "non-commercial" license, which can be problematic. In fact, because of the "noncommercial" part, I hesitated about posting this story. After all, we are a commercial site, and I wanted to make sure to include some images, but technically I might be violating their CC license, and that seemed like too much trouble. However, in reading the comic, I felt that it's probably okay for me to discuss the comic in this matter... but just the fact that I had to consider it, and even thought about not posting it should, again, suggest why such licenses barring non-commercial use can cause more trouble than they're worth.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

If The Major Record Labels Tried To Adopt The 'Radiohead' Model...

Mike Masnick — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:22:15 PDT

A whole bunch of you have been sending in the recent Toothpaste for Dinner cartoon about how the RIAA/major record labels would "adopt the Radiohead model" if they ever really thought about it: While it is amusing, there's a lot of truth behind that comic (which is part of what makes it funny). We keep seeing people misleadingly claim that if you talk about "free" in one context, you must mean everything should be free. That kind of thinking comes out of the labels all too often, so you could totally see them saying that "well, if pay what you want is supposed to work for buying music, why not for paying people..."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Upcoming Comic Book By Law Professors Compares ACTA To 1984

Mike Masnick — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:36:00 PDT

Thanks to James Boyle, I have a lovely paper copy of Bound by Law on my office bookshelf. It's a comic book/graphic novel put together by three law professors to explain the public domain and the importance of fair use. I knew they'd been working on a new graphic novel as well, and SF Gate recently revealed some details about the new comic, to be called Theft: A History of Music, and revealing a nice graphic image to give you an idea of what it's about, including a comparison between 1984 and ACTA (click through to see a much larger version):

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Mark Waid Explains: Culture Is More Important Than Copyright & It's Time To Look For Opportunities In Sharing

Mike Masnick — Fri, 3 Sep 2010 08:42:50 PDT

We recently wrote about comic book writer Mark Waid's supposedly controversial keynote speech at the Harvey Awards, where he talked about copyright, the public domain and learning to embrace file sharing. Beyond the general controversy, a lot of people apparently misinterpreted his talk to be anti-copyright and anti-making money (we get that a lot around here too). So he's now posted a written out version of his talk that seeks to clarify many of his points (thanks to Robert Ring for sending this in). It's a great read, and hits on many of the points that we normally talk about here. Specifically, copyright is supposed to benefit the public and that file sharing isn't going away, so you're better off embracing it and using it to your advantage, rather than whining about it. Nice to see more people recognizing this. It also has a great line:

culture is more important than copyright

I'm trying to understand anyone who would disagree with this statement, but so often we hear people say that they have to defend their copyrights "on principle," even if not defending them is better for culture. But the key point of his article is that fearing file sharing and attacking it doesn't help. It doesn't stop it from happening and it provides no real advantage to those doing the attacking. So he suggests it's time to figure out ways to turn it into an opportunity:

Like it or not, downloading is here. Torrents and filesharing are here. That's not going away. I'm not here to attack it or defend it--I'm not going to change anyone's mind either way, and everyone in America at this point has anecdotal evidence "proving" how it hurts or helps the medium--but I am here to say it isn't going away--and fear of it, fear of filesharing, fear of illegal downloading, fear of how the internet changes publishing in the 21st century, that's a legitimate fear, because we're all worried about putting food on the table and leaving a legacy for our children, but we're using our energy on something we can't stop, because filesharing is not going away.

And I'll tell you why. It's not because people "like stealing." It's because the greatest societal change in the last five years is that we are entering an era of sharing. Twitter and YouTube and Facebook--they're all about sharing. Sharing links, sharing photographs, sending some video of some cat doing something stupid--that's the era we're entering. And whether or not you're sharing things that technically aren't yours to share, whether or not you're angry because you see this as a "generation of entitlement," that's not the issue--the issue is, it's happening, and the internet's ability to reward sharing has reignited this concept that the public domain has cultural value. And I understand if you are morally outraged about it and you believe to your core that an entire generation is criminal and they're taking food off your table, I respect that.

But moral outrage is often how we deal with fear. It's a false sense of empowerment in the face of fear.

Great stuff. Definitely go read the whole thing. He also mentions that he's got some plans in place for how he's going to embrace things like BitTorrent and run some interesting experiments. He points out that they're experiments, and there's no guarantee they'll work, but he wants to step forward and at least try to embrace it. This is great to hear, and I look forward to seeing what kind of experiments he runs.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Comic Book Writer Mark Waid Defends Copying, Points To The Value Of The Public Domain

Mike Masnick — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:51:03 PDT

Jaime points us to the news that famed comic writer Mark Waid gave a keynote talk at the comics' Harvey Awards event over the weekend, where he apparently gave a stirring defense of unauthorized downloading, content sharing and the public domain:

Mark Waid's keynote speech at the Harvey Awards at Baltimore Comics Con last night started by pointing out that copyright was all about putting work into the public domain, rather than preserving it for company ownership, and the concept of public domain should be embraced again. That illegal downloading is inevitable leading to a new culture of sharing. Lines such as "culture is more important than copyright" and "there are more ideas in one week at your comic shop than three years in Hollywood."

The report at Bleeding Cool does note that not everyone in attendance was pleased with Waid's talk, with Sergio Aragones apparently confronting Waid about his talk, declaring that "you don't just give your work away," and getting into a bit of a heated argument before Waid walked away.

Assuming these reports are accurate, it looks like Aragones totally missed the point of Waid's talk. No one's saying that you "just" give your work away. Those of us who have been writing about this stuff for a while are talking about creating larger communities and business models that include giving stuff away as a part of that effort. Trying to simplify it down to "oh just give it away, huh?" is wrong and misleading. Besides, note that Aragones seems to have missed the key factual points in Waid's talk: which is that copyright has always been about putting works into the public domain. It's too bad some people just react so negatively to factual portrayals of copyright law that they lash out at the messenger.

Update: Some of the other reports on the talk suggest that Waid and Aragones "hugged it out" after their confrontation, and that Aragones' complaint is that "free" devalues work. This is a common, if misguided point. The value of the work remains the same. The problem is when you confuse price and value. Price gets driven by the real demands of the market, but is not the same as value. Waid's point is that you can't fight what's happening, so why not embrace it -- a message we obviously believe strongly in here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Comically Absurd IP

Nina Paley — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:12:43 PDT

Certain arguments come up over and over again in copyright debates. Mike recently wrote about copyright monopolists calling Free Culture "neo Marxist." This is so absurd, yet so common, that there's a comic about it:

In fact there is a whole IP* category over at Mimi & Eunice. How many times have we heard an indignant "thou shalt not steal"?

How often do we hear competition denounced as theft?

There are strips about business models...

Price vs. Value...

Patents...

and of course, Lawyers:

Naturally, these comics are Free, copyLeft, share-able, copy-able, and embeddable. It is my fondest wish that writers will use these images in their articles and comments, without asking permission. What's in it for me, you ask? The more people see Mimi & Eunice, the more cultural value they'll have. Watching works find their audience is a singular pleasure for an artist. But since Techdirt is more about business models, I'll add that the more people share the strips online, the more value a paper book will have, which I can then sell.

*"IP" stands for something slightly different over there.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Marvel Pricing Digital Comics Three Times Higher Than Paper Copies [Updated]

Mike Masnick — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:13:03 PDT

Adam sends over a link to Scott Kurtz's discussion concerning Marvel's decision to price its digital comics for the iPad higher than paper copies. (Update: as is noted in the comments, it looks like it's not actually 3x the cost, but it still priced higher than the paper copy). As Kurtz notes, this serves no good consumer purpose whatsoever, and only serves to keep retailers happy:

I wish this made sense to me. The only reason to price the digital copy at 6 dollars is to keep retailers happy. It's not in service of Marvel readers and it's certainly not in service of expanding Marvel's audience. I have a lot of friends discovering Marvel comics for the first time through the iPad app. Paying for 1/3 of a comic for the same price they normally pay for a whole comic is not something they'll appreciate or understand. I get Marvel's desire to make a move like this without spooking retailers or Diamond. It's like a scuba-diver pacing his rise to the surface to avoid getting the bends. But what does Marvel risk by scaring off potential new digital customers by pricing a virtual copy of a comic higher than the physical copy you get to keep? And for what? To keep retailers happy?

Of course, we've seen this before. Incumbent businesses have legacy relationships. And one of the reasons why they're often so slow to shift to smart new business models is because it will upset those legacy relationships. But if your upstart competitors don't have those relationships and can route around them entirely to offer a better product for less, you're going to get hung up by your legacy relationships. Kurtz suggests that Marvel stop worrying about retailers and focus on consumers for once:

The only problem with that thinking is that Marvel Comics isn't in the business of keeping retailers solvent. Marvel Comics is in the business of producing and distributing comic books to as many readers as possible. At least it SHOULD be. And if digital distribution has a chance of being more profitable than brick-and-mortar store distribution then Marvel owes it to its readers, creators and stock holders to pursue that business without having to worry about someone else's business for nostalgia's sake.

Marvel should take a page out of Steve Job's notebook on this one. Be visionary and push ahead no matter who it pisses off. Especially if it's good for the company, readers and the industry itself.

It's easier said than done, but not doing it can be a lot more costly in the long run.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Online Comic Book Store Stands Up To Olivia Munn Lawyers Over Parody Comic Book

Mike Masnick — Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:48:00 PST

Boing Boing points us to the news that Heavy Ink, an online comic book shop, is pushing back against the lawyers for geeky TV personality Olivia Munn, after those lawyers demanded Heavy Ink destroy all copies of an Olivia Munn parody comic book called the Celebrity Showdown Olivia Munn One Shot #1. Of course, since Heavy Ink is just the retailer, it's not responsible for the content itself anyway, so the original letter was somewhat mistargeted, but even so, Heavy Ink makes the argument that the comic book itself is protected parody:

Nigel,

Re: your letter of 4 February 2010 regarding

http://heavyink.com/comic/13136-Celebrity-Showdown-Olivia-Munn-One-Shot-1

I write to clear up some misconceptions.

First, the item offered for sale is not "our" comic book - it is created by a third party and offered for sale through our website.

I have never heard of Olivia Munn until you brought her to my attention, but a quick web search turns up a Wikipedia article describing her thusly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivia_Munn
Olivia Munn (born Lisa Olivia Munn) is an American actress, model and television personality.
and her self promoting web page at

http://www.oliviamunn.com/

where she displays near topless pictures and links to a cover shot at Maxim magazine.

Given these two websites, it is clear that she is a public figure. As a public figure, the use of her likeness meets the tests for the parody copyright exception set forth in both Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. and the more recent Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin.

As such, we have no intention of taking down our webpage, destroying any inventory, or refusing to offer the comic for sale.

If you have any further comments you may reach me at this email address,

Travis Corcoran, President
Heavy Ink

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Anti-File Sharing Propaganda Back To Focusing On That Horrible Malware You'll Get

Mike Masnick — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:01:37 PDT

The thing that you sort of need to admire about the copyright maximalist lobby is that they attack the problem from so many different directions on such a constant basis. It's almost impossible to keep up -- though, you do begin to notice some patterns. A particularly popular move is to alternate between the moral argument against copyright infringement (stealing! bad!) and the idea that file sharing is going to destroy your computer (we're just looking out for your safety!). It looks like the industry is back on that latter kick, as two recent stories indicate.

First, the BSA has its widely debunked "piracy" numbers -- but it's now getting news for focusing instead on how you're going to get malware if you file share. Since it can't actually back up its bogus numbers, instead it's hoping that most people don't know that correlation doesn't mean a causal relationship -- but at least we know that most of our readers know better. The report notes that there's a correlation between higher piracy rates and higher malware infections, but seems to totally ignore exceptions to that rule (the US) or delve into other variables that may explain either the piracy rate (already questionable) or the malware rate (education levels? poverty? shared computers? etc.). Even more amusing, they claim (with no actual evidence) that those who get malware have to spend more to repair their computers than it would have cost to get the legitimate software in the first place. I have no doubt that there are risks for those who file share, but this report does nothing to show the actual risks and is yet another in a long line of weak propaganda from the BSA, that despite being called on it for years, never seems to do anything to back up its reports with facts.

Then, we have the story of the MPAA apparently sending a bunch of anti-piracy comic books to New Zealand, home of one of many different fights on how to change copyright law. The comic book, like the BSA report, involves plenty of ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims about how file sharing will unleash nasty malware and viruses all over your computers -- but drawn in nice comic book form. Can we send those kids who got the MPAA comic book a copy of the Tales from The Public Domain comic books as well? There are free digital downloads for anyone who wants to hand them out in exchange for the bogus MPAA ones....

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Could Doonesbury Learn Anything From XKCD?

Michael Ho — Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:56:00 PDT

Via Poynter Online, there's a recent interview with Doonesbury creator Garry Trudeau where he talks about his post-newspaper media plans and what he sees as his future options while newspapers face significant declines in their circulation numbers.

"Doonesbury" has been on the Web for 15 years, and the site actually makes a little money -- unheard-of for media sites. But it's not really a plan, just a presence. I don't believe there's anything I can do personally to prepare for a post-newspaper future, other than hope that the large media companies will come to their senses and form a gated Web collective along the lines of cable TV. They need to form a news utility, financed by subscription or micropayments because going it alone has been disastrous for all of them.

Trudeau continues on, saying that he believes that e-readers are promising because so many people are happy to pay for iPhone apps and Kindle content. He also says that his livelihood doesn't seem to be threatened in the short-term because only "big newspapers" with loads of debt are really going under -- and most small newspapers are still getting by and can support his line of work for the foreseeable future. But, essentially, Trudeau sounds like he's given up on his own plans for making Doonesbury into a business outside of syndication. (Or he's being much too modest about the "little money" he earns from his website, and he doesn't want to offend his current newspaper benefactors.) In any case, he seems to envision a giant news consortium that will be able to retain subscribers due to a form of monopoly advantage. And if that's really the future of journalism, that doesn't sound too promising.

Additionally, though, Trudeau asserts that the "Web is a lost cause" because everyone thinks content on the web should be free. But that statement directly contradicts the work of online cartoonists such as Randall Munroe and his xkcd webcomic (which just happens to be one of my favorite examples of a "free" online comic strip). Munroe has a significant following for xkcd and has proven that "free" can be a sustainable way to promote and publish his work. So can we help enlighten Trudeau? Munroe sells prints, t-shirts, a book, and even sponsored comics. Is there a path to becoming the "Trent Reznor of webcomics" for Trudeau? Or is there something unique about Doonesbury that makes it impossible for it to take advantage of "free" distribution?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Marvel Should Keep A Tighter Leash On Its Lawyers

Mike Masnick — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:25:23 PDT

On Tuesday, Mike Arrington of TechCrunch took a straw poll on Twitter and decided to set up a screening of the new movie Iron Man, based on the comic. By Wednesday morning the details were set. He had rented out the Metreon by calling the "Group Sales" phone number on the Iron Man website, and paid for 600 seats for the showing. He posted the info to his blog, and asked people to pay $1 per seat in order to hold the spot (and to avoid no-shows). All this was perfectly reasonable. And then... a lawyer from Marvel Comics sent Arrington a threatening cease-and-desist letter demanding that he pull down the information about the show, claiming that Arrington wasn't authorized to set up such a showing. Again, the whole thing was arranged by Arrington by calling the "Group Sales" line on the Iron Man website. All of the tickets were paid for. It's hard to see what Marvel can possibly be complaining about. Also, I know for a fact that Arrington's event is hardly the only such event... because I got invited to a different one (also tomorrow, though at a different time and location and organized by a different group) and have a ticket on my desk for the show.

As a guess, perhaps Marvel is upset that Arrington made his an open invite system. The other showings I'm aware of are all private invite-only showings. But, even if that's true, it's rather ridiculous for Marvel to be complaining, and this is giving the company a ton of totally unnecessary bad press for an event that was generating plenty of enthusiasm and excitement for the movie. It appears to be yet another case where a lawyer is complaining because he can, and not because it's a good business move. As of right now, AMC Theatres, which sold Arrington the tickets, is standing behind the showing, and hopefully someone higher up at Marvel is figuring out what a ridiculous move this is, and will apologize by morning.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Marvel Looking To Follow In The Footsteps Of The Recording Industry

Timothy Lee — Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:39:00 PST

Last month I urged the comic book industry to accelerate its move into the digital world by releasing a lot more out-of-print comics online. I pointed out that this could generate some advertising revenue in the short run, but even more importantly it could increase public interest in old comics which would increase the demand for a wide variety of Marvel and DC products. Unfortunately, TorrentFreak is reporting that Marvel and DC are following in the footsteps of the recording industry, threatening people who are sharing their comics online without making any real effort to provide a viable alternative. TorrentFreak quotes an exchange between a Marvel employee and the people who run ComicSearch. ComicSearch makes some of the same points I did: there are a lot of fans who will buy a paper copy of a comic and download an electronic version so they can keep the paper copy in mint condition. They also point out that peer-to-peer sites have more and higher-quality scans than the official websites, and only peer-to-peer sites give you the option of downloading and organizing files on your hard drive. At a minimum, Marvel and DC should ensure that those fans who want to download high-quality scans of their comics have the option of paying to do so legally. ComicSearch also points out that comic sharing can have huge promotional value, creating increased fan interest and allowing Marvel and DC to sell more comic books, movie spin-offs, and merchandise. While Marvel and DC are certainly within their legal rights to try to stamp out unauthorized sharing of their comics, that doesn't mean that doing so is a good business strategy.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Comics Publishers Should Free Their Archives

Timothy Lee — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 07:36:00 PST

Marvel is apparently dipping its toe into online distribution by offering some of its older comics for online viewing. Apparently, for $60 people can get a year's access to "the first 100 issues of Stan Lee's 1963 creation 'Amazing Spider-Man' at their leisure, along with more recent titles like 'House of M' and 'Young Avengers.'" It's a good idea, and I hope they'll be more aggressive about it. Putting household names like Spider-Man online is obviously the first priority, but Marvel and its competitors have enormous catalogs of less well-known comics spanning much of the 20th century. But they should also follow Time' lead and make their entire catalog of lesser-known, out-of-print comics available for free online.

The most obvious benefit to this would be to generate some advertising revenue from out-of-print content. It might slightly hurt used comic book dealers, but that's not Marvel's problem, and it could actually have the opposite effect by sparking renewed interest from collectors for hard-to-find originals. But the more subtle—and in the long run, more important—benefit is that it would get a lot more comic book nerds reading and discussing out-of-print comics, and doing it on Marvel's website. For example, Techdirt Insight Community member Julian Sanchez recently penned a great article for the American Prospect discussing the evolution of political themes in comic books over the decades. It would have been great—both for his article and for Marvel—if Julian had been able to provide his readers with links to archives of the relevant comics. Such increased traffic would provide Marvel with all sorts of indirect benefits, including opportunities to advertise new products, increase consumers' brand loyalty, and create spin-offs of old comics that enjoy renewed popularity online. Right now, those comics are just collecting dust, so it's hard to see what they have to lose.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story