Mondayitis

I developed a new disease and wiped humanity off the face of the globe. Pandemic 2 (via Making Light) is really rather addictive.

Exciting legal issues of our time #325a: When an author quotes extensively -- in 400-word chunks -- from LJ reviews, crediting but not informing his sources, is he doing anything wrong? (He says not, and uses arguments about academia: but he's making a profit.)

edit to add: I'm not affected by this, my reviews haven't been used: but I don't like the notion that they could appear elsewhere without my permission or cognizance.

Three things make a post, right? right? ... er, the Energy Efficiency Inspector came round this morning. I told him he wouldn't find any energy efficiency here, and I think he agreed. (The boiler went out again while he was inspecting it. Apparently this is a Hazard.)

Torchwoodgate

Further to this morning's post about whether it is Right / Ethical / Legal for an author of a published, dead-tree book to quote extensively (up to 400 words at a time) from LJ posts, attributing them to the authors but not contacting said authors ...

- Selected extracts from author's response to complaints. Includes the priceless comment "I read out [author's] reply at work. The sound you hear if you listen carefully is a room full of high priced lawyers dissolving into hysterics."

- Daily Mail paid a blogger for using his material under similar circumstances -- but only after he invoiced them. Some interesting legal points there.

Fame ...

Fame ...
Originally uploaded by tamaranth

Imagine you've received this photo on your phone from your sister, with the message 'R & L's latest venture' (where R and L are two of her offspring).
Do you:
- assume she's joking
- assume she's joking but check anyway
- disown your entire family
...?

Blog versus print: expectation of audience interaction

[sorry, I do seem to be posting a lot today: I'm transcribing a long interview and posting/LJ is a pleasant break! As is wiping out humanity: background task.]

Following earlier posts today (first one, second one) concerning inclusion of material from LJ posts in a book ...

... I've identified what feels wrong to me about this, and it's that the act of posting to a blog -- especially to LJ -- is intended to provoke dialogue, whether positive or negative. If I'm writing just for me, it's private (or more usually scrawled longhand somewhere). Anyone posting anything to LJ has the expectation, of response. And if that post is republished elsewhere in a medium where there is no easy and immediate way to respond, then an important part of the reason for posting has been removed.

(When I'd had LJ for a few months, I wrote a post and then OK'd it, unedited, for inclusion in a printed fanzine. The response to the fanzine publication made me aware of how differently I'd write if I were writing for print: less in-jokes, less provocation, probably rather less light-hearted. Part of the reason for the difference was that if somebody didn't like, or didn't get, what I was saying in print, it was a lot harder for them to ask, criticise, complain, poke fun at me than it would be on LJ.)