CompuServe Messages

<<what happens when you upload your IN LIKE FLINT clip>> That is clearly a copyright violation. It doesn't mean the clip has fallen into public domain. If United Artists were to never pursue this violation, and the clip were to fall into wide use; then public domain could be argued because UA would have no reasonable remedy to reclaim it. But I don't sample these works so that I can distribute them; I do it because it's the only workable way I can file them and find them again. One weird thing, could I e-mail a person such a clip for the purposes of comentary? Like, "Tim, I saw the funniest thing…" Would that still fall into personal (and fair) use? When I mentioned public domain, I was referring to a similar problem that you, as a writer, are always cognizant of: trademarks. You're a good guy. So, you never write Xerox when you mean photocopy, or Kleenex when you mean tissue, etc. Otherwise, these brand names will go the way of words like Escalator. <<RE:"I have the right to distribute my likeness but others do not" REPLY: "So forwarding a vidclip you've sent to someone else *is* a copyright violation">> Not a copyright issue. A privacy issue. I inalienably own my likeness and my voice for eternity. Only in very special circumstances can another person arbitrarily use it without my permission (viz. I'm Princess Di or OJ Simpson). I can grant you that permission using a 'release'. When a person forwards my vidclip to another, she has stolen my likeness and used it arbitrarily. I can send you a photo of me; but that doesn't mean you can publish it in the paper. <<trying to persuade me to try distributing some DTP work I do for my job electronically and selling *that* instead of selling it as paper media (which is what my boss does now). I've been reluctant, since I know how easy it would be for someone to download it, copy the file(s) and ship it on to a friend>> I think it's a good idea. And I have very specific reasons, Tim. 1) Studies have conclusively shown that when publications go online, paid circulation increases. Pubs of all kinds are scrambling for it now. 2) Even if people do copy your work; you will be able to reach readers you would never reach otherwise; and you will do this with absolutely no distribution or media costs. 3) If the electronic version is slightly different from the printed one, each would generate interest in the other. 4) Raise the 'immediacy' of your work, and readers will not tolerate waiting on the 'sneaker net' for distribution. 5) Circulation costs are often one of the biggest expenses; there is opportunity to slash these costs. 6) Electronic media gives you, as the publisher, much more information about your reader than paper does. You can piggyback on the marketing research of much larger firms who build the equipment and software your reader uses to view this stuff. 7) There is opportunity for more reader feedback which can breathe new life into a staling work. Much of the interesting stuff in WIRED Mag is reader contributed. Just my tharts. It's your money, tho.