Sister Girl's Life Is Better Than Mine, Day Three

[cleolinda]

"HEY..."

"Yeah?"

"I KNOW IT'S LOUD IN HERE [at ComicCon], SORRY... I CAN'T GET IN TO SEE NEIL GAIMAN, SO..."

"Oh, I didn't think you'd be able to, you've got to pay like $500 just to get near him..."

"YEAH... SO... THERE'S A MARIE ANTOINETTE FIGURE, IT'S GOT, LIKE, AN EJECTOR HEAD, WOULD YOU WANT THAT? THERE'S A DA VINCI, AND A..."

"Oh, yeah,

Comments

[foresthouse]

Wait, your sister's boyfriend is a comics-buyer? What does that mean - does he have a store?

Man, your family just gets cooler all the time. Hee.

Those dolls are ridiculous. Heh.

[cleolinda]

Nah, he's the national buyer for Books-a-Million and he's younger than me. Basically, he's in charge of deciding which comics, graphic novels, mangas, etc., go on the stores' shelves.

[foresthouse]

Oh, that's so cool! We have a nice Books-a-Million in the Dupont Circle area. I like it pretty well.

In other things, while I was looking at some Orphan Works stuff, I came across this article:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/24/creative_commons_deception/

regarding Creative Commons. Don't you use their licensing policy on some of your stuff? I thought you should be aware.

[cleolinda]

Yeah... I've stopped using those. Now, whenever I used them, I was very careful to spell out whatever I was and was not permitting (make icons, do not repost). The only reason I used them, really, was because it gave an official veneer--it's like, people didn't believe me when I said the piece was copyrighted unless I "applied for" the little graphic at the bottom. There's a severe misunderstanding of the way copyright works for so many, many people. Particularly the way people seem to believe that putting something on the internet = public domain. I really believe people confuse "public access" with "public domain."

Hmm. Since copyright is flexible in the sense that you can specify exactly what you want to permit when you want to permit it, I wonder if I should put a graphic that says "ALL rights reserved," and then in text add, "Except that icons, links, and quotations are okay." I mean those might be fair use anyway, but people may not know that off the top of their heads.

[foresthouse]

Yeah - I haven't really looked at what the Creative Commons license says, but the reason I've never really thought it was needed is that I'd prefer to just go with saying the work is copyrighted under federal law, because then there are fewer potential loopholes, and for the loopholes that exist, court cases exist to decide the issues. In other words, as we say, "the law is more settled." I don't know that there have been many cases regarding Creative Commons before this one, so there's less guidance on how it would be interpreted if there's misuse

[foresthouse]

Oh, and also, since The Internet Iz Awesome, you could even link to the specific Copyright provisions in your statement - that way, those who don't really know the law can at least look at it if they aren't sure about rights.

[snapdragon76]

Dude, that sounds like an AWESOME job!

*envious*