Writtenwyrdd

Clarifications from the FTC about the new rulings

"That $11,000 fine is not true. Worst-case scenario, someone receives a warning, refuses to comply, followed by a serious product defect; we would institute a proceeding with a cease-and-desist order and mandate compliance with the law. To the extent that I have seen and heard, people are not objecting to the disclosure requirements but to the fear of penalty if they inadvertently make a mistake. That's the thing I don't think people need to be concerned about. There's no monetary penalty, in terms of the first violation, even in the worst case. Our approach is going to be educational, particularly with bloggers. We're focusing on the advertisers: What kind of education are you providing them, are you monitoring the bloggers and whether what they're saying is true?"  The FTC's Richard Cleland

Last week, I posted about a new FTC guideline that requires disclosure if a blogger is reviewing products (specifically books or movies in my blog) and has received promotional copies, payment, or freebies in trade for their sharing their opinion.  Now, this sounds good generally, there being some blogs that masquerade as honest review sites but which are paid to promote goods under the guise of giving an honest opinion.  But the vast majority of bloggers was left with a sense of uncertainly and fear they'd be targeted for a hideously expensive fine or three...

Well, thanks to Sabrina over at the Coffee Quill blog, here's a link to Richard Cleland of the FTC's response to the furor.  He seems to think it's a tempest in a teacup, and that we bloggers will receive plenty of warning if it's discovered we've been B.A.D. bad.  (Which is a relief.)  The pertinent issue for the Oh My Gawd fear of reprisal from Big Brother is above.  But the entire article is quite good.

Of special note is Mr. Cleary's description of what constitutes word of mouth:

"When it comes to word of mouth and blogging, there's no difference. With word of mouth, there are instances when you're not necessarily hired by an agency but set up by a company. You get the inside info and get to be the first to have access, so you can earn bonus points for every person you tell--that is what I consider word of mouth. If you're paid to sell somebody's product in this way, and you deliver an endorsement, it doesn't matter in terms of how many people you send it to, but it does in terms of public interest and whether what the blogger has done is worth the inquiry. If you have 20 friends or 16,000, obviously, we'll look at the one with 16,000."

Now, what the general population's understanding of word of mouth is that people say what they think of something to people they know, whether in writing or verbally.  But his (e.g. the FTC's) definition is that word of mouth is something for which a blogger is compensated.  I presume this is also including free review copies or swag of any kind related to the product in hand.  So what I have to ask is, if I mention my new smart phone by brand, do I have to do a disclaimer for that, too, even if it's only in passing?  (Not that I am going to bother with something that trivial very often, but I did go on about my digital tablet when I got it because I loved it.  These rules can drive you crazy.  Hence the just-to-be-safe disclaimer at the top of the blog!)

Additionally, you might find this article about spyware from large company sales sites a bit apalling.

More info about that FTC idiocy

I found a blog that had some better insights than my own yesterday.  Please thank Kristen at Fantasy Cafe for the following: 

"When I first got home from work and saw all the panic on Twitter and in blog posts, I started feeling a bit panicky myself. Eleven thousand dollars is quite a hefty punishment for not mentioning you reviewed a book you received that's worth $7.99. Then I read what Cheryl of Cheryl's Mewsings had to say about itand felt quite a bit better. It does sound as though book bloggers are not the main concern and are not likely to be closely monitored (I would hope not).

I have the same feelings on this as many of my fellow bloggers have stated in their own posts on it. Disclosing what I receive does not bother me, but being forced to does, especially with such a high penalty for failure to meet this requirement. Plus it seems like a rather difficult thing to regulate. How do they know I did or didn't buy a book myself if it's one that I reviewed close to the time of or after the release date?

I've decided not to get too worked up about it, but from now on, I will be stating exactly where I got any book I am reviewing..."

Basically, her thoughts seem reasonable.  Just disclaim where you got the book you review in the body of the post where you do the review.  It's still a stupid (or stupidly written) rule.

Important news for blogging book reviewers!

"A book falls under “compensation” if it comes associated with an Amazon link or there is an advertisement for the book, or if the reviewer holds onto the book. " FTC's Richard Cleland, interviewed by Edward Champion. 

Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials is the FTC's new regulation, and they announced yesterday that it's been modified in regards to bloggers.  Summarizing the important bit:  If you blog about or review a free book you were sent for free, whether by a publisher or author, you are guilty of getting compensation and you must disclose.  Particularly noteworthy is that, apparently, paid reviewers (newspaper book reviewers, for example) don't have to disclose that they were given a free book because They Don't Keep Their Swag!!! (Yeah, right.  I believe in sparkly unicorns, too.)

So, if you review a book--doesn't matter if it's a postive review or not--and it was given to you for free by a  publisher or author, if you link to a sales site like B&N, Amazon or whatever, or if you have paid advertising (those blog-content-related google.ads suffice) you apparently must disclose the facts. 

Thanks to Ellen Datlow for the heads-up on this fiasco. 

FTC guidelines PDF

An apparent case of plagiarism

Over at A Rage of Angel, a writer's blog, Angel describes what appears to be a repeat offender.  Check it out.  Not as big as the Cassie Edwards thing, but a dreadful example of how plagiarism is affecting our work. 

I have to wonder, though: Does the internet make plagiarism more common, or simply make it easier to find? 

SFWA's take on the Orphan Works bill...and the eyes have it

Might want to read this.  Not sure that I agree.  I think that there should be a clearinghouse where authors can look up any supposed orphan works of theirs by both title and listed author in the original publication, as well as previous publication information.   Then a simple google alert would find your old pseudonyms when they pop up, or the name of the long-dead author whose estate you manage.

On the personal front, something is bothering my right eye and I have to take an entire day off work so I can get the eye doctor to look at it.  This is the downside of the one-hour commute each way.  A mid day appointment, even a quick one, involves two hours of driving in addition to the hour for the appt.  So if I were to go to the office, I couldn't car pool, and I'd have to leave at 10:00 am to get there for an 11:15 appointment; and then I'd get back to the office no sooner than 1:30pm, and would go home at 4:00pm.  That gives me two approximately 2 and 2.5 hour blocks of time at the beginning and end of the day at work, but management would have to ship someone out on overtime for the entire day instead of paying them four hours of travel time.  Thus I just take a sick day.  it's easier on everybody.  And I don't spend 4 hours driving in order to work 4.5. 

The good thing is I'll learn what the feeling of something scratching my eye is from.  It's been driving me nuts for a week!  Feels like something is in there where I cannot wash it out myself.  And it's not an eyelash brushing my eyeball; that I'm familiar with!

Fair Use?

Fair use is determined by copyright law as generally being "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported." 

The above definition is generally accepted as being also applicable to the blogger who cites a section of a work in an article on their blog, although that hasn't yet made it's way into the lexicon of the law.  Perhaps it won't; perhaps it will be redefined by a few new twists in Fair Use being braided up with a vengeance by the Associated Press wire service. 

Associated Press recently took a swing at fair use with an attack on a site called Drudge Retort.  Apparently, AP feels that it's not okay to quote their articles on blogs.  Maybe the real issue is that they feel their for-hire journalism is being undermined when it's quoted all over the blogosphere.  Who knows.  The brouhaha, however, is about fair use under copyright law. 

It's an interesting battle to note, because the new and widespread use of quotes in search engines and in blog posts seems to be what is getting AP upset.  I suppose billions of quotes everywhere of the goods you sell (information and articles) is affecting or could effect their business. 

We shall see if the courts decide the complaint has any merit! 

Personally, I think that the argument is moot, that the internet transparently falls into the realm of printed media for the purposes of copyright law, and blogging is a form of unpaid article writing.  Now, if the site is for pay, such as a blogger who advertises and makes money from web hits, then maybe AP will have a meritous case.  Dunno. 

Meantime, interesting sideline watchers for us! 

Sexualization of children-- effects on writing trends, censorship, and more!

Ello is hosting a Q&A with Dr. Gigi Durham, the author of the Lolita Effect, the Media Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do About It.  Dr. Durham is guest appearing on her blog this coming Wednesday to answer questions on this very important topic. Check it out, and, if you so desire, help spread the word.  I'm sure Ello will thank you.  This is an important topic and a terrible problem that needs to be addressed.  Unfortunately, I have plans that day and don't think I'll be stopping by.

The topic is a timely one, because I've just last week seen some news about child pornography and trafficking laws which can apply to us creative types.  Specifically, regarding what constitutes child porn and trafficking in it.  (See below for linkage.)

We are faced with a difficult issue as artists.  How do we portray reality in art if it involves children?  When is our art sexualizing youngsters and exploiting them wrongfully?   Where do we as artists draw the line?  Where does the law draw the line?  And, most importantly, how do these two points of view differ-- or do they?  I maintain they do, and that the law doesn't recognize that face: a dangerous distinction.

No sane person seeks to exploit children; but we do seek, as writers, to speak about truths.  And truth can include some horrible things, frequently involving children.   One example is the novel, Such a Pretty Girl, which talks about child molestation in a gritty story about a girl who isn't protected by the system.  Under new laws, that book could be interpreted as child pornography.  If this is the case, how can we have a meaningful conversation about this issue, when the people who discuss the issue via art (movies, poetry, novels, etc) are stigmatized with being child pornographers?  It could happen.  I'll illustrate below. 

SOAPBOX AND POLITICAL RANT ALERT:
The point is that we may be going to far, pendulum swinging out to the point of ridiculousness.  A few articles include one about two teens who legally could engage in sexual congress but become traffickers in child porn when they emailed photos of themselves to each other-- because the law of the land says that electronically forwarded photos of this nature are trafficking, even if kept private.  Or this one about a photographer of child models who is being persecuted (that isn't a typo) for having a web site with beautiful photos of beautiful young girls that are not nude or posed lasciviously.  Or this one where the Dept of Justice is "quietly shopping around the explosive idea of requiring Internet service providers to retain records of their customers' online activities."   [UPDATE: You might want to check out this article which discusses a real issue that does appear to pander to pedophiles and does appear to sexualize children: fake modeling sites, not legit photographers.]

All of these are troubling to me; but the one article that really bothered me is this one regarding a new child protection law.  I agree with those dissenters who say the law is too vague and can allow creative works such as movies or books to be interpreted as child pornography if they have underage characters in them who engage in acts deemed illegal. 

The law's "pandering provision targets the person who 'advertises, promotes, presents, distributes or solicits . . . any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe,' that it depicts children engaged in sexual activity.  The provision is needed, authorities said, because it is often difficult to prove that pornography on the Internet involved real children."

Perhaps in your novel you have a character who is under the age of consent and she is raped. Child porn.  He has sex and he's only fifteen.  Child porn.  Your documentary about street children has a child engaging in prostitution.  Child porn.  Where is the line drawn?

However, you should feel reassured (not):  "The majority [of the Court] dismissed what it called 'fanciful hypotheticals' that the law might make movie reviewers or even unsuspecting grandparents subject to its standards."  [The Supreme Court opinions are here in full.]

This trend is disturbing.  The thought police are forming up and gunning for anyone who doesn't follow a ridiculous policy of never discussing, thinking about or addressing an issue they deem unpalatable.  And I'm starting to worry that my research web browsing is going to get me in trouble!  I write erotica and I write about terrible things happening to people, including my dark fantasy with an underaged girl as the protagonist.  I've looked up some things on the internet that could put me on the dreaded List.  And I'm sure most of you have, too. 

The important thing to take from this trend is this, in my opinion:  If we allow our  Constitutional freedoms of speech and expression to be clamped down on "for a good cause" we will be unable to discuss the very nature of the issue or even the laws regarding it.  That's the Minority Report coming true, in a sense.  The Thought Police.  (Time to reread Brave New World and 1984!)  And, for all the benefits that might be reaped by strengthening laws against the exploitation of children, there are more arguments that the laws are draconian and subverting the very nature of the system they are supposed to protect.  Individual responsibility being taken on by Big Brother.  The government is not our parent and we need to collectively take responsibility for ourselves and our society; not leave it all up to the government telling us what to think and believe! Yada yada ya.

Because, having worked in law enforcement, I truly sympathise with the efforts to legally take down the bad guysand also protect our children.  But, and let me stress this as the creed and philosophy I developed on the job, JUST BECAUSE IT MAKES IT EASIER DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT.  I'm a die-hard constitutionalist, and if we start undermining our Constitution, we're idiots who really want to end up with a dictatorship instead of a republic.  Yuh huh.  You can use Germany pre-WWII as an example worthy of study and see if you don't see similar trends.

Pay attention, gang.  I'm all for getting sickos and protecting our children.  But this one is really about freedom of speech.  Okay, now I'm waxing a bit too political so I'll stop now. 

This is a hot-button topic, so the commentary should be interesting.  I'm looking forward to the conversation, I must say!

Copyright Law & Registering Your Works

Josephine Damian has a great post on copyright law and how you can register your writing.  This is great information.  Check it out here.

Also, Sex Scenes at Starbucks has another post on an Orphaned Works bill that might derail copyright law.  Just heard about it from her article.  You might want to know what the kerfluffle is about and call your representatives.

On the Topic of Plagiarism...

Not really adding to the discussion about Cassie Edwards, plagiarism, and the possible need to cite sources in fiction, here's an article I ran across this mornng regarding plagiarism by students.  Chalk the trend up to its being easy?  Or to the ignorance of students?  Sorry, they are able to know the difference.