feminist blogs

(Crossposted on “Alas” and on “TADA”)

David Post writes:

The National Jazz Museum (who knew there was such a thing?) has apparently acquired a true treasure trove of early jazz recordings. The collection — nearly 1,000 discs! — was recorded in the 30s and 40s by William Savory from on-the-air radio broadcasts, and includes performances by Lester Young, Benny Goodman, Coleman Hawkins, Lionel Hampton, Billie Holiday, Teddy Wilson, and many others of the great names of jazz (from the greatest era of jazz). Savory, apparently, is something of a legend in recording engineer circles, and many of the recordings are of stunningly high quality (and many of the performances masterpieces).

If you’re like me, and consider American jazz of the 30s and 40s to be one of the great artistic outpourings of all time, the story induces something like a swoon of ecstatic delight. [...]

So needless to say I can’t wait to hear the reissues. But alas, that may never happen. As the original article noted (with additional commentary here), the potential copyright liability that could attach to redistribution of these recordings is so large — and, more importantly, so uncertain — that there may never be a public distribution of the recordings. Tracking down all the parties who may have a copyright interest in these performances, and therefore an entitlement to royalty payments (or to enjoining their distribution), is a monumental, and quite possibly an impossible, task, and it may well be that nobody steps forward with the resources to (a) undertake the efforts required and (b) take on the risk of liability.

In a passage that’s worth reading twice, Post goes on to write:

…copyright, inherently, operates to the detriment of the public when applied in retrospect, to works that have already been created. Lester Young, alas, can no longer be incentivized to produce these performances — they’ve already been created. We won’t get any more brilliant performances by Teddy Wilson if we protect these works. All we — the public — get from applying copyright here is a restriction on our ability to encounter magnificent works of art. Now of course, copyright is only ever applied in retrospect, and if we always ignored it when applied to already-existing works it would cease to exist, and would therefore no longer serve its incentivizing function prospectively.

And there’s your copyright balance; what we seek is a way to give creators enough of an incentive to create, but not too much, because too much gives us, the public, too much of an impediment to actually enjoying the works that have already been created.

Here’s the thing: Most creators need very little incentive to create. Yet our laws pretend that if we don’t have a monopoly extending to decades after our deaths, most creative sorts will hang up our pens and brushes and saxophones and go “oh, heck with this! I’d rather pump gas.”

Music only has value when it is heard. If it can’t find an audience, it’s dead. A copyright regime that kills music is one that needs reform.

There’s a brilliant comic strip, Barnaby, which is – rumor has it — not being reprinted because the creators’ family is unrealistically waiting for someone to offer Peanuts-size royalties. Or maybe they just loathe their father and want to see his legacy of art forgotten. Maybe they’re just used to seeing enormous sums of money from Harold and the Purple Crayon, and so don’t think it’s worthwhile to let their father’s comic strip see daylight, because they have no souls and think art is crap. Or maybe they have other reasons.

But I don’t really care, because they didn’t create Barnaby. They didn’t write it, they didn’t draw it, they have basically no moral right to that work. In particular, they have no right to lock up another person’s creative legacy in a vault, and deprive the reading public of that work.

Keeping a comic strip out of print, when there are plenty of publishers who’d love to print it, is no different from grabbing the Mona Lisa and chucking it into a fire. It’s censorship, and it’s a kind of censorship they’re only able to accomplish because copyright laws irrationally give them that right. I do think there are many situations where the creator of a work has a right to keep it from the public. But why should people who didn’t create the work have that right?

Yes, legally, they’re the heirs. But why should copyright be passed down to heirs at all? Is the thought that if Crockett Johnson hadn’t been able to imagine his heirs keeping his work out of print forever, he never could have motivated himself to draw a daily comic strip at a time when drawing comic strips was admired and extremely rewarding?

How does this situation benefit anyone? How am I, as a cartoonist, encouraged to create new works because I can see that Barnaby is being kept out of print, and because I can imagine my hypothetical future heirs deciding to keep my own work out of print? I don’t think I am.

I think I’m just being robbed as a member of the reading public. And I think Crockett Johnson is being robbed of one of the things that matters most to almost any popular artist — an audience.

On the thread for the “Reassuring White People” cartoon, Nobody Really wrote:

I think the six panels exist just to support the insert. Amp should sell the insert on t-shirts.

Well, hey, who am I to argue with Nobody? (Or Willow?)

Now available as a T-shirt.

If you know of something I’ve done that you think shirtworthy, let me know in comments. :-)

From xkcd; via Blag Hag.

Transcript:
Man: “Personally, I find atheists just as annoying as fundamentalist Christians.”
Woman: “Well, the important thing is that you’ve found a way to feel superior to both.”

Comics Alliance has a lot of fun photos from the counter-protest against the homophobic, America-hating, horrible-in-every-way Westboro Baptist Church, which was in San Diego briefly to protest Comic-Con.

You know what I like best about this animated short-short by Stephanie McMillan? I mean, other than that it gave me a chuckle?

It didn’t include a fat joke!

I didn’t know that doing that subject without a fat joke was even allowed!

On Redbubble.

Because just because I’m not a libertarian doesn’t mean I can’t be a stinkin’ capitalist! :-D

P.S. Anyone know of any company that does print-on-demand shirts that has sizes up to 5x and 6x or higher?

Cartoonist Rachel Nabors needs jaw surgery (ouch!). To help pay for this (the surgery alone costs $18,500, not including the hospital charges), a sketchbook that I and many other cartoonists contributed to is being auctioned on ebay this week.

The cartoonists in the book include Bryan Lee O’Mailley, Raina Telgemeier, Andy Runton, Hope Larson, Jenn Lee, Dylan Meconis, Jake Richmond (who also colored the Hereville graphic novel), Brendan Douglas Jones, Derek Kirk Kim, Bill Mudron, Steve Lieber, and many more.

Here’s what I sketched in the book:

You can also contribute directly to Rachel’s medical fund — a “donate” button can be found here.

A few links relevant to some recent posts:

I posted a compare-and-contrast between a feminist and feminist-critical view of checking for consent during sex. Sometimes “Alas” guest poster — and writer of one of the examples from my post — Clarisse Thorn posted an example of a “hot vanilla sex scene” including check-ins from the novel The Russian Concubine. Crank up the AC and go check it out.

Figleaf, another of my favorite sex bloggers, kindly links to my post and discusses the issues it brought up. If you’re not reading Figleaf’s blog, you really should be.

And in the comments of his/her blog Vagabond Scholar, Batocchio writes a great rebuttal to Davi’s “The 24 Types of Authoritarian” remix of my “24 Libertarians” cartoon. I hope Batocchio will forgive my quoting at length:

Like I said, it’s not bad, but judging it also depends on how seriously one takes the original and the revamp. It’s not really a “rebuttal,” since as Tristero’s put it, pretty much everything good about libertarianism already exists in liberalism, and liberals oppose both authoritarianism and the more idiotic strains of libertarianism. Many of the revamped panels express views already satirized in the original – and the revamped panels often don’t address the issues raised in the original. For instance, what is the libertarian solution for unsafe or poisonous food, products, pollution, etc.? (Raised by the “Caveat Emptor” panel in the original.) The “Nanny Stater” revamp attacks an outright ban on smoking, which doesn’t exist in America, while not addressing warning labels or secondhand smoke. What is the libertarian solution for exploitation and/or discrimination by “private” entities – or is there none? (Raised in part by the “Whitey” panel in the original, and the question Rand Paul didn’t want to answer.) Do you believe that taxation is theft, as the revamp suggests in several panels, or only taxation that relates to social spending, basic prosperity and public goods/works? (Raised by “The Island” in the original, among others.)

Some self-described libertarians, such as Glenn Reynolds, are authoritarians, and many others are pretty garden variety conservatives who like to be seen as independents, and independent thinkers. Others exist who are more sincere. Many adore Ayn Rand, some accept part of her views, and a small number reject her. (Then there’s the breakdown on Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg.) The more thoughtful view Hayek as a useful gadfly in small doses, even he got many important issues “stunningly wrong” (but was nonetheless more liberal than many of his devotees). If you have an essay/post describing your world view/political philosophy, feel free to link it and I’ll try to check it out. But Michael Tomasky does a pretty good job of explaining the limited value - and the extreme limitations - of libertarianism as it’s usually practiced. There’s also Belle Waring’s classic “If Wishes Were Horses, Beggars Would Ride — A Pony!” and “Libertarian Paradise” video. Thanks for stopping by.

“I’m waiting for the 24 types of ‘progressive’.” –”George,” in comments here.

Robert Hayes, who has commented on “Alas” on one or two occasions, jumps into what I dearly hope will become a trend by putting up his rewritten version of my cartoon “The 24 Types of Libertarian.”

Rob’s version is called “The 24 Types of Progressive.” I helped Rob with the lettering, partly because he’s an old college chum, and partly because left to his own devices he’d screw up the lettering just like Bush screwed up the country. Obviously, Rob knows that if you want something done competently, you better ask a liberal to do it for you. :-P

Libertarian Davi Barker emails me a link to her (his?) remix of my “24 Types of Libertarian” cartoon, “The 24 Types of Authoritarian.”

S/he has changed all the words in my cartoon, turning it into a mocking of both liberals and conservatives. Good for Davi for posting such a good-humored response.

I’d only make two criticisms: First, the credit could be clearer — it now says “by Davi Barker,” but I wish it had said “by Davi Barker, reusing drawings by B. Deutsch” or something. (It does say it’s a “parody” of my work, but “parody” doesn’t normally imply “only the words have been changed, otherwise it’s not my work.”) Not a big deal, just a preference of mine.

Secondly, I like the reworking of “the Island” into “Drug Warrior,” but Dani should have redrawn the crumpled-up piece of paper in his hand and made it into a pipe. C’mon, folks — details count! (I liked the little police hat and vest added to my gun-totin’ dude, though.)