feminist blogs

Brendan Douglas Jones has begun posting book three of one of my favorite webcomics, Breakfast of the Gods. “The war for Cerealia starts now. Who will live? Who will die? Who will stay crunchy in milk? Read on to find out!”

For folks who haven’t already been reading Breakfast of the Gods, book one starts here. But don’t read it if you’d be offended by graphic violence, or by violation of trademark. Lots and lots and lots of yummy violation of trademark.

(Actually, I think Breakfast of the Gods might fall under “fair use.” If it doesn’t, the law should be changed until it does.)

(Not totally relevant, but I only read yesterday that the vocalist who sings “You’re A Mean One, Mr. Grinch” in the Chuck Jones animated version, was also the voice of Tony the Tiger. I mean, it’s obviously the same voice, now that I think about it, but I never noticed.)

(And listening to that led me to this utterly delicious pop cover of the song by Sixpence None The Richer.)

“Previously on…” from the New York Times:

Ms. Rowling and Warner Brothers Entertainment […] are suing Mr. Vander Ark’s publisher, RDR Books, based in Michigan, to stop publication of the Harry Potter Lexicon. Ms. Rowling contends in the lawsuit that the lexicon copies large chunks of material from her own books while adding little new information and insight.

From the questioning of Vander Ark:

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: So isn’t it true that you’re not limiting sales of the Lexicon to people who read all seven Harry Potter books, right?

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your Honor, that’s a preposterous question.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

Damn, I wish that questions could have been blocked due to being preposterous at the most recent Obama/Clinton debate.

(Links to trial transcripts here.)

* * *

That aside, the heart of the issue is gotten at in a pre-lawsuit letter sent by Rowling’s lawyers to the Lexicon folks:

The book purports to contain an alphabetical glossary of fictional facts from the Potter books, presumably with little or no independent analysis or commentary, e.g. hundreds of alphabetically arranged entries on Rowling’s characters, themes, settings, motifs, spells, positions, etc.

Although I’m a fan of the Potter books, I think Rowling should lose her lawsuit.

(Links NSFW. Depending on your workplace, I guess.)

Bechdel doesn’t seem too torn up about it, though.

From KSL channel 5 in Utah:

Time Magazine voted it the book of the year, but some students are calling it pornographic and asking it be removed from their curriculum.

Thomas Alvord, with the group “No More Pornography,” says, “The issue is exposing people to pornography.”

The issue is with “Fun Home,” a book assigned for reading in a mid-level English class at the University of Utah. The class introduces students to different literary genres. In the case of “Fun Home,” it’s told in the style of a comic book. The story centers around the author as she comes to terms with her own and her father’s homosexuality.

Drawings depicting sex acts are included in the 230 page novel. A student in the class was offended and approached the group “No More Pornography,” which made headlines earlier this year when it staged a successful protest of music videos shown a gym in Provo. The group has started an online petition in protest of the book. […]

The student in question accepted an alternate assignment but would like to see further changes. The university has no plans make any. It says while a student has the right not to read the book, other students in the class have the right to judge for themselves.

“No More Pornography” hopes to continue talking with the University of Utah and will continue the online petition. The group is also asking that filters be installed on campus computers to prevent students from accessing explicit images.

I’m pretty sure these are Christian anti-porn activists, not Feminist anti-porn activists. But this still reminds me of one of my primary arguments against the MacKinnnon/Dworkin anti-pornography legislation, back when that argument hadn’t yet been made moot by court rulings that the M/D ordinance was unconstitutional: Any anti-porn legislation that isn’t extremely narrowly defined will be used by right-wing Christians to harass queer and feminist cartoonists.¹

Fun Home is, for those of you who haven’t read it, one of the best American comics of the last decade. I posted about Fun Home previously here.

Curtsy: Dykestowatchoutfor.com and Journalista.

Illustration beyond the fold is NSFW.

1. And other sorts of artists, as well, I suppose. But it’s only cartoonists who are really important, needless to say.

Quoting Journalista:

Last Wednesday, U.S. district judge Stephen G. Larson issued a summary judgment in the lawsuit between DC Comics/Warner Brothers Entertainment and the estate of Superman co-creator Jerome “Jerry” Siegel, giving half of the copyright to the original Superman story published in the 1938 Action Comics #1 back to the Siegel estate and backdating said ownership to 1999, when the Siegels filed notice of termination. Jeff Trexler broke the news on Friday afternoon and posted a copy of Larson’s full 72-page ruling to his website; on Saturday, the New York Times and the Bloomberg wire service had both issued news stories covering the landmark ruling. Both Jeff Trexler and Brian Cronin have crafted FAQs answering basic questions, and Andy Khoury discusses the judgment with intellectual-property lawyer Brendan McFeely. The best reading on the subject is really Judge Larson’s summary judgment itself, however: It’s an entertaining and informative document that contains a full history of the creation of Superman, a summary of how the case has progressed to date and of course includes Larson’s erudite resolution of several important issues involved in the case. Oh yeah, and in the appendix, a color reproduction of the original Superman story itself. Hey kids! Comics!

The heirs of Joe Schuster, the other co-creator of Superman, could get ownership of the other half of the copyright by 2013.

More from Journalista:

I wish I could remember where I read it — I’m tempted to credit either Neal Adams or R. Fiore — but one of the most damning things I ever read about the Siegel and Shuster legacy was that it was a refutation of the American Dream. One of the defining principles of the United States, after all, has always been the notion that regardless of the circumstances from which you began in life, if you came up with the right idea or hit the right motherlode you would profit from it accordingly, and pass the wealth along to your family when you died. I don’t know if the “rags to riches” story was invented by an American, but it was almost certainly perfected by one.

The story of how Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster brought Superman to DC Comics, and how DC subsequently treated them, turns this notion on its head. $130 and a job — that’s what Siegel and Shuster got, and they only had the latter so long as they were willing to play ball.[…]

Abhay Khosla refers to all of this as “the original sin of comics,” and he’s quite correct to do so. Arguments that Siegel and Shuster “should have known better,” circulating on comments threads all weekend, should be met with derision by right-thinking people. (”But — but Bob Kane¹ knew better,” said the strawman standing conveniently nearby. So? Bob Kane’s father was a successful East Coast lawyer. Siegel and Shuster were average kids from Ohio. They didn’t know copyright law from diamond mining.)

There’s lots more good stuff at Journalista, so go read.

Unfortunately, the precedent set by this case — even if it’s not overturned — is, due to a technicality, not likely to be applicable to comic books other than Superman. And exactly what this will mean in the long run is still up in the air.

But, symbolically, this is a wonderful victory for creators’ rights.

1. Bob Kane co-created “Batman.”

Comic book and animation writer Steve Gerber — most famous for creating “Howard the Duck” — died yesterday at the age of 60.

I loved “Howard the Duck” when I was a kid (I’m talking about the comic book Howard, the real Howard, not the awful movie that was made in the mid-80s).

But what makes Gerber especially notable for a political blog like “Alas” is the essential role his struggle for ownership of “Howard the Duck” played in changing how comic book creators in the US viewed issues of copyright and creative rights. The character of “Howard” was created as a walk-on gag character in an issue of “Man-Thing” Gerber wrote. It was thus “work for hire,” and the legal creator and owner of “Howard” was Marvel Comics.

Gerber found that he was able to express himself effectively though “Howard the Duck” in a way that was both satisfying to himself and resonant with an audience; soon Gerber was writing both a “Howard the Duck” daily newspaper strip and a “Howard the Duck” comic book. But Marvel Comics fired him from writing the “Howard” newspaper strip and then, when Gerber announced he was going to contest Marvel’s ownership of “Howard,” fired him from writing the comic book. A series of replacement writers proved unable to make “Howard” concept work, and the newspaper strip and then the comic book were canceled.

From The Comics Reporter:

“What disgusts me even more, though, is that I think the writers and artists have largely brought this on themselves,” [Gerber wrote] in 1978. “They don’t want to know about the business end of comics. They prefer to remain ignorant. They’ve allowed the publishers to convince them that they’re a bunch of no-talent bums surviving on the goodwill of the companies. Very few people in this industry really believe that their work has any artistic merit, or that it’s sale-able elsewhere. Or that they deserve more than they’re getting. You will actually hear them defend the publishers’ ownership of their creations, the low page rates, the cowardice of the companies to explore new markets. That’s why it’s startling when someone like Gil Kane or Neal Adams or Don McGregor or Barry Smith — or Steve Gerber — shoots his mouth off. People in the industry find it disturbing that one of their number might actually take his work seriously, take pride not only in being fast and dependable, but in the work itself.”

Steve Gerber did not win back Howard the Duck. He settled with Marvel and even returned to the company by the mid-1980s, although not in as devoted or prolific a fashion. Although the terms of the settlement were sealed, he told Art Cover in 1985 that, “It’s no secret how mad I was during and before the lawsuit. The terms of the settlement are such that I am no longer angry.” […]

The notions that Marvel would take a character away from a creator, even the one best suited to it, and that a creator might fight back, became powerful ideas among a growing tide of younger creators asserting a series of creators’ rights in regards to their work with big, mainstream comic book companies or their moves to smaller companies or self-publishing where rights might be attained. One element of the cautionary story was that Marvel was more interested in keeping and controlling the character than it was in fostering a relationship with the creator, even when the benefits were obvious to both. Also, the fact that Gerber had created Howard in an offhand manner but that the character had come to be a valuable mouthpiece for the creator became a key part of the thinking of a lot of creators rights advocates, and spoke as a powerful counter to an argument often expressed that some characters you created for the big companies and some characters you kept for yourself. As many have cautioned in a thousand hushed conversations since, you never know.

And from a 1986 panel discussion with Gerber, Mark Evanier (whose obituary of Gerber is here), Frank Miller, and Jack Kirby:

EVANIER: One of the reasons Steve settled when he did - he’s too modest to mention this - is that the comics industry at the close of the suit was not the same as at the beginning of the suit. One of the things that prompted Steve’s suit in the first place was that at one point he wanted to try and work out a settlement with Marvel on parts of his contract that had been left dangling. I sent him to an agent of mine, and the agent phoned the appropriate people at Marvel, and they said, “We’re not going to deal with you.” They didn’t recognize the rights of people to speak on behalf of artists and writers.

MILLER: We’re talking about an industry that until maybe ten years ago, a contract could not be negotiated in the office of the publisher of a major comic book company, because the writer showed up with his attorney. The publisher just got up and walked out. This is a true story; I know the writer, I know the attorney, and I know the publisher. We’re talking about the Dark Ages here.

EVANIER: It was 1978, I believe. (laughter) Largely because of Steve’s lawsuit, and because of other people who said, “We’re not going to take it anymore,” the comic book companies grew up a little. They have yet to make proper redress on all of the old offenses, but they’re now dealing in a more mature manner. They will talk to attorneys, and they will draw up legitimate contracts. They now realize they can not conduct major comic book company business like a lemonade stand. Steve’s lawsuit was one of the main reasons for that.

Current comic creators — especially those who work for big, mainstream companies — owe a lot to Gerber’s work and activism.

Marvel has done a reprint of some of Gerber’s “Howard” comics, although unfortunately they expunged the ones with swear words and nudity. I read somewhere today that Image Comics is going to reprint “Destroyer Duck,” the protest/fundraising comic Gerber and Jack Kirby* created (Kirby, who co-created almost all the core Marvel comics characters, was also engaged in a nasty legal struggle with Marvel Comics).

From The Local (a site with Swedish news translated into English):

…special government rapporteur Eva-Maria Svensson suggested the creation of a law “banning advertising containing sexist content.”

Sexist advertising is defined in the report as any message distributed “with a commercial aim” that can be “construed as offensive to women or men.”

“Sexist advertising affects the shaping of people’s identities and is counter-productive to society’s goal of achieving gender equality,” said the report, which calls for a new law to go into effect on January 1st, 2009.

The report was submitted to the government on Tuesday for consideration.

I’m not sure what to think about this. Although I believe in strict protection of free speech for political and artistic speech, I think advertising — with the exception of political ads — should receive a lower level of protection. But I wonder about how the law of unintended consequences would operate if this proposal becomes law.

Fanfic, for those who don’t know, is when fans write new works featuring copyrighted characters and settings created by another author, generally without permission of the copyright owner.¹ So, for example, if I write a short story featuring Harry Potter or set on the Starship Enterprise (or featuring Harry and the Enterprise), that would be fanfic.

In the comments of Making Light, science-fiction writer Jo Walton writes:

Fanfiction can hurt writers and here’s how — sod money, money has nothing to do with it, this is a totally emotional argument.

If other people can take my characters and my universe and write their own things about them, wrong (and it’ll always be wrong, to me, because I know what wasn’t in the story and they can’t) while I’m alive and don’t want them to (dead is different, this is about the inside of my head and my creativity, which won’t be an issue when I’m dead), then I’m not safe to let my stories and my characters out there because they might be desecrated. The thought of it makes my throat close up. Just reading this here and thinking about it will probably stop me writing any more today.

If I’m not safe to publish, I won’t.

That might not hurt anyone except me, and the other writers who feel this way. There are probably quite sufficient writers who don’t feel this way that there would still be books. But there definitely wouldn’t be any more of mine.

I’m sorry that Jo Walton feels that way, and if I wrote fanfic I would definitely refrain from writing any featuring her characters or settings.

However, some writers are deterred from writing by the prospect of criticism. But I don’t think anyone would say that therefore criticism should be discouraged, or argue that this is a good reason for criticism to lack legal protection. That some writers are hurt by the prospect of reader response, in whatever form, is unfortunate, but not a reason to outlaw the response.

(Please note that for all I know, Jo Walton thinks fanfic should be fully legal and as protected as any other writings. I have no idea what her opinion on fanfic and legality is.)

Now, those who want fanfic to be illegal, but criticism to be legal, might respond that criticism serves some valuable functions, and I agree. But I don’t think criticism serves any function that fanfic doesn’t also serve, albeit in different ways.

1. I’m sure someone out there has written a definition with fewer holes in it.

I was going to post a couple of long quotes I found via Theresa at Making Light. But then I would have had to write my own introductory sentences, and it turns out I’m too lazy for that. So not only am I swiping her choice of quotes, I’m swiping her introductory sentences. But you should probably check out Theresa’s post as well, since she also extensively quoted two other interesting discussions of copyright which I am not quoting here.

1. You should read Thomas Macaulay’s speeches on copyright.

These were conveniently quoted by SF writer and firebreathing blue-collar intellectual Eric Flint in Prime Palaver #4. Here’s Flint’s introduction:

These are two speeches given by Thomas Macaulay in Parliament in 1841, when the issue of copyright was being hammered out. They are, no other word for it, brilliant—and cover everything fundamental which is involved in the issue. (For those not familiar with him, Macaulay would eventually become one of the foremost British historians of the 19th century. His History of England remains in print to this day, as do many of his other writings.)
I strongly urge people to read them. Yes, they’re long—almost 10,000 words—and, yes, Macaulay’s oratorical style is that of an earlier era. (Although, I’ve got to say, I’m partial to it. Macaulay orated before the era of “sound bytes.” Thank God.)

But contained herein is all wisdom on the subject, an immense learning—and plenty of wit. So relax, pour yourself some coffee (or whatever beverage of your choice) (or whatever, preferably not hallucinogenic), and take the time to read it. The “oh-so-modern” subject of “electronic piracy” contains no problems which Macaulay didn’t already address, at least in essence, more than a century and a half ago.

I should note that Macaulay’s position, slightly modified, did become the basis of copyright law in the English speaking world. And remained so (at least in the US) for a century and a half—until, on a day of infamy just a few years ago, the Walt Disney Corporation and their stooges in Congress got the law changed to the modern law, which extends copyright for a truly absurd period of time. Which—those who forget history are doomed to repeat it—is a return to the position advocated by Macaulay’s (now long forgotten) opponent in the debate.

2. Packbat boils down Macaulay.

Packbat has summarized Macaulay’s speeches on copyright as five bulleted points:

• The copyright is not an innate right, but a creation of human government.
• A copyright is a form of monopoly, and therefore effectively a tax on the public—thus, it should be restricted to precisely as long a term as would make equivalent the harm done to the public by monopoly and the good provided by encouraging the creation of new works.
• The prospect of income from a property a long time after one’s death is no incentive whatsoever to the creation of new works.
• The probability that the persons for whom the author might have concern will own the copyright a long time after one’s death is minute.
• The probability that the copyright owner might suppress the works, for whatever reason, is great.

Do make sure you read Packbat’s surrounding material.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rejects movie posters that aren’t suitable for children to view. As the MPAA recently explained, as they rejected a movie’s poster:

Ads will be seen by all audiences, including children. If the advertising is not suitable for all audiences it will not be approved by the advertising administration.

So that’s why they rejected this poster:

Apparently they are fighting over a nativity scene.

The problem erupted after a Columbus man apparently complained about equality of religions in displays at state parks.

After a letter to the business manager of Ohio State parks regarding symbols of religion, an order came down to remove the nativity scene which the Garden Club has provided. the letter told all start parks in the state to take down their nativity decorations.

On Friday, Dec. 7, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland intervened.

Under current law, government entities (city halls, courts, public schools, etc) can generally acknowledge religious holidays so long as they do not create an impression of endorsement of religion by the government, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Strickland issued an order mandating that Shawnee and all state parks continue their traditional nativity displays.

And he appears to be well within the law, according to the ACLU. “Just because a nativity scene or other religious display appears on government property does not necessarily mean that it is owned or is being displayed by the government, using tax dollars. Many local and some state governments have within their boundaries public areas whereby citizens are permitted to erect displays, including those of a religious nature, of their own choice” says the Ohio ACLU web site.

This is right in my parents’ backyard. This lodge is really fancy (at least by southern Ohio standards), and most of the folks who stay there are upper middle class folks, who come from places like Columbus and Cincinnati to explore the wilderness in the luxury of fancy hotel.

I wish somebody I know would go up there and put up a Menorah, and see how the locals respond. In my experience, a very large majority of southern Ohio folks are all for freedom of religious expression, when it in involves Christianity. But if somebody went up there and put up a Menorah or any other non-Christian symbol, they’d throw a fit.

I remember around the time I graduated from high school when there was some court decision about prayers at graduations. The administrators and students really wanted to have a prayer (of the Christian variety, of course), so they decided that the graduating seniors could vote on whether or not to have a graduation prayer. I bet I was the only person to say that I didn’t want a prayer. Of course, this was a school was everyone was a Christian or person like me, who was tired of Christianity. Nobody was Muslim; nobody was Jewish,;and if anyone was an atheist or any other religion, they wouldn’t say it publicly.

This is one nice thing about living in a town with a noticeable non-Christian population. There seems to be a great deal more tolerance.