AG + Lulu = angry Ananth

[Hellmark]

I say applegeeks fans take his email and spam him till he takes it off his site or at least gets a messege from their loyal fans that we are none too happy at what this jerk has done.

that would do nothing but make others look at Applegeeks in a negitive light.

As far as reproducing it, would asking have been hard? Hawk's very easy to get a hold of because he's in the IRC channel alot, plus both can be contacted via email or on the forums. In my experience, for things that are for personal use only, they typically will let you (since when I asked, a commercial place wasnt involved, so might be a bit different). Point of the matter is, you didn't ask.

[bsmntdwllr]

I've been reading this comic since within the first few months of the very first issue. I don't care about your right to ask them or not, what bothers me is that you fail to see the point that by LuLu or yourself, whoever it may've been, still made money from it. We here on this sick planet called "Earth" term such a thing as "piracy" and/or illegally distributing someone else's copyrighted works to earn a profit.

Whether your impatient and, frankly, irritably narrow mind can comprehend such a statement has clearly been made public. Nobody cares if it was one copy or a thousand. The fact remains that you stole someone's work and made someone a profit out of it. Go read your damn copyright laws and litigations, it's all there in beautiful black typeface. YOU CANNOT DO WHAT YOU CLAIM YOU'RE ALLOWED TO!

Hawk and Ananth are well within their right to take legal actions.

Have a niiiice fucking day.

[chrisjdavis]

Hey Hawk,
LuLu didn't make a dime off the printing, that is not how their model works.  What I paid only covered creation costs nothing more.  Had I sold the work publicly I would have needed to add a 'royalty' to the price; at that point LuLu would have made a percentage.  Since I did not do that, LuLu made nothing.

Everyone else,
Lets see, personal and education are terms that I have used interchangeably.  That was not the best practice on my part, but that is the truth.  I printed the tpb for 'educational' purposes, which I would also consider personal; I am not sure how it could be otherwise.  There was an underlying motive than just 'it would be cool to have this on the shelf' although that was also a factor in all honesty.  I could go on but I am not sure what good that would do, since I have already been branded a great many unpleasant things and I doubt anything I say will change that fact.

Bottom line I felt I was within my rights according to the Fair Use clause to do as I did, and I do not apologize for that.  Am I sorry that this has become the issue it has?  Yes.  Am I sorry that Hawk and Ananth feel as though they have been treated unfairly?  Yes, of course I do.

As I said in my previous post here, if you (Hawk or Ananth) would like to talk about this, you can email me, or we can talk on the phone, or via IM.  You want me to burn/shred/mail what I have to you, tell me.  Hell I can even pay you what you would want for it had you made it, since I do value your work.

Just let me know, and as an aside for anyone who feels it neccesary to comment on my post, by all means go for it.  I value conversations and discussions.  Your comments are in moderation until I approve it the first time, so don't double comment.  Also I value conversation; act like an ass and I will delete your comment.  But I welcome real conversation about this.

[Matt]

First off, as a person in the process of creating his very own webcomic, I feel that I must state that I have been doing research on copyright laws.  What I have found is that any work, whether or not a copyright statement appears with it, is automatically and fully copyrighted the very moment it is created, even before it is put in a tangeble form.  Whether or not a fair use clause gives you or anyone else certain rights to use it, you must understand that it does not give you the right to use ALL of it.  For instance, in the music world, people are allowed to use snippets of audio, called sampling, for certain uses.  For instance, most radio stations will use "clips" from famous movies in their broadcasts.  Reviewers will use clips or a line or two of a written material in their articles.  Now, imagine, if those same people were to use a vast majority of the material as a "sample."  Suddenly, that is no longer fair use.  While I won't label you a criminal for printing up a hard copy of Hawk and Ananth's works, you should at the very least have shown some attempt to contact them for permission.  You said yourself that you didn't because you thought they were too busy.  No creator is ever too busy to deal with the rights to his or her work.  Had you asked, this conversation may not even have existed.  You also contradict yourself by saying that you have respect for Hawk and Ananth, yet you couldn't be bothered for a simple permission e-mail.  From now on I suggest that you err on the side of caution and assure that you have sufficient permission before taking action with anyone's material.

Hawk, Ananth, regarding your blog entry about AG merchandise at Megagear, please don't let these actions change your mind about selling your merchandise to us.  Given the amount of money fans have paid on e-bay for your original works, there is more than enough respect from your fans for your works.  Don't let a few bumps in the road make you pull over for good.  And I will gladly buy an item or two from your section of the store as well as Fred's.
A fan 'til the end,

-Matt

[EDIT]
I should also note that whether or not you or Lulu made any money off of the work is not really the issue.  For instance, if I were to take some applegeeks comics, save them to my local hard drive, and then post them up on my web site, without asking for the green light to do so, I am still violating their rights to their works.  Hawk and Ananth provide these comics, as well as this entire site, out of the goodness of their hearts, to us.  Just because a web browser allows you to save an image doesn't mean that you are allowed to then use it without permission.  The bottom of this and every page is the copyright notice, including the All Rights Reserved statement.  Even each comic itself has this notice.  Once at their web site, you are expected to respect these rights, unless Hawk and Ananth STATE OTHERWISE.  I do hope that you will keep an open eye out for these types of statements.  When in doubt, I suggest that you consult a lawyer for clarification.  Law can be a tricky thing.

[Vitorio]

LuLu still made money off our work. What would happen if each member in this forum went out and printed a book the same way. How does that help us? Do we get any profit from that? No.

I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense.  LuLu didn't make money off of AG's work.  LuLu made money from printing and binding.

If I printed out all the AG comics and bound them myself, and in the process of that, ran out of ink and paper and had to go buy more, and had to go buy glue and fabric for binding, did Hewlett-Packard and Elmers make money off of Hawk and Anath's work?  Or did they just make money because I needed to print and glue something, and they provide printing and gluing materials?

Just as Xerox is not liable if you use a photocopier to copy a page from a book in violation of copyright, and HP is not liable if you print something out in violation of copyright, I sincerely doubt that LuLu is liable if a customer produces a book in violation of copyright.  But I do not believe Chris violated AG's copyright here, either.

I am not a lawyer, but I deal with copyright issues at work on a regular basis; and I am not a comic artist, but I do produce and manage copyrighted works.  Fair use doesn't explicitly say anything about "personal use," but it does consider the nature of the work (factor one).  Chris' work is not of a commercial nature.  He printed one copy for himself.  The likelihood that Chris' efforts will affect the market for AG's work, including financially impact the AG team (factor four) is nil; if an official comic anthology was produced, being a fan, he'd probably buy it and throw out his homebrew copy.  His effort does not decrease the ability for anyone else to read AG comics online, buy official AG merchandise, or appreciate AG's work.  His effort will also likely not lead to thousands of AG readers going taking the time to make their own comic compendiums and having them printed on demand: this is time-consuming, expensive for an individual, and generally not worth the effort.  At least one other person in this thread has commented that they've often thought about printing and binding it themselves, but they'd rather wait and pay AG (and pay AG less, since they'd be buying in bulk).

I don't believe Chris has done anything wrong.  I don't believe LuLu as a company is doing anything wrong.  I believe he's a fan who wanted a nice book, and one wasn't available, and he could afford to do it himself, so he did it.

I think Hawk and Anath should instead be saying, "Wow, that's dedication.  Maybe we'll think a little longer and harder on making a nice print book," and leaving it at that.

Instead, by getting angry and vindictive towards a fan, you're alienating a segment of your readership who, in being able to afford to take a PDF down to Kinkos or another print-on-demand publisher, would also be the first to buy your real books when they come out.

[ananth]

LuLu still made money off our work. What would happen if each member in this forum went out and printed a book the same way. How does that help us? Do we get any profit from that? No.

I'm sorry, this doesn't make any sense.  LuLu didn't make money off of AG's work.  LuLu made money from printing and binding.

If I printed out all the AG comics and bound them myself, and in the process of that, ran out of ink and paper and had to go buy more, and had to go buy glue and fabric for binding, did Hewlett-Packard and Elmers make money off of Hawk and Anath's work?  Or did they just make money because I needed to print and glue something, and they provide printing and gluing materials?

Just as Xerox is not liable if you use a photocopier to copy a page from a book in violation of copyright, and HP is not liable if you print something out in violation of copyright, I sincerely doubt that LuLu is liable if a customer produces a book in violation of copyright.  But I do not believe Chris violated AG's copyright here, either.

I am not a lawyer, but I deal with copyright issues at work on a regular basis; and I am not a comic artist, but I do produce and manage copyrighted works.  Fair use doesn't explicitly say anything about "personal use," but it does consider the nature of the work (factor one).  Chris' work is not of a commercial nature.  He printed one copy for himself.  The likelihood that Chris' efforts will affect the market for AG's work, including financially impact the AG team (factor four) is nil; if an official comic anthology was produced, being a fan, he'd probably buy it and throw out his homebrew copy.  His effort does not decrease the ability for anyone else to read AG comics online, buy official AG merchandise, or appreciate AG's work.  His effort will also likely not lead to thousands of AG readers going taking the time to make their own comic compendiums and having them printed on demand: this is time-consuming, expensive for an individual, and generally not worth the effort.  At least one other person in this thread has commented that they've often thought about printing and binding it themselves, but they'd rather wait and pay AG (and pay AG less, since they'd be buying in bulk).

I don't believe Chris has done anything wrong.  I don't believe LuLu as a company is doing anything wrong.  I believe he's a fan who wanted a nice book, and one wasn't available, and he could afford to do it himself, so he did it.

I think Hawk and Anath should instead be saying, "Wow, that's dedication.  Maybe we'll think a little longer and harder on making a nice print book," and leaving it at that.

Instead, by getting angry and vindictive towards a fan, you're alienating a segment of your readership who, in being able to afford to take a PDF down to Kinkos or another print-on-demand publisher, would also be the first to buy your real books when they come out.

I don't really give a damn about the legal right to do this. Lulu has some fancy legalese, and it opts them out of responsibility for having to check copyrights. If you took a PDF of this stuff to Kinko's, they're never, ever supposed to print it. Hawk and I got quizzed heavily for trying to print out our own stuff, and we had to show proof (meaning the PSD) that we were the actual authors of the work.

But the legalese isn't the point. You say we're alienating a segment of our readership? That's a segment of our readership that really doesn't appreciate all the hard work we put into this. Yeah, sure, it's dedicated for a fan to put a book together and have it printed, but come on - that's not nearly as long as the number of hours we've put into producing the work. It's not just a question of being within your legal rights - it's a question of respect. We're not especially perturbed as businesspeople - we're irritated as people.

And honestly? Saying "Wow, that's dedication" opens the door to people thinking that this is okay. So one person does it now, and we say we think it's cool. It obviously won't stop there - that'll be taken as approval, and suddenly there'll be a whole slew of bootleg AG books. Sorry, not okay.

[Matt]

I don't believe that the money issue is the major factor here.  I DO believe that perhaps Ananth and Hawk are angry that they have received a proverbial "slap in the face" by a fan.  I do believe that Mr. Davis is a fan, and that he will support AG, but the fact is, everyone needs to respect them and allow them to make their own decisions concerning their properties.  When the comic is ready for an official hard copy, then H&A will release one.  Maybe no harm will come of this, but respect is still the underlying issue here.

-Matt

[PhiRatE]

Ok, a few important things, with no actual opinion one way or another:

1. The "made money from it" thing is a bit of a strawman. The fact is that almost anything you're likely to do involves money going to someone. When I look at applegeeks, my ISP gets money, if I was to print it out, I'd have to buy a printer cartridge (an that'd cost a heap..damn HP!), the fact that Lulu recieved money for printing out a pile of pages and binding it is no more relevant than HP getting money for the cartridge.

2. The fact that Applegeeks didn't get money however, is a more serious issue. Rights in general, are handed over primarily by virtue of a contract. A contract is an exchange, you give A, they give B. Since nobody has given Applegeeks anything relating to the online version of the comics, you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that they have given up any of their rights over the work in question. Most particularly, the mere fact that someone put something online does not automatically assign you any form of copying rights to that content, *however*...

3. Being online does impose certain things. For a start, there is no license or any other form of agreement on entering the site, and the nature of the internet being as it is, Applegeeks are likely to find that (if anyone ever got anal enough to bring it up), they had by placing the works in a "public" environment, provided the rights (and only the rights) necesary to allow viewing by a computer. This naturally means the images get copied to proxies, caches, filesystems, computer memory and graphics card buffers.

Exactly what this subsequently implies for the ability to *print* the document is a much harder question, for an example of how messed up this whole copyright thing can get, people were sueing other people for taking photos of a *statue they put in public*, because they wanted to sell the postcards...

4. 4th and finally, the Fair Use thing is a bit of a crazy one. For a start, you could parody Applegeeks, as someone said earlier, and that would be fine (although if you push it things get tricker), but when it comes to things provided for free (no contract, as above), your right to timeshift, format shift etc etc is likely to be nil. You really have no say on what you do with something made visible to you for free yet without the copyright having expired or been given away.

There are a million zillion issues out there relating to copyright and a lot of it is in flux (see statue issue above), but in the end if the Applegeeks guys want to get annoyed about someone using Lulu (or their home printer for that matter) to duplicate Applegeeks media, it's likely to be well within their rights to do so. You have not purchased a license to their work, you haven't done anything except visit their website, there is no reason why you could justifably claim to have been given any rights other than those implicit in viewng the public work or provided for by law (which, I don't believe covers reproducing the entire thing in another format unless it is necessary for viewing in the intended form).

Standing up for the other side for a moment for no particular reason, while it is irritating to have the copyrights on your work ignored, an certainly when it comes to web page layouts etc that's really bad, the positive side of the whole thing is that there is clearly a market out there for dead-tree Applegeeks. Whenever a market exists like that, people *will* fin ways to fulfill it if the "official" channels are not open. Anyone who has viewed a DVD from another region, downloaded an indie MP3 they couldn't get locally etc will understand that when official channels aren't available, people can and will use alternatives if they feel they "deserve" the product.

The problem is that it's illegal, the morality of the whole thing is a whole different swarm of slimey dangerous snakes where justifications can involve sending people donations (see the various music pages like that), doing the fingers to big producers because they so inhuman (almost any major-label artist) etc etc.

My recommendation, and I'm in no way saying the Applegeeks guys *have* to do this (it's not a threat or anything, I'm just pointing out reality), is that they look at supplying this market. The problem is going to be that soon enough, people will start doing this stuff an just not posting it on their blog. hell, someone probably already has. They're not evil, they just want what they don't have and they don't see any way to give you what you want so that everyone can have their cake.

I completely understand that people who work as hard as the Applegeeks guys do at producing *quality* will not want to rush out something shitty, however there is something to be said for the "B-side" idea of having something easily identifiable as "A draft type thing" for those people who want it right now. A beta club you could say, perhaps even in partnership with some place like Lulu so that you get a cut in repesct for your work, the rabid fanbase get something they can read on the train and you guys get an idea of just what the demand is for the final, polished thing, something you'll have a bit of money to burn on making "just right".

[Shinku]

I don't have anything constructive to add to this argument, and I'm sure Ananth and Hawk are dealing with this the best way they see fit. I just wanted to apologize for all the crap they have to go through.

[IUG]

I never post here, but I just have to say something about this.

A.  Chris doesn't seem evil.  He's just a fan who had this idea.  I bet he would buy the actual book when that comes out.  He just did one thing that he didn't see as a big deal, but turned out to be one.  Woops.  Yes, "woops" is about all I think he needs to say.

B.  Chris doesn't need to be "omg su3d!".  Lulu needs to pay more attention.  But Chris is not evil.  No reason to go sue crazy.  He hasn't been "PWNT" by the legal system, he just didn't know.  He's not selling it like those fucks that sell the stationary with the Applegeeks stuff on it.  He just made one, not evil, not stealing, but not the best thing to do without permission.

I think everyone just needs to calm down.  Ananth and Hawk can be mad, but I think after a little time yelling about it, they will get some of the fire out of their eyes and clam down about this.  I would be that mad too, but he didn't do this to be evil is all I'm saying.

[Emizzon]

Lulu themselves say that Chris is not allowed to of had the comic printed.

http://www.lulu.com/help/node/view/1702

Probably already been quoted, but for good measure.

Lulu respects the intellectual property of others, and we ask our creators to do the same. You must own the copyright to any material you publish on Lulu. Because of this, we cannot allow authors to publish "fan fiction" or any stories based on another creator's work unless you have specifically obtained the rights to that work. Lulu will, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, disable and/or terminate the accounts of users who may be infringing upon the intellectual property rights of others.

And yes, I registered just to post this.

[AnyJohnDoe]

Again: for those who haven't been keeping up over on Chris' blog, here's a reprint of what I just posted: 

Again- no personal flames here.  That being said, here we go:

I printed the tpb for 'educational' purposes, which I would also consider personal; I am not sure how it could be otherwise.  There was an underlying motive than just 'it would be cool to have this on the shelf' although that was also a factor in all honesty (from Chris' second post on the AG forums)

.

Again- from the same website that you pointed us all to earlier (very informative by the way, you have my thanks)- you seem to be misusing the part about the Fair Use clause : 

research and education about such copyrighted work

Color me confused, but what sort of research about Applegeeks could you have been completing? And while you may use the terms 'educational' and 'personal' interchangably in your postings, in the eye of the law they are far from the same, especially since the Fair Use clause does not say anything about educational use- only education about the copyrighted work

[Knightslugger]

you know, that would be fine if Lulu.com took responsibility for copyright, but they don't.  The responsibility falls on Chris.  He can't play ignorance, it doesn't work that way.  he knows a private or public entity can't reproduce copyrighted material without owner consent.  He went ahead with it anyway.  He is as liable as Lulu.com is.

[ananth]

Before anyone jumps to conclusions, we're not suing anyone.

[Knightslugger]