AG + Lulu = angry Ananth

[Vitorio]

(This post is probably going to incur the wrath of long-term forumers, but I'm wearing my flame-retardant underwear, so...)

I'm not Hawk or Anath, so of course I can take a distant, rational view of this situation.  But I've been on the receiving end of someone using a work of mine in a vein that was clearly complete infringement and illegal, as well as someone using my work in an unexpected -- but fair -- fashion.

Feeling disrespected is an emotional reaction.  It's your work, you created it, you poured time and effort and blood and money and heart and soul into it.  And I, like all of the contributors here on the forums, appreciate that effort with our page views and comments and merchandise purchases.

But it's still a copyrighted work, and with the production of that work, comes a responsibility to the public.  This is why copyright is of a limited term.  You're given a limited, short-term (well, not so short term in the US any more, but still), temporary right to what you create so that you can profit from it, and then it becomes public domain and everyone can create derivative works and therefore further draw inspiration for the future.  Just as the Eve storyline is a traditional golem story in new cloth, in a hundred years someone will read an ancient AppleGeeks comic and weave a new tale inspired from that.

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.

I think you're wrong here.  Once might say this reader was so appreciative, that he wanted a copy on his bookshelf.  He wanted a copy to keep and read all the time, whenever he wanted, online or at the beach.  And as the owner of the work, copyright is granted to you so you can provide that, so you can meet that need.

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.

You're right, it's not okay, because someone doing a run of books, whether for free or for sale, materially affects the market for your books in the future.  Even if they're giving it away, that is a violation of your rights.

But think of it from the reader's perspective.  I love AG so much, I appreciate the work you do so much, I want to hold it in my hands, and I'm willing to pay for that.  But I can't.  Your right to restrict copying grants you the power to also not print out books if you so choose.  But at the same time, if all of your fans, within the legal bounds of their countries, do it on their own, printing comics out, one page at a time on their Lexmarks, paying out $100 worth of ink, every one of them -- if they have to do it themselves because you're not meeting that need, then I think you're the one being disrespectful.  You're disrespecting the social and legal contract granted to you by the notion of copyright.  There's a definition and purpose that goes back a lot farther than 1976, here.

You may feel like this fan doesn't appreciate you enough to wait.  I'm wondering if, instead, you don't appreciate your fans enough to give them what they want.

[Matt]

Jumping slightly off topic here, Ananth, Hawk, let me congratulate you on opening the Applegeeks store.  Sorry you had to reveal it early, but, as a positve side effect, I just visited megagear, and purchased an Eve poster, as well as a Ph34r teh Cut3 Ones poster, which will support Fred and his family, as well as keeping megagear alive.  That will in turn keep your store open and help you towards better tools to make the comic.  True, the store has been a long time coming, but AG fans have been for the most part patient, and will continue to be patient until you choose the right time to release an official AG compilation. Can't wait to have the posters stuck to my wall.  Maybe I'll frame them.  I bet it will look nicer.  Keep up the good work.

-Matt

[Hellmark]

Ananth, I dont think anyone seriously believed you guys want to sue.

Vitorio, here are my thoughts on that - First off, they don't have to respect us or do anything for us. They are not obligated to do anything. Also, right now Hawk is working on a book, and while not of AG material, if that did well, they'd have a new door open to where they could make AG books. Also, for the last year, they've not been able to work on commercial things (for example a book), because of college, work, etc. At one point, they did sell things on the site here, but like I said, due to other things had to step back. Were you expecting Hawk and Ananth flunk out of college, lose their jobs, or cause the quality of future AG issues to drop just so they can "appreciate the fans"

[despot]

Not asking for permission to print the comics is lame, though not entirely unexpected. 

The argument that "Lulu made money off of the printing of Applegeeks work, and that's really bad," is a bit silly, though.  Generally, only moderated mediums are liable for their content, the owners of unmoderated websites are no more liable than Lulu, assuming that Lulu makes it a point not to check for copyright ownership and makes clear that any copyright violation lies solely on the customer.  Photo-finishers do this all the time with copyright releases: "You, [the customer name], indicate that you are the sole owner of the copyright of the material described below and that we, [insert company name], can—in no way—be held liable for any copyright violation which may occur in the reproduction of the material described below:" (though, it wouldn't have em dashes).

Is Chris Davis liable for copyright violation?  Most likely.  Damages would be a fun one to figure out though.  There was no loss of profit, no attempt to distribute, and the quality is subpar to anything that the AG crew would put out (I assume that 72dpi comics aren't going to be scaled to 300dpi-600dpi).  So, emotional damages?  Which he's been extremely apologetic for.  I feel a fair solution is the request of an uncut video of the book, fanned pages to show the interior, proceeded by the tossing of it through a shredder, then have the applegeeks confetti doused with lighter fluid and summarily combusted.  Problem solved, Applegeeks can make it's pretty penny off of Chris Davis (and the rest of us) if and/or when they decide to put out a book.

As for everything else?  Does anyone feel a bit bad about that "music/movies" folder they've got?  Rabid  applegeeks fans... anyone... no?  Huh, it's alright when it's a rockstar's material but not when it's the material of starving college students, interesting.

[Keizuki]

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.

That kinda wraps it up for me. No obtained rights, no printing.

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.
We ask all Lulu members to let us know immediately if they have any reason to suspect that any material on Lulu infringes on someone else's rights. If a user believes his or her intellectual property rights are being infringed, please let us know. When we are informed of such a violation, we will act immediately to remove the items in question. As a community of content creators and users, we hope that Lulu members will look out for one another in this respect. Users who violate our policies on intellectual property risk being banned from the site.

edit; in the Basic FAQ section.
edit; damn u guys post fast, 3 pages already!

[dakameleon]

(This post is probably going to incur the wrath of long-term forumers, but I'm wearing my flame-retardant underwear, so...)

long time forumers? Bah, I've signed up just to respond to your post.

I'm not going to attack everything, because that would be all-out flaming, but your core argument seems to be:

But it's still a copyrighted work, and with the production of that work, comes a responsibility to the public. This is why copyright is of a limited term.  You're given a limited, short-term (well, not so short term in the US any more, but still), temporary right to what you create so that you can profit from it, and then it becomes public domain and everyone can create derivative works and therefore further draw inspiration for the future.

You make a very disjointed argument here. What responsibility to the public is there in the notion of copyright? Copyright is intended to protect the author(s) from commercial exploitation that they do not authorise; it also gives them control over the reproduction of the material. Admittedly, the Internet has caused all sorts of hell in this area, but copyright law recognises these issues and still grants Ananth and Hawk full exclusive rights to the reproduction.

So yes, what "responsibility" arises out of this? They hold copyright for the rest of their lives, plus a further 70 years beyond that through their estates, unless they choose to give it up sooner. They could give away their work and still hold copyright to it. The notion of copyright, however flawed or murky, grants exclusive rights to the creators in recognition of their creative efforts. It doesn't even have to be "good" work, just original. Recall, copyright is automatic for all creative works.

I think you're wrong here.  Once might say this reader was so appreciative, that he wanted a copy on his bookshelf.  He wanted a copy to keep and read all the time, whenever he wanted, online or at the beach.  And as the owner of the work, copyright is granted to you so you can provide that, so you can meet that need.

[snip]
 
But think of it from the reader's perspective.  I love AG so much, I appreciate the work you do so much, I want to hold it in my hands, and I'm willing to pay for that.  But I can't.  Your right to restrict copying grants you the power to also not print out books if you so choose.  But at the same time, if all of your fans, within the legal bounds of their countries, do it on their own, printing comics out, one page at a time on their Lexmarks, paying out $100 worth of ink, every one of them -- if they have to do it themselves because you're not meeting that need, then I think you're the one being disrespectful.  You're disrespecting the social and legal contract granted to you by the notion of copyright.  There's a definition and purpose that goes back a lot farther than 1976, here.

You may feel like this fan doesn't appreciate you enough to wait.  I'm wondering if, instead, you don't appreciate your fans enough to give them what they want.

Would you care to define that "definition and purpose" that goes back further than 1976? (Why 1976, incidentally? did you mean 1776?) Or the "social and legal contract"?

Hawk & Ananth have no obligation what so ever to their fans. They produce applegeeks out of whatever motivation they have - and it appears they get enough support back that they continue producing it. But if you think that obligates them in any way, especially legally, you're sadly mistaken. Is a record company somehow obligated to continue producing and distributing records from artists who scored one big hit album, and then disappeared? No, and I know this through personal experience - discovering an artist years after they were popular, and being totally unable to track down a legal copy of their album. The record company and artist are not legally obligated at all to satisfy this fan's demands. This applies in the case of AppleGeeks, as well.

So if you demand a book, why not let Ananth and Hawk know? If they get enough requests, wouldn't you think they'd look into it? Rather than bitching at them for not satisfying the baying demands of fans, why not appreciate their efforts and enjoy AppleGeeks? It sure as hell seems that you expect them to respond to your demands because they're so open and available.

Would you do the same to say Dilbert? No way. LuLu wouldn't have touched a fan's request to print a Dilbert compliation with a ten foot bargepole. AG stands in the same copyright realm as Dilbert does.

As for everything else?  Does anyone feel a bit bad about that "music/movies" folder they've got?  Rabid  applegeeks fans... anyone... no?  Huh, it's alright when it's a rockstar's material but not when it's the material of starving college students, interesting.

extremely relevant point =) It appears a bit of communism has crept into the mindset through the nefarious BitTorrents!

[xerjester]

I see a great deal of semantics and a lot of plying grey areas with vigorous strokes here, but for those of you playing along at home, here's what it boils down to, cut and dry, as told to me by my own lawyer, and the current media representation and presentation agreements of ADV Films (where I also work);

---What NEEDS to be noted here ---
Applegeeks - copyright © 2004 Mohammad F. Haque and Ananth Panagariya. All rights reserved.

Got that? Let's continue.

1. Copyright is the exclusive right to the intellectual material, including all hitherto reproduction, liscence, distrubution, marketing, and manufacture.

Laymens' terms: Do they own it? Awesome. They decide exactly what will, has, and possibly will happen to it/with it/for it and by it. Period.

2. Presentation of said materials is only within the expressed agreement and knowledge of the owner of said copyright. No third party may knowingly produce, distribute, show, or otherwise present materials under said copyright without the owner's expressed permission.

Laymen's terms: It's simple math. Online is public domain - true. WEBSITES, however, are NOT. This is where people misunderstand (or decide to misinterpret) media laws versus "fair use" laws. The site, and all materials on it, are beholden to the owner of the copyright. Movie theaters have to gain contractual permission with distributors just to show films. Conventions have to make agreement with distributors to show title releases of anime. Networks on t.v. must contract the production studio that produces a particular show for airing even if they OWN said studio.

Don't agree? Try the "forum" issue. Did you know that forums on privately-owned websites are NOT covered by 1st-ammendment rights of "free speech"? Did you also know that collective privately-owned-and-run image services such as DeviantArt legally OWN the rights to all work hosted on their servers?

"Fair use" is a fantastic crutch. However, it has not, nor will ever, apply to a privately-owned website in regards to public or non-ownership  use of the materials presented there. But, it works both ways. If J.K Rowling dislikes your use of the "Harry Potter" logo on your fan site - guess what? She can legally send the ol' cease and desist.

3. Without need of the legal jargon: People immediately think copyright is grounded on the question of the impact of a genre-based market concerning the copyright in question. It is: IN COURT CASE JUDGEMENTS.

Case in point: The Penny Arcade/American Greetings debacle. By law, American Greetings was well within their rights to send a cease and desist. They were well within their rights to pursue legal action. However, while impact of market in perpetuity is a big question when/if something goes to trial, it is NOT the penultimate deciding factor. In Penny Arcade's case, the premier defense is the simple fact that by definistion, the work was PARODY. Now THAT is where "fair use" comes in. It's not mutually exclusive, but it was designed initially to protect satirists and parodies of existant known work.

Printing the material straight out isn't parody, last time I checked.

In fact, the matter of "did they make money of the copyrighted work?" rarely surfaces as any standing issue of evidence.  Moreover, the majority of copyright cases within the last 10 years weighed the case against one simple question:

"According to the letter of the law and current language, does this matter constitute as a violation of the law itself?"

The short and simple of this matter, albeit not in danger of becoming a legal one is: YES.

Hawk and Ananth OWN this work. They OWN the right to decide when, where, why, and HOW it is presented. At present, they have decided that the intellectual property they OWN is to be displayed ONLY at the privately-owned URL of www.applegeeks.com. All other merchandise, print-outs, presentations, or displays of this work MUST be given the green light by the owners before it sees the light of day, for public use or private: no exceptions.

To the person who chastised Hawk and Ananth's reaction, saying instead they should instead be pleased with such fan dedication and devotion: I'll wax vulgar here. Fanart given to the creator is dedication and devotion. Cosplay of your favorite character from the comic at a con is dedication and devotion. A life-sized sculpture in bronze of the comic cast presented as a gift is dedication and devotion. Taking full advantage of LuLu's laughable and lackadaisical printing service agreement and regulatory practices by creating a book of images you saved off a website is not only the OPPOSITE of fan dedication and devotion, it's fucking devoid of all creativity and skill whatsoever.

This wasn't an act of fandom. This wasn't an altruistic operation. It was self-admitted; there was no book to buy, so he made his own. This was self-indulgent impatience for the sake of having it "now". End of story.

Should we, as creators give the fans what they want? Nope. There's no law relegating that option as dogma in the creative industries. We do it because we love it, and people of like minds become readers and fans. They stay on as we present more of what we love, even when that may change. The creator who begins answering to every whim and beck and call of outsiders is no longer a creator at all: he's just a funnel for the wishes of others. To flippantly say "well you should have got a book out already" is not only derrogatory to the independent creator, but it's a shallow jab in the guise of a "valid point". Getting a book out there is a tremendous undertaking, expensive, and time-consuming in the extreme. You want to expedite matters? Ask. Purchase available swag. Be patient. Support how you can, and that alone will pave the way. It was the same for Mac Hall, Ctrl Alt Del, SCD and even the Drunk Duck collective books. We're none of us Marvel, DC, IMage or AP with the power to sign a piece of paper and virtually magic a catalogue of publications into existence. AG will do it when they are damn good and ready.

Oh. And I own all the music in my particular folder. Fancy that.

[ananth]

Xero throws down ... ^_^

Thanks man, that was very much appreciated.

[Uranium - 235]

“Please note that Lulu is not a publisher, but instead provides users with tools to publish their own content. Because Lulu is not a publisher, we do not review work published through our site. We do expect all content to be consistent with our Member Agreement and reserve the right to remove content we deem to be illegal or inappropriate.”

LuLu, frankly, I don't think will survive unless they take an active hand in this. Hundreds of torrent sites and filesharing networks post almost this exact same thing and they get shut down in no time.

Napster only provided the tools to share media, public domain or exclusive copyright. Look what happened to Napster.

LuLu has set themselves up for exactly what happened here. It only needs to happen to some grump who wants to make an example of someone (to be honest, more examples need to be made) who will end up suing LuLu, their stupid 'non-responsibility' clause will collapse like a house of cards, and LuLu goes the way of Sharereactor.

[Knightslugger]

Xero,

Dude...  that, was totally zomg.  Thank you for elaborating what i could not.  That post gets my vote as BEST POST EVER.

will you write my sumations?   seriously, i don't even think MY lawyer could do better...

[komejo]

Ananth and Hawk (and others),

First off, I would like to apologize on behalf of Lulu. We established our company with the ideal that creators should have complete control over their work, and especially their copyright. However, since our site is automated, it can happen from time to time that a 3rd party will infringe on someone else's work. We take reports of such violations seriously. The form for reporting such things is here:

http://www.lulu.com/support/form_help_request.php?fReportAbuse=1

We do not condone the publication or unauthorized use of your works. In this instance however, the user has removed the content and does not appear to have ever offered it for sale to the public. If we determined that he still had the content available, we would have immediately suspended his account and halted any further sales.

We realize that this puts Lulu in a bad light, and we also take that seriously. Word of mouth and reputation make or break a company, and we're eager to do our best to make it up to you in some way. Please let us know if there's any way that we can make amends for this unfortunate situation.

Regards,
Joe Komenda
Lulu

PS - Chris, don't do stuff like this. Not cool. You're killing us here.

[chrisjdavis]

komejo,

I have already asked Henry to delete my account, and have done everything I can to direct all the negative feelings/publicity to myself and not to LuLu.

I am a huge fan of LuLu, and what you are trying to do; the last thing I want is to contribute to bad press for LuLu.  In a twist of irony that is worthy of baroque writers, it was the post where I was pimping LuLu  that this all started.

* shakes head *

[Matt]

...That post gets my vote as BEST POST EVER.

Ditto.

-Matt

[ananth]

Thank you Mr. Komenda! Your post is much appreciated.

I think this thread has gone on long enough - I don't want it to turn into an eternal flame thread. To the forum kids - thanks for your support guys.

*locked*