Weekly News Roundup for May 1st!
First of all, let me say I can’t believe it’s already May! This year is flying by for me, probably because I’ve been so busy with all these different projects.
I don’t have a whole lot of news to share this week, as I’ve been busy again. But here are some highlights.
With the financial crisis what it is, it doesn’t surprise me that Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand are seeing renewed interest. Atlas Shrugged is my absolute favorite book. I only read it last year (and my copy is currently loaned out to a friend) but it had such a profound, life-changing effect on me. If you haven’t read it yet, I would strongly recommend you do.
The Espresso Book Machine has launched in London. This machine has the potential to completely change the publishing industry, making it possible for book stores (and any other business) to carry a virtually unlimited variety of books. Basically, the Espresso is a print on demand machine that prints and binds a book in less than five minutes while you wait. Since books are stored electronically, there’s virtually no limit to the number of books a shop can carry, including out of print and self published titles. If anyone has actually laid their hands on one of the books printed by this machine, I’d be very interested to know the quality of the finished product (feel free to post in the comments).
There was an interesting article written by Leo Babauta (of Zen Habits) over on Write to Done about copyright and why it actually hurt artists. I’m not entirely sure I agree with him on this issue. I may put my own views on the matter into a blog post at some point over the next week or two. One of the biggest issues I have is that once a work becomes really popular, the chances someone other than the original creator will be the one profiting from it increase (probably exponentially). I’ll have to look into it all a bit more before expressing a definite opinion. In the meantime, go read the article Leo wrote.
On a related note, Leo wrote a post over on his own blog, Zen Habits, about a certain author contacting him claiming he’d infringed on her trademarked book title. What was that particular phrase, you might ask? “Feel the fear and do it anyway”. In this case, I have to agree wholeheartedly with Leo. The phrase as he used it had nothing to do with her book (or any book) and was simply a reference to something a friend of his said on Twitter. Sometimes the whole copyright/trademark thing does go a little bit far. People need to use some common sense. To me this smells of an author trying to get a little free advertising on a very popular blog (though I could be wrong). And no, I’m not going to add the legalese this woman was requesting of him either. If you want to know who the author was, click through to Leo’s blog.
Writing forward had a great post on using questions to come up with writing ideas. It’s got some awesome information, so I definitely recommend you check it out.
Yesterday was supposed to be the (self-imposed) deadline for finishing the first draft of my new non-fiction book. I have three chapters left to write. A bunch of paid work popped up at the last minute and consider it’s the end of the month, I had too much other work to get done. So my goal is now May 3rd (this Sunday) for finishing the first draft. I’ll post as soon as it’s done!
8 Comments
This entry is filed under News and tagged with atlas shrugged, ayn rand, copyright, espresso book machine, POD.
You can also follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Or perhaps you're just looking for the trackback and/or the permalink.
Thanks so much for the link love. I always thought that titles could not be copyrighted, which explains where there are many movies, books, songs, albums, etc. with the same titles. I’m off to read Leo’s article…
It’s correct that titles can’t be copyrighted, but in some cases they can be trademarked. But trademarks are a lot different than copyrights, and simply using a phrase like that isn’t usually enough to be called trademark infringement. If it was, then I’d never be able to say I was eating an apple; I’d always have to say I was eating an Apple® (Apple® is a registered trademark of Apple, Inc. and is used with their permission). Trademarks are very closely related to the products they’re attached to. So just like Apple computer can’t contend that calling the fruit “apple” is a trademark violation, using a trademarked phrase in a completed unrelated context isn’t generally considered infringement. Sometimes even using it on a closely related product isn’t even a violation (of course, you’ll want to check with an attorney before you do any such thing, just in case).
Thanks for the links and kind words, Cameron!
Regarding the issue you brought up, of people other than the creator profiting … it’s true, others will profit on your work once it becomes popular. But the key question is: Does it hurt or help the creator?
You might think others profiting on your work hurts you, but does it really? How does someone else making money on your work hurt you? It would only hurt you if your sales/profits or reputation actually decreased … but this is assuming a closed model, where there are a limited number of sales to be made. This isn’t true in the real world.
In reality, there aren’t just 10,000 sales to be made (to pull out a random number). There could be many more than 10K, if word about the book (or other work of art) spreads to new audiences.
So if I write a book, and it becomes popular, and other people take my book and sell it and profit from it … does this hurt me? Actually, if people buy the book from them, and like it (this is the key — they have to like it), they’ll tell others about it. And those people will tell still others. So the word about my book will increase.
And then the market for my book has grown from 10K to 100K (let’s say). And even if I only sell 40% of that market (and others sell 60%), I’ve made 40K sales … 4 times what my market used to be when it was only 10K.
A real life example: my ebook, Zen To Done. I released copyright. Other people sell hardcopies of it, even electronic versions, and profit. One of several examples is that someone is selling Zen To Done on Amazon, in print form, and I get none of those profits. But I don’t mind. If someone buys Zen To Done on Amazon, I don’t get the sale, but if they like it, they will tell others, and those people will tell others. So the Amazon dudes are actually helping spread my reputation. The result: sales for Zen To Done increase all the time, in part because others are marketing my ebook for me. Their profiting off my work doesn’t hurt me — it helps.
Sorry, I wanted to add something to my last comment. When others sell your book and profit, but spread the word about the book and increase your reputation … the benefits to you, the creator, are actually much more than increased sales (for you) for just that one book.
Actually, when people buy my ebook from other people, and those people have now heard about Leo Babauta, they will look for more of my work (if the work they read is good — again, this is the key). And soon they will start reading my blog (which is one reason my subscriber numbers keep increasing), and buy my other ebook, and then buy my print book, The Power of Less.
So increased reputation from others profiting off your work will lead to more readers, and more sales of your other work. This is a win for the creator.
I definitely think releasing copyright selectively can really benefit an artist. The same goes for looking the other way when people pirate your work (sometimes). But as you’ve brought up—having others distribute something where you’ve released copyright to build your reputation helps you in selling your other work where you haven’t released copyright.
It’s similar to releasing a portion of your book for free and encouraging others to pass it around in order to increase sales for the entire book. Sort of like a free sample. It’s a great marketing tactic. I realize you have other reasons for releasing copyright on your ebook and your blog (which is great, btw) but increased sales on products you haven’t released copyright on has to be a nice side effect.
Personally, I’m a big fan of Creative Commons licenses. I believe in giving credit where credit is due and would do so whether required or not but, unfortunately, many people don’t feel the same way. Releasing under a CC license helps to ensure the credit at least comes back to you instead of whoever is distributing your work, ultimately improving your reputation even more.
I think it’s also largely dependent on how large a market is for whatever you’re producing. In some cases, such as in very tight niches, there may be a finite number of sales available. If someone else comes in and undercuts you enough, they might end up with 90% of those sales. If you’ve invested the past two or three years of your life creating that piece of work, having someone else get that much of the profit can really hit you hard. In a much larger market, though, 10% might feel like completely adequate compensation for the work you put in.
You bring up some great points and I agree with you for the most part. I just think there are plenty of cases where it could harm the artist more than help, depending on individual situations. With the book I’m set to release this summer, I’m already planning on releasing portions of it for free (likely as whitepapers) in order to help stir up more interest in the project. I’ll likely release under a Creative Commons license, though.
@Cameron: The only product that I haven’t released copyright on is my print book, The Power of Less, and that’s only because I’m trying to get permission of my publisher to do so. If I could just release copyright on the book, I would.
But yes, it’s nice to receive increased sales for *any* of my books or blogs because of increased exposure from releasing copyright. That’s the main point. The thing is, I’m receiving increased sales even on the ebooks that I’ve released copyright on … so there’s no need to release copyright on only a portion of my work. That would only be the case if sales *decreased* from release of copyright, which is not true in my experience (and in the experience of many others).
Regarding a finite market: you’re possibly right. But I’ve yet to see a market like that. Name a niche market where there’s such a finite number of possible customers that your sales will decrease if someone else is profiting from your work. The reality is that no market is completely tapped out — we just reach certain barriers, such as potential customers who don’t read blogs or Twitter or industry magazines. We need new ways to reach them, and the increased exposure that comes from released copyright helps to do that.
However, I do agree that this strategy might not work for everyone. I do think that it’ll work for a large number of writers and other creators of content and art, and I think most people haven’t considered the idea because they’re stuck in the old model. I think it’s worth exploring, for every writer.
@Leo: You’ve given me an idea. I’m releasing a book this summer (self publishing). Once sales on it start to fall off (or if they never pick up in the first place, *shudder*), I’ll seriously consider releasing the copyright (or at least offering it up under a CC attribution license) to see if that turns things around. If sales pick up and/or other opportunities present themselves because of this, you’ll have a convert on your hands. You’ve got me curious about it, and I’m really interested now to see how it would work and if it would work.
As far as finite markets go, I can see very specific industries in which a book might have a finite market (especially small industries). Same thing with local interest-type books. Not a huge number of people catering to those markets, but there are markets out there where a book, especially, might only have a market of a few thousand people. Of course, with other art it’s different and I can definitely see where having an original by the actual artist would mean the artist’s own work would garner a premium price, benefiting the artist.
I do know of fiction authors who turn the other way as “pirated” copies of their books are distributed online and have seen hugely increased sales because of it. So I don’t doubt that giving your work away can have a really positive impact on sales. But it’s a personal choice. I think it’s something each author/artist needs to decide for themselves.
There’s also the question of “does keeping the copyright hurt an artist”. I think in most cases, it doesn’t, other than possibly decreased sales. But here’s a what-if scenario for you: an author writes a book and signs a contract with a less-than-scrupulous publisher (there are plenty of them out there) without knowing any better. The book does well and the author decides they want to release copyright, so they approach their publisher about it. The publisher agrees, and then issues a new edition of the book and stops paying royalties to the author. Maybe they change some parts so then they can re-copyright it. And then they sue the author for copyright infringement if they release another edition. It’s a worst-case scenario, but considering how many horror stories I’ve heard about vanity and subsidy publishers, I can see where some “publishers” might be tempted to do something like that. It wouldn’t even have to be a publisher who would do this but could be any unscrupulous person who has a bigger budget and no problem with claiming the work is there own.
I think a middle ground more like the Creative Commons licenses is a safer bet. Maybe even going so far as to use a “share and share alike” license so others have to also release under a CC license would protect the author while also allowing the free distribution that seems to be the major benefit to releasing copyright. It protects the authors rights as copyright was meant to while still allowing the content to be distributed freely.
Regarding your worst-case scenario, I can’t see that happening. The publisher couldn’t re-copyright it just by changing a few things … they could copyright their version, but couldn’t sue the author for releasing their original version or any other version than the one they copyrighted. And I think it’s fine to have different versions … the best versions will usually win out, except that all things being equal I’d bet the uncopyrighted versions will spread more widely because their distribution is less restricted.
I have nothing against Creative Commons — I think it’s great. Its too restrictive for me, only because I see giving up copyright as a gift, and I don’t like to put restrictions on gifts. People should be able to use my gift however they like.
I agree — it’s up to each artist. I definitely think each and every artist should explore it, though.
And with that, I’d like to wish you best of luck with your experiment! Be sure to let me know when you share the results with us. Best way to contact me is through twitter: http://twitter.com/zen_habits.
Thanks for the great discussion!