Revision of The "Author-Approved" Mark: A Proposal for Informed Sharing from Tue, 2007-06-26 13:12

I think it would be a difficult system to implement, it seems very similar to the issues faced with music production and copyright. If a print shop can print and distibute a book on demand there has to be some way of tracking the amount of copies produced, as this would be unfair on the author.

Dave

As a published writer in the personal growth field, I like to add my vote that I like this idea of the "The Author-Approved Mark". Any time better relationships and flexibility can be created in the publishing world we are all to benefit. Its a ever changing industry that needs openness and inquiry. Orginal idea that I hope moves forward. Thank you, Sedona

The "negative" version of the mark, as discussed with Brian Fitzpatrick, would possibly suffer from the same problems as badgeware. IE, aggregation of badges, limitation of use to "badgable" media types etc.

So I am not so sure it's such a good idea.

David Glasser and I had a chat room conversation about this proposal, that I think might clarify some things. With David's permission, here's the transcript:

glasser: I've been thinking about the [a] thing for a little

kfogel: It's so odd how we have wrapped up the [a] concept in (c) for so long that for many people, they are inseparable.

glasser: It's a nice idea in general, though it raises the question for me of who exactly gets to be "the author". Say for a movie... would a DVD get an [a] on it because the director approved? the producer? everyone involved?

glasser: and if you end up leaning towards "everyone involved", at what point do you draw the line and say that the traditional "publisher" isn't part of "everyone"?

kfogel: glasser: one nice thing is that that question already exists today and has means of being settled today.

glasser: I guess you could just be more specific: "The director approves of this edition.", etc

kfogel: We already *have* attribution conventions, they're just enforced by means of copyright.

kfogel: We can keep the conventions, but enforce them by their own laws, independently of copying.

glasser: Right, it's not about attribution though, it's about this idea of blessing particular copies/versions with this "author approved" status

kfogel: Since the act of copying is neither necessary nor sufficient for an act of [mis]attribution or [mis]endorsement to take place.

glasser: Sure, no disagreement there

kfogel: glasser: well, one clean solution is to just say "whoever the copyright holder is"

kfogel: In other words, you can sell the right to be the approver, rather than selling the right to restrict others from making copies.

kfogel: s/copyright/creditright/, or s/copyright/approvalright/, in a sense

kfogel: I know that sounds odd, but it kind of follows from the proposition that being the approver has some value to someone.

glasser: So you'd imagine this as being part of a contract?

kfogel: In practice, no author would sell off that right wholesale. They'd rent it out at terms, as described in the article, I think.

glasser: It just seems hard to believe that a traditional publisher, in a world where people expected to see [a], wouldn't require authors publishing through them to include the mark.

glasser: "No editor, marketing, or distribution for you without your endorsement"

kfogel: Traditional publishing is on life-support; I'm not too worried about whether a given model supports it :-).

kfogel: Right, that's the sort of contract an author might sign, then.

kfogel: and that's fine!

* glasser nods.

kfogel: After all, the important difference is that the publisher can't prevent others from copying or distributing, it's just that only *that* publisher can display the mark

glasser: sure

glasser: but I wonder if its meaning gets diminished if people assume it's just "that's how the contract works" and not "the author's true innermost desires"

glasser: (this may be a little off-topic here though, sorry)

kfogel: note that the three things offered by your hypothetical publisher ("editor", "marketing", and "distribution") are... well: the third is blown open by the Internet, the second is an arms race and should not concern us, and the first is something that can happen as easily after publication as before (as we who work on online documentation know).

kfogel: It's on topic according to the channel topic right now :-).

kfogel: (If someone wanders in to talk real dev, we should stop, of course.)

kfogel: I think people don't (and shouldn't) care if it represents the author's true innermost heartfelt desires.

kfogel: The publisher must have offered the author *something* the author wanted, in order to get the right to use the mark.

kfogel: After all, the author doesn't need the publisher, if it's just a matter of distribution.

glasser: Ah, I think I had misunderstood --- I thought that the TIHD was the point here.

kfogel: The fact that the author gave the publisher the right to display the mark means that *by definition* the author approves of the method of distribution. This is what approval means.

kfogel: The author approves of the method, or the amount the publisher paid the author, or *something*.

kfogel: So it is TIHD, in a sense.

kfogel: People can always change their minds; that's why we have contracts and escape clauses and whatnot.

kfogel: Look at it from the user's point of view:

kfogel: If I see the mark, I know that acquiring the work from the mark-displaying source means the author is content with the arrangement. If she weren't, I wouldn't be seeing that mark.

kfogel: Er, anyway, got to go [make a phone call]. Do feel free to leave comments on the article, I'd be happy to answer at length there (or actually, can I just put a transcript of this discussion as a comment? that might clarify things for some readers)

glasser: Sure

glasser: I'll comment if you don't reproduce it in a way I approve of :)