Revision of The "Author-Approved" Mark: A Proposal for Informed Sharing from Thu, 2007-07-05 02:22
Imagine if when you obtained a book (or a song or a movie), you could know that the way you obtained it was approved by its author.
When would this be useful? Well, imagine this scenario: you walk into your local copy shop and ask for a book you saw recommended on someone's blog. (Machines to print books on demand are already here; see the Bookmobile, for example.)
Under the current copyright system, the copy shop must have permission from the copyright holder to print the book for you. One way for them to get permission is to work out bulk deals with publishers, so that every time the copy shop prints a book, a certain percentage goes to the publisher (and then a percentage of that goes to the author). Another possibility is for copy shops to become publishers themselves, bypass the traditional publishers, and work out deals with authors directly.
But many other arrangements are possible; we couldn't begin to think of them all today. As a society, what we really need is a flexible framework in which authors and readers can experiment with different models, without authors being forced into distribution systems that are more restrictive than either party actually wants.
For example, some authors will prefer an approach that takes into account the fact that readers differ. For such authors, a better arrangement with the copy shop would be to simply set a suggested donation. The shop tells the customer what the author's suggested amount is, and the customer can include it in the final price, or increase it, or decrease it, depending on her needs and resources (the copy shop's own copying fee sets the "floor" for the price the customer pays). The copy shop accumulates the donations and sends them in to the author by whatever means the two arrange.
Is this the best possible system for all creative works? Maybe, maybe not. The point is that it would be good for such experimentation to be not only possible, but easy. In that spirit, here's a proposal for an experimentation-enabler:
The Author-Approved Mark would be a single trademarked certification symbol that any author (for now, copyright holder) can license to say "These terms of distribution have been approved by the author of this work.". That doesn't necessarily mean someone can't distribute the work unless they meet those terms; it just means they can only display the mark when offering the author-approved terms. It's about information, not restraint: the purpose of the mark is to allow recipients to know what channels and methods of distribution are endorsed by an artist, without restricting everyone's access to just those channels (unlike current copyright law).
Look at it this way: today we have a system in which recipients never have to think about the difference between an author-approved channel and a non-approved — but still legal — channel. Although this distinction could exist in theory, in practice we rarely get to choose. Instead, most channels are both legal and (implicitly) approved, since distributors must negotiate with copyright holders in order to distribute.
But it doesn't have to be like this, and some artists would actually prefer a more relaxed way. Instead of being forced accomplices in a system that shuts down anyone who hasn't negotiated with them or their representatives, what if artists could offer audiences a way to merely distinguish between approved and non-approved distributions, and then let the audiences make their choice? "Non-approved" needn't mean "illegal", it would simply mean that distributor has not met the author's preferences, and therefore may not use the Author-Approved Mark. If there's just one mark that everyone uses for this purpose, a noticeable percentage of people will learn to look for it, just as a percentage of people have learned to look for the organic certification symbol when shopping for food.
Artists' preferences don't have to be about money, either. Earlier, I used a suggested donation amount as an example of a preference, but it could just as easily have been quality of paper, or print resolution, or the presence or absence of advertising on a DVD, or various combinations thereof. The reason the Author-Approved Mark is an "experimentation enabler" is that it gives artists a tool to encourage some actions without prohibiting others. Some purchasers will follow the artist's preferences, but others will try out different arrangements — arrangements that might unexpectedly please or benefit the artist. Instead of everyone being forced to act more or less in lockstep, the way they are today, we could open up the floodgates to a real diversity of systems, while still giving people the ability to make informed choices among those systems.
Copyright
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
Attractive
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
Badgeware problems with "negative" mark
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.
Chat with David Glasser about the Author-Approved Mark.
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 :)
As co-author of the above
As co-author of the above transcript, it receives a hearty [a] from me :-)
I am completly behind the
I am completly behind the idea of giving more power to the authors. There is no doubt that they deserve money for what they create, unlike some people who abuse copyrigth altogether. I just dislike the middle man.
Working in to the world of Medical Syndromes and a big follower of copy right movements, Katie.
Copyrights
Hi I am Peter. I really enjoyed reading your article. I agree with the idea that the authors should have much more liberty as well control over their copyrights. It is very important to give these people the right to what they have created.
I agree, it is very important
I agree, it is very important to allow the creator of a certain body of work to reap the benefits from it. Imagine what would happen if everyone was discouraged by copyrights. there wouldnt be mch progress in any field.
Brook
Re: Copyrights
That's not what I'm saying, though. I'm saying something very different: that no one, not even the author, should be given monopoly control over a copyable work. Instead, everyone should be free to share, and we should supply a mechanism (described in this article) for informing sharers which particular copies or uses are approved by the original author. "Approved" doesn't mean the author is giving or denying permission; it just means "views with favor".
Holistic Approach
i am a DJ and I work alot with music as you can understand. If I had to pay the fees to every artist individually I wouldnt be able to make a living. In my oppinion a cost-benefit analysis ought to be performed. A holystic analysis. one that takes in consideration all of the parameters, all the participants in the economy, in the music business and everyone whould be impacted by giving control of the copyrights to the artists.
The system being described
The system being described above seems quite complicated, and as the gentleman above who describes himself as a full-time DJ mentioned, perhaps it wouldn't work for certain professions.
I enjoy going out with friends who invariably do Karaoke. In the past Karaoke has not come under heavy fire for duplication of song material ( without the lyrics ), but there is a very large number of people who do karaoke at public bars all around the world, and whom may be indirectly infringing on some form of the copyright as it applies to music.
How would they be impacted by the system as described above?
Dino Delellis the songster ha ha
Re: the system being described
They wouldn't be affected by it, because when singing karaoke there is no implication of endorsement by the original artist(s) anyway.
Digital distibution of
Digital distibution of e-books should stop either copy companies or publishers from having control of how payments are worked out. This saves time and efficiency aswell if the author provides a download for buyers. This level of control is much in the favour of the author.
Regards,
Interested Private Investigators
[commercial link deleted]