In terms of comics I answered that last week for Dylan, but it was really all about seeing people more than anything else. I probably should’ve picked up far, far more than I did, but my innate cheapness won out.
Creators Talk ‘Amelia Cole’ Surprise, Success and New Collection
Creators Talk ‘Amelia Cole’ Surprise, Success and New Collection
Last week’s 14th issue of Amelia Cole was a game-changer for the mythology of the magical young adult series to date, ending one long-standing threat while revealing a larger one waiting in the wings (Imagine Harry Potter gleefully offing Voldemort in the third book, and you have some idea of what this means).
In which the wonderful Adam P. Knave and DJ Kirkbride talk about the equally wonderful Amelia Cole comic.
The 6 Comics to Grab After Seeing the New Captain America | Underwire | WIRED
The 6 Comics to Grab After Seeing the New Captain America | Underwire | WIRED
Did you see <em>Captain America: The Winter Soldier</em> this weekend and are now craving more adventures? We’ve got a reading list that will scratch your Cap itch.
Ed Brubaker was disappointed I didn’t include The Winter Soldier trade itself, so mentally add that one in.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted workThe distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
Now I’m curious if someone could/has made the legal case that linkblogging/quote-blogging/so much of Tumblr is, in fact, a massive copyright violation.
“Batman” Only Title over 100K in March, “Superior Spider-Man” Tops Marvel’s Sales – Comic Book Resources
Batman Only Title over 100K in March, Superior Spider-Man Tops Marvel’s Sales – Snyder and Capullo’s Batman remained the #1 comic in March, the only title to top 100K, while Superior Spider-Man remained Marvel’s best seller.
Two quick thoughts, related to Marvel’s titles:
#1: The top-three selling issues for Marvel in March were all written by Dan Slott, including Silver Surfer’s first issue. Even two years ago, who could’ve imagined a world where Dan Slott was Marvel’s biggest writer?
#2: Miracleman is estimated at 23K sales with #4. Traditionally, anything under 20K is in the danger zone for Marvel. Obviously, this is going to earn its money back in collected editions, but still – if sales continue to drop for the title, how long can Marvel keep it going as a single issue series?
In the past seven months, GoldieBlox has raised more than $285,000 on Kickstarter, garnered millions of views for a video about its toys (thanks in part to a brilliant re-imagining of the Beastie Boys’ song “Girls”), pre-sold more than a million dollars’ worth of products, and parlayed that groundswell of support into winning a contest for a Super Bowl commercial slot.
Somewhat related to my earlier commentary about ownership of Intellectual Property in the modern Internet era, there’s something about the way that Laura’s story at Wired glosses over the unauthorized use of the Beastie Boys’ music – and the kerfuffle that followed – that sticks in my head. Elsewhere in the same piece, it’s referred to as an “incident,” which strikes me as… I don’t know. An overly polite way to refer to it, I guess?
I don’t mean that as a slam on Laura, because (a) I think she’s more in tune with the prevailing culture about this than I am, and (b) to go into more detail would entirely derail her Wired piece, which is about something else entirely.
We’re in a strange point of time when intent can override condemnation for particular sins, in terms of content, I think. Like, Goldieblox can be forgiven for (at best) misunderstanding the legalities around using copyrighted music in commercials because the overall aim of the company is something that we support. Or something like Something Terrible, which features appropriations of characters and concepts owned by plenty of other people – sold for profit as a print and Kickstartered as a graphic novel, so it’s something other than simple fan-fic like JL8 or Jean & Scott – is allowed because… fair use? Maybe?
I’m not really talking about legalities (although I remain curious whether or not Something Terrible’s use of Batman means that it could never be properly published by anyone other than Warners), but… the fan community’s response, perhaps? The way that the Internet moves the goalposts of what is justifiable in terms of IP theft and what isn’t, I guess.
We’ve seen arguments that information wants to be free, man, and counter-arguments that all work should be credited and creators properly rewarded for their work. We’ve got a culture that’s constantly contradicting itself over piracy and finding new justifications for downloading Game of Thrones instead of paying for an HBO subscription or whatever, even as it complains about a t-shirt company stealing an image from an artist. The obvious inference to be drawn is some kind of it’s okay to do it to a corporation but not to the little guy, but it’s something else, something both simpler and more complex: it’s okay to do it when I think it’s okay to do it.
Or maybe not. This is less a statement than a ramble about a topic that I’m thinking about and haven’t come to terms with yet. There’re probably many places where I’m wrong and/or will change my mind. Right now, I’m in a mindset of “theft of content is theft of content,” regardless of whether or not the thieves are good guys or not. But maybe I’m wrong?
The site now contains thousands of reports, most depressingly meagre, each a snapshot of the state of the industry from the point of view of freelancers. Over all, Martin says, writers can expect to earn about $100-250 for online articles at the big publications (The Atlantic, Salon, The Nation). The rates are higher for print, where many publications still pay by the word, and lower for book reviews and literary journals. (Martin emphasized that the data she collects is self-reported by writers and is not verified by publications. Salon declined to comment for this article. I reached out to The Atlantic for comment but did not hear back before publication.)
On the one hand, yay! I’m a professional freelance journalist. On the other hand, look what I have to put up with in order to make a living wage.
(From here.)
More than half of Fox’s misleading coverage (53%) was from one program, The Five, where the hosts often instigated misleading debates about established climate science. In general, Fox hosts and guests were more likely than those of other networks to disparage the study of climate science and criticize scientists… To further improve accuracy, the most productive step Fox News could take would be for hosts and guests to better differentiate between scientific facts about climate change and political opinions about climate policy.