how do y'all feel about this?

[ramsey everydaypants]

I just got this e-mail:

"Dear Ramsey

I am currently completing a book called FANZINES (Thames & Hudson) and have included the cover of List / Goodbye, Baltimore, no. 12 (fall 2008), fully credited in the book.

My book looks at the history of fanzines in a general overview of UK and USA-based self-publishing. As a good example of an interesting contemporary personal zine it would be remiss not to include it in any history of fanzines. The book is due out in September and I hope this will establish the importance of this form of self-publishing.

I do hope this is okay.

Yours sincerely,

Prof Teal Triggs
University of the Arts London
"

Poor form right? I know a lot of zinesters don't care about their things being reproduced or used, and I actually don't mind at all for it to be included, but it seems like asking ahead of time would be the right thing to do, right? Especially for a book?

[Jack Cheiky]

of course not amber. the people who are anti-copyright should shut up and the people who are copyrighted should sue. if you're not pissed off enough to sue, then shut up. this is a non-issue, and when these types of posts are made, folk jump on the bandwagon without thinking because it's "sticking it to the man." the herd mentality bugs me.

[Nichole]

Jack Cheiky said:

it's my opinion that zines exist as an outlet for non-commercial content, not because commercial publications are evil, (sorry, Tom,) but simply because non-commercial content has value and is needed.

I'm just curious about the "exists as an outlet for non-commercial content" part. Would using this non-commercial outlet (ie: zines) in a commercial, for-profit work (ie: commercial, for-profit publication) then become a free-standing pillar of irony?

[Sticky Institute]

Hi everyone, we've come to this forum late but want you all to know that Triggs was astute enough to ask Sticky's permission on March 21 to use screen images from our website for her book, as well as ask for the designer and illustrator's info so she could provide proper credit.
We had no problem with this and I think Sticky get mentioned in the context of 'digital resources'.

Seeking the right copyright permissions is standard practice in the publishing industry (if not in zine culture, necessarily) and for someone who is apparently an advocator of zine culture, she evidently did not feel that the artistic and intellectual property rights normally afforded to authors and artists were worth worrying about when it comes to zinesters, who can simply be informed months after the fact. (excuses don't cut it). So much for her claim of championing zines as an artform.

Ultimately it comes down to basic etiquette and respect and for Sticky, that's a basic fundamental tenet to being an ardent defender of zine culture. Triggs, you fail.

[Jack Cheiky]

i apologize to all, especially those of you who don't know me well. i am blunt, gruff, and unintentionally inflammatory. it is not my intention to insult anyone, nor dismiss anyone's thoughts, feelings, or experience. if we were having this conversation face to face, i'm sure i would come off much more civil. i have a habit of writing much like i talk, which sometimes doesn't translate well onto the page. for example, when i say shut up, i don't really mean shut up, i am trying to make a point shorthand. also, like many of you, i have my own pet peeves which lead me to comment on things i probably really shouldn't. it ends up being digressive, counterproductive, and leaves people pissed off.

some of the points i was attempting to raise:

regardless of what triggs did or didn't do, this whole thing started like a witch hunt. long before anyone had any real facts people jumped right on the righteous bandwagon and began vilifying her. that offends me.

within this dialog people assume it is an agreed upon zine value that corporate publishing is bad, or that we are somehow more pure or noble. that offends me. not only because i don't agree with it, but more so because it is exactly the type of prejudice that leads people to witch hunts.

the idea that as a community there are insiders and outsiders, that someone is more or less a zinester than another, offends me. a lot.

the only person i am aware of (there may be others) who has a legit complaint is the person with the name change problem. that really sucks. i get the family stuff, i really do. i'm sorry that happened to you. the other group who would have a legit complaint are people who are copyrighted and do not want there zine in the book. i'm guessing there aren't many of those. anyone who who says i'm honored to be included, then turns around and bad mouths triggs is a hypocrite. i'm guessing that's most of you. that offends me.

again, i'm sorry for the previous bad writing.

[NicoleIntrovert]

And Jack... you believe that the ONLY communication that we have had is on this messageboard? You only know what you are reading. Seeing people "jump on the bandwagon".

I had conversations in PERSON with many of these zinesters at the Portland Zine Symposium. So thinking you are seeing people "jump on a bandwagon" from reading this thread is incorrect. We Make Zines is not even how i first heard of this incident.

And thinking people have no right to be angry aside from Amber is wrong. My zine/distro was not included in this book. But Amber is my friend and i have every right to be angry when someone fucks with one (or in this case several) of my friends.

[Jack Cheiky]

i agree. it is honest and appropriate to be angry about what happened to amber.

as for the rest of it, i stand pat on my previous comments.

[Candace]

I think people have every right to be angry. Apart fromt the fact that it isn't legal to publish people's work without clearing permissions first, It's really a question of simple curtesy. and to not even ask but 'inform' the people who form the very backbone of her work speaks a lot to Teal Trigg's attitude. It's not good enough, and she would know better. And the publishers know better.

Jack Cheiky said:

i agree. it is honest and appropriate to be angry about what happened to amber.
as for the rest of it, i stand pat on my previous comments.

[Erica S.]

So... if someone is in favor of a project, but has complaints about the way a project is put together, they're a hypocrite? What a black-and-white world you must live in, where there is no room to critique even people you respect.

Jack Cheiky said:anyone who who says i'm honored to be included, then turns around and bad mouths triggs is a hypocrite.

[Paco]

Hey Jack,

I just wanted to say that I was actually glad to read your rather confrontational responses on this matter yesterday. You've said a lot of what I wanted to say, to which I now add the word "witch hunt." You took the word right out of a response I started drafting yesterday which expressed that same point.

I didn't send that response, though, because it has felt pretty useless to me to get involved when so many seem to be in the dark about what is and isn't legal regarding copyright. And it never would have occurred to me that it might take a law degree or even a high school diploma to comprehend "fair use," but I have since placed the dunce cap atop my head and exiled myself to the corner for that error in judgment.

The funny thing about this discussion is how utterly fucking insulated it makes zine makers look -- even to me, another zine maker. For the first few days I actually felt myself wanting to disassociate myself from this site for fear of being convicted by association; that was more my own frustration with this discussion than anything else, though.

Ramsey started out this discussion appropriately enough, asking for opinions on whether how Ms. Triggs handled this issue was a blow against proper etiquette. And we all know that Biblical proverb on 'opinions' and 'assholes'...

Nevertheless, opinions on etiquette are fair game, but declarations of what is and isn't legal is a whole 'nother ball of wax. And is anybody really gonna get "lawyered up" (meaning file a lawsuit) over this?

Maybe it's a combination of so many things that bugs me about this discussion, some of which has to do with the 'sticking it to the establishment' mentality, followed by the emotion-driven 'shoot first and ask questions later' mentality, followed by the insular 'let's circle the wagons' mentality.

There's also that whole witch hunt angle, and the inescapable reality that this discussion is largely driven by so much sour grapes over poor little zine makers seeing themselves being exploited -- yet again -- for the bargain price of $28 US.

But then, that's just my opinion.


Jack Cheiky said:

this whole thing started like a witch hunt.

[Candace]

Actually Paco, given that Thames and Hudson is a UK publisher, and that they are reproducing images from a number of nations, it's not so simple to declare they are covered under the US fair use law. I mean, that''s not a law that exists in that form in the UK, it's a bit less permissive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing

I still believe people are entitled to be annoyed, but you can of course disagree.

[Paco]

I'm familiar with the allowances under Fair dealing as well, Candace. But it's good that you've posted a link here for those abroad who feel that they will have some legal claim against a publisher in the UK for a book they too have still yet to see.

[Persephone Pomegranate]

Has anyone tried contacting the publisher directly rather than trying to deal with her? If enough people contact the publisher, they may have second thoughts about publishing the first run at this time.