January 29, 2011

Center for Social Media’s Fair Use in Poetry: a one-sided response

Filed under: Poetry — crcb @ 11:22 pm
Tags: , , ,

Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.
— T.S. Eliot

When nations grow old, the Arts grow cold, and Commerce settles on every tree…
— William Blake

Through following Cory Doctorow on Twitter, I became aware of a BoingBoing post that led me to the Center for Social Media’s “Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Poetry” document (; there’s a link to the PDF version on this page).

I don’t intend to do an in-depth analysis of this document, but I would like to share some visceral responses.

Most of what the Center for Social Media says about fair use is not new, and I’m not sure why poetry is considered a special case. However, there are portions that raise my ire — mostly in the introductory section. For instance, this bit: “However, poets, especially those not working in and for new media formats, expressed anxiety about how new media might affect their ability to make money from their work and to establish and advance academic careers.” Quoting this out of context gives a one-sided impression of their motives, but it is a sentence that gave me pause. Not the least because — money? Really? Who thinks there’s significant money to be had in poetry? You’d earn a better hourly rate scouring the beach for coins and scrap metal. (Unless you’re Jewel.)

Another sentence of concern from the introductory portion: “Fair use is widely and vigorously employed in many professional communities.” The implication here is that poetry is a profession. It is not. A vocation, perhaps, but not a profession. And thank goodness for that! (But I’ve written about that elsewhere.)

Please read the whole document, because I’m only quoting the parts that get my dander up, but a final one from the introductory section, maybe the worst: “This guide identifies seven situations that represent the poetry community‚Äôs current consensus about acceptable practices for the fair use of copyrighted materials.” (Emphasis mine.) Poets, the people of the Center for Social Media claim to speak for you and me. Do they? Isn’t “consensus of poets” a contradiction in terms? If not, it should be.

When it comes to the specifics of fair use, there’s one concept that recurs: “Uses that are solely ‘decorative’ or ‘entertaining’ should be avoided.” I have at least two issues with this:

  1. It’s a mighty stuffy definition of art that dismisses the decorative and entertaining — certainly not a definition this poet embraces!
  2. Shouldn’t a group that claims to speak for the community of poets (a community, it implies, of professional writers) understand the proper use of quotation marks?

However, they save the best for last: Situation 7, Literary Performance. I go to a fair number of poetry readings, but that’s mostly poets reading their own work. The CSM is concerned that someone other than the poet might read that poet’s work in an unapproved manner. But not to worry, they’ll tell you what’s approved. You may read work from another poet as long as either it is part of a performance that includes your own work, or it’s part of a celebration of that poet. So if I wanted to read from Jewel (to continue picking on her) so that we could all have a hoot at what a stinker she is at this poetry game — that’s a no-no. Unless I follow it with one of my own poems.

While this document provided me with a good half-hour of entertainment, I suppose the biggest mystery about the whole thing is who the CSM thinks will care, in the long run. Maybe those career poets they mention. You know, the ones making all the money.



August 15, 2010

Link of the Random Interval of Time, 2010-08-15: QuestionCopyright

Filed under: Links,LotRIoT — crcb @ 10:09 am
Tags: , , , , ,

This site describes itself as “A Clearinghouse For New Ideas About Copyright” (capitalization theirs, I can only assume it’s the site subtitle). This is a conversation we need to be having. The intellectual property world is torn. Within the bounds of legal behavior, we have on the one extreme those who see any sharing of “content” without an exchange of money as poaching — who view public libraries as legalized theft — who find it reasonable to charge a grocery store stocker a public performance fee if she sings while she works; and on the other extreme, we have… well, people like me, who in theory question the concept of intellectual property, and who in pragmatic terms think fewer fences and more sharing benefit creators and consumers alike (not that they are distinct sets of people). New, open business models don’t benefit the middlemen, though. That’s one sticking point. Another is the desire of some successful and aspiring authors and musicians to keep the horribly skewed profit distribution of the current system, either because they have struck it rich or expect to. But as Masnick of TechDirt and others have pointed out, it might be getting harder to make a fortune with content, but it’s getting easier to make a living. As a good neo-socialist, I’m all for that redistribution of opportunity.

(Climbs off soapbox)

Anyway, that’s me. Check out QuestionCopyright for yourself, and question copyright.

Blog at