From andrew at boag.co.uk Mon Jan 7 18:43:16 2008 From: andrew at boag.co.uk (Andrew Boag) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Financial statement design, best practice In-Reply-To: <71188228-73B9-48A3-BBEF-3F98471C0C16@alphabyte.co.nz> Message-ID: We're always on the look out for good examples of best-practice information design for use in brainstorming discussions, for example, and at the moment we're particularly interested in financial statement designs (e.g. Pension policies, bank statements, investment funds, etc.). I wondered if you have good examples that you might have designed? Alternatively, do you have good examples that you've seen in your own course of research etc? We're particularly interested in examples that push the use of print and database (and potentially online) technologies to deliver statements that use personalisation well (i.e. to help the customer really understand the content and any potential calls to action) Marketing content is also of interest (e.g. Cross selling or up-selling presented appropriately). I would be very interested to hear from anyone regarding current best practice in this area - particularly outside the UK. Regards, Andrew Boag ----------------------- Boag Associates T +44 (0)20 3008 6491 F +44 (0)20 3008 7759 http://www.boag.co.uk From andrew at boag.co.uk Mon Jan 7 18:43:16 2008 From: andrew at boag.co.uk (Andrew Boag) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Financial statement design, best practice In-Reply-To: <71188228-73B9-48A3-BBEF-3F98471C0C16@alphabyte.co.nz> Message-ID: We're always on the look out for good examples of best-practice information design for use in brainstorming discussions, for example, and at the moment we're particularly interested in financial statement designs (e.g. Pension policies, bank statements, investment funds, etc.). I wondered if you have good examples that you might have designed? Alternatively, do you have good examples that you've seen in your own course of research etc? We're particularly interested in examples that push the use of print and database (and potentially online) technologies to deliver statements that use personalisation well (i.e. to help the customer really understand the content and any potential calls to action) Marketing content is also of interest (e.g. Cross selling or up-selling presented appropriately). I would be very interested to hear from anyone regarding current best practice in this area - particularly outside the UK. Regards, Andrew Boag ----------------------- Boag Associates T +44 (0)20 3008 6491 F +44 (0)20 3008 7759 http://www.boag.co.uk From andrew at boag.co.uk Mon Jan 7 18:43:16 2008 From: andrew at boag.co.uk (Andrew Boag) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Financial statement design, best practice In-Reply-To: <71188228-73B9-48A3-BBEF-3F98471C0C16@alphabyte.co.nz> Message-ID: We're always on the look out for good examples of best-practice information design for use in brainstorming discussions, for example, and at the moment we're particularly interested in financial statement designs (e.g. Pension policies, bank statements, investment funds, etc.). I wondered if you have good examples that you might have designed? Alternatively, do you have good examples that you've seen in your own course of research etc? We're particularly interested in examples that push the use of print and database (and potentially online) technologies to deliver statements that use personalisation well (i.e. to help the customer really understand the content and any potential calls to action) Marketing content is also of interest (e.g. Cross selling or up-selling presented appropriately). I would be very interested to hear from anyone regarding current best practice in this area - particularly outside the UK. Regards, Andrew Boag ----------------------- Boag Associates T +44 (0)20 3008 6491 F +44 (0)20 3008 7759 http://www.boag.co.uk From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 9 06:20:49 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:20:49 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Cafe, Does anyone have personal experience with the EasyRead paperbacks issued by ReadHowYouWant.com? I'm curious about the quality of their printed books, which run from about US$9.99 - US$14.99, and are sold directly by the publisher (Objective Systems Pty Ltd of NSW, Australia) and by amazon.com. As far as I can tell, ReadHowYouWant.com paperbacks typically come in 7 formats EasyRead Edition EasyRead Comfort Edition EasyRead Large Edition EasyRead Large Bold Edition (aka Large Type 16pt Bold Edition) EasyRead Super Large 18pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 20pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 24pt Edition with the 1st three set in Verdana, and the remaining four set in a combination of TiresiasLPfont and MicrosoftSansSerif. All the 2006 EasyRead editions use an uninspired layout template, and I expect have been designed to suit some kind of print-on-demand digital publication model. My own sudden interest in EasyRead publications has to do with the fact that ReadHowYouWant.com is now printing C17 texts as part of their "Classics Library," including two titles by Margaret Cavendish, duchess of Newcastle: _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ and _The Description of a New World, Called The Blazing World_. Although the ReadHowYouWant.com copyright notice for all 2006 editions of both Cavendish books reads: "The text in this book has been downloaded from the internet and has been extensively edited and typeset. "Copyright c. 2006 Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953" there is little evidence of much real editorial work having been done here. Indeed, one searches in vain (in both the PDF "preview" files offered by the publisher: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10243# > < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > and in the "SEARCH INSIDE" feature offered by amazon.com: < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Chastity-EasyRead-Margaret-Cavendish/dp/1425067123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-1 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425067808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-2 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Large/dp/1425068480/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-3 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-Large-Print/dp/1425066445/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425001688/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425016405/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199250334&sr=1-4 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425032303/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425017851/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-8 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-Called-Blazing-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425020410/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425023150/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1554806836/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > ) for any discussion of editorial responsibility, period. This is particularly interesting to me in light of some changes to the copyright notice introduced with the only 2007 edition listed above: < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > (here you can view the copyright page using amazon's SEARCH INSIDE feature). This is how the new copyright notice reads: "The text in this book has been formatted and typeset to make reading easier and more enjoyable. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized and standardized, and hyphens have been avoided when possible. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. In addition, the text has been formatted to the specifications indicated on the title page. The original text is out of copyright. The edited text in this edition and the formatting are the copyright of Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953." While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 original (which I can guarantee involved a *substantial* amount of value-adding labor!), and it's not enough to just vaguely claim that you "downloaded" the text from the internet ... then proceed to copyright someone's else's work and profit from it. There are several modern editions of Cavendish's _Blazing World_ floating around (it resonates with modern readers, unlike, say, some of MC's more intense works of science which have yet to see the light of day ;-). So Objective Systems Pty Ltd could have taken their text from any one of these, and IMHO, they ought to tell us their source. There are several reasons for such disclosure, including the fact that MC's texts are notoriously "unstable." E.g., there were at least 3 17th-century issues of MC's _The Blazing World_, which was originally appended to a scientific work titled, _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: To Which Is Added the Description of a New Blazing World_ (London, 1666 and 1668). _The Blazing World_ was also issued as a stand-alone publication in 1668, and for this edition, MC wrote a new 2-page preface ("To all Noble and Worthy Ladies") containing critical information about the text, and her intent in writing it. Since "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies" is short, and not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com EasyRead editions (which reprint only the original preface "To the Reader"), I will pass on (free of charge ;-) my own transcription of the 1668 replacement preface for everyone here: "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies. "This present _Description of a New World_, was made as an *Appendix* to my _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_; and, having some Sympathy and Coherence with each other, were joyned together as Two several Worlds, at their Two Poles. But, by reason most Ladies take no delight in *Philosophical Arguments*, I separated some from the mentioned _Observations_, and caused them to go out by themselves, that I might express my Respects, in presenting to Them such *Fancies* as my Contemplations did afford. The First Part is *Romancical*; the Second, *Philosophical*; and the Third is meerly Fancy; or, (as I may call it) *Fantastical*. And if (*Noble Ladies*) you should chance to take pleasure in reading these *Fancies*, I shall account my self a *Happy Creatoress*: If not, I must be content to live a Melancholly Life in my own World; which I cannot call a *Poor World*, if *Poverty* be only want of *Gold*, and *Jewels*: for, there is more *Gold* in it, than all the *Chymists* ever made; or, (as I verily believe) will ever be able to make. As for the *Rocks of Diamonds*, I wish, with all my Soul, they might be shared amongst my Noble *Female Friends*; upon which condition, I would willingly quit my Part: And of the *Gold*, I should desire only so much as might suffice to repair my Noble Lord and Husband's Losses: for, I am not Covetous, but as Ambitious as ever any of my Sex was, is, or can be; which is the cause, That though I cannot be *Henry* the Fifth, or *Charles* the Second; yet, I will endeavour to be, *Margaret* the *First*: and, though I have neither Power, Time, nor Occasion, to be a great Conqueror, like *Alexander*, or *Cesar*; yet, rather than not be Mistress of a World, since Fortune and the Fates would give me none, I have made One of my own. And thus, believing, or, at least, hoping, that no Creature can, or will, Envy me for this World of mine, I remain, "Noble Ladies, "Your Humble Servant, "M. Newcastle." Not only do I question ReadHowYouWant.com editorial choices about which C17 copy-text to use, how much to modernize and "correct" it, etc., I take issue with the design of the EasyRead editions. Unfortunately, _The Blazing World_'s front matter is not included as part of amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE selection, so if you want to see how it's been formatted, you'll need to download a preview PDF of the EasyRead Large Bold version (set in 16pt TiresiasLPfont) from the ReadHowYouWant.com website: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > Page 1 of the PDF is a 12-line poem ("To the Duchesse ...") which is left-justified in the C17 originals, but centered in the C21 EasyRead editions, and I'm not sure why the anonymous editor(s) at ReadHowYouWant.com chose to do it this way. The centered text is not, to my mind, a readability improvement. One thing they did pretty well during the 17th century was to lay out -- often quite beautifully -- text-heavy pages in large-sized type. For purposes of comparison, I've temporarily posted a facsimile of the page from the original stand-alone 1668 edition of _The Blazing World_ at my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_BWorld1668_preface1.gif > In addition to the changed alignment of the text, notice the difference between how the title of the poem is handled in the 1668 original vs. the 2006 EasyRead reprint. This, too, is poorly done, as far as I'm concerned. Surely it's possible to come up with a design template -- able to accommodate a range of type sizes -- that more closely retains the look-and-feel of the original printed poem? And I question other ReadHowYouWant.com design decisions as well, especially the artwork for front and back covers. The EasyRead covers for MC's _The Blazing World_ are not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com PDF previews, so for these, you'll have to use amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE feature (see above URLs). All the 2006 EasyRead editions of _The Blazing World_ use the same cover design (with orange and green backgrounds to more easily differentiate formats). Of note, the one 2007 edition of _The Blazing World_ < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > sports a newly-designed cover, but features the same cover illustration. I find the illustration anachronistic (looks to be something from _Alice in Wonderland_ ???), and would rather have seen a simple period-style fleuron deployed artistically on the cover, than such an inappropriate graphic. Plus, on the back cover (of all EasyRead titles for Margaret Cavendish), we have a picture of MC which is NOT in fact her portrait, but a painting of MC's elder sister, Mary Lucas (c. 1635). (FWIW, the original "School of van Dyck" painting is held by the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia, and is catalogued as a portrait of Mary Lucas. However, it was at some point misidentified by art historians and the early C20 scholar Douglas Grant, with this error further propagated by Kathleen Jones, whose non-scholarly biography of MC in 1988, _A Glorious Fame_, featured the image on its cover.) As for the EasyRead editions of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, I have a similar list of criticisms. For starters, there is no mention anywhere that this is a tale excerpted from MC's _Natures Pictures drawn by Fancies Pencil to the Life_ (pp. 394-514 of a 718-page book, not counting front matter). And again, there is no indication of which copy-text was used (a transcription of the 1656 or 1671 edition of _Natures Pictures_?), and why. Moreover, the ReadHowYouWant.com reprint opens with verses Thus in this Semy-Circle, wher they Sitt, Telling of Tales of pleasure & of witt, Heer you may read without a Sinn or Crime, And how more innocently pass your tyme. that are NOT part of the 1656 or 1671 printed text of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_; rather, these serve as the gloss to a (very rare) frontispiece engraving found in only *some* C17 copies of _Natures Pictures_. Nor were these verses written by MC, so strictly speaking, they shouldn't head up her "Preamble" (a reader cue used for her prefatory remarks in the 1671 revised edition of _Natures Pictures_, although not in the EasyRead versions) ... especially with no explanation of such a peculiar editorial intervention. And again, the pic used for the front cover of EasyRead editions of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ has *nothing* to do with MC or her works, prompting me to wonder: why not use the frontispiece engraving, that has a real connection with the work, instead? For those of you who are curious about the frontispiece, engraved by Peter Clouwet (aka Petrus Clouet), after a design by Abraham van Diepenbeke, I've temporarily posted a facsimile to my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_NaturesPix1656_frontispiece.gif > And, of course, there's a story behind the frontispiece that should be told also. The engraving actually deviates from the earlier Diepenbeke study in significant ways -- all part of the complicated visual rhetoric of MC's texts, designed to convey multiple messages to multiple audiences. Diepenbeke's original study, which was probably commissioned by Margaret and William for use in their publications, shows Margaret (seated far right, wearing the poet's garland of bay leaves) as the animated teller of the "Tales of pleasure & of witt" described in the frontispiece gloss. In the original study, it is Margaret who holds up her hand, commanding the attention for her audience. But in the engraving (which would have been sold separately as a stand-alone print, as well as bound into some -- especially presentation -- copies of MC's texts), Margaret's husband William (seated next to her, and similarly crowned with a laurel wreath) becomes the active narrator. In the engraving, it is William who gestures for audience attention with a pointing finger. Nonetheless, this visual concession to patriarchal rule (Margaret's critics had accused her of entrenching on "the male prerogative" with her publications, and both she and her husband were at pains to defend her against this charge) is neatly undercut by the text that follows. In Margaret's verses describing the frontispiece (from the 1656 ed. of _Natures Pictures_), she reclaims her role as narrator: My lord and I here in two chairs are set, And all his children, wives and husbands, met, To hear me tell them tales as I think fit, And hope they're full of fancy and of wit. Ladies, I ask your pardons, mercies, I, Since I talk all, and many ladies by. So, if any verses are to be inserted at the head of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, it should be these 6 lines, I think, and not the 4-line gloss to the frontispiece (which was probably written by William). Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From andrew at boag.co.uk Mon Jan 7 18:43:16 2008 From: andrew at boag.co.uk (Andrew Boag) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Financial statement design, best practice In-Reply-To: <71188228-73B9-48A3-BBEF-3F98471C0C16@alphabyte.co.nz> Message-ID: We're always on the look out for good examples of best-practice information design for use in brainstorming discussions, for example, and at the moment we're particularly interested in financial statement designs (e.g. Pension policies, bank statements, investment funds, etc.). I wondered if you have good examples that you might have designed? Alternatively, do you have good examples that you've seen in your own course of research etc? We're particularly interested in examples that push the use of print and database (and potentially online) technologies to deliver statements that use personalisation well (i.e. to help the customer really understand the content and any potential calls to action) Marketing content is also of interest (e.g. Cross selling or up-selling presented appropriately). I would be very interested to hear from anyone regarding current best practice in this area - particularly outside the UK. Regards, Andrew Boag ----------------------- Boag Associates T +44 (0)20 3008 6491 F +44 (0)20 3008 7759 http://www.boag.co.uk From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 9 06:20:49 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:20:49 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Cafe, Does anyone have personal experience with the EasyRead paperbacks issued by ReadHowYouWant.com? I'm curious about the quality of their printed books, which run from about US$9.99 - US$14.99, and are sold directly by the publisher (Objective Systems Pty Ltd of NSW, Australia) and by amazon.com. As far as I can tell, ReadHowYouWant.com paperbacks typically come in 7 formats EasyRead Edition EasyRead Comfort Edition EasyRead Large Edition EasyRead Large Bold Edition (aka Large Type 16pt Bold Edition) EasyRead Super Large 18pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 20pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 24pt Edition with the 1st three set in Verdana, and the remaining four set in a combination of TiresiasLPfont and MicrosoftSansSerif. All the 2006 EasyRead editions use an uninspired layout template, and I expect have been designed to suit some kind of print-on-demand digital publication model. My own sudden interest in EasyRead publications has to do with the fact that ReadHowYouWant.com is now printing C17 texts as part of their "Classics Library," including two titles by Margaret Cavendish, duchess of Newcastle: _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ and _The Description of a New World, Called The Blazing World_. Although the ReadHowYouWant.com copyright notice for all 2006 editions of both Cavendish books reads: "The text in this book has been downloaded from the internet and has been extensively edited and typeset. "Copyright c. 2006 Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953" there is little evidence of much real editorial work having been done here. Indeed, one searches in vain (in both the PDF "preview" files offered by the publisher: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10243# > < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > and in the "SEARCH INSIDE" feature offered by amazon.com: < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Chastity-EasyRead-Margaret-Cavendish/dp/1425067123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-1 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425067808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-2 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Large/dp/1425068480/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-3 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-Large-Print/dp/1425066445/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425001688/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425016405/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199250334&sr=1-4 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425032303/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425017851/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-8 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-Called-Blazing-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425020410/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425023150/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1554806836/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > ) for any discussion of editorial responsibility, period. This is particularly interesting to me in light of some changes to the copyright notice introduced with the only 2007 edition listed above: < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > (here you can view the copyright page using amazon's SEARCH INSIDE feature). This is how the new copyright notice reads: "The text in this book has been formatted and typeset to make reading easier and more enjoyable. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized and standardized, and hyphens have been avoided when possible. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. In addition, the text has been formatted to the specifications indicated on the title page. The original text is out of copyright. The edited text in this edition and the formatting are the copyright of Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953." While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 original (which I can guarantee involved a *substantial* amount of value-adding labor!), and it's not enough to just vaguely claim that you "downloaded" the text from the internet ... then proceed to copyright someone's else's work and profit from it. There are several modern editions of Cavendish's _Blazing World_ floating around (it resonates with modern readers, unlike, say, some of MC's more intense works of science which have yet to see the light of day ;-). So Objective Systems Pty Ltd could have taken their text from any one of these, and IMHO, they ought to tell us their source. There are several reasons for such disclosure, including the fact that MC's texts are notoriously "unstable." E.g., there were at least 3 17th-century issues of MC's _The Blazing World_, which was originally appended to a scientific work titled, _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: To Which Is Added the Description of a New Blazing World_ (London, 1666 and 1668). _The Blazing World_ was also issued as a stand-alone publication in 1668, and for this edition, MC wrote a new 2-page preface ("To all Noble and Worthy Ladies") containing critical information about the text, and her intent in writing it. Since "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies" is short, and not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com EasyRead editions (which reprint only the original preface "To the Reader"), I will pass on (free of charge ;-) my own transcription of the 1668 replacement preface for everyone here: "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies. "This present _Description of a New World_, was made as an *Appendix* to my _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_; and, having some Sympathy and Coherence with each other, were joyned together as Two several Worlds, at their Two Poles. But, by reason most Ladies take no delight in *Philosophical Arguments*, I separated some from the mentioned _Observations_, and caused them to go out by themselves, that I might express my Respects, in presenting to Them such *Fancies* as my Contemplations did afford. The First Part is *Romancical*; the Second, *Philosophical*; and the Third is meerly Fancy; or, (as I may call it) *Fantastical*. And if (*Noble Ladies*) you should chance to take pleasure in reading these *Fancies*, I shall account my self a *Happy Creatoress*: If not, I must be content to live a Melancholly Life in my own World; which I cannot call a *Poor World*, if *Poverty* be only want of *Gold*, and *Jewels*: for, there is more *Gold* in it, than all the *Chymists* ever made; or, (as I verily believe) will ever be able to make. As for the *Rocks of Diamonds*, I wish, with all my Soul, they might be shared amongst my Noble *Female Friends*; upon which condition, I would willingly quit my Part: And of the *Gold*, I should desire only so much as might suffice to repair my Noble Lord and Husband's Losses: for, I am not Covetous, but as Ambitious as ever any of my Sex was, is, or can be; which is the cause, That though I cannot be *Henry* the Fifth, or *Charles* the Second; yet, I will endeavour to be, *Margaret* the *First*: and, though I have neither Power, Time, nor Occasion, to be a great Conqueror, like *Alexander*, or *Cesar*; yet, rather than not be Mistress of a World, since Fortune and the Fates would give me none, I have made One of my own. And thus, believing, or, at least, hoping, that no Creature can, or will, Envy me for this World of mine, I remain, "Noble Ladies, "Your Humble Servant, "M. Newcastle." Not only do I question ReadHowYouWant.com editorial choices about which C17 copy-text to use, how much to modernize and "correct" it, etc., I take issue with the design of the EasyRead editions. Unfortunately, _The Blazing World_'s front matter is not included as part of amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE selection, so if you want to see how it's been formatted, you'll need to download a preview PDF of the EasyRead Large Bold version (set in 16pt TiresiasLPfont) from the ReadHowYouWant.com website: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > Page 1 of the PDF is a 12-line poem ("To the Duchesse ...") which is left-justified in the C17 originals, but centered in the C21 EasyRead editions, and I'm not sure why the anonymous editor(s) at ReadHowYouWant.com chose to do it this way. The centered text is not, to my mind, a readability improvement. One thing they did pretty well during the 17th century was to lay out -- often quite beautifully -- text-heavy pages in large-sized type. For purposes of comparison, I've temporarily posted a facsimile of the page from the original stand-alone 1668 edition of _The Blazing World_ at my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_BWorld1668_preface1.gif > In addition to the changed alignment of the text, notice the difference between how the title of the poem is handled in the 1668 original vs. the 2006 EasyRead reprint. This, too, is poorly done, as far as I'm concerned. Surely it's possible to come up with a design template -- able to accommodate a range of type sizes -- that more closely retains the look-and-feel of the original printed poem? And I question other ReadHowYouWant.com design decisions as well, especially the artwork for front and back covers. The EasyRead covers for MC's _The Blazing World_ are not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com PDF previews, so for these, you'll have to use amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE feature (see above URLs). All the 2006 EasyRead editions of _The Blazing World_ use the same cover design (with orange and green backgrounds to more easily differentiate formats). Of note, the one 2007 edition of _The Blazing World_ < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > sports a newly-designed cover, but features the same cover illustration. I find the illustration anachronistic (looks to be something from _Alice in Wonderland_ ???), and would rather have seen a simple period-style fleuron deployed artistically on the cover, than such an inappropriate graphic. Plus, on the back cover (of all EasyRead titles for Margaret Cavendish), we have a picture of MC which is NOT in fact her portrait, but a painting of MC's elder sister, Mary Lucas (c. 1635). (FWIW, the original "School of van Dyck" painting is held by the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia, and is catalogued as a portrait of Mary Lucas. However, it was at some point misidentified by art historians and the early C20 scholar Douglas Grant, with this error further propagated by Kathleen Jones, whose non-scholarly biography of MC in 1988, _A Glorious Fame_, featured the image on its cover.) As for the EasyRead editions of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, I have a similar list of criticisms. For starters, there is no mention anywhere that this is a tale excerpted from MC's _Natures Pictures drawn by Fancies Pencil to the Life_ (pp. 394-514 of a 718-page book, not counting front matter). And again, there is no indication of which copy-text was used (a transcription of the 1656 or 1671 edition of _Natures Pictures_?), and why. Moreover, the ReadHowYouWant.com reprint opens with verses Thus in this Semy-Circle, wher they Sitt, Telling of Tales of pleasure & of witt, Heer you may read without a Sinn or Crime, And how more innocently pass your tyme. that are NOT part of the 1656 or 1671 printed text of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_; rather, these serve as the gloss to a (very rare) frontispiece engraving found in only *some* C17 copies of _Natures Pictures_. Nor were these verses written by MC, so strictly speaking, they shouldn't head up her "Preamble" (a reader cue used for her prefatory remarks in the 1671 revised edition of _Natures Pictures_, although not in the EasyRead versions) ... especially with no explanation of such a peculiar editorial intervention. And again, the pic used for the front cover of EasyRead editions of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ has *nothing* to do with MC or her works, prompting me to wonder: why not use the frontispiece engraving, that has a real connection with the work, instead? For those of you who are curious about the frontispiece, engraved by Peter Clouwet (aka Petrus Clouet), after a design by Abraham van Diepenbeke, I've temporarily posted a facsimile to my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_NaturesPix1656_frontispiece.gif > And, of course, there's a story behind the frontispiece that should be told also. The engraving actually deviates from the earlier Diepenbeke study in significant ways -- all part of the complicated visual rhetoric of MC's texts, designed to convey multiple messages to multiple audiences. Diepenbeke's original study, which was probably commissioned by Margaret and William for use in their publications, shows Margaret (seated far right, wearing the poet's garland of bay leaves) as the animated teller of the "Tales of pleasure & of witt" described in the frontispiece gloss. In the original study, it is Margaret who holds up her hand, commanding the attention for her audience. But in the engraving (which would have been sold separately as a stand-alone print, as well as bound into some -- especially presentation -- copies of MC's texts), Margaret's husband William (seated next to her, and similarly crowned with a laurel wreath) becomes the active narrator. In the engraving, it is William who gestures for audience attention with a pointing finger. Nonetheless, this visual concession to patriarchal rule (Margaret's critics had accused her of entrenching on "the male prerogative" with her publications, and both she and her husband were at pains to defend her against this charge) is neatly undercut by the text that follows. In Margaret's verses describing the frontispiece (from the 1656 ed. of _Natures Pictures_), she reclaims her role as narrator: My lord and I here in two chairs are set, And all his children, wives and husbands, met, To hear me tell them tales as I think fit, And hope they're full of fancy and of wit. Ladies, I ask your pardons, mercies, I, Since I talk all, and many ladies by. So, if any verses are to be inserted at the head of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, it should be these 6 lines, I think, and not the 4-line gloss to the frontispiece (which was probably written by William). Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From andrew at boag.co.uk Mon Jan 7 18:43:16 2008 From: andrew at boag.co.uk (Andrew Boag) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Financial statement design, best practice In-Reply-To: <71188228-73B9-48A3-BBEF-3F98471C0C16@alphabyte.co.nz> Message-ID: We're always on the look out for good examples of best-practice information design for use in brainstorming discussions, for example, and at the moment we're particularly interested in financial statement designs (e.g. Pension policies, bank statements, investment funds, etc.). I wondered if you have good examples that you might have designed? Alternatively, do you have good examples that you've seen in your own course of research etc? We're particularly interested in examples that push the use of print and database (and potentially online) technologies to deliver statements that use personalisation well (i.e. to help the customer really understand the content and any potential calls to action) Marketing content is also of interest (e.g. Cross selling or up-selling presented appropriately). I would be very interested to hear from anyone regarding current best practice in this area - particularly outside the UK. Regards, Andrew Boag ----------------------- Boag Associates T +44 (0)20 3008 6491 F +44 (0)20 3008 7759 http://www.boag.co.uk From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 9 06:20:49 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:20:49 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Cafe, Does anyone have personal experience with the EasyRead paperbacks issued by ReadHowYouWant.com? I'm curious about the quality of their printed books, which run from about US$9.99 - US$14.99, and are sold directly by the publisher (Objective Systems Pty Ltd of NSW, Australia) and by amazon.com. As far as I can tell, ReadHowYouWant.com paperbacks typically come in 7 formats EasyRead Edition EasyRead Comfort Edition EasyRead Large Edition EasyRead Large Bold Edition (aka Large Type 16pt Bold Edition) EasyRead Super Large 18pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 20pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 24pt Edition with the 1st three set in Verdana, and the remaining four set in a combination of TiresiasLPfont and MicrosoftSansSerif. All the 2006 EasyRead editions use an uninspired layout template, and I expect have been designed to suit some kind of print-on-demand digital publication model. My own sudden interest in EasyRead publications has to do with the fact that ReadHowYouWant.com is now printing C17 texts as part of their "Classics Library," including two titles by Margaret Cavendish, duchess of Newcastle: _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ and _The Description of a New World, Called The Blazing World_. Although the ReadHowYouWant.com copyright notice for all 2006 editions of both Cavendish books reads: "The text in this book has been downloaded from the internet and has been extensively edited and typeset. "Copyright c. 2006 Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953" there is little evidence of much real editorial work having been done here. Indeed, one searches in vain (in both the PDF "preview" files offered by the publisher: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10243# > < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > and in the "SEARCH INSIDE" feature offered by amazon.com: < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Chastity-EasyRead-Margaret-Cavendish/dp/1425067123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-1 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425067808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-2 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Large/dp/1425068480/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-3 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-Large-Print/dp/1425066445/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425001688/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425016405/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199250334&sr=1-4 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425032303/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425017851/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-8 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-Called-Blazing-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425020410/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425023150/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1554806836/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > ) for any discussion of editorial responsibility, period. This is particularly interesting to me in light of some changes to the copyright notice introduced with the only 2007 edition listed above: < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > (here you can view the copyright page using amazon's SEARCH INSIDE feature). This is how the new copyright notice reads: "The text in this book has been formatted and typeset to make reading easier and more enjoyable. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized and standardized, and hyphens have been avoided when possible. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. In addition, the text has been formatted to the specifications indicated on the title page. The original text is out of copyright. The edited text in this edition and the formatting are the copyright of Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953." While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 original (which I can guarantee involved a *substantial* amount of value-adding labor!), and it's not enough to just vaguely claim that you "downloaded" the text from the internet ... then proceed to copyright someone's else's work and profit from it. There are several modern editions of Cavendish's _Blazing World_ floating around (it resonates with modern readers, unlike, say, some of MC's more intense works of science which have yet to see the light of day ;-). So Objective Systems Pty Ltd could have taken their text from any one of these, and IMHO, they ought to tell us their source. There are several reasons for such disclosure, including the fact that MC's texts are notoriously "unstable." E.g., there were at least 3 17th-century issues of MC's _The Blazing World_, which was originally appended to a scientific work titled, _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: To Which Is Added the Description of a New Blazing World_ (London, 1666 and 1668). _The Blazing World_ was also issued as a stand-alone publication in 1668, and for this edition, MC wrote a new 2-page preface ("To all Noble and Worthy Ladies") containing critical information about the text, and her intent in writing it. Since "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies" is short, and not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com EasyRead editions (which reprint only the original preface "To the Reader"), I will pass on (free of charge ;-) my own transcription of the 1668 replacement preface for everyone here: "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies. "This present _Description of a New World_, was made as an *Appendix* to my _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_; and, having some Sympathy and Coherence with each other, were joyned together as Two several Worlds, at their Two Poles. But, by reason most Ladies take no delight in *Philosophical Arguments*, I separated some from the mentioned _Observations_, and caused them to go out by themselves, that I might express my Respects, in presenting to Them such *Fancies* as my Contemplations did afford. The First Part is *Romancical*; the Second, *Philosophical*; and the Third is meerly Fancy; or, (as I may call it) *Fantastical*. And if (*Noble Ladies*) you should chance to take pleasure in reading these *Fancies*, I shall account my self a *Happy Creatoress*: If not, I must be content to live a Melancholly Life in my own World; which I cannot call a *Poor World*, if *Poverty* be only want of *Gold*, and *Jewels*: for, there is more *Gold* in it, than all the *Chymists* ever made; or, (as I verily believe) will ever be able to make. As for the *Rocks of Diamonds*, I wish, with all my Soul, they might be shared amongst my Noble *Female Friends*; upon which condition, I would willingly quit my Part: And of the *Gold*, I should desire only so much as might suffice to repair my Noble Lord and Husband's Losses: for, I am not Covetous, but as Ambitious as ever any of my Sex was, is, or can be; which is the cause, That though I cannot be *Henry* the Fifth, or *Charles* the Second; yet, I will endeavour to be, *Margaret* the *First*: and, though I have neither Power, Time, nor Occasion, to be a great Conqueror, like *Alexander*, or *Cesar*; yet, rather than not be Mistress of a World, since Fortune and the Fates would give me none, I have made One of my own. And thus, believing, or, at least, hoping, that no Creature can, or will, Envy me for this World of mine, I remain, "Noble Ladies, "Your Humble Servant, "M. Newcastle." Not only do I question ReadHowYouWant.com editorial choices about which C17 copy-text to use, how much to modernize and "correct" it, etc., I take issue with the design of the EasyRead editions. Unfortunately, _The Blazing World_'s front matter is not included as part of amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE selection, so if you want to see how it's been formatted, you'll need to download a preview PDF of the EasyRead Large Bold version (set in 16pt TiresiasLPfont) from the ReadHowYouWant.com website: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > Page 1 of the PDF is a 12-line poem ("To the Duchesse ...") which is left-justified in the C17 originals, but centered in the C21 EasyRead editions, and I'm not sure why the anonymous editor(s) at ReadHowYouWant.com chose to do it this way. The centered text is not, to my mind, a readability improvement. One thing they did pretty well during the 17th century was to lay out -- often quite beautifully -- text-heavy pages in large-sized type. For purposes of comparison, I've temporarily posted a facsimile of the page from the original stand-alone 1668 edition of _The Blazing World_ at my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_BWorld1668_preface1.gif > In addition to the changed alignment of the text, notice the difference between how the title of the poem is handled in the 1668 original vs. the 2006 EasyRead reprint. This, too, is poorly done, as far as I'm concerned. Surely it's possible to come up with a design template -- able to accommodate a range of type sizes -- that more closely retains the look-and-feel of the original printed poem? And I question other ReadHowYouWant.com design decisions as well, especially the artwork for front and back covers. The EasyRead covers for MC's _The Blazing World_ are not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com PDF previews, so for these, you'll have to use amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE feature (see above URLs). All the 2006 EasyRead editions of _The Blazing World_ use the same cover design (with orange and green backgrounds to more easily differentiate formats). Of note, the one 2007 edition of _The Blazing World_ < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > sports a newly-designed cover, but features the same cover illustration. I find the illustration anachronistic (looks to be something from _Alice in Wonderland_ ???), and would rather have seen a simple period-style fleuron deployed artistically on the cover, than such an inappropriate graphic. Plus, on the back cover (of all EasyRead titles for Margaret Cavendish), we have a picture of MC which is NOT in fact her portrait, but a painting of MC's elder sister, Mary Lucas (c. 1635). (FWIW, the original "School of van Dyck" painting is held by the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia, and is catalogued as a portrait of Mary Lucas. However, it was at some point misidentified by art historians and the early C20 scholar Douglas Grant, with this error further propagated by Kathleen Jones, whose non-scholarly biography of MC in 1988, _A Glorious Fame_, featured the image on its cover.) As for the EasyRead editions of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, I have a similar list of criticisms. For starters, there is no mention anywhere that this is a tale excerpted from MC's _Natures Pictures drawn by Fancies Pencil to the Life_ (pp. 394-514 of a 718-page book, not counting front matter). And again, there is no indication of which copy-text was used (a transcription of the 1656 or 1671 edition of _Natures Pictures_?), and why. Moreover, the ReadHowYouWant.com reprint opens with verses Thus in this Semy-Circle, wher they Sitt, Telling of Tales of pleasure & of witt, Heer you may read without a Sinn or Crime, And how more innocently pass your tyme. that are NOT part of the 1656 or 1671 printed text of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_; rather, these serve as the gloss to a (very rare) frontispiece engraving found in only *some* C17 copies of _Natures Pictures_. Nor were these verses written by MC, so strictly speaking, they shouldn't head up her "Preamble" (a reader cue used for her prefatory remarks in the 1671 revised edition of _Natures Pictures_, although not in the EasyRead versions) ... especially with no explanation of such a peculiar editorial intervention. And again, the pic used for the front cover of EasyRead editions of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ has *nothing* to do with MC or her works, prompting me to wonder: why not use the frontispiece engraving, that has a real connection with the work, instead? For those of you who are curious about the frontispiece, engraved by Peter Clouwet (aka Petrus Clouet), after a design by Abraham van Diepenbeke, I've temporarily posted a facsimile to my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_NaturesPix1656_frontispiece.gif > And, of course, there's a story behind the frontispiece that should be told also. The engraving actually deviates from the earlier Diepenbeke study in significant ways -- all part of the complicated visual rhetoric of MC's texts, designed to convey multiple messages to multiple audiences. Diepenbeke's original study, which was probably commissioned by Margaret and William for use in their publications, shows Margaret (seated far right, wearing the poet's garland of bay leaves) as the animated teller of the "Tales of pleasure & of witt" described in the frontispiece gloss. In the original study, it is Margaret who holds up her hand, commanding the attention for her audience. But in the engraving (which would have been sold separately as a stand-alone print, as well as bound into some -- especially presentation -- copies of MC's texts), Margaret's husband William (seated next to her, and similarly crowned with a laurel wreath) becomes the active narrator. In the engraving, it is William who gestures for audience attention with a pointing finger. Nonetheless, this visual concession to patriarchal rule (Margaret's critics had accused her of entrenching on "the male prerogative" with her publications, and both she and her husband were at pains to defend her against this charge) is neatly undercut by the text that follows. In Margaret's verses describing the frontispiece (from the 1656 ed. of _Natures Pictures_), she reclaims her role as narrator: My lord and I here in two chairs are set, And all his children, wives and husbands, met, To hear me tell them tales as I think fit, And hope they're full of fancy and of wit. Ladies, I ask your pardons, mercies, I, Since I talk all, and many ladies by. So, if any verses are to be inserted at the head of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, it should be these 6 lines, I think, and not the 4-line gloss to the frontispiece (which was probably written by William). Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From andrew at boag.co.uk Mon Jan 7 18:43:16 2008 From: andrew at boag.co.uk (Andrew Boag) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Financial statement design, best practice In-Reply-To: <71188228-73B9-48A3-BBEF-3F98471C0C16@alphabyte.co.nz> Message-ID: We're always on the look out for good examples of best-practice information design for use in brainstorming discussions, for example, and at the moment we're particularly interested in financial statement designs (e.g. Pension policies, bank statements, investment funds, etc.). I wondered if you have good examples that you might have designed? Alternatively, do you have good examples that you've seen in your own course of research etc? We're particularly interested in examples that push the use of print and database (and potentially online) technologies to deliver statements that use personalisation well (i.e. to help the customer really understand the content and any potential calls to action) Marketing content is also of interest (e.g. Cross selling or up-selling presented appropriately). I would be very interested to hear from anyone regarding current best practice in this area - particularly outside the UK. Regards, Andrew Boag ----------------------- Boag Associates T +44 (0)20 3008 6491 F +44 (0)20 3008 7759 http://www.boag.co.uk From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 9 06:20:49 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:20:49 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Cafe, Does anyone have personal experience with the EasyRead paperbacks issued by ReadHowYouWant.com? I'm curious about the quality of their printed books, which run from about US$9.99 - US$14.99, and are sold directly by the publisher (Objective Systems Pty Ltd of NSW, Australia) and by amazon.com. As far as I can tell, ReadHowYouWant.com paperbacks typically come in 7 formats EasyRead Edition EasyRead Comfort Edition EasyRead Large Edition EasyRead Large Bold Edition (aka Large Type 16pt Bold Edition) EasyRead Super Large 18pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 20pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 24pt Edition with the 1st three set in Verdana, and the remaining four set in a combination of TiresiasLPfont and MicrosoftSansSerif. All the 2006 EasyRead editions use an uninspired layout template, and I expect have been designed to suit some kind of print-on-demand digital publication model. My own sudden interest in EasyRead publications has to do with the fact that ReadHowYouWant.com is now printing C17 texts as part of their "Classics Library," including two titles by Margaret Cavendish, duchess of Newcastle: _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ and _The Description of a New World, Called The Blazing World_. Although the ReadHowYouWant.com copyright notice for all 2006 editions of both Cavendish books reads: "The text in this book has been downloaded from the internet and has been extensively edited and typeset. "Copyright c. 2006 Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953" there is little evidence of much real editorial work having been done here. Indeed, one searches in vain (in both the PDF "preview" files offered by the publisher: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10243# > < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > and in the "SEARCH INSIDE" feature offered by amazon.com: < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Chastity-EasyRead-Margaret-Cavendish/dp/1425067123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-1 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425067808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-2 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Large/dp/1425068480/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-3 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-Large-Print/dp/1425066445/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425001688/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425016405/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199250334&sr=1-4 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425032303/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425017851/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-8 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-Called-Blazing-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425020410/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425023150/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1554806836/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > ) for any discussion of editorial responsibility, period. This is particularly interesting to me in light of some changes to the copyright notice introduced with the only 2007 edition listed above: < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > (here you can view the copyright page using amazon's SEARCH INSIDE feature). This is how the new copyright notice reads: "The text in this book has been formatted and typeset to make reading easier and more enjoyable. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized and standardized, and hyphens have been avoided when possible. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. In addition, the text has been formatted to the specifications indicated on the title page. The original text is out of copyright. The edited text in this edition and the formatting are the copyright of Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953." While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 original (which I can guarantee involved a *substantial* amount of value-adding labor!), and it's not enough to just vaguely claim that you "downloaded" the text from the internet ... then proceed to copyright someone's else's work and profit from it. There are several modern editions of Cavendish's _Blazing World_ floating around (it resonates with modern readers, unlike, say, some of MC's more intense works of science which have yet to see the light of day ;-). So Objective Systems Pty Ltd could have taken their text from any one of these, and IMHO, they ought to tell us their source. There are several reasons for such disclosure, including the fact that MC's texts are notoriously "unstable." E.g., there were at least 3 17th-century issues of MC's _The Blazing World_, which was originally appended to a scientific work titled, _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: To Which Is Added the Description of a New Blazing World_ (London, 1666 and 1668). _The Blazing World_ was also issued as a stand-alone publication in 1668, and for this edition, MC wrote a new 2-page preface ("To all Noble and Worthy Ladies") containing critical information about the text, and her intent in writing it. Since "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies" is short, and not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com EasyRead editions (which reprint only the original preface "To the Reader"), I will pass on (free of charge ;-) my own transcription of the 1668 replacement preface for everyone here: "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies. "This present _Description of a New World_, was made as an *Appendix* to my _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_; and, having some Sympathy and Coherence with each other, were joyned together as Two several Worlds, at their Two Poles. But, by reason most Ladies take no delight in *Philosophical Arguments*, I separated some from the mentioned _Observations_, and caused them to go out by themselves, that I might express my Respects, in presenting to Them such *Fancies* as my Contemplations did afford. The First Part is *Romancical*; the Second, *Philosophical*; and the Third is meerly Fancy; or, (as I may call it) *Fantastical*. And if (*Noble Ladies*) you should chance to take pleasure in reading these *Fancies*, I shall account my self a *Happy Creatoress*: If not, I must be content to live a Melancholly Life in my own World; which I cannot call a *Poor World*, if *Poverty* be only want of *Gold*, and *Jewels*: for, there is more *Gold* in it, than all the *Chymists* ever made; or, (as I verily believe) will ever be able to make. As for the *Rocks of Diamonds*, I wish, with all my Soul, they might be shared amongst my Noble *Female Friends*; upon which condition, I would willingly quit my Part: And of the *Gold*, I should desire only so much as might suffice to repair my Noble Lord and Husband's Losses: for, I am not Covetous, but as Ambitious as ever any of my Sex was, is, or can be; which is the cause, That though I cannot be *Henry* the Fifth, or *Charles* the Second; yet, I will endeavour to be, *Margaret* the *First*: and, though I have neither Power, Time, nor Occasion, to be a great Conqueror, like *Alexander*, or *Cesar*; yet, rather than not be Mistress of a World, since Fortune and the Fates would give me none, I have made One of my own. And thus, believing, or, at least, hoping, that no Creature can, or will, Envy me for this World of mine, I remain, "Noble Ladies, "Your Humble Servant, "M. Newcastle." Not only do I question ReadHowYouWant.com editorial choices about which C17 copy-text to use, how much to modernize and "correct" it, etc., I take issue with the design of the EasyRead editions. Unfortunately, _The Blazing World_'s front matter is not included as part of amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE selection, so if you want to see how it's been formatted, you'll need to download a preview PDF of the EasyRead Large Bold version (set in 16pt TiresiasLPfont) from the ReadHowYouWant.com website: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > Page 1 of the PDF is a 12-line poem ("To the Duchesse ...") which is left-justified in the C17 originals, but centered in the C21 EasyRead editions, and I'm not sure why the anonymous editor(s) at ReadHowYouWant.com chose to do it this way. The centered text is not, to my mind, a readability improvement. One thing they did pretty well during the 17th century was to lay out -- often quite beautifully -- text-heavy pages in large-sized type. For purposes of comparison, I've temporarily posted a facsimile of the page from the original stand-alone 1668 edition of _The Blazing World_ at my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_BWorld1668_preface1.gif > In addition to the changed alignment of the text, notice the difference between how the title of the poem is handled in the 1668 original vs. the 2006 EasyRead reprint. This, too, is poorly done, as far as I'm concerned. Surely it's possible to come up with a design template -- able to accommodate a range of type sizes -- that more closely retains the look-and-feel of the original printed poem? And I question other ReadHowYouWant.com design decisions as well, especially the artwork for front and back covers. The EasyRead covers for MC's _The Blazing World_ are not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com PDF previews, so for these, you'll have to use amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE feature (see above URLs). All the 2006 EasyRead editions of _The Blazing World_ use the same cover design (with orange and green backgrounds to more easily differentiate formats). Of note, the one 2007 edition of _The Blazing World_ < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > sports a newly-designed cover, but features the same cover illustration. I find the illustration anachronistic (looks to be something from _Alice in Wonderland_ ???), and would rather have seen a simple period-style fleuron deployed artistically on the cover, than such an inappropriate graphic. Plus, on the back cover (of all EasyRead titles for Margaret Cavendish), we have a picture of MC which is NOT in fact her portrait, but a painting of MC's elder sister, Mary Lucas (c. 1635). (FWIW, the original "School of van Dyck" painting is held by the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia, and is catalogued as a portrait of Mary Lucas. However, it was at some point misidentified by art historians and the early C20 scholar Douglas Grant, with this error further propagated by Kathleen Jones, whose non-scholarly biography of MC in 1988, _A Glorious Fame_, featured the image on its cover.) As for the EasyRead editions of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, I have a similar list of criticisms. For starters, there is no mention anywhere that this is a tale excerpted from MC's _Natures Pictures drawn by Fancies Pencil to the Life_ (pp. 394-514 of a 718-page book, not counting front matter). And again, there is no indication of which copy-text was used (a transcription of the 1656 or 1671 edition of _Natures Pictures_?), and why. Moreover, the ReadHowYouWant.com reprint opens with verses Thus in this Semy-Circle, wher they Sitt, Telling of Tales of pleasure & of witt, Heer you may read without a Sinn or Crime, And how more innocently pass your tyme. that are NOT part of the 1656 or 1671 printed text of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_; rather, these serve as the gloss to a (very rare) frontispiece engraving found in only *some* C17 copies of _Natures Pictures_. Nor were these verses written by MC, so strictly speaking, they shouldn't head up her "Preamble" (a reader cue used for her prefatory remarks in the 1671 revised edition of _Natures Pictures_, although not in the EasyRead versions) ... especially with no explanation of such a peculiar editorial intervention. And again, the pic used for the front cover of EasyRead editions of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ has *nothing* to do with MC or her works, prompting me to wonder: why not use the frontispiece engraving, that has a real connection with the work, instead? For those of you who are curious about the frontispiece, engraved by Peter Clouwet (aka Petrus Clouet), after a design by Abraham van Diepenbeke, I've temporarily posted a facsimile to my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_NaturesPix1656_frontispiece.gif > And, of course, there's a story behind the frontispiece that should be told also. The engraving actually deviates from the earlier Diepenbeke study in significant ways -- all part of the complicated visual rhetoric of MC's texts, designed to convey multiple messages to multiple audiences. Diepenbeke's original study, which was probably commissioned by Margaret and William for use in their publications, shows Margaret (seated far right, wearing the poet's garland of bay leaves) as the animated teller of the "Tales of pleasure & of witt" described in the frontispiece gloss. In the original study, it is Margaret who holds up her hand, commanding the attention for her audience. But in the engraving (which would have been sold separately as a stand-alone print, as well as bound into some -- especially presentation -- copies of MC's texts), Margaret's husband William (seated next to her, and similarly crowned with a laurel wreath) becomes the active narrator. In the engraving, it is William who gestures for audience attention with a pointing finger. Nonetheless, this visual concession to patriarchal rule (Margaret's critics had accused her of entrenching on "the male prerogative" with her publications, and both she and her husband were at pains to defend her against this charge) is neatly undercut by the text that follows. In Margaret's verses describing the frontispiece (from the 1656 ed. of _Natures Pictures_), she reclaims her role as narrator: My lord and I here in two chairs are set, And all his children, wives and husbands, met, To hear me tell them tales as I think fit, And hope they're full of fancy and of wit. Ladies, I ask your pardons, mercies, I, Since I talk all, and many ladies by. So, if any verses are to be inserted at the head of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, it should be these 6 lines, I think, and not the 4-line gloss to the frontispiece (which was probably written by William). Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sat Jan 12 17:17:17 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:17:17 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> On 09/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly > falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have > any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." > > After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 > original (I am not a lawyer but I play one on TV^W internet mailing lists ;-) If they derived work directly from something with expired copyright (or assigned to the public domain, a feature of US copyright not found elsewhere) then their derived work is now 100% copyright to them. If they made a derived work indirectly, they are probably guilty of copyright infringement. That is, they made a derived work from a work that is 100% copyright to someone else, and that this work was derived directly from the original public domain work doesn't matter. This is important for making a text typeface revival from an old book; if you use someone else's scans/photos, you will run into trouble, and need to either do the digitization from originals yourself, or work from digitizations that are already free culture. -- Regards, Dave From dtp at she-philosopher.com Sun Jan 13 05:24:09 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:09 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > or work from digitizations that > are already free culture. But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free culture"? In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the group in my original post, assuming that it would become part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright it as their own work? I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? > This is important for making a > text typeface revival from an > old book; if you use someone > else's scans/photos, you will > run into trouble Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well believe it's the law. :( Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From andrew at boag.co.uk Mon Jan 7 18:43:16 2008 From: andrew at boag.co.uk (Andrew Boag) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Financial statement design, best practice In-Reply-To: <71188228-73B9-48A3-BBEF-3F98471C0C16@alphabyte.co.nz> Message-ID: We're always on the look out for good examples of best-practice information design for use in brainstorming discussions, for example, and at the moment we're particularly interested in financial statement designs (e.g. Pension policies, bank statements, investment funds, etc.). I wondered if you have good examples that you might have designed? Alternatively, do you have good examples that you've seen in your own course of research etc? We're particularly interested in examples that push the use of print and database (and potentially online) technologies to deliver statements that use personalisation well (i.e. to help the customer really understand the content and any potential calls to action) Marketing content is also of interest (e.g. Cross selling or up-selling presented appropriately). I would be very interested to hear from anyone regarding current best practice in this area - particularly outside the UK. Regards, Andrew Boag ----------------------- Boag Associates T +44 (0)20 3008 6491 F +44 (0)20 3008 7759 http://www.boag.co.uk From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 9 06:20:49 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:20:49 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Cafe, Does anyone have personal experience with the EasyRead paperbacks issued by ReadHowYouWant.com? I'm curious about the quality of their printed books, which run from about US$9.99 - US$14.99, and are sold directly by the publisher (Objective Systems Pty Ltd of NSW, Australia) and by amazon.com. As far as I can tell, ReadHowYouWant.com paperbacks typically come in 7 formats EasyRead Edition EasyRead Comfort Edition EasyRead Large Edition EasyRead Large Bold Edition (aka Large Type 16pt Bold Edition) EasyRead Super Large 18pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 20pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 24pt Edition with the 1st three set in Verdana, and the remaining four set in a combination of TiresiasLPfont and MicrosoftSansSerif. All the 2006 EasyRead editions use an uninspired layout template, and I expect have been designed to suit some kind of print-on-demand digital publication model. My own sudden interest in EasyRead publications has to do with the fact that ReadHowYouWant.com is now printing C17 texts as part of their "Classics Library," including two titles by Margaret Cavendish, duchess of Newcastle: _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ and _The Description of a New World, Called The Blazing World_. Although the ReadHowYouWant.com copyright notice for all 2006 editions of both Cavendish books reads: "The text in this book has been downloaded from the internet and has been extensively edited and typeset. "Copyright c. 2006 Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953" there is little evidence of much real editorial work having been done here. Indeed, one searches in vain (in both the PDF "preview" files offered by the publisher: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10243# > < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > and in the "SEARCH INSIDE" feature offered by amazon.com: < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Chastity-EasyRead-Margaret-Cavendish/dp/1425067123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-1 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425067808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-2 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Large/dp/1425068480/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-3 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-Large-Print/dp/1425066445/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425001688/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425016405/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199250334&sr=1-4 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425032303/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425017851/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-8 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-Called-Blazing-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425020410/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425023150/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1554806836/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > ) for any discussion of editorial responsibility, period. This is particularly interesting to me in light of some changes to the copyright notice introduced with the only 2007 edition listed above: < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > (here you can view the copyright page using amazon's SEARCH INSIDE feature). This is how the new copyright notice reads: "The text in this book has been formatted and typeset to make reading easier and more enjoyable. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized and standardized, and hyphens have been avoided when possible. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. In addition, the text has been formatted to the specifications indicated on the title page. The original text is out of copyright. The edited text in this edition and the formatting are the copyright of Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953." While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 original (which I can guarantee involved a *substantial* amount of value-adding labor!), and it's not enough to just vaguely claim that you "downloaded" the text from the internet ... then proceed to copyright someone's else's work and profit from it. There are several modern editions of Cavendish's _Blazing World_ floating around (it resonates with modern readers, unlike, say, some of MC's more intense works of science which have yet to see the light of day ;-). So Objective Systems Pty Ltd could have taken their text from any one of these, and IMHO, they ought to tell us their source. There are several reasons for such disclosure, including the fact that MC's texts are notoriously "unstable." E.g., there were at least 3 17th-century issues of MC's _The Blazing World_, which was originally appended to a scientific work titled, _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: To Which Is Added the Description of a New Blazing World_ (London, 1666 and 1668). _The Blazing World_ was also issued as a stand-alone publication in 1668, and for this edition, MC wrote a new 2-page preface ("To all Noble and Worthy Ladies") containing critical information about the text, and her intent in writing it. Since "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies" is short, and not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com EasyRead editions (which reprint only the original preface "To the Reader"), I will pass on (free of charge ;-) my own transcription of the 1668 replacement preface for everyone here: "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies. "This present _Description of a New World_, was made as an *Appendix* to my _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_; and, having some Sympathy and Coherence with each other, were joyned together as Two several Worlds, at their Two Poles. But, by reason most Ladies take no delight in *Philosophical Arguments*, I separated some from the mentioned _Observations_, and caused them to go out by themselves, that I might express my Respects, in presenting to Them such *Fancies* as my Contemplations did afford. The First Part is *Romancical*; the Second, *Philosophical*; and the Third is meerly Fancy; or, (as I may call it) *Fantastical*. And if (*Noble Ladies*) you should chance to take pleasure in reading these *Fancies*, I shall account my self a *Happy Creatoress*: If not, I must be content to live a Melancholly Life in my own World; which I cannot call a *Poor World*, if *Poverty* be only want of *Gold*, and *Jewels*: for, there is more *Gold* in it, than all the *Chymists* ever made; or, (as I verily believe) will ever be able to make. As for the *Rocks of Diamonds*, I wish, with all my Soul, they might be shared amongst my Noble *Female Friends*; upon which condition, I would willingly quit my Part: And of the *Gold*, I should desire only so much as might suffice to repair my Noble Lord and Husband's Losses: for, I am not Covetous, but as Ambitious as ever any of my Sex was, is, or can be; which is the cause, That though I cannot be *Henry* the Fifth, or *Charles* the Second; yet, I will endeavour to be, *Margaret* the *First*: and, though I have neither Power, Time, nor Occasion, to be a great Conqueror, like *Alexander*, or *Cesar*; yet, rather than not be Mistress of a World, since Fortune and the Fates would give me none, I have made One of my own. And thus, believing, or, at least, hoping, that no Creature can, or will, Envy me for this World of mine, I remain, "Noble Ladies, "Your Humble Servant, "M. Newcastle." Not only do I question ReadHowYouWant.com editorial choices about which C17 copy-text to use, how much to modernize and "correct" it, etc., I take issue with the design of the EasyRead editions. Unfortunately, _The Blazing World_'s front matter is not included as part of amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE selection, so if you want to see how it's been formatted, you'll need to download a preview PDF of the EasyRead Large Bold version (set in 16pt TiresiasLPfont) from the ReadHowYouWant.com website: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > Page 1 of the PDF is a 12-line poem ("To the Duchesse ...") which is left-justified in the C17 originals, but centered in the C21 EasyRead editions, and I'm not sure why the anonymous editor(s) at ReadHowYouWant.com chose to do it this way. The centered text is not, to my mind, a readability improvement. One thing they did pretty well during the 17th century was to lay out -- often quite beautifully -- text-heavy pages in large-sized type. For purposes of comparison, I've temporarily posted a facsimile of the page from the original stand-alone 1668 edition of _The Blazing World_ at my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_BWorld1668_preface1.gif > In addition to the changed alignment of the text, notice the difference between how the title of the poem is handled in the 1668 original vs. the 2006 EasyRead reprint. This, too, is poorly done, as far as I'm concerned. Surely it's possible to come up with a design template -- able to accommodate a range of type sizes -- that more closely retains the look-and-feel of the original printed poem? And I question other ReadHowYouWant.com design decisions as well, especially the artwork for front and back covers. The EasyRead covers for MC's _The Blazing World_ are not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com PDF previews, so for these, you'll have to use amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE feature (see above URLs). All the 2006 EasyRead editions of _The Blazing World_ use the same cover design (with orange and green backgrounds to more easily differentiate formats). Of note, the one 2007 edition of _The Blazing World_ < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > sports a newly-designed cover, but features the same cover illustration. I find the illustration anachronistic (looks to be something from _Alice in Wonderland_ ???), and would rather have seen a simple period-style fleuron deployed artistically on the cover, than such an inappropriate graphic. Plus, on the back cover (of all EasyRead titles for Margaret Cavendish), we have a picture of MC which is NOT in fact her portrait, but a painting of MC's elder sister, Mary Lucas (c. 1635). (FWIW, the original "School of van Dyck" painting is held by the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia, and is catalogued as a portrait of Mary Lucas. However, it was at some point misidentified by art historians and the early C20 scholar Douglas Grant, with this error further propagated by Kathleen Jones, whose non-scholarly biography of MC in 1988, _A Glorious Fame_, featured the image on its cover.) As for the EasyRead editions of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, I have a similar list of criticisms. For starters, there is no mention anywhere that this is a tale excerpted from MC's _Natures Pictures drawn by Fancies Pencil to the Life_ (pp. 394-514 of a 718-page book, not counting front matter). And again, there is no indication of which copy-text was used (a transcription of the 1656 or 1671 edition of _Natures Pictures_?), and why. Moreover, the ReadHowYouWant.com reprint opens with verses Thus in this Semy-Circle, wher they Sitt, Telling of Tales of pleasure & of witt, Heer you may read without a Sinn or Crime, And how more innocently pass your tyme. that are NOT part of the 1656 or 1671 printed text of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_; rather, these serve as the gloss to a (very rare) frontispiece engraving found in only *some* C17 copies of _Natures Pictures_. Nor were these verses written by MC, so strictly speaking, they shouldn't head up her "Preamble" (a reader cue used for her prefatory remarks in the 1671 revised edition of _Natures Pictures_, although not in the EasyRead versions) ... especially with no explanation of such a peculiar editorial intervention. And again, the pic used for the front cover of EasyRead editions of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ has *nothing* to do with MC or her works, prompting me to wonder: why not use the frontispiece engraving, that has a real connection with the work, instead? For those of you who are curious about the frontispiece, engraved by Peter Clouwet (aka Petrus Clouet), after a design by Abraham van Diepenbeke, I've temporarily posted a facsimile to my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_NaturesPix1656_frontispiece.gif > And, of course, there's a story behind the frontispiece that should be told also. The engraving actually deviates from the earlier Diepenbeke study in significant ways -- all part of the complicated visual rhetoric of MC's texts, designed to convey multiple messages to multiple audiences. Diepenbeke's original study, which was probably commissioned by Margaret and William for use in their publications, shows Margaret (seated far right, wearing the poet's garland of bay leaves) as the animated teller of the "Tales of pleasure & of witt" described in the frontispiece gloss. In the original study, it is Margaret who holds up her hand, commanding the attention for her audience. But in the engraving (which would have been sold separately as a stand-alone print, as well as bound into some -- especially presentation -- copies of MC's texts), Margaret's husband William (seated next to her, and similarly crowned with a laurel wreath) becomes the active narrator. In the engraving, it is William who gestures for audience attention with a pointing finger. Nonetheless, this visual concession to patriarchal rule (Margaret's critics had accused her of entrenching on "the male prerogative" with her publications, and both she and her husband were at pains to defend her against this charge) is neatly undercut by the text that follows. In Margaret's verses describing the frontispiece (from the 1656 ed. of _Natures Pictures_), she reclaims her role as narrator: My lord and I here in two chairs are set, And all his children, wives and husbands, met, To hear me tell them tales as I think fit, And hope they're full of fancy and of wit. Ladies, I ask your pardons, mercies, I, Since I talk all, and many ladies by. So, if any verses are to be inserted at the head of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, it should be these 6 lines, I think, and not the 4-line gloss to the frontispiece (which was probably written by William). Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sat Jan 12 17:17:17 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:17:17 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> On 09/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly > falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have > any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." > > After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 > original (I am not a lawyer but I play one on TV^W internet mailing lists ;-) If they derived work directly from something with expired copyright (or assigned to the public domain, a feature of US copyright not found elsewhere) then their derived work is now 100% copyright to them. If they made a derived work indirectly, they are probably guilty of copyright infringement. That is, they made a derived work from a work that is 100% copyright to someone else, and that this work was derived directly from the original public domain work doesn't matter. This is important for making a text typeface revival from an old book; if you use someone else's scans/photos, you will run into trouble, and need to either do the digitization from originals yourself, or work from digitizations that are already free culture. -- Regards, Dave From dtp at she-philosopher.com Sun Jan 13 05:24:09 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:09 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > or work from digitizations that > are already free culture. But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free culture"? In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the group in my original post, assuming that it would become part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright it as their own work? I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? > This is important for making a > text typeface revival from an > old book; if you use someone > else's scans/photos, you will > run into trouble Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well believe it's the law. :( Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sun Jan 13 14:03:21 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:03:21 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > > or work from digitizations that > > are already free culture. > > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? Oops - free culture is a tightly defined 'term of art' - http://www.freedomdefined.org - and I apologies for not including that link when I used the term. (Similarly, "free software" is tightly defined at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and spending a lot of time in a community that understands that term to mean that kind of thing, its all too easy when not in that community to blather on about "free software" and then have someone say, "but err, how does anyone make money if its free?") It is legally possible to copyright what is in the public domain, but unless you have the sole copy of something, this isn't a problem because everyone else can also go to the original PD source. It is not ethically legitimate - "not OK" - to turn what is already free culture into proprietary culture, no. To protect against this, we use "copyleft" - you can copyright a work and add a restriction that maintains the freedom of the work for all later recipients. > In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of > MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of > _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the > group in my original post, assuming that it would become > part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- > include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright > it as their own work? Almost certainly not, and you have a slam-dunk copyright infringement case against them. I suggest looking in the business directory for "no win no fee" lawyers if they do this :-) If you are are in the USA and dedicate it to the public domain, this is true though. But that dedication is only valid in the USA jurisdiction, and that's only when its done properly. Saying "you may have a copy" is not legally binding; you need to state two things; one, a copyright notice - "Copyright (c) Deborah Taylor-Pearce, 2008." - and two, a copyright license. That could be http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ although that is no longer recommended because of the international problem, so I recommend http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ in that case. The web works because when you post something on a public website, you give an implicit copyright notice to download a copy for viewing it - but that is all. Google News is mired in controversy because by aggregating and republishing 'real' newspapers websites, it goes beyond that implicit license; Google tries on a "fair use" defence, but here in the UK there is no flexible fair use, only stiffly defined "fair dealings." The RIAA recently sued someone in the USA for copying music on a CD into their iPod, and this is a dumb move in the USA where fair use flexes to include this activity. In the UK, it is illegal - but fortunately politicians bought iPods already and so recognized it as stupid, so the fair dealings definition is being updated. In Sweden, politicians started using BitTorrent already and so recognised that making p2p illegal is stupid, and have been in the news this week because they are working to decriminalise it - http://sigfrid.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/decriminalize-file-sharing/ > I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed > "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? The GPL is a "strong" copyleft license for software (although it is used for other kinds of works) and its terms are that you can only combine GPL works with other works no more restrictive than the GPL. So you can combine a GPL program with a public domain program, but not with a "non-commercial use only" program. If you use a simple all-permissive non-copyleft license, like the Creative Commons Attribution license ("CC-BY") then proprietors can combine your work (that is still copyright to you) with their redesign of it, and make the whole available under proprietary terms. Therefore I recommend strong copyleft for all free culture works unless it is strategic not to; when the alternative is to have no use of the work. For example, the "MP3 killer" audio format "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org is released under all permissive terms to encourage its widespread adoption. My sister's "USB music stick" portable player supports 3 formats - MP3, Microsoft Windows Media Audio, and Vorbis - and I didn't recommend that model to her :-) > > This is important for making a > > text typeface revival from an > > old book; if you use someone > > else's scans/photos, you will > > run into trouble > > Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well > believe it's the law. :( You seem to be suggesting that the public domain should be retrofitted with copyleft terms. I'd never thought of that, but it seems like a good idea! :-) -- Regards, Dave From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 20:41:53 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:41:53 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4210 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/33ba2d84/attachment.bin From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 23:25:16 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:25:16 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0CA@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Sorry if this shows up twice. Since it hasn't shown up in almost three hours I'm guessing it may have been lost. Gunnar -----Original Message----- From: Swanson, Gunnar Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 2:41 PM To: Discussions about information design Subject: RE: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/74d9f44a/attachment-0001.htm From andrew at boag.co.uk Mon Jan 7 18:43:16 2008 From: andrew at boag.co.uk (Andrew Boag) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Financial statement design, best practice In-Reply-To: <71188228-73B9-48A3-BBEF-3F98471C0C16@alphabyte.co.nz> Message-ID: We're always on the look out for good examples of best-practice information design for use in brainstorming discussions, for example, and at the moment we're particularly interested in financial statement designs (e.g. Pension policies, bank statements, investment funds, etc.). I wondered if you have good examples that you might have designed? Alternatively, do you have good examples that you've seen in your own course of research etc? We're particularly interested in examples that push the use of print and database (and potentially online) technologies to deliver statements that use personalisation well (i.e. to help the customer really understand the content and any potential calls to action) Marketing content is also of interest (e.g. Cross selling or up-selling presented appropriately). I would be very interested to hear from anyone regarding current best practice in this area - particularly outside the UK. Regards, Andrew Boag ----------------------- Boag Associates T +44 (0)20 3008 6491 F +44 (0)20 3008 7759 http://www.boag.co.uk From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 9 06:20:49 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:20:49 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Cafe, Does anyone have personal experience with the EasyRead paperbacks issued by ReadHowYouWant.com? I'm curious about the quality of their printed books, which run from about US$9.99 - US$14.99, and are sold directly by the publisher (Objective Systems Pty Ltd of NSW, Australia) and by amazon.com. As far as I can tell, ReadHowYouWant.com paperbacks typically come in 7 formats EasyRead Edition EasyRead Comfort Edition EasyRead Large Edition EasyRead Large Bold Edition (aka Large Type 16pt Bold Edition) EasyRead Super Large 18pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 20pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 24pt Edition with the 1st three set in Verdana, and the remaining four set in a combination of TiresiasLPfont and MicrosoftSansSerif. All the 2006 EasyRead editions use an uninspired layout template, and I expect have been designed to suit some kind of print-on-demand digital publication model. My own sudden interest in EasyRead publications has to do with the fact that ReadHowYouWant.com is now printing C17 texts as part of their "Classics Library," including two titles by Margaret Cavendish, duchess of Newcastle: _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ and _The Description of a New World, Called The Blazing World_. Although the ReadHowYouWant.com copyright notice for all 2006 editions of both Cavendish books reads: "The text in this book has been downloaded from the internet and has been extensively edited and typeset. "Copyright c. 2006 Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953" there is little evidence of much real editorial work having been done here. Indeed, one searches in vain (in both the PDF "preview" files offered by the publisher: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10243# > < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > and in the "SEARCH INSIDE" feature offered by amazon.com: < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Chastity-EasyRead-Margaret-Cavendish/dp/1425067123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-1 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425067808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-2 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Large/dp/1425068480/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-3 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-Large-Print/dp/1425066445/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425001688/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425016405/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199250334&sr=1-4 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425032303/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425017851/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-8 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-Called-Blazing-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425020410/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425023150/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1554806836/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > ) for any discussion of editorial responsibility, period. This is particularly interesting to me in light of some changes to the copyright notice introduced with the only 2007 edition listed above: < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > (here you can view the copyright page using amazon's SEARCH INSIDE feature). This is how the new copyright notice reads: "The text in this book has been formatted and typeset to make reading easier and more enjoyable. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized and standardized, and hyphens have been avoided when possible. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. In addition, the text has been formatted to the specifications indicated on the title page. The original text is out of copyright. The edited text in this edition and the formatting are the copyright of Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953." While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 original (which I can guarantee involved a *substantial* amount of value-adding labor!), and it's not enough to just vaguely claim that you "downloaded" the text from the internet ... then proceed to copyright someone's else's work and profit from it. There are several modern editions of Cavendish's _Blazing World_ floating around (it resonates with modern readers, unlike, say, some of MC's more intense works of science which have yet to see the light of day ;-). So Objective Systems Pty Ltd could have taken their text from any one of these, and IMHO, they ought to tell us their source. There are several reasons for such disclosure, including the fact that MC's texts are notoriously "unstable." E.g., there were at least 3 17th-century issues of MC's _The Blazing World_, which was originally appended to a scientific work titled, _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: To Which Is Added the Description of a New Blazing World_ (London, 1666 and 1668). _The Blazing World_ was also issued as a stand-alone publication in 1668, and for this edition, MC wrote a new 2-page preface ("To all Noble and Worthy Ladies") containing critical information about the text, and her intent in writing it. Since "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies" is short, and not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com EasyRead editions (which reprint only the original preface "To the Reader"), I will pass on (free of charge ;-) my own transcription of the 1668 replacement preface for everyone here: "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies. "This present _Description of a New World_, was made as an *Appendix* to my _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_; and, having some Sympathy and Coherence with each other, were joyned together as Two several Worlds, at their Two Poles. But, by reason most Ladies take no delight in *Philosophical Arguments*, I separated some from the mentioned _Observations_, and caused them to go out by themselves, that I might express my Respects, in presenting to Them such *Fancies* as my Contemplations did afford. The First Part is *Romancical*; the Second, *Philosophical*; and the Third is meerly Fancy; or, (as I may call it) *Fantastical*. And if (*Noble Ladies*) you should chance to take pleasure in reading these *Fancies*, I shall account my self a *Happy Creatoress*: If not, I must be content to live a Melancholly Life in my own World; which I cannot call a *Poor World*, if *Poverty* be only want of *Gold*, and *Jewels*: for, there is more *Gold* in it, than all the *Chymists* ever made; or, (as I verily believe) will ever be able to make. As for the *Rocks of Diamonds*, I wish, with all my Soul, they might be shared amongst my Noble *Female Friends*; upon which condition, I would willingly quit my Part: And of the *Gold*, I should desire only so much as might suffice to repair my Noble Lord and Husband's Losses: for, I am not Covetous, but as Ambitious as ever any of my Sex was, is, or can be; which is the cause, That though I cannot be *Henry* the Fifth, or *Charles* the Second; yet, I will endeavour to be, *Margaret* the *First*: and, though I have neither Power, Time, nor Occasion, to be a great Conqueror, like *Alexander*, or *Cesar*; yet, rather than not be Mistress of a World, since Fortune and the Fates would give me none, I have made One of my own. And thus, believing, or, at least, hoping, that no Creature can, or will, Envy me for this World of mine, I remain, "Noble Ladies, "Your Humble Servant, "M. Newcastle." Not only do I question ReadHowYouWant.com editorial choices about which C17 copy-text to use, how much to modernize and "correct" it, etc., I take issue with the design of the EasyRead editions. Unfortunately, _The Blazing World_'s front matter is not included as part of amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE selection, so if you want to see how it's been formatted, you'll need to download a preview PDF of the EasyRead Large Bold version (set in 16pt TiresiasLPfont) from the ReadHowYouWant.com website: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > Page 1 of the PDF is a 12-line poem ("To the Duchesse ...") which is left-justified in the C17 originals, but centered in the C21 EasyRead editions, and I'm not sure why the anonymous editor(s) at ReadHowYouWant.com chose to do it this way. The centered text is not, to my mind, a readability improvement. One thing they did pretty well during the 17th century was to lay out -- often quite beautifully -- text-heavy pages in large-sized type. For purposes of comparison, I've temporarily posted a facsimile of the page from the original stand-alone 1668 edition of _The Blazing World_ at my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_BWorld1668_preface1.gif > In addition to the changed alignment of the text, notice the difference between how the title of the poem is handled in the 1668 original vs. the 2006 EasyRead reprint. This, too, is poorly done, as far as I'm concerned. Surely it's possible to come up with a design template -- able to accommodate a range of type sizes -- that more closely retains the look-and-feel of the original printed poem? And I question other ReadHowYouWant.com design decisions as well, especially the artwork for front and back covers. The EasyRead covers for MC's _The Blazing World_ are not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com PDF previews, so for these, you'll have to use amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE feature (see above URLs). All the 2006 EasyRead editions of _The Blazing World_ use the same cover design (with orange and green backgrounds to more easily differentiate formats). Of note, the one 2007 edition of _The Blazing World_ < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > sports a newly-designed cover, but features the same cover illustration. I find the illustration anachronistic (looks to be something from _Alice in Wonderland_ ???), and would rather have seen a simple period-style fleuron deployed artistically on the cover, than such an inappropriate graphic. Plus, on the back cover (of all EasyRead titles for Margaret Cavendish), we have a picture of MC which is NOT in fact her portrait, but a painting of MC's elder sister, Mary Lucas (c. 1635). (FWIW, the original "School of van Dyck" painting is held by the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia, and is catalogued as a portrait of Mary Lucas. However, it was at some point misidentified by art historians and the early C20 scholar Douglas Grant, with this error further propagated by Kathleen Jones, whose non-scholarly biography of MC in 1988, _A Glorious Fame_, featured the image on its cover.) As for the EasyRead editions of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, I have a similar list of criticisms. For starters, there is no mention anywhere that this is a tale excerpted from MC's _Natures Pictures drawn by Fancies Pencil to the Life_ (pp. 394-514 of a 718-page book, not counting front matter). And again, there is no indication of which copy-text was used (a transcription of the 1656 or 1671 edition of _Natures Pictures_?), and why. Moreover, the ReadHowYouWant.com reprint opens with verses Thus in this Semy-Circle, wher they Sitt, Telling of Tales of pleasure & of witt, Heer you may read without a Sinn or Crime, And how more innocently pass your tyme. that are NOT part of the 1656 or 1671 printed text of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_; rather, these serve as the gloss to a (very rare) frontispiece engraving found in only *some* C17 copies of _Natures Pictures_. Nor were these verses written by MC, so strictly speaking, they shouldn't head up her "Preamble" (a reader cue used for her prefatory remarks in the 1671 revised edition of _Natures Pictures_, although not in the EasyRead versions) ... especially with no explanation of such a peculiar editorial intervention. And again, the pic used for the front cover of EasyRead editions of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ has *nothing* to do with MC or her works, prompting me to wonder: why not use the frontispiece engraving, that has a real connection with the work, instead? For those of you who are curious about the frontispiece, engraved by Peter Clouwet (aka Petrus Clouet), after a design by Abraham van Diepenbeke, I've temporarily posted a facsimile to my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_NaturesPix1656_frontispiece.gif > And, of course, there's a story behind the frontispiece that should be told also. The engraving actually deviates from the earlier Diepenbeke study in significant ways -- all part of the complicated visual rhetoric of MC's texts, designed to convey multiple messages to multiple audiences. Diepenbeke's original study, which was probably commissioned by Margaret and William for use in their publications, shows Margaret (seated far right, wearing the poet's garland of bay leaves) as the animated teller of the "Tales of pleasure & of witt" described in the frontispiece gloss. In the original study, it is Margaret who holds up her hand, commanding the attention for her audience. But in the engraving (which would have been sold separately as a stand-alone print, as well as bound into some -- especially presentation -- copies of MC's texts), Margaret's husband William (seated next to her, and similarly crowned with a laurel wreath) becomes the active narrator. In the engraving, it is William who gestures for audience attention with a pointing finger. Nonetheless, this visual concession to patriarchal rule (Margaret's critics had accused her of entrenching on "the male prerogative" with her publications, and both she and her husband were at pains to defend her against this charge) is neatly undercut by the text that follows. In Margaret's verses describing the frontispiece (from the 1656 ed. of _Natures Pictures_), she reclaims her role as narrator: My lord and I here in two chairs are set, And all his children, wives and husbands, met, To hear me tell them tales as I think fit, And hope they're full of fancy and of wit. Ladies, I ask your pardons, mercies, I, Since I talk all, and many ladies by. So, if any verses are to be inserted at the head of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, it should be these 6 lines, I think, and not the 4-line gloss to the frontispiece (which was probably written by William). Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sat Jan 12 17:17:17 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:17:17 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> On 09/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly > falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have > any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." > > After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 > original (I am not a lawyer but I play one on TV^W internet mailing lists ;-) If they derived work directly from something with expired copyright (or assigned to the public domain, a feature of US copyright not found elsewhere) then their derived work is now 100% copyright to them. If they made a derived work indirectly, they are probably guilty of copyright infringement. That is, they made a derived work from a work that is 100% copyright to someone else, and that this work was derived directly from the original public domain work doesn't matter. This is important for making a text typeface revival from an old book; if you use someone else's scans/photos, you will run into trouble, and need to either do the digitization from originals yourself, or work from digitizations that are already free culture. -- Regards, Dave From dtp at she-philosopher.com Sun Jan 13 05:24:09 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:09 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > or work from digitizations that > are already free culture. But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free culture"? In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the group in my original post, assuming that it would become part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright it as their own work? I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? > This is important for making a > text typeface revival from an > old book; if you use someone > else's scans/photos, you will > run into trouble Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well believe it's the law. :( Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sun Jan 13 14:03:21 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:03:21 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > > or work from digitizations that > > are already free culture. > > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? Oops - free culture is a tightly defined 'term of art' - http://www.freedomdefined.org - and I apologies for not including that link when I used the term. (Similarly, "free software" is tightly defined at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and spending a lot of time in a community that understands that term to mean that kind of thing, its all too easy when not in that community to blather on about "free software" and then have someone say, "but err, how does anyone make money if its free?") It is legally possible to copyright what is in the public domain, but unless you have the sole copy of something, this isn't a problem because everyone else can also go to the original PD source. It is not ethically legitimate - "not OK" - to turn what is already free culture into proprietary culture, no. To protect against this, we use "copyleft" - you can copyright a work and add a restriction that maintains the freedom of the work for all later recipients. > In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of > MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of > _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the > group in my original post, assuming that it would become > part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- > include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright > it as their own work? Almost certainly not, and you have a slam-dunk copyright infringement case against them. I suggest looking in the business directory for "no win no fee" lawyers if they do this :-) If you are are in the USA and dedicate it to the public domain, this is true though. But that dedication is only valid in the USA jurisdiction, and that's only when its done properly. Saying "you may have a copy" is not legally binding; you need to state two things; one, a copyright notice - "Copyright (c) Deborah Taylor-Pearce, 2008." - and two, a copyright license. That could be http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ although that is no longer recommended because of the international problem, so I recommend http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ in that case. The web works because when you post something on a public website, you give an implicit copyright notice to download a copy for viewing it - but that is all. Google News is mired in controversy because by aggregating and republishing 'real' newspapers websites, it goes beyond that implicit license; Google tries on a "fair use" defence, but here in the UK there is no flexible fair use, only stiffly defined "fair dealings." The RIAA recently sued someone in the USA for copying music on a CD into their iPod, and this is a dumb move in the USA where fair use flexes to include this activity. In the UK, it is illegal - but fortunately politicians bought iPods already and so recognized it as stupid, so the fair dealings definition is being updated. In Sweden, politicians started using BitTorrent already and so recognised that making p2p illegal is stupid, and have been in the news this week because they are working to decriminalise it - http://sigfrid.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/decriminalize-file-sharing/ > I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed > "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? The GPL is a "strong" copyleft license for software (although it is used for other kinds of works) and its terms are that you can only combine GPL works with other works no more restrictive than the GPL. So you can combine a GPL program with a public domain program, but not with a "non-commercial use only" program. If you use a simple all-permissive non-copyleft license, like the Creative Commons Attribution license ("CC-BY") then proprietors can combine your work (that is still copyright to you) with their redesign of it, and make the whole available under proprietary terms. Therefore I recommend strong copyleft for all free culture works unless it is strategic not to; when the alternative is to have no use of the work. For example, the "MP3 killer" audio format "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org is released under all permissive terms to encourage its widespread adoption. My sister's "USB music stick" portable player supports 3 formats - MP3, Microsoft Windows Media Audio, and Vorbis - and I didn't recommend that model to her :-) > > This is important for making a > > text typeface revival from an > > old book; if you use someone > > else's scans/photos, you will > > run into trouble > > Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well > believe it's the law. :( You seem to be suggesting that the public domain should be retrofitted with copyleft terms. I'd never thought of that, but it seems like a good idea! :-) -- Regards, Dave From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 20:41:53 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:41:53 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4210 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/33ba2d84/attachment-0002.bin From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 23:25:16 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:25:16 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0CA@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Sorry if this shows up twice. Since it hasn't shown up in almost three hours I'm guessing it may have been lost. Gunnar -----Original Message----- From: Swanson, Gunnar Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 2:41 PM To: Discussions about information design Subject: RE: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/74d9f44a/attachment-0002.htm From shailey_lists at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 14 15:02:49 2008 From: shailey_lists at yahoo.co.uk (Shailey Minocha) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:02:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Research Opportunity at the Open University, UK In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <116597.847.qm@web25110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Full-time PhD Studentship Closing date for applications: 22nd February 2008 Centre for Research in Computing (http://crc.open.ac.uk), The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Influence of 3-D Virtual Worlds on Expectations in 2-D E-Commerce Environments This PhD studentship is jointly funded by the Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology and the Business School of the Open University (OU). You will join the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) group in the Department of Computing of the OU. The research project aims to examine the effect of 3-D multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs) such as Second life (www.secondlife.com) on consumers' expectations, behaviours, and satisfaction with 2-D e-commerce environments. Specifically the research will investigate questions such as: Whether and how the expectations and behaviours of consumers with experience of 3-D MUVEs differ from those of consumers without such experience? How avatar-based consumption behaviours in 3-D MUVEs can influence the choices and behaviours of consumers in 2-D e-commerce environments? How 3-D MUVEs can be integrated within the service design of 2-D e-commerce environments for a positive seamless consumer experience with 2-D e-commerce? Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the proposed research we would like to hear from candidates who have a Masters Degree in HCI, Psychology, Sociology, or a related discipline, and have an outstanding research potential and a keen interest in Usability, Consumer Behaviour and 3-D virtual worlds. Informal enquiries about the proposed research can be made by e-mail to Dr. Shailey Minocha (S.Minocha at open.ac.uk). The studentship provides a standard living allowance (of ?12,600 per annum and tax-free) for up to three years subject to satisfactory progress. For detailed information and how to apply go to (http://www.computing.open.ac.uk/research-degrees/studentships); or contact the postgraduate admissions tutor, Dr. Leonor Barroca (l.barroca at open.ac.uk); or email the Research School (http://www.open.ac.uk/research-school/). Closing date for applications: 22nd February 2008. --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080114/5a0c9e51/attachment.htm From dtp at she-philosopher.com Tue Jan 15 00:51:58 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:51:58 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> Gunnar, > If I took a Shakespeare play and > re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of > a Danish" and inserted the line > "I feel like the hole in a donut > and am looking fairly pastry" > after "To be or not to be" then > my copyright would cover any > version of the play that > included that line but would > not cover any version that did > not contain the line. Presumably > one could copy my version minus > my original creative work (thus > restoring the original) without > infringing on my copyright. But this assumes that the reader knows your edition of _Hamlet_ by William Shakespeare has been altered. If I innocently copy your interpellation about donut holes, thinking it's part of the original play by Shakespeare -- because there's no other author cited anywhere, and no notice to the reader that you've altered the original content -- am I in violation of your copyright? > On the other hand, if I took > the Shakespeare original and > printed it in red ink to > match the Danish flag, I > doubt I could get a court to > agree that this was an > original creative work on my > part, thus enjoining you > from printing the play in > red. OK, except that these days, I think, new editions of "classic" works -- every one of which is copyrighted -- often do little more than creatively reformat the original author's words.... And then they use that unique redesign as their marketing come-on. I guess I'm of the school that figures once you publicly issue something -- i.e., put a concept out there for all to see -- you can't then put the design genie back in the bottle. Ergo, ReadHowYouWant.com should be able to copyright their exact printing of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, but nothing more (including their hyphenation of words and layout of MC's text in 24pt type). I shouldn't be able to photocopy their text, and offer an identical version of their edition at, say, the cut rate of US$5.99. But I should be able to re-create their transcription of MC's text (which I expect isn't original to them, anyway) in 24pt Officina Sans, if I wish -- let the hyphenation fall where it may! ;-) -- and sell it for the exact same price under a competitor brand name. FWIW, all of this raises several troubling issues for scholars, like me, whose stock-in-trade is public discussion of archival research and our ideas/concepts about that research. Generally, scholars have looked to institutionalized procedures of citation, etc. to establish precedence, originality and creativity, and to protect their place in the great chain of academic being. But all the confusion over copyright in the new Web-based market of ideas undermines those of us who adhere to the old-fashioned way of doing things. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but as someone who believes that citation trails still have an important role to play (esp. vis a vis how we uphold the quality of research), I'm not happy about the rush to copyright I see going on around me. (And I'm especially not happy about any further attempts at privatizing the commons.) As "Fair Use" gets curtailed by pay-per-use databases and overly restrictive copyright claims, it becomes increasingly difficult to have substantive public discussion of shared online resources. Worried about prohibitive charges for use and/or denial of permissions, more and more people have simply stopped asking, and are just taking what they want, without acknowledging their sources. And that's no way to build the commons.... Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dtp at she-philosopher.com Tue Jan 15 00:56:02 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:56:02 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <478BF692.3080201@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > You seem to be suggesting that > the public domain should be > retrofitted with copyleft terms. I suppose I am.... I have personally been resistant to this sort of thing, hoping that the whole issue would just go away if I ignored it long enough. ;-) But, given our insatiable need for content -- and the huge expense of producing it -- I think the trend to copyrighting everything that isn't already claimed by some private interest is just going to continue. Oh, joy! I suppose next we can all look forward to incorporating clever copyright notices in our signature lines for e-mail.... ;-) Haven't yet had a chance to follow-up on all your URLs (I'm especially interested in learning more about > the "MP3 killer" audio format > "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org ) and am off to get started on that now. Hopefully, I'll have a response for you tomorrow, Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From andrew at boag.co.uk Mon Jan 7 18:43:16 2008 From: andrew at boag.co.uk (Andrew Boag) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Financial statement design, best practice In-Reply-To: <71188228-73B9-48A3-BBEF-3F98471C0C16@alphabyte.co.nz> Message-ID: We're always on the look out for good examples of best-practice information design for use in brainstorming discussions, for example, and at the moment we're particularly interested in financial statement designs (e.g. Pension policies, bank statements, investment funds, etc.). I wondered if you have good examples that you might have designed? Alternatively, do you have good examples that you've seen in your own course of research etc? We're particularly interested in examples that push the use of print and database (and potentially online) technologies to deliver statements that use personalisation well (i.e. to help the customer really understand the content and any potential calls to action) Marketing content is also of interest (e.g. Cross selling or up-selling presented appropriately). I would be very interested to hear from anyone regarding current best practice in this area - particularly outside the UK. Regards, Andrew Boag ----------------------- Boag Associates T +44 (0)20 3008 6491 F +44 (0)20 3008 7759 http://www.boag.co.uk From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 9 06:20:49 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:20:49 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Cafe, Does anyone have personal experience with the EasyRead paperbacks issued by ReadHowYouWant.com? I'm curious about the quality of their printed books, which run from about US$9.99 - US$14.99, and are sold directly by the publisher (Objective Systems Pty Ltd of NSW, Australia) and by amazon.com. As far as I can tell, ReadHowYouWant.com paperbacks typically come in 7 formats EasyRead Edition EasyRead Comfort Edition EasyRead Large Edition EasyRead Large Bold Edition (aka Large Type 16pt Bold Edition) EasyRead Super Large 18pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 20pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 24pt Edition with the 1st three set in Verdana, and the remaining four set in a combination of TiresiasLPfont and MicrosoftSansSerif. All the 2006 EasyRead editions use an uninspired layout template, and I expect have been designed to suit some kind of print-on-demand digital publication model. My own sudden interest in EasyRead publications has to do with the fact that ReadHowYouWant.com is now printing C17 texts as part of their "Classics Library," including two titles by Margaret Cavendish, duchess of Newcastle: _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ and _The Description of a New World, Called The Blazing World_. Although the ReadHowYouWant.com copyright notice for all 2006 editions of both Cavendish books reads: "The text in this book has been downloaded from the internet and has been extensively edited and typeset. "Copyright c. 2006 Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953" there is little evidence of much real editorial work having been done here. Indeed, one searches in vain (in both the PDF "preview" files offered by the publisher: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10243# > < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > and in the "SEARCH INSIDE" feature offered by amazon.com: < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Chastity-EasyRead-Margaret-Cavendish/dp/1425067123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-1 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425067808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-2 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Large/dp/1425068480/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-3 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-Large-Print/dp/1425066445/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425001688/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425016405/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199250334&sr=1-4 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425032303/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425017851/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-8 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-Called-Blazing-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425020410/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425023150/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1554806836/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > ) for any discussion of editorial responsibility, period. This is particularly interesting to me in light of some changes to the copyright notice introduced with the only 2007 edition listed above: < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > (here you can view the copyright page using amazon's SEARCH INSIDE feature). This is how the new copyright notice reads: "The text in this book has been formatted and typeset to make reading easier and more enjoyable. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized and standardized, and hyphens have been avoided when possible. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. In addition, the text has been formatted to the specifications indicated on the title page. The original text is out of copyright. The edited text in this edition and the formatting are the copyright of Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953." While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 original (which I can guarantee involved a *substantial* amount of value-adding labor!), and it's not enough to just vaguely claim that you "downloaded" the text from the internet ... then proceed to copyright someone's else's work and profit from it. There are several modern editions of Cavendish's _Blazing World_ floating around (it resonates with modern readers, unlike, say, some of MC's more intense works of science which have yet to see the light of day ;-). So Objective Systems Pty Ltd could have taken their text from any one of these, and IMHO, they ought to tell us their source. There are several reasons for such disclosure, including the fact that MC's texts are notoriously "unstable." E.g., there were at least 3 17th-century issues of MC's _The Blazing World_, which was originally appended to a scientific work titled, _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: To Which Is Added the Description of a New Blazing World_ (London, 1666 and 1668). _The Blazing World_ was also issued as a stand-alone publication in 1668, and for this edition, MC wrote a new 2-page preface ("To all Noble and Worthy Ladies") containing critical information about the text, and her intent in writing it. Since "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies" is short, and not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com EasyRead editions (which reprint only the original preface "To the Reader"), I will pass on (free of charge ;-) my own transcription of the 1668 replacement preface for everyone here: "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies. "This present _Description of a New World_, was made as an *Appendix* to my _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_; and, having some Sympathy and Coherence with each other, were joyned together as Two several Worlds, at their Two Poles. But, by reason most Ladies take no delight in *Philosophical Arguments*, I separated some from the mentioned _Observations_, and caused them to go out by themselves, that I might express my Respects, in presenting to Them such *Fancies* as my Contemplations did afford. The First Part is *Romancical*; the Second, *Philosophical*; and the Third is meerly Fancy; or, (as I may call it) *Fantastical*. And if (*Noble Ladies*) you should chance to take pleasure in reading these *Fancies*, I shall account my self a *Happy Creatoress*: If not, I must be content to live a Melancholly Life in my own World; which I cannot call a *Poor World*, if *Poverty* be only want of *Gold*, and *Jewels*: for, there is more *Gold* in it, than all the *Chymists* ever made; or, (as I verily believe) will ever be able to make. As for the *Rocks of Diamonds*, I wish, with all my Soul, they might be shared amongst my Noble *Female Friends*; upon which condition, I would willingly quit my Part: And of the *Gold*, I should desire only so much as might suffice to repair my Noble Lord and Husband's Losses: for, I am not Covetous, but as Ambitious as ever any of my Sex was, is, or can be; which is the cause, That though I cannot be *Henry* the Fifth, or *Charles* the Second; yet, I will endeavour to be, *Margaret* the *First*: and, though I have neither Power, Time, nor Occasion, to be a great Conqueror, like *Alexander*, or *Cesar*; yet, rather than not be Mistress of a World, since Fortune and the Fates would give me none, I have made One of my own. And thus, believing, or, at least, hoping, that no Creature can, or will, Envy me for this World of mine, I remain, "Noble Ladies, "Your Humble Servant, "M. Newcastle." Not only do I question ReadHowYouWant.com editorial choices about which C17 copy-text to use, how much to modernize and "correct" it, etc., I take issue with the design of the EasyRead editions. Unfortunately, _The Blazing World_'s front matter is not included as part of amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE selection, so if you want to see how it's been formatted, you'll need to download a preview PDF of the EasyRead Large Bold version (set in 16pt TiresiasLPfont) from the ReadHowYouWant.com website: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > Page 1 of the PDF is a 12-line poem ("To the Duchesse ...") which is left-justified in the C17 originals, but centered in the C21 EasyRead editions, and I'm not sure why the anonymous editor(s) at ReadHowYouWant.com chose to do it this way. The centered text is not, to my mind, a readability improvement. One thing they did pretty well during the 17th century was to lay out -- often quite beautifully -- text-heavy pages in large-sized type. For purposes of comparison, I've temporarily posted a facsimile of the page from the original stand-alone 1668 edition of _The Blazing World_ at my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_BWorld1668_preface1.gif > In addition to the changed alignment of the text, notice the difference between how the title of the poem is handled in the 1668 original vs. the 2006 EasyRead reprint. This, too, is poorly done, as far as I'm concerned. Surely it's possible to come up with a design template -- able to accommodate a range of type sizes -- that more closely retains the look-and-feel of the original printed poem? And I question other ReadHowYouWant.com design decisions as well, especially the artwork for front and back covers. The EasyRead covers for MC's _The Blazing World_ are not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com PDF previews, so for these, you'll have to use amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE feature (see above URLs). All the 2006 EasyRead editions of _The Blazing World_ use the same cover design (with orange and green backgrounds to more easily differentiate formats). Of note, the one 2007 edition of _The Blazing World_ < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > sports a newly-designed cover, but features the same cover illustration. I find the illustration anachronistic (looks to be something from _Alice in Wonderland_ ???), and would rather have seen a simple period-style fleuron deployed artistically on the cover, than such an inappropriate graphic. Plus, on the back cover (of all EasyRead titles for Margaret Cavendish), we have a picture of MC which is NOT in fact her portrait, but a painting of MC's elder sister, Mary Lucas (c. 1635). (FWIW, the original "School of van Dyck" painting is held by the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia, and is catalogued as a portrait of Mary Lucas. However, it was at some point misidentified by art historians and the early C20 scholar Douglas Grant, with this error further propagated by Kathleen Jones, whose non-scholarly biography of MC in 1988, _A Glorious Fame_, featured the image on its cover.) As for the EasyRead editions of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, I have a similar list of criticisms. For starters, there is no mention anywhere that this is a tale excerpted from MC's _Natures Pictures drawn by Fancies Pencil to the Life_ (pp. 394-514 of a 718-page book, not counting front matter). And again, there is no indication of which copy-text was used (a transcription of the 1656 or 1671 edition of _Natures Pictures_?), and why. Moreover, the ReadHowYouWant.com reprint opens with verses Thus in this Semy-Circle, wher they Sitt, Telling of Tales of pleasure & of witt, Heer you may read without a Sinn or Crime, And how more innocently pass your tyme. that are NOT part of the 1656 or 1671 printed text of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_; rather, these serve as the gloss to a (very rare) frontispiece engraving found in only *some* C17 copies of _Natures Pictures_. Nor were these verses written by MC, so strictly speaking, they shouldn't head up her "Preamble" (a reader cue used for her prefatory remarks in the 1671 revised edition of _Natures Pictures_, although not in the EasyRead versions) ... especially with no explanation of such a peculiar editorial intervention. And again, the pic used for the front cover of EasyRead editions of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ has *nothing* to do with MC or her works, prompting me to wonder: why not use the frontispiece engraving, that has a real connection with the work, instead? For those of you who are curious about the frontispiece, engraved by Peter Clouwet (aka Petrus Clouet), after a design by Abraham van Diepenbeke, I've temporarily posted a facsimile to my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_NaturesPix1656_frontispiece.gif > And, of course, there's a story behind the frontispiece that should be told also. The engraving actually deviates from the earlier Diepenbeke study in significant ways -- all part of the complicated visual rhetoric of MC's texts, designed to convey multiple messages to multiple audiences. Diepenbeke's original study, which was probably commissioned by Margaret and William for use in their publications, shows Margaret (seated far right, wearing the poet's garland of bay leaves) as the animated teller of the "Tales of pleasure & of witt" described in the frontispiece gloss. In the original study, it is Margaret who holds up her hand, commanding the attention for her audience. But in the engraving (which would have been sold separately as a stand-alone print, as well as bound into some -- especially presentation -- copies of MC's texts), Margaret's husband William (seated next to her, and similarly crowned with a laurel wreath) becomes the active narrator. In the engraving, it is William who gestures for audience attention with a pointing finger. Nonetheless, this visual concession to patriarchal rule (Margaret's critics had accused her of entrenching on "the male prerogative" with her publications, and both she and her husband were at pains to defend her against this charge) is neatly undercut by the text that follows. In Margaret's verses describing the frontispiece (from the 1656 ed. of _Natures Pictures_), she reclaims her role as narrator: My lord and I here in two chairs are set, And all his children, wives and husbands, met, To hear me tell them tales as I think fit, And hope they're full of fancy and of wit. Ladies, I ask your pardons, mercies, I, Since I talk all, and many ladies by. So, if any verses are to be inserted at the head of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, it should be these 6 lines, I think, and not the 4-line gloss to the frontispiece (which was probably written by William). Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sat Jan 12 17:17:17 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:17:17 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> On 09/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly > falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have > any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." > > After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 > original (I am not a lawyer but I play one on TV^W internet mailing lists ;-) If they derived work directly from something with expired copyright (or assigned to the public domain, a feature of US copyright not found elsewhere) then their derived work is now 100% copyright to them. If they made a derived work indirectly, they are probably guilty of copyright infringement. That is, they made a derived work from a work that is 100% copyright to someone else, and that this work was derived directly from the original public domain work doesn't matter. This is important for making a text typeface revival from an old book; if you use someone else's scans/photos, you will run into trouble, and need to either do the digitization from originals yourself, or work from digitizations that are already free culture. -- Regards, Dave From dtp at she-philosopher.com Sun Jan 13 05:24:09 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:09 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > or work from digitizations that > are already free culture. But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free culture"? In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the group in my original post, assuming that it would become part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright it as their own work? I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? > This is important for making a > text typeface revival from an > old book; if you use someone > else's scans/photos, you will > run into trouble Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well believe it's the law. :( Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sun Jan 13 14:03:21 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:03:21 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > > or work from digitizations that > > are already free culture. > > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? Oops - free culture is a tightly defined 'term of art' - http://www.freedomdefined.org - and I apologies for not including that link when I used the term. (Similarly, "free software" is tightly defined at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and spending a lot of time in a community that understands that term to mean that kind of thing, its all too easy when not in that community to blather on about "free software" and then have someone say, "but err, how does anyone make money if its free?") It is legally possible to copyright what is in the public domain, but unless you have the sole copy of something, this isn't a problem because everyone else can also go to the original PD source. It is not ethically legitimate - "not OK" - to turn what is already free culture into proprietary culture, no. To protect against this, we use "copyleft" - you can copyright a work and add a restriction that maintains the freedom of the work for all later recipients. > In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of > MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of > _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the > group in my original post, assuming that it would become > part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- > include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright > it as their own work? Almost certainly not, and you have a slam-dunk copyright infringement case against them. I suggest looking in the business directory for "no win no fee" lawyers if they do this :-) If you are are in the USA and dedicate it to the public domain, this is true though. But that dedication is only valid in the USA jurisdiction, and that's only when its done properly. Saying "you may have a copy" is not legally binding; you need to state two things; one, a copyright notice - "Copyright (c) Deborah Taylor-Pearce, 2008." - and two, a copyright license. That could be http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ although that is no longer recommended because of the international problem, so I recommend http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ in that case. The web works because when you post something on a public website, you give an implicit copyright notice to download a copy for viewing it - but that is all. Google News is mired in controversy because by aggregating and republishing 'real' newspapers websites, it goes beyond that implicit license; Google tries on a "fair use" defence, but here in the UK there is no flexible fair use, only stiffly defined "fair dealings." The RIAA recently sued someone in the USA for copying music on a CD into their iPod, and this is a dumb move in the USA where fair use flexes to include this activity. In the UK, it is illegal - but fortunately politicians bought iPods already and so recognized it as stupid, so the fair dealings definition is being updated. In Sweden, politicians started using BitTorrent already and so recognised that making p2p illegal is stupid, and have been in the news this week because they are working to decriminalise it - http://sigfrid.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/decriminalize-file-sharing/ > I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed > "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? The GPL is a "strong" copyleft license for software (although it is used for other kinds of works) and its terms are that you can only combine GPL works with other works no more restrictive than the GPL. So you can combine a GPL program with a public domain program, but not with a "non-commercial use only" program. If you use a simple all-permissive non-copyleft license, like the Creative Commons Attribution license ("CC-BY") then proprietors can combine your work (that is still copyright to you) with their redesign of it, and make the whole available under proprietary terms. Therefore I recommend strong copyleft for all free culture works unless it is strategic not to; when the alternative is to have no use of the work. For example, the "MP3 killer" audio format "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org is released under all permissive terms to encourage its widespread adoption. My sister's "USB music stick" portable player supports 3 formats - MP3, Microsoft Windows Media Audio, and Vorbis - and I didn't recommend that model to her :-) > > This is important for making a > > text typeface revival from an > > old book; if you use someone > > else's scans/photos, you will > > run into trouble > > Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well > believe it's the law. :( You seem to be suggesting that the public domain should be retrofitted with copyleft terms. I'd never thought of that, but it seems like a good idea! :-) -- Regards, Dave From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 20:41:53 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:41:53 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4210 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/33ba2d84/attachment-0003.bin From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 23:25:16 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:25:16 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0CA@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Sorry if this shows up twice. Since it hasn't shown up in almost three hours I'm guessing it may have been lost. Gunnar -----Original Message----- From: Swanson, Gunnar Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 2:41 PM To: Discussions about information design Subject: RE: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/74d9f44a/attachment-0003.htm From shailey_lists at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 14 15:02:49 2008 From: shailey_lists at yahoo.co.uk (Shailey Minocha) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:02:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Research Opportunity at the Open University, UK In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <116597.847.qm@web25110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Full-time PhD Studentship Closing date for applications: 22nd February 2008 Centre for Research in Computing (http://crc.open.ac.uk), The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Influence of 3-D Virtual Worlds on Expectations in 2-D E-Commerce Environments This PhD studentship is jointly funded by the Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology and the Business School of the Open University (OU). You will join the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) group in the Department of Computing of the OU. The research project aims to examine the effect of 3-D multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs) such as Second life (www.secondlife.com) on consumers' expectations, behaviours, and satisfaction with 2-D e-commerce environments. Specifically the research will investigate questions such as: Whether and how the expectations and behaviours of consumers with experience of 3-D MUVEs differ from those of consumers without such experience? How avatar-based consumption behaviours in 3-D MUVEs can influence the choices and behaviours of consumers in 2-D e-commerce environments? How 3-D MUVEs can be integrated within the service design of 2-D e-commerce environments for a positive seamless consumer experience with 2-D e-commerce? Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the proposed research we would like to hear from candidates who have a Masters Degree in HCI, Psychology, Sociology, or a related discipline, and have an outstanding research potential and a keen interest in Usability, Consumer Behaviour and 3-D virtual worlds. Informal enquiries about the proposed research can be made by e-mail to Dr. Shailey Minocha (S.Minocha at open.ac.uk). The studentship provides a standard living allowance (of ?12,600 per annum and tax-free) for up to three years subject to satisfactory progress. For detailed information and how to apply go to (http://www.computing.open.ac.uk/research-degrees/studentships); or contact the postgraduate admissions tutor, Dr. Leonor Barroca (l.barroca at open.ac.uk); or email the Research School (http://www.open.ac.uk/research-school/). Closing date for applications: 22nd February 2008. --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080114/5a0c9e51/attachment-0001.htm From dtp at she-philosopher.com Tue Jan 15 00:51:58 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:51:58 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> Gunnar, > If I took a Shakespeare play and > re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of > a Danish" and inserted the line > "I feel like the hole in a donut > and am looking fairly pastry" > after "To be or not to be" then > my copyright would cover any > version of the play that > included that line but would > not cover any version that did > not contain the line. Presumably > one could copy my version minus > my original creative work (thus > restoring the original) without > infringing on my copyright. But this assumes that the reader knows your edition of _Hamlet_ by William Shakespeare has been altered. If I innocently copy your interpellation about donut holes, thinking it's part of the original play by Shakespeare -- because there's no other author cited anywhere, and no notice to the reader that you've altered the original content -- am I in violation of your copyright? > On the other hand, if I took > the Shakespeare original and > printed it in red ink to > match the Danish flag, I > doubt I could get a court to > agree that this was an > original creative work on my > part, thus enjoining you > from printing the play in > red. OK, except that these days, I think, new editions of "classic" works -- every one of which is copyrighted -- often do little more than creatively reformat the original author's words.... And then they use that unique redesign as their marketing come-on. I guess I'm of the school that figures once you publicly issue something -- i.e., put a concept out there for all to see -- you can't then put the design genie back in the bottle. Ergo, ReadHowYouWant.com should be able to copyright their exact printing of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, but nothing more (including their hyphenation of words and layout of MC's text in 24pt type). I shouldn't be able to photocopy their text, and offer an identical version of their edition at, say, the cut rate of US$5.99. But I should be able to re-create their transcription of MC's text (which I expect isn't original to them, anyway) in 24pt Officina Sans, if I wish -- let the hyphenation fall where it may! ;-) -- and sell it for the exact same price under a competitor brand name. FWIW, all of this raises several troubling issues for scholars, like me, whose stock-in-trade is public discussion of archival research and our ideas/concepts about that research. Generally, scholars have looked to institutionalized procedures of citation, etc. to establish precedence, originality and creativity, and to protect their place in the great chain of academic being. But all the confusion over copyright in the new Web-based market of ideas undermines those of us who adhere to the old-fashioned way of doing things. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but as someone who believes that citation trails still have an important role to play (esp. vis a vis how we uphold the quality of research), I'm not happy about the rush to copyright I see going on around me. (And I'm especially not happy about any further attempts at privatizing the commons.) As "Fair Use" gets curtailed by pay-per-use databases and overly restrictive copyright claims, it becomes increasingly difficult to have substantive public discussion of shared online resources. Worried about prohibitive charges for use and/or denial of permissions, more and more people have simply stopped asking, and are just taking what they want, without acknowledging their sources. And that's no way to build the commons.... Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dtp at she-philosopher.com Tue Jan 15 00:56:02 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:56:02 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <478BF692.3080201@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > You seem to be suggesting that > the public domain should be > retrofitted with copyleft terms. I suppose I am.... I have personally been resistant to this sort of thing, hoping that the whole issue would just go away if I ignored it long enough. ;-) But, given our insatiable need for content -- and the huge expense of producing it -- I think the trend to copyrighting everything that isn't already claimed by some private interest is just going to continue. Oh, joy! I suppose next we can all look forward to incorporating clever copyright notices in our signature lines for e-mail.... ;-) Haven't yet had a chance to follow-up on all your URLs (I'm especially interested in learning more about > the "MP3 killer" audio format > "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org ) and am off to get started on that now. Hopefully, I'll have a response for you tomorrow, Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Tue Jan 15 16:28:15 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:28:15 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0DB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Deborah, Again, I'm not a good source for legal advice but: If they have taken a work in public domain and reformatted it in some way that could be considered an artistic interpretation, that artistic interpretation is protected by copyright US law. They in no way gain rights over the original nor can they stop you from reproducing the original or reformatting it in another manner. I assume that unintended infringement based on the copyright holder's misrepresentation of the nature of the content would not be taken seriously by a court. To the extent they seem to be representing the work as an accurate transcription of a public domain work, they undermine any claim of copyright on their version of the text. If you do work based on old fairy tales that are in public domain, you have no problem. If you include details of costume, plot, or dialog that do not exist in the old fairy tales but do exist in the Disney cartoon version, you will have Disney lawyers crawling all over you. If you do something based on Disney's movies that isn't a major commercial venture and you respond to their first cease and desist letter by ceasing and desisting, it is highly unlikely that anything more would come of it. If you do something based on my work, you might get some form of a cease and desist letter but unless you or someone connected to your project were looking like really deep pockets, it is highly unlikely that I could afford to do much more. It's possible that I could get really vindictive and stupid but most likely that I'd see that it isn't worth much of a fight; Disney would see protecting against any infringement as a reasonable business expense. I suspect the publisher in question would be closer to my situation than to Disney's. Gunnar From: Deborah Taylor-Pearce sent: Mon 1/14/2008 6:51 PM > If I innocently copy your interpellation about donut holes, > thinking it's part of the original play by Shakespeare -- > because there's no other author cited anywhere, and no > notice to the reader that you've altered the original > content -- am I in violation of your copyright? and > often do little more than creatively reformat the original > author's words.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4174 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080115/b0318a58/attachment.bin From andrew at boag.co.uk Mon Jan 7 18:43:16 2008 From: andrew at boag.co.uk (Andrew Boag) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Financial statement design, best practice In-Reply-To: <71188228-73B9-48A3-BBEF-3F98471C0C16@alphabyte.co.nz> Message-ID: We're always on the look out for good examples of best-practice information design for use in brainstorming discussions, for example, and at the moment we're particularly interested in financial statement designs (e.g. Pension policies, bank statements, investment funds, etc.). I wondered if you have good examples that you might have designed? Alternatively, do you have good examples that you've seen in your own course of research etc? We're particularly interested in examples that push the use of print and database (and potentially online) technologies to deliver statements that use personalisation well (i.e. to help the customer really understand the content and any potential calls to action) Marketing content is also of interest (e.g. Cross selling or up-selling presented appropriately). I would be very interested to hear from anyone regarding current best practice in this area - particularly outside the UK. Regards, Andrew Boag ----------------------- Boag Associates T +44 (0)20 3008 6491 F +44 (0)20 3008 7759 http://www.boag.co.uk From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 9 06:20:49 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:20:49 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Cafe, Does anyone have personal experience with the EasyRead paperbacks issued by ReadHowYouWant.com? I'm curious about the quality of their printed books, which run from about US$9.99 - US$14.99, and are sold directly by the publisher (Objective Systems Pty Ltd of NSW, Australia) and by amazon.com. As far as I can tell, ReadHowYouWant.com paperbacks typically come in 7 formats EasyRead Edition EasyRead Comfort Edition EasyRead Large Edition EasyRead Large Bold Edition (aka Large Type 16pt Bold Edition) EasyRead Super Large 18pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 20pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 24pt Edition with the 1st three set in Verdana, and the remaining four set in a combination of TiresiasLPfont and MicrosoftSansSerif. All the 2006 EasyRead editions use an uninspired layout template, and I expect have been designed to suit some kind of print-on-demand digital publication model. My own sudden interest in EasyRead publications has to do with the fact that ReadHowYouWant.com is now printing C17 texts as part of their "Classics Library," including two titles by Margaret Cavendish, duchess of Newcastle: _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ and _The Description of a New World, Called The Blazing World_. Although the ReadHowYouWant.com copyright notice for all 2006 editions of both Cavendish books reads: "The text in this book has been downloaded from the internet and has been extensively edited and typeset. "Copyright c. 2006 Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953" there is little evidence of much real editorial work having been done here. Indeed, one searches in vain (in both the PDF "preview" files offered by the publisher: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10243# > < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > and in the "SEARCH INSIDE" feature offered by amazon.com: < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Chastity-EasyRead-Margaret-Cavendish/dp/1425067123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-1 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425067808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-2 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Large/dp/1425068480/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-3 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-Large-Print/dp/1425066445/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425001688/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425016405/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199250334&sr=1-4 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425032303/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425017851/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-8 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-Called-Blazing-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425020410/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425023150/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1554806836/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > ) for any discussion of editorial responsibility, period. This is particularly interesting to me in light of some changes to the copyright notice introduced with the only 2007 edition listed above: < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > (here you can view the copyright page using amazon's SEARCH INSIDE feature). This is how the new copyright notice reads: "The text in this book has been formatted and typeset to make reading easier and more enjoyable. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized and standardized, and hyphens have been avoided when possible. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. In addition, the text has been formatted to the specifications indicated on the title page. The original text is out of copyright. The edited text in this edition and the formatting are the copyright of Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953." While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 original (which I can guarantee involved a *substantial* amount of value-adding labor!), and it's not enough to just vaguely claim that you "downloaded" the text from the internet ... then proceed to copyright someone's else's work and profit from it. There are several modern editions of Cavendish's _Blazing World_ floating around (it resonates with modern readers, unlike, say, some of MC's more intense works of science which have yet to see the light of day ;-). So Objective Systems Pty Ltd could have taken their text from any one of these, and IMHO, they ought to tell us their source. There are several reasons for such disclosure, including the fact that MC's texts are notoriously "unstable." E.g., there were at least 3 17th-century issues of MC's _The Blazing World_, which was originally appended to a scientific work titled, _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: To Which Is Added the Description of a New Blazing World_ (London, 1666 and 1668). _The Blazing World_ was also issued as a stand-alone publication in 1668, and for this edition, MC wrote a new 2-page preface ("To all Noble and Worthy Ladies") containing critical information about the text, and her intent in writing it. Since "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies" is short, and not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com EasyRead editions (which reprint only the original preface "To the Reader"), I will pass on (free of charge ;-) my own transcription of the 1668 replacement preface for everyone here: "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies. "This present _Description of a New World_, was made as an *Appendix* to my _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_; and, having some Sympathy and Coherence with each other, were joyned together as Two several Worlds, at their Two Poles. But, by reason most Ladies take no delight in *Philosophical Arguments*, I separated some from the mentioned _Observations_, and caused them to go out by themselves, that I might express my Respects, in presenting to Them such *Fancies* as my Contemplations did afford. The First Part is *Romancical*; the Second, *Philosophical*; and the Third is meerly Fancy; or, (as I may call it) *Fantastical*. And if (*Noble Ladies*) you should chance to take pleasure in reading these *Fancies*, I shall account my self a *Happy Creatoress*: If not, I must be content to live a Melancholly Life in my own World; which I cannot call a *Poor World*, if *Poverty* be only want of *Gold*, and *Jewels*: for, there is more *Gold* in it, than all the *Chymists* ever made; or, (as I verily believe) will ever be able to make. As for the *Rocks of Diamonds*, I wish, with all my Soul, they might be shared amongst my Noble *Female Friends*; upon which condition, I would willingly quit my Part: And of the *Gold*, I should desire only so much as might suffice to repair my Noble Lord and Husband's Losses: for, I am not Covetous, but as Ambitious as ever any of my Sex was, is, or can be; which is the cause, That though I cannot be *Henry* the Fifth, or *Charles* the Second; yet, I will endeavour to be, *Margaret* the *First*: and, though I have neither Power, Time, nor Occasion, to be a great Conqueror, like *Alexander*, or *Cesar*; yet, rather than not be Mistress of a World, since Fortune and the Fates would give me none, I have made One of my own. And thus, believing, or, at least, hoping, that no Creature can, or will, Envy me for this World of mine, I remain, "Noble Ladies, "Your Humble Servant, "M. Newcastle." Not only do I question ReadHowYouWant.com editorial choices about which C17 copy-text to use, how much to modernize and "correct" it, etc., I take issue with the design of the EasyRead editions. Unfortunately, _The Blazing World_'s front matter is not included as part of amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE selection, so if you want to see how it's been formatted, you'll need to download a preview PDF of the EasyRead Large Bold version (set in 16pt TiresiasLPfont) from the ReadHowYouWant.com website: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > Page 1 of the PDF is a 12-line poem ("To the Duchesse ...") which is left-justified in the C17 originals, but centered in the C21 EasyRead editions, and I'm not sure why the anonymous editor(s) at ReadHowYouWant.com chose to do it this way. The centered text is not, to my mind, a readability improvement. One thing they did pretty well during the 17th century was to lay out -- often quite beautifully -- text-heavy pages in large-sized type. For purposes of comparison, I've temporarily posted a facsimile of the page from the original stand-alone 1668 edition of _The Blazing World_ at my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_BWorld1668_preface1.gif > In addition to the changed alignment of the text, notice the difference between how the title of the poem is handled in the 1668 original vs. the 2006 EasyRead reprint. This, too, is poorly done, as far as I'm concerned. Surely it's possible to come up with a design template -- able to accommodate a range of type sizes -- that more closely retains the look-and-feel of the original printed poem? And I question other ReadHowYouWant.com design decisions as well, especially the artwork for front and back covers. The EasyRead covers for MC's _The Blazing World_ are not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com PDF previews, so for these, you'll have to use amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE feature (see above URLs). All the 2006 EasyRead editions of _The Blazing World_ use the same cover design (with orange and green backgrounds to more easily differentiate formats). Of note, the one 2007 edition of _The Blazing World_ < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > sports a newly-designed cover, but features the same cover illustration. I find the illustration anachronistic (looks to be something from _Alice in Wonderland_ ???), and would rather have seen a simple period-style fleuron deployed artistically on the cover, than such an inappropriate graphic. Plus, on the back cover (of all EasyRead titles for Margaret Cavendish), we have a picture of MC which is NOT in fact her portrait, but a painting of MC's elder sister, Mary Lucas (c. 1635). (FWIW, the original "School of van Dyck" painting is held by the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia, and is catalogued as a portrait of Mary Lucas. However, it was at some point misidentified by art historians and the early C20 scholar Douglas Grant, with this error further propagated by Kathleen Jones, whose non-scholarly biography of MC in 1988, _A Glorious Fame_, featured the image on its cover.) As for the EasyRead editions of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, I have a similar list of criticisms. For starters, there is no mention anywhere that this is a tale excerpted from MC's _Natures Pictures drawn by Fancies Pencil to the Life_ (pp. 394-514 of a 718-page book, not counting front matter). And again, there is no indication of which copy-text was used (a transcription of the 1656 or 1671 edition of _Natures Pictures_?), and why. Moreover, the ReadHowYouWant.com reprint opens with verses Thus in this Semy-Circle, wher they Sitt, Telling of Tales of pleasure & of witt, Heer you may read without a Sinn or Crime, And how more innocently pass your tyme. that are NOT part of the 1656 or 1671 printed text of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_; rather, these serve as the gloss to a (very rare) frontispiece engraving found in only *some* C17 copies of _Natures Pictures_. Nor were these verses written by MC, so strictly speaking, they shouldn't head up her "Preamble" (a reader cue used for her prefatory remarks in the 1671 revised edition of _Natures Pictures_, although not in the EasyRead versions) ... especially with no explanation of such a peculiar editorial intervention. And again, the pic used for the front cover of EasyRead editions of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ has *nothing* to do with MC or her works, prompting me to wonder: why not use the frontispiece engraving, that has a real connection with the work, instead? For those of you who are curious about the frontispiece, engraved by Peter Clouwet (aka Petrus Clouet), after a design by Abraham van Diepenbeke, I've temporarily posted a facsimile to my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_NaturesPix1656_frontispiece.gif > And, of course, there's a story behind the frontispiece that should be told also. The engraving actually deviates from the earlier Diepenbeke study in significant ways -- all part of the complicated visual rhetoric of MC's texts, designed to convey multiple messages to multiple audiences. Diepenbeke's original study, which was probably commissioned by Margaret and William for use in their publications, shows Margaret (seated far right, wearing the poet's garland of bay leaves) as the animated teller of the "Tales of pleasure & of witt" described in the frontispiece gloss. In the original study, it is Margaret who holds up her hand, commanding the attention for her audience. But in the engraving (which would have been sold separately as a stand-alone print, as well as bound into some -- especially presentation -- copies of MC's texts), Margaret's husband William (seated next to her, and similarly crowned with a laurel wreath) becomes the active narrator. In the engraving, it is William who gestures for audience attention with a pointing finger. Nonetheless, this visual concession to patriarchal rule (Margaret's critics had accused her of entrenching on "the male prerogative" with her publications, and both she and her husband were at pains to defend her against this charge) is neatly undercut by the text that follows. In Margaret's verses describing the frontispiece (from the 1656 ed. of _Natures Pictures_), she reclaims her role as narrator: My lord and I here in two chairs are set, And all his children, wives and husbands, met, To hear me tell them tales as I think fit, And hope they're full of fancy and of wit. Ladies, I ask your pardons, mercies, I, Since I talk all, and many ladies by. So, if any verses are to be inserted at the head of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, it should be these 6 lines, I think, and not the 4-line gloss to the frontispiece (which was probably written by William). Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sat Jan 12 17:17:17 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:17:17 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> On 09/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly > falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have > any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." > > After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 > original (I am not a lawyer but I play one on TV^W internet mailing lists ;-) If they derived work directly from something with expired copyright (or assigned to the public domain, a feature of US copyright not found elsewhere) then their derived work is now 100% copyright to them. If they made a derived work indirectly, they are probably guilty of copyright infringement. That is, they made a derived work from a work that is 100% copyright to someone else, and that this work was derived directly from the original public domain work doesn't matter. This is important for making a text typeface revival from an old book; if you use someone else's scans/photos, you will run into trouble, and need to either do the digitization from originals yourself, or work from digitizations that are already free culture. -- Regards, Dave From dtp at she-philosopher.com Sun Jan 13 05:24:09 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:09 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > or work from digitizations that > are already free culture. But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free culture"? In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the group in my original post, assuming that it would become part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright it as their own work? I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? > This is important for making a > text typeface revival from an > old book; if you use someone > else's scans/photos, you will > run into trouble Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well believe it's the law. :( Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sun Jan 13 14:03:21 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:03:21 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > > or work from digitizations that > > are already free culture. > > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? Oops - free culture is a tightly defined 'term of art' - http://www.freedomdefined.org - and I apologies for not including that link when I used the term. (Similarly, "free software" is tightly defined at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and spending a lot of time in a community that understands that term to mean that kind of thing, its all too easy when not in that community to blather on about "free software" and then have someone say, "but err, how does anyone make money if its free?") It is legally possible to copyright what is in the public domain, but unless you have the sole copy of something, this isn't a problem because everyone else can also go to the original PD source. It is not ethically legitimate - "not OK" - to turn what is already free culture into proprietary culture, no. To protect against this, we use "copyleft" - you can copyright a work and add a restriction that maintains the freedom of the work for all later recipients. > In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of > MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of > _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the > group in my original post, assuming that it would become > part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- > include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright > it as their own work? Almost certainly not, and you have a slam-dunk copyright infringement case against them. I suggest looking in the business directory for "no win no fee" lawyers if they do this :-) If you are are in the USA and dedicate it to the public domain, this is true though. But that dedication is only valid in the USA jurisdiction, and that's only when its done properly. Saying "you may have a copy" is not legally binding; you need to state two things; one, a copyright notice - "Copyright (c) Deborah Taylor-Pearce, 2008." - and two, a copyright license. That could be http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ although that is no longer recommended because of the international problem, so I recommend http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ in that case. The web works because when you post something on a public website, you give an implicit copyright notice to download a copy for viewing it - but that is all. Google News is mired in controversy because by aggregating and republishing 'real' newspapers websites, it goes beyond that implicit license; Google tries on a "fair use" defence, but here in the UK there is no flexible fair use, only stiffly defined "fair dealings." The RIAA recently sued someone in the USA for copying music on a CD into their iPod, and this is a dumb move in the USA where fair use flexes to include this activity. In the UK, it is illegal - but fortunately politicians bought iPods already and so recognized it as stupid, so the fair dealings definition is being updated. In Sweden, politicians started using BitTorrent already and so recognised that making p2p illegal is stupid, and have been in the news this week because they are working to decriminalise it - http://sigfrid.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/decriminalize-file-sharing/ > I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed > "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? The GPL is a "strong" copyleft license for software (although it is used for other kinds of works) and its terms are that you can only combine GPL works with other works no more restrictive than the GPL. So you can combine a GPL program with a public domain program, but not with a "non-commercial use only" program. If you use a simple all-permissive non-copyleft license, like the Creative Commons Attribution license ("CC-BY") then proprietors can combine your work (that is still copyright to you) with their redesign of it, and make the whole available under proprietary terms. Therefore I recommend strong copyleft for all free culture works unless it is strategic not to; when the alternative is to have no use of the work. For example, the "MP3 killer" audio format "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org is released under all permissive terms to encourage its widespread adoption. My sister's "USB music stick" portable player supports 3 formats - MP3, Microsoft Windows Media Audio, and Vorbis - and I didn't recommend that model to her :-) > > This is important for making a > > text typeface revival from an > > old book; if you use someone > > else's scans/photos, you will > > run into trouble > > Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well > believe it's the law. :( You seem to be suggesting that the public domain should be retrofitted with copyleft terms. I'd never thought of that, but it seems like a good idea! :-) -- Regards, Dave From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 20:41:53 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:41:53 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4210 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/33ba2d84/attachment-0004.bin From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 23:25:16 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:25:16 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0CA@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Sorry if this shows up twice. Since it hasn't shown up in almost three hours I'm guessing it may have been lost. Gunnar -----Original Message----- From: Swanson, Gunnar Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 2:41 PM To: Discussions about information design Subject: RE: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/74d9f44a/attachment-0004.htm From shailey_lists at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 14 15:02:49 2008 From: shailey_lists at yahoo.co.uk (Shailey Minocha) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:02:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Research Opportunity at the Open University, UK In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <116597.847.qm@web25110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Full-time PhD Studentship Closing date for applications: 22nd February 2008 Centre for Research in Computing (http://crc.open.ac.uk), The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Influence of 3-D Virtual Worlds on Expectations in 2-D E-Commerce Environments This PhD studentship is jointly funded by the Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology and the Business School of the Open University (OU). You will join the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) group in the Department of Computing of the OU. The research project aims to examine the effect of 3-D multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs) such as Second life (www.secondlife.com) on consumers' expectations, behaviours, and satisfaction with 2-D e-commerce environments. Specifically the research will investigate questions such as: Whether and how the expectations and behaviours of consumers with experience of 3-D MUVEs differ from those of consumers without such experience? How avatar-based consumption behaviours in 3-D MUVEs can influence the choices and behaviours of consumers in 2-D e-commerce environments? How 3-D MUVEs can be integrated within the service design of 2-D e-commerce environments for a positive seamless consumer experience with 2-D e-commerce? Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the proposed research we would like to hear from candidates who have a Masters Degree in HCI, Psychology, Sociology, or a related discipline, and have an outstanding research potential and a keen interest in Usability, Consumer Behaviour and 3-D virtual worlds. Informal enquiries about the proposed research can be made by e-mail to Dr. Shailey Minocha (S.Minocha at open.ac.uk). The studentship provides a standard living allowance (of ?12,600 per annum and tax-free) for up to three years subject to satisfactory progress. For detailed information and how to apply go to (http://www.computing.open.ac.uk/research-degrees/studentships); or contact the postgraduate admissions tutor, Dr. Leonor Barroca (l.barroca at open.ac.uk); or email the Research School (http://www.open.ac.uk/research-school/). Closing date for applications: 22nd February 2008. --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080114/5a0c9e51/attachment-0002.htm From dtp at she-philosopher.com Tue Jan 15 00:51:58 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:51:58 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> Gunnar, > If I took a Shakespeare play and > re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of > a Danish" and inserted the line > "I feel like the hole in a donut > and am looking fairly pastry" > after "To be or not to be" then > my copyright would cover any > version of the play that > included that line but would > not cover any version that did > not contain the line. Presumably > one could copy my version minus > my original creative work (thus > restoring the original) without > infringing on my copyright. But this assumes that the reader knows your edition of _Hamlet_ by William Shakespeare has been altered. If I innocently copy your interpellation about donut holes, thinking it's part of the original play by Shakespeare -- because there's no other author cited anywhere, and no notice to the reader that you've altered the original content -- am I in violation of your copyright? > On the other hand, if I took > the Shakespeare original and > printed it in red ink to > match the Danish flag, I > doubt I could get a court to > agree that this was an > original creative work on my > part, thus enjoining you > from printing the play in > red. OK, except that these days, I think, new editions of "classic" works -- every one of which is copyrighted -- often do little more than creatively reformat the original author's words.... And then they use that unique redesign as their marketing come-on. I guess I'm of the school that figures once you publicly issue something -- i.e., put a concept out there for all to see -- you can't then put the design genie back in the bottle. Ergo, ReadHowYouWant.com should be able to copyright their exact printing of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, but nothing more (including their hyphenation of words and layout of MC's text in 24pt type). I shouldn't be able to photocopy their text, and offer an identical version of their edition at, say, the cut rate of US$5.99. But I should be able to re-create their transcription of MC's text (which I expect isn't original to them, anyway) in 24pt Officina Sans, if I wish -- let the hyphenation fall where it may! ;-) -- and sell it for the exact same price under a competitor brand name. FWIW, all of this raises several troubling issues for scholars, like me, whose stock-in-trade is public discussion of archival research and our ideas/concepts about that research. Generally, scholars have looked to institutionalized procedures of citation, etc. to establish precedence, originality and creativity, and to protect their place in the great chain of academic being. But all the confusion over copyright in the new Web-based market of ideas undermines those of us who adhere to the old-fashioned way of doing things. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but as someone who believes that citation trails still have an important role to play (esp. vis a vis how we uphold the quality of research), I'm not happy about the rush to copyright I see going on around me. (And I'm especially not happy about any further attempts at privatizing the commons.) As "Fair Use" gets curtailed by pay-per-use databases and overly restrictive copyright claims, it becomes increasingly difficult to have substantive public discussion of shared online resources. Worried about prohibitive charges for use and/or denial of permissions, more and more people have simply stopped asking, and are just taking what they want, without acknowledging their sources. And that's no way to build the commons.... Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dtp at she-philosopher.com Tue Jan 15 00:56:02 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:56:02 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <478BF692.3080201@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > You seem to be suggesting that > the public domain should be > retrofitted with copyleft terms. I suppose I am.... I have personally been resistant to this sort of thing, hoping that the whole issue would just go away if I ignored it long enough. ;-) But, given our insatiable need for content -- and the huge expense of producing it -- I think the trend to copyrighting everything that isn't already claimed by some private interest is just going to continue. Oh, joy! I suppose next we can all look forward to incorporating clever copyright notices in our signature lines for e-mail.... ;-) Haven't yet had a chance to follow-up on all your URLs (I'm especially interested in learning more about > the "MP3 killer" audio format > "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org ) and am off to get started on that now. Hopefully, I'll have a response for you tomorrow, Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Tue Jan 15 16:28:15 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:28:15 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0DB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Deborah, Again, I'm not a good source for legal advice but: If they have taken a work in public domain and reformatted it in some way that could be considered an artistic interpretation, that artistic interpretation is protected by copyright US law. They in no way gain rights over the original nor can they stop you from reproducing the original or reformatting it in another manner. I assume that unintended infringement based on the copyright holder's misrepresentation of the nature of the content would not be taken seriously by a court. To the extent they seem to be representing the work as an accurate transcription of a public domain work, they undermine any claim of copyright on their version of the text. If you do work based on old fairy tales that are in public domain, you have no problem. If you include details of costume, plot, or dialog that do not exist in the old fairy tales but do exist in the Disney cartoon version, you will have Disney lawyers crawling all over you. If you do something based on Disney's movies that isn't a major commercial venture and you respond to their first cease and desist letter by ceasing and desisting, it is highly unlikely that anything more would come of it. If you do something based on my work, you might get some form of a cease and desist letter but unless you or someone connected to your project were looking like really deep pockets, it is highly unlikely that I could afford to do much more. It's possible that I could get really vindictive and stupid but most likely that I'd see that it isn't worth much of a fight; Disney would see protecting against any infringement as a reasonable business expense. I suspect the publisher in question would be closer to my situation than to Disney's. Gunnar From: Deborah Taylor-Pearce sent: Mon 1/14/2008 6:51 PM > If I innocently copy your interpellation about donut holes, > thinking it's part of the original play by Shakespeare -- > because there's no other author cited anywhere, and no > notice to the reader that you've altered the original > content -- am I in violation of your copyright? and > often do little more than creatively reformat the original > author's words.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4174 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080115/b0318a58/attachment-0001.bin From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 16 08:22:41 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:22:41 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <478DB0C1.5010409@she-philosopher.com> Dave, Well, I've just finished taking your introductory tour of the copyleft universe (many thanks, BTW), and have a lot to think about.... As I expect you already know, I, personally, have been relying on "Fair Use" doctrine (such as it is ;-) hoping that it's squishy enough to allow for still-generous interpretations of scholarly borrowings and reproductions of source materials, but muscular enough to extend traditional academic protections to independent scholars working in the electronic margins (and lacking the institutional resources available to those with academic careers). But now you tell me > Google News is mired in > controversy because by > aggregating and republishing > 'real' newspapers websites, > it goes beyond that implicit > license; Google tries on a > "fair use" defence, but here > in the UK there is no flexible > fair use, only stiffly defined > "fair dealings." and > This is important for making a > text typeface revival from an > old book; if you use someone > else's scans/photos, you will > run into trouble Many scholars are already really nervous about publicly posting pictures of the archival documents & artifacts they study ... so they don't ... which means that they are (as I see it) unfairly limited in what they're able to say & show online. As someone who does not have a high-visibility academic position to protect, I reveled in the early promise of the Web as the great academic leveller. And true enough, in the earliest days, anyone with a real interest in a subject could take it on, spread their learning around, and even challenge those who wished to maintain a monopoly over, e.g., archival studies. But I now see past gains on this front eroding rapidly as more and more publishers move to digitizing their backlists, and in so doing, further restrict PD access to scholarly materials. From my vantage point, this looks to be a free speech issue (less free & easy access = less speech). Regardless of how we categorize it, we still end up in a dialectical struggle between intellectual vs. commercial interests -- a binary which has bedeviled the academic community in the Latin west, at least since the ancient Greeks. ;-) For those of us who work in the "humanities," academic values are often perceived as being at odds with commercial values, and as a result, we tend to intertwine Fair Use protections with prohibitions against "commercial use," which I gather from the webpages at < http://www.freedomdefined.org/Definition > and < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > and < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html > means that we cannot properly call the online fruits of our intellectual labor "free cultural works." I *do* understand the rationale for this. Quoting from < http://www.freedomdefined.org/Definition >: "In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called 'free.'" And from < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html >: "A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission." "In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her." But for me, at least, this redefinition of "free culture" involves a real paradigm shift. And I'm a bit uneasy about what the consequences might be. > so I recommend > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ > in that case. (Technical aside: I was not able to follow the link _Learn how to distribute your work using this license_ at this webpage, receiving the error message: Bad Request Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand. The number of request header fields exceeds this server's limit. Fortunately, the same link worked on the first page I went to < http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ > so I was able to get what I wanted there instead.) Personally, I would be quite happy to move to a "strong copyleft" license such as this, with Attribution of Authors and Transmission of Freedoms clauses, which as I understand things at the moment, are probably a better answer to traditional academic concerns about questionable commercial uses of research. Still, I can't help worrying about what I'd be giving up in shifting from Fair Use protections to copyleft activism.... E.g., might this restrict my scholarly speech even more than it already is, by making it impossible to reproduce copyrighted materials to which I now have access under Fair Use? > For example, the "MP3 killer" > audio format "Vorbis" from > www.xiph.org is released under > all permissive terms to > encourage its widespread > adoption. FWIW, I thoroughly enjoyed my browse of the www.xiph.org website. (*Loved* the paranoia logos at < http://www.xiph.org/xiphname > ) I shall return when it's time to begin formatting the audio podcasts for my physician podcast project, having now decided to make these available in Vorbis (as well as other) formats. So in this case, at least, a wide-open permission strategy will pay off, since my physician podcast project will be free (free beer + free speech) in all senses but one: "* the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works" I simply can't give folks carte blanche to play around with and alter sensitive medical information intended for cancer patients, their friends & families. So while the audio podcasts will be a gift for anyone, anywhere, in the digital commons who wants to listen in, I don't know of any way to protect and ensure the professional integrity of the podcasts (and the physicians making them) other than with an "All rights reserved." copyright. > It is legally possible to > copyright what is in the > public domain, but unless > you have the sole copy of > something, this isn't a > problem because everyone > else can also go to the > original PD source. If you can find it.... How many PD sites pay for targeted above-the-fold exposure in google's righthand sidebar? How many PD sites expend time and attention on improving their rankings in search results listings (assuming they're even listed to begin with)? How many PD sites repackage their own materials for sale with such powerhouses as amazon.com? I've actually been pondering this myself, of late -- ever since Yateen raised the topic of amazon.com's new Kindle technology, in fact. Based on what I've learned thus far about the Kindle (admittedly, not all that much), it would seem as though we are experiencing what the rhetoricians call a *kairic* moment. (From the Greek *kairos*, which roughly translates as timely, opportune, appropriate, although any rhetoric scholar worth her salt would tell you that it's really a lot more complicated than that, of course ;-). Thus far, there isn't a huge library of titles expertly repurposed for the Kindle (whatever that may entail), which set me to thinking that even the kind of intense stuff I write might find an audience among early Kindle adopters desperate for reasonably-priced titles to add to their libraries. To wit, I've been mulling over the possibility of re-issuing some of my own PD materials in Kindle-friendly format, just to see what happens. I expect that purists may not approve of repackaging PD content for (proprietary?) Kindle technology, but in my scenario of how this might work, the Kindle Store version of material would complement (not replace) the PD version, which would continue to be freely available in its present format (and one could even make a point of letting Kindle readers know what/where that is, too). If I thought I could make any real money from this -- which I could then invest in more she-philosopher.com PD offerings -- I'd start Kindling in a jiffy.... ;-) Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Wed Jan 16 11:27:05 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:27:05 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <478DB0C1.5010409@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0F3@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Deborah, I'm not following the conversation. I thought you were talking about 16C and 17C texts. There are no fair use issues involved since such texts are public domain, thus not covered by copyright, thus a copyright exception is unneeded. Are you talking about recent writings about texts that are in the public domain? You say that "Many scholars are already really nervous about publicly posting pictures of the archival documents & artifacts they study." Why? > For those of us who work in the "humanities," academic > values are often perceived as being at odds with commercial > values, and as a result, we tend to intertwine Fair Use > protections with prohibitions against "commercial use," "Fair use" -is- intertwined with commercial use and prohibitions against or restrictions of commercial use. I'm not sure what your specific ethical worries are about formatting and selling public domain materials for a reader. How does that differ from someone printing copies of a bible or -The Wealth of Nations- or -Huckleberry Finn- and selling them? Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3674 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080116/f9ab3deb/attachment.bin From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 16 23:17:03 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:17:03 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0DB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0DB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <478E825F.3050901@she-philosopher.com> Gunnar, > If you do something based on > Disney's movies that isn't a > major commercial venture and > you respond to their first > cease and desist letter by > ceasing and desisting, it is > highly unlikely that anything > more would come of it. I've always hoped this would be the case. Most folks I know running "scholarly" PD websites have good intentions, and post images with this caveat in mind. If the museum etc. (holder of the historical artifact, and hence of the rights over its reproduction) and/or any publishers who have paid a hefty fee for permission to print a photographic reproduction of an artifact issue a "cease and desist" letter, most Web author-scholars I know (including me) would immediately remove the copyrighted image. I doubt many of us have the time (or financial resources) to test the protections of "Fair Use" in court. > If you include details of > costume, plot, or dialog > that do not exist in the > old fairy tales but do > exist in the Disney cartoon > version, you will have > Disney lawyers crawling all > over you. Well, this is certainly good to know, since I'm planning an extensive gallery exhibit on historical visions of Pocahontas (and other AmerIndian women of what is now the southeastern U.S.), from C17 through C21. So I was, in fact, thinking of juxtaposing images of Disney's Pocahontas with Aphra Behn's C17 depiction of a Virginia Indian queen in her play, _The Widdow Ranter_ (there's this astounding engraving of the stage actor Anne Bracegirdle in costume as Behn's Indian queen, Semernia, when the play was first staged in 1690) ... and both of these dramatic portraits with some wonderful C19/early C20 B&W pix of real Pamunkey Indian women on their reservation near Richmond ... along with facsimile reproductions of several C17 engravings and painted portraits (some famous and well-known, some not). Since I'd rather not attract the attention of Disney's legal team, I expect I'd be best off not including any images (even thumbnails) relating to their biopic, period. Thanks for the heads-up! Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From markb at textmatters.com Wed Jan 16 23:24:40 2008 From: markb at textmatters.com (Mark Barratt) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:24:40 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Job opportunity at Text Matters Message-ID: <478E8428.7070306@textmatters.com> Text Matters is looking for a web developer/information designer to join our small team of editors, designers and developers in Reading, UK, working on a variety of projects, mostly interesting and mostly for not-for-profit clients. It's possible, but not likely, that a 'virtual worker' would meet our needs. A requirement is good technical skills in HTML/CSS, including the ability to create templates in HTML+whatever (where 'whatever' may be ASP, PHP, or some other TLA). That's an absolute: please don't talk to us unless you feel you meet that requirement. Beyond that, we are looking for some evidence of analytic ability, a passion for good communication, and some skill in one or more of our core competencies: communication design, effective language and 'usability' in its broadest sense. Experience of, and coherent views on, eLearning environments would be an advantage. In the first instance please email me with a CV and any questions. Thanks -- Mark Barratt Text Matters Information design: we help explain things using language | design | systems | process improvement ______________________________________________________ phone +44 (0)118 986 8313 email markb at textmatters.com skype mark_barratt web http://www.textmatters.com From andrew at boag.co.uk Mon Jan 7 18:43:16 2008 From: andrew at boag.co.uk (Andrew Boag) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Financial statement design, best practice In-Reply-To: <71188228-73B9-48A3-BBEF-3F98471C0C16@alphabyte.co.nz> Message-ID: We're always on the look out for good examples of best-practice information design for use in brainstorming discussions, for example, and at the moment we're particularly interested in financial statement designs (e.g. Pension policies, bank statements, investment funds, etc.). I wondered if you have good examples that you might have designed? Alternatively, do you have good examples that you've seen in your own course of research etc? We're particularly interested in examples that push the use of print and database (and potentially online) technologies to deliver statements that use personalisation well (i.e. to help the customer really understand the content and any potential calls to action) Marketing content is also of interest (e.g. Cross selling or up-selling presented appropriately). I would be very interested to hear from anyone regarding current best practice in this area - particularly outside the UK. Regards, Andrew Boag ----------------------- Boag Associates T +44 (0)20 3008 6491 F +44 (0)20 3008 7759 http://www.boag.co.uk From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 9 06:20:49 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:20:49 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Cafe, Does anyone have personal experience with the EasyRead paperbacks issued by ReadHowYouWant.com? I'm curious about the quality of their printed books, which run from about US$9.99 - US$14.99, and are sold directly by the publisher (Objective Systems Pty Ltd of NSW, Australia) and by amazon.com. As far as I can tell, ReadHowYouWant.com paperbacks typically come in 7 formats EasyRead Edition EasyRead Comfort Edition EasyRead Large Edition EasyRead Large Bold Edition (aka Large Type 16pt Bold Edition) EasyRead Super Large 18pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 20pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 24pt Edition with the 1st three set in Verdana, and the remaining four set in a combination of TiresiasLPfont and MicrosoftSansSerif. All the 2006 EasyRead editions use an uninspired layout template, and I expect have been designed to suit some kind of print-on-demand digital publication model. My own sudden interest in EasyRead publications has to do with the fact that ReadHowYouWant.com is now printing C17 texts as part of their "Classics Library," including two titles by Margaret Cavendish, duchess of Newcastle: _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ and _The Description of a New World, Called The Blazing World_. Although the ReadHowYouWant.com copyright notice for all 2006 editions of both Cavendish books reads: "The text in this book has been downloaded from the internet and has been extensively edited and typeset. "Copyright c. 2006 Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953" there is little evidence of much real editorial work having been done here. Indeed, one searches in vain (in both the PDF "preview" files offered by the publisher: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10243# > < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > and in the "SEARCH INSIDE" feature offered by amazon.com: < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Chastity-EasyRead-Margaret-Cavendish/dp/1425067123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-1 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425067808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-2 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Large/dp/1425068480/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-3 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-Large-Print/dp/1425066445/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425001688/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425016405/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199250334&sr=1-4 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425032303/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425017851/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-8 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-Called-Blazing-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425020410/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425023150/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1554806836/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > ) for any discussion of editorial responsibility, period. This is particularly interesting to me in light of some changes to the copyright notice introduced with the only 2007 edition listed above: < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > (here you can view the copyright page using amazon's SEARCH INSIDE feature). This is how the new copyright notice reads: "The text in this book has been formatted and typeset to make reading easier and more enjoyable. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized and standardized, and hyphens have been avoided when possible. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. In addition, the text has been formatted to the specifications indicated on the title page. The original text is out of copyright. The edited text in this edition and the formatting are the copyright of Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953." While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 original (which I can guarantee involved a *substantial* amount of value-adding labor!), and it's not enough to just vaguely claim that you "downloaded" the text from the internet ... then proceed to copyright someone's else's work and profit from it. There are several modern editions of Cavendish's _Blazing World_ floating around (it resonates with modern readers, unlike, say, some of MC's more intense works of science which have yet to see the light of day ;-). So Objective Systems Pty Ltd could have taken their text from any one of these, and IMHO, they ought to tell us their source. There are several reasons for such disclosure, including the fact that MC's texts are notoriously "unstable." E.g., there were at least 3 17th-century issues of MC's _The Blazing World_, which was originally appended to a scientific work titled, _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: To Which Is Added the Description of a New Blazing World_ (London, 1666 and 1668). _The Blazing World_ was also issued as a stand-alone publication in 1668, and for this edition, MC wrote a new 2-page preface ("To all Noble and Worthy Ladies") containing critical information about the text, and her intent in writing it. Since "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies" is short, and not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com EasyRead editions (which reprint only the original preface "To the Reader"), I will pass on (free of charge ;-) my own transcription of the 1668 replacement preface for everyone here: "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies. "This present _Description of a New World_, was made as an *Appendix* to my _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_; and, having some Sympathy and Coherence with each other, were joyned together as Two several Worlds, at their Two Poles. But, by reason most Ladies take no delight in *Philosophical Arguments*, I separated some from the mentioned _Observations_, and caused them to go out by themselves, that I might express my Respects, in presenting to Them such *Fancies* as my Contemplations did afford. The First Part is *Romancical*; the Second, *Philosophical*; and the Third is meerly Fancy; or, (as I may call it) *Fantastical*. And if (*Noble Ladies*) you should chance to take pleasure in reading these *Fancies*, I shall account my self a *Happy Creatoress*: If not, I must be content to live a Melancholly Life in my own World; which I cannot call a *Poor World*, if *Poverty* be only want of *Gold*, and *Jewels*: for, there is more *Gold* in it, than all the *Chymists* ever made; or, (as I verily believe) will ever be able to make. As for the *Rocks of Diamonds*, I wish, with all my Soul, they might be shared amongst my Noble *Female Friends*; upon which condition, I would willingly quit my Part: And of the *Gold*, I should desire only so much as might suffice to repair my Noble Lord and Husband's Losses: for, I am not Covetous, but as Ambitious as ever any of my Sex was, is, or can be; which is the cause, That though I cannot be *Henry* the Fifth, or *Charles* the Second; yet, I will endeavour to be, *Margaret* the *First*: and, though I have neither Power, Time, nor Occasion, to be a great Conqueror, like *Alexander*, or *Cesar*; yet, rather than not be Mistress of a World, since Fortune and the Fates would give me none, I have made One of my own. And thus, believing, or, at least, hoping, that no Creature can, or will, Envy me for this World of mine, I remain, "Noble Ladies, "Your Humble Servant, "M. Newcastle." Not only do I question ReadHowYouWant.com editorial choices about which C17 copy-text to use, how much to modernize and "correct" it, etc., I take issue with the design of the EasyRead editions. Unfortunately, _The Blazing World_'s front matter is not included as part of amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE selection, so if you want to see how it's been formatted, you'll need to download a preview PDF of the EasyRead Large Bold version (set in 16pt TiresiasLPfont) from the ReadHowYouWant.com website: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > Page 1 of the PDF is a 12-line poem ("To the Duchesse ...") which is left-justified in the C17 originals, but centered in the C21 EasyRead editions, and I'm not sure why the anonymous editor(s) at ReadHowYouWant.com chose to do it this way. The centered text is not, to my mind, a readability improvement. One thing they did pretty well during the 17th century was to lay out -- often quite beautifully -- text-heavy pages in large-sized type. For purposes of comparison, I've temporarily posted a facsimile of the page from the original stand-alone 1668 edition of _The Blazing World_ at my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_BWorld1668_preface1.gif > In addition to the changed alignment of the text, notice the difference between how the title of the poem is handled in the 1668 original vs. the 2006 EasyRead reprint. This, too, is poorly done, as far as I'm concerned. Surely it's possible to come up with a design template -- able to accommodate a range of type sizes -- that more closely retains the look-and-feel of the original printed poem? And I question other ReadHowYouWant.com design decisions as well, especially the artwork for front and back covers. The EasyRead covers for MC's _The Blazing World_ are not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com PDF previews, so for these, you'll have to use amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE feature (see above URLs). All the 2006 EasyRead editions of _The Blazing World_ use the same cover design (with orange and green backgrounds to more easily differentiate formats). Of note, the one 2007 edition of _The Blazing World_ < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > sports a newly-designed cover, but features the same cover illustration. I find the illustration anachronistic (looks to be something from _Alice in Wonderland_ ???), and would rather have seen a simple period-style fleuron deployed artistically on the cover, than such an inappropriate graphic. Plus, on the back cover (of all EasyRead titles for Margaret Cavendish), we have a picture of MC which is NOT in fact her portrait, but a painting of MC's elder sister, Mary Lucas (c. 1635). (FWIW, the original "School of van Dyck" painting is held by the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia, and is catalogued as a portrait of Mary Lucas. However, it was at some point misidentified by art historians and the early C20 scholar Douglas Grant, with this error further propagated by Kathleen Jones, whose non-scholarly biography of MC in 1988, _A Glorious Fame_, featured the image on its cover.) As for the EasyRead editions of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, I have a similar list of criticisms. For starters, there is no mention anywhere that this is a tale excerpted from MC's _Natures Pictures drawn by Fancies Pencil to the Life_ (pp. 394-514 of a 718-page book, not counting front matter). And again, there is no indication of which copy-text was used (a transcription of the 1656 or 1671 edition of _Natures Pictures_?), and why. Moreover, the ReadHowYouWant.com reprint opens with verses Thus in this Semy-Circle, wher they Sitt, Telling of Tales of pleasure & of witt, Heer you may read without a Sinn or Crime, And how more innocently pass your tyme. that are NOT part of the 1656 or 1671 printed text of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_; rather, these serve as the gloss to a (very rare) frontispiece engraving found in only *some* C17 copies of _Natures Pictures_. Nor were these verses written by MC, so strictly speaking, they shouldn't head up her "Preamble" (a reader cue used for her prefatory remarks in the 1671 revised edition of _Natures Pictures_, although not in the EasyRead versions) ... especially with no explanation of such a peculiar editorial intervention. And again, the pic used for the front cover of EasyRead editions of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ has *nothing* to do with MC or her works, prompting me to wonder: why not use the frontispiece engraving, that has a real connection with the work, instead? For those of you who are curious about the frontispiece, engraved by Peter Clouwet (aka Petrus Clouet), after a design by Abraham van Diepenbeke, I've temporarily posted a facsimile to my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_NaturesPix1656_frontispiece.gif > And, of course, there's a story behind the frontispiece that should be told also. The engraving actually deviates from the earlier Diepenbeke study in significant ways -- all part of the complicated visual rhetoric of MC's texts, designed to convey multiple messages to multiple audiences. Diepenbeke's original study, which was probably commissioned by Margaret and William for use in their publications, shows Margaret (seated far right, wearing the poet's garland of bay leaves) as the animated teller of the "Tales of pleasure & of witt" described in the frontispiece gloss. In the original study, it is Margaret who holds up her hand, commanding the attention for her audience. But in the engraving (which would have been sold separately as a stand-alone print, as well as bound into some -- especially presentation -- copies of MC's texts), Margaret's husband William (seated next to her, and similarly crowned with a laurel wreath) becomes the active narrator. In the engraving, it is William who gestures for audience attention with a pointing finger. Nonetheless, this visual concession to patriarchal rule (Margaret's critics had accused her of entrenching on "the male prerogative" with her publications, and both she and her husband were at pains to defend her against this charge) is neatly undercut by the text that follows. In Margaret's verses describing the frontispiece (from the 1656 ed. of _Natures Pictures_), she reclaims her role as narrator: My lord and I here in two chairs are set, And all his children, wives and husbands, met, To hear me tell them tales as I think fit, And hope they're full of fancy and of wit. Ladies, I ask your pardons, mercies, I, Since I talk all, and many ladies by. So, if any verses are to be inserted at the head of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, it should be these 6 lines, I think, and not the 4-line gloss to the frontispiece (which was probably written by William). Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sat Jan 12 17:17:17 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:17:17 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> On 09/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly > falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have > any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." > > After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 > original (I am not a lawyer but I play one on TV^W internet mailing lists ;-) If they derived work directly from something with expired copyright (or assigned to the public domain, a feature of US copyright not found elsewhere) then their derived work is now 100% copyright to them. If they made a derived work indirectly, they are probably guilty of copyright infringement. That is, they made a derived work from a work that is 100% copyright to someone else, and that this work was derived directly from the original public domain work doesn't matter. This is important for making a text typeface revival from an old book; if you use someone else's scans/photos, you will run into trouble, and need to either do the digitization from originals yourself, or work from digitizations that are already free culture. -- Regards, Dave From dtp at she-philosopher.com Sun Jan 13 05:24:09 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:09 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > or work from digitizations that > are already free culture. But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free culture"? In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the group in my original post, assuming that it would become part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright it as their own work? I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? > This is important for making a > text typeface revival from an > old book; if you use someone > else's scans/photos, you will > run into trouble Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well believe it's the law. :( Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sun Jan 13 14:03:21 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:03:21 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > > or work from digitizations that > > are already free culture. > > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? Oops - free culture is a tightly defined 'term of art' - http://www.freedomdefined.org - and I apologies for not including that link when I used the term. (Similarly, "free software" is tightly defined at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and spending a lot of time in a community that understands that term to mean that kind of thing, its all too easy when not in that community to blather on about "free software" and then have someone say, "but err, how does anyone make money if its free?") It is legally possible to copyright what is in the public domain, but unless you have the sole copy of something, this isn't a problem because everyone else can also go to the original PD source. It is not ethically legitimate - "not OK" - to turn what is already free culture into proprietary culture, no. To protect against this, we use "copyleft" - you can copyright a work and add a restriction that maintains the freedom of the work for all later recipients. > In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of > MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of > _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the > group in my original post, assuming that it would become > part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- > include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright > it as their own work? Almost certainly not, and you have a slam-dunk copyright infringement case against them. I suggest looking in the business directory for "no win no fee" lawyers if they do this :-) If you are are in the USA and dedicate it to the public domain, this is true though. But that dedication is only valid in the USA jurisdiction, and that's only when its done properly. Saying "you may have a copy" is not legally binding; you need to state two things; one, a copyright notice - "Copyright (c) Deborah Taylor-Pearce, 2008." - and two, a copyright license. That could be http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ although that is no longer recommended because of the international problem, so I recommend http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ in that case. The web works because when you post something on a public website, you give an implicit copyright notice to download a copy for viewing it - but that is all. Google News is mired in controversy because by aggregating and republishing 'real' newspapers websites, it goes beyond that implicit license; Google tries on a "fair use" defence, but here in the UK there is no flexible fair use, only stiffly defined "fair dealings." The RIAA recently sued someone in the USA for copying music on a CD into their iPod, and this is a dumb move in the USA where fair use flexes to include this activity. In the UK, it is illegal - but fortunately politicians bought iPods already and so recognized it as stupid, so the fair dealings definition is being updated. In Sweden, politicians started using BitTorrent already and so recognised that making p2p illegal is stupid, and have been in the news this week because they are working to decriminalise it - http://sigfrid.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/decriminalize-file-sharing/ > I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed > "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? The GPL is a "strong" copyleft license for software (although it is used for other kinds of works) and its terms are that you can only combine GPL works with other works no more restrictive than the GPL. So you can combine a GPL program with a public domain program, but not with a "non-commercial use only" program. If you use a simple all-permissive non-copyleft license, like the Creative Commons Attribution license ("CC-BY") then proprietors can combine your work (that is still copyright to you) with their redesign of it, and make the whole available under proprietary terms. Therefore I recommend strong copyleft for all free culture works unless it is strategic not to; when the alternative is to have no use of the work. For example, the "MP3 killer" audio format "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org is released under all permissive terms to encourage its widespread adoption. My sister's "USB music stick" portable player supports 3 formats - MP3, Microsoft Windows Media Audio, and Vorbis - and I didn't recommend that model to her :-) > > This is important for making a > > text typeface revival from an > > old book; if you use someone > > else's scans/photos, you will > > run into trouble > > Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well > believe it's the law. :( You seem to be suggesting that the public domain should be retrofitted with copyleft terms. I'd never thought of that, but it seems like a good idea! :-) -- Regards, Dave From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 20:41:53 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:41:53 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4210 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/33ba2d84/attachment-0005.bin From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 23:25:16 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:25:16 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0CA@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Sorry if this shows up twice. Since it hasn't shown up in almost three hours I'm guessing it may have been lost. Gunnar -----Original Message----- From: Swanson, Gunnar Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 2:41 PM To: Discussions about information design Subject: RE: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/74d9f44a/attachment-0005.htm From shailey_lists at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 14 15:02:49 2008 From: shailey_lists at yahoo.co.uk (Shailey Minocha) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:02:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Research Opportunity at the Open University, UK In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <116597.847.qm@web25110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Full-time PhD Studentship Closing date for applications: 22nd February 2008 Centre for Research in Computing (http://crc.open.ac.uk), The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Influence of 3-D Virtual Worlds on Expectations in 2-D E-Commerce Environments This PhD studentship is jointly funded by the Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology and the Business School of the Open University (OU). You will join the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) group in the Department of Computing of the OU. The research project aims to examine the effect of 3-D multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs) such as Second life (www.secondlife.com) on consumers' expectations, behaviours, and satisfaction with 2-D e-commerce environments. Specifically the research will investigate questions such as: Whether and how the expectations and behaviours of consumers with experience of 3-D MUVEs differ from those of consumers without such experience? How avatar-based consumption behaviours in 3-D MUVEs can influence the choices and behaviours of consumers in 2-D e-commerce environments? How 3-D MUVEs can be integrated within the service design of 2-D e-commerce environments for a positive seamless consumer experience with 2-D e-commerce? Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the proposed research we would like to hear from candidates who have a Masters Degree in HCI, Psychology, Sociology, or a related discipline, and have an outstanding research potential and a keen interest in Usability, Consumer Behaviour and 3-D virtual worlds. Informal enquiries about the proposed research can be made by e-mail to Dr. Shailey Minocha (S.Minocha at open.ac.uk). The studentship provides a standard living allowance (of ?12,600 per annum and tax-free) for up to three years subject to satisfactory progress. For detailed information and how to apply go to (http://www.computing.open.ac.uk/research-degrees/studentships); or contact the postgraduate admissions tutor, Dr. Leonor Barroca (l.barroca at open.ac.uk); or email the Research School (http://www.open.ac.uk/research-school/). Closing date for applications: 22nd February 2008. --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080114/5a0c9e51/attachment-0004.htm From dtp at she-philosopher.com Tue Jan 15 00:51:58 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:51:58 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> Gunnar, > If I took a Shakespeare play and > re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of > a Danish" and inserted the line > "I feel like the hole in a donut > and am looking fairly pastry" > after "To be or not to be" then > my copyright would cover any > version of the play that > included that line but would > not cover any version that did > not contain the line. Presumably > one could copy my version minus > my original creative work (thus > restoring the original) without > infringing on my copyright. But this assumes that the reader knows your edition of _Hamlet_ by William Shakespeare has been altered. If I innocently copy your interpellation about donut holes, thinking it's part of the original play by Shakespeare -- because there's no other author cited anywhere, and no notice to the reader that you've altered the original content -- am I in violation of your copyright? > On the other hand, if I took > the Shakespeare original and > printed it in red ink to > match the Danish flag, I > doubt I could get a court to > agree that this was an > original creative work on my > part, thus enjoining you > from printing the play in > red. OK, except that these days, I think, new editions of "classic" works -- every one of which is copyrighted -- often do little more than creatively reformat the original author's words.... And then they use that unique redesign as their marketing come-on. I guess I'm of the school that figures once you publicly issue something -- i.e., put a concept out there for all to see -- you can't then put the design genie back in the bottle. Ergo, ReadHowYouWant.com should be able to copyright their exact printing of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, but nothing more (including their hyphenation of words and layout of MC's text in 24pt type). I shouldn't be able to photocopy their text, and offer an identical version of their edition at, say, the cut rate of US$5.99. But I should be able to re-create their transcription of MC's text (which I expect isn't original to them, anyway) in 24pt Officina Sans, if I wish -- let the hyphenation fall where it may! ;-) -- and sell it for the exact same price under a competitor brand name. FWIW, all of this raises several troubling issues for scholars, like me, whose stock-in-trade is public discussion of archival research and our ideas/concepts about that research. Generally, scholars have looked to institutionalized procedures of citation, etc. to establish precedence, originality and creativity, and to protect their place in the great chain of academic being. But all the confusion over copyright in the new Web-based market of ideas undermines those of us who adhere to the old-fashioned way of doing things. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but as someone who believes that citation trails still have an important role to play (esp. vis a vis how we uphold the quality of research), I'm not happy about the rush to copyright I see going on around me. (And I'm especially not happy about any further attempts at privatizing the commons.) As "Fair Use" gets curtailed by pay-per-use databases and overly restrictive copyright claims, it becomes increasingly difficult to have substantive public discussion of shared online resources. Worried about prohibitive charges for use and/or denial of permissions, more and more people have simply stopped asking, and are just taking what they want, without acknowledging their sources. And that's no way to build the commons.... Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dtp at she-philosopher.com Tue Jan 15 00:56:02 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:56:02 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <478BF692.3080201@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > You seem to be suggesting that > the public domain should be > retrofitted with copyleft terms. I suppose I am.... I have personally been resistant to this sort of thing, hoping that the whole issue would just go away if I ignored it long enough. ;-) But, given our insatiable need for content -- and the huge expense of producing it -- I think the trend to copyrighting everything that isn't already claimed by some private interest is just going to continue. Oh, joy! I suppose next we can all look forward to incorporating clever copyright notices in our signature lines for e-mail.... ;-) Haven't yet had a chance to follow-up on all your URLs (I'm especially interested in learning more about > the "MP3 killer" audio format > "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org ) and am off to get started on that now. Hopefully, I'll have a response for you tomorrow, Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Tue Jan 15 16:28:15 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:28:15 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0DB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Deborah, Again, I'm not a good source for legal advice but: If they have taken a work in public domain and reformatted it in some way that could be considered an artistic interpretation, that artistic interpretation is protected by copyright US law. They in no way gain rights over the original nor can they stop you from reproducing the original or reformatting it in another manner. I assume that unintended infringement based on the copyright holder's misrepresentation of the nature of the content would not be taken seriously by a court. To the extent they seem to be representing the work as an accurate transcription of a public domain work, they undermine any claim of copyright on their version of the text. If you do work based on old fairy tales that are in public domain, you have no problem. If you include details of costume, plot, or dialog that do not exist in the old fairy tales but do exist in the Disney cartoon version, you will have Disney lawyers crawling all over you. If you do something based on Disney's movies that isn't a major commercial venture and you respond to their first cease and desist letter by ceasing and desisting, it is highly unlikely that anything more would come of it. If you do something based on my work, you might get some form of a cease and desist letter but unless you or someone connected to your project were looking like really deep pockets, it is highly unlikely that I could afford to do much more. It's possible that I could get really vindictive and stupid but most likely that I'd see that it isn't worth much of a fight; Disney would see protecting against any infringement as a reasonable business expense. I suspect the publisher in question would be closer to my situation than to Disney's. Gunnar From: Deborah Taylor-Pearce sent: Mon 1/14/2008 6:51 PM > If I innocently copy your interpellation about donut holes, > thinking it's part of the original play by Shakespeare -- > because there's no other author cited anywhere, and no > notice to the reader that you've altered the original > content -- am I in violation of your copyright? and > often do little more than creatively reformat the original > author's words.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4174 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080115/b0318a58/attachment-0003.bin From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 16 08:22:41 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:22:41 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <478DB0C1.5010409@she-philosopher.com> Dave, Well, I've just finished taking your introductory tour of the copyleft universe (many thanks, BTW), and have a lot to think about.... As I expect you already know, I, personally, have been relying on "Fair Use" doctrine (such as it is ;-) hoping that it's squishy enough to allow for still-generous interpretations of scholarly borrowings and reproductions of source materials, but muscular enough to extend traditional academic protections to independent scholars working in the electronic margins (and lacking the institutional resources available to those with academic careers). But now you tell me > Google News is mired in > controversy because by > aggregating and republishing > 'real' newspapers websites, > it goes beyond that implicit > license; Google tries on a > "fair use" defence, but here > in the UK there is no flexible > fair use, only stiffly defined > "fair dealings." and > This is important for making a > text typeface revival from an > old book; if you use someone > else's scans/photos, you will > run into trouble Many scholars are already really nervous about publicly posting pictures of the archival documents & artifacts they study ... so they don't ... which means that they are (as I see it) unfairly limited in what they're able to say & show online. As someone who does not have a high-visibility academic position to protect, I reveled in the early promise of the Web as the great academic leveller. And true enough, in the earliest days, anyone with a real interest in a subject could take it on, spread their learning around, and even challenge those who wished to maintain a monopoly over, e.g., archival studies. But I now see past gains on this front eroding rapidly as more and more publishers move to digitizing their backlists, and in so doing, further restrict PD access to scholarly materials. From my vantage point, this looks to be a free speech issue (less free & easy access = less speech). Regardless of how we categorize it, we still end up in a dialectical struggle between intellectual vs. commercial interests -- a binary which has bedeviled the academic community in the Latin west, at least since the ancient Greeks. ;-) For those of us who work in the "humanities," academic values are often perceived as being at odds with commercial values, and as a result, we tend to intertwine Fair Use protections with prohibitions against "commercial use," which I gather from the webpages at < http://www.freedomdefined.org/Definition > and < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > and < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html > means that we cannot properly call the online fruits of our intellectual labor "free cultural works." I *do* understand the rationale for this. Quoting from < http://www.freedomdefined.org/Definition >: "In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called 'free.'" And from < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html >: "A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission." "In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her." But for me, at least, this redefinition of "free culture" involves a real paradigm shift. And I'm a bit uneasy about what the consequences might be. > so I recommend > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ > in that case. (Technical aside: I was not able to follow the link _Learn how to distribute your work using this license_ at this webpage, receiving the error message: Bad Request Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand. The number of request header fields exceeds this server's limit. Fortunately, the same link worked on the first page I went to < http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ > so I was able to get what I wanted there instead.) Personally, I would be quite happy to move to a "strong copyleft" license such as this, with Attribution of Authors and Transmission of Freedoms clauses, which as I understand things at the moment, are probably a better answer to traditional academic concerns about questionable commercial uses of research. Still, I can't help worrying about what I'd be giving up in shifting from Fair Use protections to copyleft activism.... E.g., might this restrict my scholarly speech even more than it already is, by making it impossible to reproduce copyrighted materials to which I now have access under Fair Use? > For example, the "MP3 killer" > audio format "Vorbis" from > www.xiph.org is released under > all permissive terms to > encourage its widespread > adoption. FWIW, I thoroughly enjoyed my browse of the www.xiph.org website. (*Loved* the paranoia logos at < http://www.xiph.org/xiphname > ) I shall return when it's time to begin formatting the audio podcasts for my physician podcast project, having now decided to make these available in Vorbis (as well as other) formats. So in this case, at least, a wide-open permission strategy will pay off, since my physician podcast project will be free (free beer + free speech) in all senses but one: "* the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works" I simply can't give folks carte blanche to play around with and alter sensitive medical information intended for cancer patients, their friends & families. So while the audio podcasts will be a gift for anyone, anywhere, in the digital commons who wants to listen in, I don't know of any way to protect and ensure the professional integrity of the podcasts (and the physicians making them) other than with an "All rights reserved." copyright. > It is legally possible to > copyright what is in the > public domain, but unless > you have the sole copy of > something, this isn't a > problem because everyone > else can also go to the > original PD source. If you can find it.... How many PD sites pay for targeted above-the-fold exposure in google's righthand sidebar? How many PD sites expend time and attention on improving their rankings in search results listings (assuming they're even listed to begin with)? How many PD sites repackage their own materials for sale with such powerhouses as amazon.com? I've actually been pondering this myself, of late -- ever since Yateen raised the topic of amazon.com's new Kindle technology, in fact. Based on what I've learned thus far about the Kindle (admittedly, not all that much), it would seem as though we are experiencing what the rhetoricians call a *kairic* moment. (From the Greek *kairos*, which roughly translates as timely, opportune, appropriate, although any rhetoric scholar worth her salt would tell you that it's really a lot more complicated than that, of course ;-). Thus far, there isn't a huge library of titles expertly repurposed for the Kindle (whatever that may entail), which set me to thinking that even the kind of intense stuff I write might find an audience among early Kindle adopters desperate for reasonably-priced titles to add to their libraries. To wit, I've been mulling over the possibility of re-issuing some of my own PD materials in Kindle-friendly format, just to see what happens. I expect that purists may not approve of repackaging PD content for (proprietary?) Kindle technology, but in my scenario of how this might work, the Kindle Store version of material would complement (not replace) the PD version, which would continue to be freely available in its present format (and one could even make a point of letting Kindle readers know what/where that is, too). If I thought I could make any real money from this -- which I could then invest in more she-philosopher.com PD offerings -- I'd start Kindling in a jiffy.... ;-) Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Wed Jan 16 11:27:05 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:27:05 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <478DB0C1.5010409@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0F3@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Deborah, I'm not following the conversation. I thought you were talking about 16C and 17C texts. There are no fair use issues involved since such texts are public domain, thus not covered by copyright, thus a copyright exception is unneeded. Are you talking about recent writings about texts that are in the public domain? You say that "Many scholars are already really nervous about publicly posting pictures of the archival documents & artifacts they study." Why? > For those of us who work in the "humanities," academic > values are often perceived as being at odds with commercial > values, and as a result, we tend to intertwine Fair Use > protections with prohibitions against "commercial use," "Fair use" -is- intertwined with commercial use and prohibitions against or restrictions of commercial use. I'm not sure what your specific ethical worries are about formatting and selling public domain materials for a reader. How does that differ from someone printing copies of a bible or -The Wealth of Nations- or -Huckleberry Finn- and selling them? Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3674 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080116/f9ab3deb/attachment-0001.bin From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 16 23:17:03 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:17:03 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0DB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0DB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <478E825F.3050901@she-philosopher.com> Gunnar, > If you do something based on > Disney's movies that isn't a > major commercial venture and > you respond to their first > cease and desist letter by > ceasing and desisting, it is > highly unlikely that anything > more would come of it. I've always hoped this would be the case. Most folks I know running "scholarly" PD websites have good intentions, and post images with this caveat in mind. If the museum etc. (holder of the historical artifact, and hence of the rights over its reproduction) and/or any publishers who have paid a hefty fee for permission to print a photographic reproduction of an artifact issue a "cease and desist" letter, most Web author-scholars I know (including me) would immediately remove the copyrighted image. I doubt many of us have the time (or financial resources) to test the protections of "Fair Use" in court. > If you include details of > costume, plot, or dialog > that do not exist in the > old fairy tales but do > exist in the Disney cartoon > version, you will have > Disney lawyers crawling all > over you. Well, this is certainly good to know, since I'm planning an extensive gallery exhibit on historical visions of Pocahontas (and other AmerIndian women of what is now the southeastern U.S.), from C17 through C21. So I was, in fact, thinking of juxtaposing images of Disney's Pocahontas with Aphra Behn's C17 depiction of a Virginia Indian queen in her play, _The Widdow Ranter_ (there's this astounding engraving of the stage actor Anne Bracegirdle in costume as Behn's Indian queen, Semernia, when the play was first staged in 1690) ... and both of these dramatic portraits with some wonderful C19/early C20 B&W pix of real Pamunkey Indian women on their reservation near Richmond ... along with facsimile reproductions of several C17 engravings and painted portraits (some famous and well-known, some not). Since I'd rather not attract the attention of Disney's legal team, I expect I'd be best off not including any images (even thumbnails) relating to their biopic, period. Thanks for the heads-up! Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From markb at textmatters.com Wed Jan 16 23:24:40 2008 From: markb at textmatters.com (Mark Barratt) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:24:40 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Job opportunity at Text Matters Message-ID: <478E8428.7070306@textmatters.com> Text Matters is looking for a web developer/information designer to join our small team of editors, designers and developers in Reading, UK, working on a variety of projects, mostly interesting and mostly for not-for-profit clients. It's possible, but not likely, that a 'virtual worker' would meet our needs. A requirement is good technical skills in HTML/CSS, including the ability to create templates in HTML+whatever (where 'whatever' may be ASP, PHP, or some other TLA). That's an absolute: please don't talk to us unless you feel you meet that requirement. Beyond that, we are looking for some evidence of analytic ability, a passion for good communication, and some skill in one or more of our core competencies: communication design, effective language and 'usability' in its broadest sense. Experience of, and coherent views on, eLearning environments would be an advantage. In the first instance please email me with a CV and any questions. Thanks -- Mark Barratt Text Matters Information design: we help explain things using language | design | systems | process improvement ______________________________________________________ phone +44 (0)118 986 8313 email markb at textmatters.com skype mark_barratt web http://www.textmatters.com From dtp at she-philosopher.com Thu Jan 17 08:54:09 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:54:09 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0F3@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <478DB0C1.5010409@she-philosopher.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0F3@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <478F09A1.9030003@she-philosopher.com> Gunnar, > I'm not following the > conversation. I thought you > were talking about 16C and 17C > texts. I was. But I'm also now thinking about copyright issues vis a vis a range of digital publications. > There are no fair use issues > involved since such texts are > public domain, thus not > covered by copyright, thus a > copyright exception is unneeded. Not if you're using reproductions of the text controlled by the holding institution. The example Dave gave about a typeface designer working from facsimile reproductions she didn't pay for (or paid a nominal fee for, which didn't include permission to reproduce) is relevant. In the old days, scholars used to read C17 texts in museum libraries or private collections, and painstakingly transcribe the text by hand (using pencils only, at first, then electronic typewriters, and now computers). The resulting copy of the text (a handwritten, typed, or digital transcription) is unquestionably the property of the scholar, and there are no copyright questions attaching to it (at least as far as I know ... and anyone who accepts what a scholar with her head in the 17th century has to say on the subject of C21 copyright law is an even bigger idiot than she who takes legal advice from a graphic designer! ;-). At some point during the 20th century, many archival works were photographed and put on 35mm microfilm, microfiche, and micro-opaques (my least favorite of the three!). These were then aggregated into enormous collections (such as "French books before 1601") and university libraries that could afford to do so, purchased copies of these filmed collections from whoever held the copyright (e.g., UMI). This meant that scholars no longer *had* to visit special collections departments all over the world in order to have access to early printed works, but could read French medieval texts on microfilm, as I did a couple of months ago when I looked through a 1486 edition of Anglicus Bartholomaeus's _De proprietatibus rerum_, hoping to learn if/how his illustration of global wind currents had changed from the 1482 edition. Reading a microfilm copy of a 1486 MS. with obliterated text from centuries of wear and print transfer is something of an art in itself, but those of us who do it, are (in most cases ;-) grateful for the research opportunities it affords. Even scholars who claim they will *never* trust a microfilm copy of an archival text -- usually, the same scholars who most enjoy traveling to remote locales to do research in spectacular museum environments -- have been known to use film copies on occasion to look up some detail or another they forgot to take note of when they had the chance. In my particular case, I was reading Bartholomaeus's text for a colleague in northern California, since I had access to the film copy through my local university library, and he did not. Not only did I take copious notes (presumably my copyright, although I *was* working from copyrighted images of the original) which I passed on to him via e-mail, I was also able to capture digital images from the 35mm film of those pages I knew he would want to see, and send these images to him later that evening as attachments to e-mail ... an act which is probably in violation of somebody's copyright, even though I would maintain that everything I did falls under the protections of Fair Use. I certainly don't make any money from doing collaborative scholarship such as this. And the information I passed him will end up being written up in a scholarly article to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, so it's certainly legitimate scholarship (although I think "legitimacy" is irrelevant and a bogus issue). ... But back to microfilm reproductions of out-of-copyright MSS.... We've since entered a new phase of (copyrighted) photographic reproductions with the ongoing digitization of the microfilm/microfiche collections, now aggregated in massive online databases such as "Early English Books Online" (copyright Chadwick-Healey), which are closed to the non-paying public. And big university libraries are pretty much the only entities with sufficient funding to buy the licenses guaranteeing access to the database for N library users at a given time. If I, as a scholar, am lucky enough to have access to such online collections through my university library, I now get to read microfilmed copies of C17 texts online, including ready access to a range of database tools which make it easy for me to capture (even print) text images in varying resolutions. But only for my private use. So, if I use these copyrighted images to produce a transcription of an out-of-copyright text which I then typeset and sell for a fee through amazon's Kindle Store am I in violation of Chadwick-Healey's copyright? How about if I substantially alter Chadwick-Healey's digitization of UMI's 35mm film image of a page from a C17 edition held by the British Library (e.g., turning an unreadable digital facsimile into something readable), and post it to my website? Even though I've added value to the original, I've still created a derivative work and wouldn't feel comfortable *selling* it, since that would go against the very Fair Use principles that allow me to aggregate bits & pieces from the works of others in the first place. Similarly, libraries are now digitizing their archival holdings, sometimes posting digital facsimiles of their collections to the public domain, and sometimes not. One of my favorite examples of a PD model is the University of Wisconsin Digital Collections Center's History of Science project < http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/HistSciTech/ > which is really very well done, and freely accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. (Their online archival texts are even searchable, although their OCR software was not sophisticated enough to correct for old-style typography, so the user needs to be somewhat clever when formulating search queries.) Other libraries, such as the U.S. National Library of Medicine's "Historical Anatomies on the Web" website, have chosen to close off their digital collections to the non-paying public. So, were I to include NLM's facsimile image of the engraved title page for William Cheselden's _Osteographia, or the Anatomy of Bones_ (London, 1733) -- which shows Cheselden using a camera obscura of his own design to produce the fantastic illustrations for his majestic atlas of comparative osteology (he even engraved his own copper plates!) -- in my PDF on Robert Hooke's camera obscura designs (a PD document), I believe this would be OK under the conditions of Fair Use. But I would *not* feel right reformatting this same PDF for sale in amazon.com's Kindle Store. For this, I would have to take and use my own photographic image of Cheselden's title page. (And, as if all of this isn't murky enough, we haven't even gotten started on the subject of modern reproductions of antique maps and prints! ... ;-) > You say that "Many scholars are > already really nervous about > publicly posting pictures of > the archival documents & > artifacts they study." Why? If I'm involved in an online discussion of whether or not the so-called Velasco map of 1610/11 is a C19 forgery, I think I have the right under Fair Use to reproduce earlier printed facsimiles of the map -- even when they're still under publisher's copyright -- and post them to my website so that those who are interested in the controversy can compare and contrast all the images for themselves, and reach their own conclusions. Most reputable map scholars would not do this sort of thing. But since I'm not a card-carrying member of the community of cartographic historians, I have a bit more leeway. And since my intent is always to make obscure cartifacts (J. B. Post's nice coinage) more accessible to all, I'm more willing than some to push the boundaries of scholarly decorum. But as Dave is always telling us, digital information usually takes on a life of its own, and I find myself in the awkward position now of being asked more and more often for permission to reuse/reprint she-philosopher.com images (some of which are out-of-copyright, and some of which aren't). Last year, I even received notice from the editor of a high-school yearbook that they were planning to reprint the Velasco Map on the yearbook's title page. The students' theme for the yearbook was "A New Voyage," and the editor had been searching for "something different" to use when he stumbled across my reproductions of the Velasco Map. He wrote to let me know how they were going to be using she-philosopher.com materials (as I request on my site), and concluded with the comment: "Thank you for making such resources freely available." I was, of course, delighted to learn that a group of U.S. high school students took it upon themselves to study the Velasco Map -- who would have thought?! -- and consider this an example of the very best that Fair Use has to offer. But how far does it really apply? Aren't student yearbooks commercial, for-profit ventures? And I don't even know which version of the Velasco Map (some of which are still in copyright) the students were going to rework for the yearbook's title page. I never asked. > Are you talking about > recent writings about > texts that are in the > public domain? Yes, this too. Fair Use allows me to quote judiciously from other people's printed works -- without asking permission -- even while the works are still copyrighted. Can I still do this sort of thing if I self-publish a derivative work for the Kindle, and slap a copyleft statement on it? What does this do to the underlying copyrights of the original authors/publishers? Scholarly texts -- which are polyvocal in ways that, e.g., novels and fairy tales are not -- seem to me to pose unique difficulties in this area. > How does that differ from > someone printing copies > of a bible or -The Wealth > of Nations- or -Huckleberry > Finn- and selling them? This is a really good question. I think the answer has to do with the differing natures of what exactly is in the public domain.... E.g., if you wanted to print your own copy of the bible, I expect it would be easy to secure a copy of the King James version (which dates from the early 17th century). No doubt, it's on the Internet -- in several places -- and is quite obviously public property. After all, Christian missionaries have been trying to give copies of it away for centuries. Let's say, however, that you want to prepare a modern edition of Margaret Cavendish's _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_ (1666 and 1668) for the Kindle reader. As far as I know, this text of hers has never been printed in facsimile, unlike say, MC's _Grounds of Natural Philosophy_ (London, 1668), which was published as a facsimile reprint in 1996 by Locust Hill Press, with an introduction by Colette V. Michael. So where do you get your text from? Various libraries in Europe and the U.S. have C17 copies of MC's book in their collections, and you're going to have to travel to one of them, and be prepared to spend a considerable amount of time in their reading room, because Margaret's _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_ runs about 392 folio pages. That's a lot of transcribing to do, and the task will be even more arduous if you're unfamiliar with C17 typography and scientific jargon. Obviously, it would be a lot easier to just scan and OCR the *modern* text version of _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_ prepared by Eileen O'Neill, published with extensive notes and the usual scholarly introduction by Cambridge University Press in 2001. Technically, neither O'Neill nor CUP has a copyright on MC's printed words, and once they've been publicly distributed like this, I suppose they're probably fair game (unlike the scrupulously prepared HTML transcription of MC's _Observations_ available as part of the Renaissance Women Online textbase -- another online collection which is closed to the non-paying public; besides, RWO copyrights all their materials, and would not take kindly to anyone pinching their work). So you're probably within your rights to reissue O'Neill's transcription of MC's original work -- newly in the "public domain" by way of O'Neill's edition -- as your own. Would it be ethical? No, I don't think so. Certainly not without passing an agreed-on percentage of any profits to O'Neill/CUP. After all, I'm sure they could make a good case that you've stolen their work and are cutting into their profits. Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From andrew at boag.co.uk Mon Jan 7 18:43:16 2008 From: andrew at boag.co.uk (Andrew Boag) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Financial statement design, best practice In-Reply-To: <71188228-73B9-48A3-BBEF-3F98471C0C16@alphabyte.co.nz> Message-ID: We're always on the look out for good examples of best-practice information design for use in brainstorming discussions, for example, and at the moment we're particularly interested in financial statement designs (e.g. Pension policies, bank statements, investment funds, etc.). I wondered if you have good examples that you might have designed? Alternatively, do you have good examples that you've seen in your own course of research etc? We're particularly interested in examples that push the use of print and database (and potentially online) technologies to deliver statements that use personalisation well (i.e. to help the customer really understand the content and any potential calls to action) Marketing content is also of interest (e.g. Cross selling or up-selling presented appropriately). I would be very interested to hear from anyone regarding current best practice in this area - particularly outside the UK. Regards, Andrew Boag ----------------------- Boag Associates T +44 (0)20 3008 6491 F +44 (0)20 3008 7759 http://www.boag.co.uk From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 9 06:20:49 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:20:49 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Cafe, Does anyone have personal experience with the EasyRead paperbacks issued by ReadHowYouWant.com? I'm curious about the quality of their printed books, which run from about US$9.99 - US$14.99, and are sold directly by the publisher (Objective Systems Pty Ltd of NSW, Australia) and by amazon.com. As far as I can tell, ReadHowYouWant.com paperbacks typically come in 7 formats EasyRead Edition EasyRead Comfort Edition EasyRead Large Edition EasyRead Large Bold Edition (aka Large Type 16pt Bold Edition) EasyRead Super Large 18pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 20pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 24pt Edition with the 1st three set in Verdana, and the remaining four set in a combination of TiresiasLPfont and MicrosoftSansSerif. All the 2006 EasyRead editions use an uninspired layout template, and I expect have been designed to suit some kind of print-on-demand digital publication model. My own sudden interest in EasyRead publications has to do with the fact that ReadHowYouWant.com is now printing C17 texts as part of their "Classics Library," including two titles by Margaret Cavendish, duchess of Newcastle: _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ and _The Description of a New World, Called The Blazing World_. Although the ReadHowYouWant.com copyright notice for all 2006 editions of both Cavendish books reads: "The text in this book has been downloaded from the internet and has been extensively edited and typeset. "Copyright c. 2006 Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953" there is little evidence of much real editorial work having been done here. Indeed, one searches in vain (in both the PDF "preview" files offered by the publisher: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10243# > < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > and in the "SEARCH INSIDE" feature offered by amazon.com: < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Chastity-EasyRead-Margaret-Cavendish/dp/1425067123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-1 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425067808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-2 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Large/dp/1425068480/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-3 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-Large-Print/dp/1425066445/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425001688/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425016405/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199250334&sr=1-4 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425032303/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425017851/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-8 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-Called-Blazing-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425020410/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425023150/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1554806836/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > ) for any discussion of editorial responsibility, period. This is particularly interesting to me in light of some changes to the copyright notice introduced with the only 2007 edition listed above: < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > (here you can view the copyright page using amazon's SEARCH INSIDE feature). This is how the new copyright notice reads: "The text in this book has been formatted and typeset to make reading easier and more enjoyable. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized and standardized, and hyphens have been avoided when possible. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. In addition, the text has been formatted to the specifications indicated on the title page. The original text is out of copyright. The edited text in this edition and the formatting are the copyright of Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953." While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 original (which I can guarantee involved a *substantial* amount of value-adding labor!), and it's not enough to just vaguely claim that you "downloaded" the text from the internet ... then proceed to copyright someone's else's work and profit from it. There are several modern editions of Cavendish's _Blazing World_ floating around (it resonates with modern readers, unlike, say, some of MC's more intense works of science which have yet to see the light of day ;-). So Objective Systems Pty Ltd could have taken their text from any one of these, and IMHO, they ought to tell us their source. There are several reasons for such disclosure, including the fact that MC's texts are notoriously "unstable." E.g., there were at least 3 17th-century issues of MC's _The Blazing World_, which was originally appended to a scientific work titled, _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: To Which Is Added the Description of a New Blazing World_ (London, 1666 and 1668). _The Blazing World_ was also issued as a stand-alone publication in 1668, and for this edition, MC wrote a new 2-page preface ("To all Noble and Worthy Ladies") containing critical information about the text, and her intent in writing it. Since "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies" is short, and not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com EasyRead editions (which reprint only the original preface "To the Reader"), I will pass on (free of charge ;-) my own transcription of the 1668 replacement preface for everyone here: "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies. "This present _Description of a New World_, was made as an *Appendix* to my _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_; and, having some Sympathy and Coherence with each other, were joyned together as Two several Worlds, at their Two Poles. But, by reason most Ladies take no delight in *Philosophical Arguments*, I separated some from the mentioned _Observations_, and caused them to go out by themselves, that I might express my Respects, in presenting to Them such *Fancies* as my Contemplations did afford. The First Part is *Romancical*; the Second, *Philosophical*; and the Third is meerly Fancy; or, (as I may call it) *Fantastical*. And if (*Noble Ladies*) you should chance to take pleasure in reading these *Fancies*, I shall account my self a *Happy Creatoress*: If not, I must be content to live a Melancholly Life in my own World; which I cannot call a *Poor World*, if *Poverty* be only want of *Gold*, and *Jewels*: for, there is more *Gold* in it, than all the *Chymists* ever made; or, (as I verily believe) will ever be able to make. As for the *Rocks of Diamonds*, I wish, with all my Soul, they might be shared amongst my Noble *Female Friends*; upon which condition, I would willingly quit my Part: And of the *Gold*, I should desire only so much as might suffice to repair my Noble Lord and Husband's Losses: for, I am not Covetous, but as Ambitious as ever any of my Sex was, is, or can be; which is the cause, That though I cannot be *Henry* the Fifth, or *Charles* the Second; yet, I will endeavour to be, *Margaret* the *First*: and, though I have neither Power, Time, nor Occasion, to be a great Conqueror, like *Alexander*, or *Cesar*; yet, rather than not be Mistress of a World, since Fortune and the Fates would give me none, I have made One of my own. And thus, believing, or, at least, hoping, that no Creature can, or will, Envy me for this World of mine, I remain, "Noble Ladies, "Your Humble Servant, "M. Newcastle." Not only do I question ReadHowYouWant.com editorial choices about which C17 copy-text to use, how much to modernize and "correct" it, etc., I take issue with the design of the EasyRead editions. Unfortunately, _The Blazing World_'s front matter is not included as part of amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE selection, so if you want to see how it's been formatted, you'll need to download a preview PDF of the EasyRead Large Bold version (set in 16pt TiresiasLPfont) from the ReadHowYouWant.com website: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > Page 1 of the PDF is a 12-line poem ("To the Duchesse ...") which is left-justified in the C17 originals, but centered in the C21 EasyRead editions, and I'm not sure why the anonymous editor(s) at ReadHowYouWant.com chose to do it this way. The centered text is not, to my mind, a readability improvement. One thing they did pretty well during the 17th century was to lay out -- often quite beautifully -- text-heavy pages in large-sized type. For purposes of comparison, I've temporarily posted a facsimile of the page from the original stand-alone 1668 edition of _The Blazing World_ at my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_BWorld1668_preface1.gif > In addition to the changed alignment of the text, notice the difference between how the title of the poem is handled in the 1668 original vs. the 2006 EasyRead reprint. This, too, is poorly done, as far as I'm concerned. Surely it's possible to come up with a design template -- able to accommodate a range of type sizes -- that more closely retains the look-and-feel of the original printed poem? And I question other ReadHowYouWant.com design decisions as well, especially the artwork for front and back covers. The EasyRead covers for MC's _The Blazing World_ are not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com PDF previews, so for these, you'll have to use amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE feature (see above URLs). All the 2006 EasyRead editions of _The Blazing World_ use the same cover design (with orange and green backgrounds to more easily differentiate formats). Of note, the one 2007 edition of _The Blazing World_ < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > sports a newly-designed cover, but features the same cover illustration. I find the illustration anachronistic (looks to be something from _Alice in Wonderland_ ???), and would rather have seen a simple period-style fleuron deployed artistically on the cover, than such an inappropriate graphic. Plus, on the back cover (of all EasyRead titles for Margaret Cavendish), we have a picture of MC which is NOT in fact her portrait, but a painting of MC's elder sister, Mary Lucas (c. 1635). (FWIW, the original "School of van Dyck" painting is held by the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia, and is catalogued as a portrait of Mary Lucas. However, it was at some point misidentified by art historians and the early C20 scholar Douglas Grant, with this error further propagated by Kathleen Jones, whose non-scholarly biography of MC in 1988, _A Glorious Fame_, featured the image on its cover.) As for the EasyRead editions of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, I have a similar list of criticisms. For starters, there is no mention anywhere that this is a tale excerpted from MC's _Natures Pictures drawn by Fancies Pencil to the Life_ (pp. 394-514 of a 718-page book, not counting front matter). And again, there is no indication of which copy-text was used (a transcription of the 1656 or 1671 edition of _Natures Pictures_?), and why. Moreover, the ReadHowYouWant.com reprint opens with verses Thus in this Semy-Circle, wher they Sitt, Telling of Tales of pleasure & of witt, Heer you may read without a Sinn or Crime, And how more innocently pass your tyme. that are NOT part of the 1656 or 1671 printed text of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_; rather, these serve as the gloss to a (very rare) frontispiece engraving found in only *some* C17 copies of _Natures Pictures_. Nor were these verses written by MC, so strictly speaking, they shouldn't head up her "Preamble" (a reader cue used for her prefatory remarks in the 1671 revised edition of _Natures Pictures_, although not in the EasyRead versions) ... especially with no explanation of such a peculiar editorial intervention. And again, the pic used for the front cover of EasyRead editions of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ has *nothing* to do with MC or her works, prompting me to wonder: why not use the frontispiece engraving, that has a real connection with the work, instead? For those of you who are curious about the frontispiece, engraved by Peter Clouwet (aka Petrus Clouet), after a design by Abraham van Diepenbeke, I've temporarily posted a facsimile to my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_NaturesPix1656_frontispiece.gif > And, of course, there's a story behind the frontispiece that should be told also. The engraving actually deviates from the earlier Diepenbeke study in significant ways -- all part of the complicated visual rhetoric of MC's texts, designed to convey multiple messages to multiple audiences. Diepenbeke's original study, which was probably commissioned by Margaret and William for use in their publications, shows Margaret (seated far right, wearing the poet's garland of bay leaves) as the animated teller of the "Tales of pleasure & of witt" described in the frontispiece gloss. In the original study, it is Margaret who holds up her hand, commanding the attention for her audience. But in the engraving (which would have been sold separately as a stand-alone print, as well as bound into some -- especially presentation -- copies of MC's texts), Margaret's husband William (seated next to her, and similarly crowned with a laurel wreath) becomes the active narrator. In the engraving, it is William who gestures for audience attention with a pointing finger. Nonetheless, this visual concession to patriarchal rule (Margaret's critics had accused her of entrenching on "the male prerogative" with her publications, and both she and her husband were at pains to defend her against this charge) is neatly undercut by the text that follows. In Margaret's verses describing the frontispiece (from the 1656 ed. of _Natures Pictures_), she reclaims her role as narrator: My lord and I here in two chairs are set, And all his children, wives and husbands, met, To hear me tell them tales as I think fit, And hope they're full of fancy and of wit. Ladies, I ask your pardons, mercies, I, Since I talk all, and many ladies by. So, if any verses are to be inserted at the head of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, it should be these 6 lines, I think, and not the 4-line gloss to the frontispiece (which was probably written by William). Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sat Jan 12 17:17:17 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:17:17 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> On 09/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly > falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have > any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." > > After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 > original (I am not a lawyer but I play one on TV^W internet mailing lists ;-) If they derived work directly from something with expired copyright (or assigned to the public domain, a feature of US copyright not found elsewhere) then their derived work is now 100% copyright to them. If they made a derived work indirectly, they are probably guilty of copyright infringement. That is, they made a derived work from a work that is 100% copyright to someone else, and that this work was derived directly from the original public domain work doesn't matter. This is important for making a text typeface revival from an old book; if you use someone else's scans/photos, you will run into trouble, and need to either do the digitization from originals yourself, or work from digitizations that are already free culture. -- Regards, Dave From dtp at she-philosopher.com Sun Jan 13 05:24:09 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:09 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > or work from digitizations that > are already free culture. But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free culture"? In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the group in my original post, assuming that it would become part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright it as their own work? I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? > This is important for making a > text typeface revival from an > old book; if you use someone > else's scans/photos, you will > run into trouble Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well believe it's the law. :( Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sun Jan 13 14:03:21 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:03:21 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > > or work from digitizations that > > are already free culture. > > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? Oops - free culture is a tightly defined 'term of art' - http://www.freedomdefined.org - and I apologies for not including that link when I used the term. (Similarly, "free software" is tightly defined at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and spending a lot of time in a community that understands that term to mean that kind of thing, its all too easy when not in that community to blather on about "free software" and then have someone say, "but err, how does anyone make money if its free?") It is legally possible to copyright what is in the public domain, but unless you have the sole copy of something, this isn't a problem because everyone else can also go to the original PD source. It is not ethically legitimate - "not OK" - to turn what is already free culture into proprietary culture, no. To protect against this, we use "copyleft" - you can copyright a work and add a restriction that maintains the freedom of the work for all later recipients. > In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of > MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of > _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the > group in my original post, assuming that it would become > part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- > include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright > it as their own work? Almost certainly not, and you have a slam-dunk copyright infringement case against them. I suggest looking in the business directory for "no win no fee" lawyers if they do this :-) If you are are in the USA and dedicate it to the public domain, this is true though. But that dedication is only valid in the USA jurisdiction, and that's only when its done properly. Saying "you may have a copy" is not legally binding; you need to state two things; one, a copyright notice - "Copyright (c) Deborah Taylor-Pearce, 2008." - and two, a copyright license. That could be http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ although that is no longer recommended because of the international problem, so I recommend http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ in that case. The web works because when you post something on a public website, you give an implicit copyright notice to download a copy for viewing it - but that is all. Google News is mired in controversy because by aggregating and republishing 'real' newspapers websites, it goes beyond that implicit license; Google tries on a "fair use" defence, but here in the UK there is no flexible fair use, only stiffly defined "fair dealings." The RIAA recently sued someone in the USA for copying music on a CD into their iPod, and this is a dumb move in the USA where fair use flexes to include this activity. In the UK, it is illegal - but fortunately politicians bought iPods already and so recognized it as stupid, so the fair dealings definition is being updated. In Sweden, politicians started using BitTorrent already and so recognised that making p2p illegal is stupid, and have been in the news this week because they are working to decriminalise it - http://sigfrid.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/decriminalize-file-sharing/ > I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed > "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? The GPL is a "strong" copyleft license for software (although it is used for other kinds of works) and its terms are that you can only combine GPL works with other works no more restrictive than the GPL. So you can combine a GPL program with a public domain program, but not with a "non-commercial use only" program. If you use a simple all-permissive non-copyleft license, like the Creative Commons Attribution license ("CC-BY") then proprietors can combine your work (that is still copyright to you) with their redesign of it, and make the whole available under proprietary terms. Therefore I recommend strong copyleft for all free culture works unless it is strategic not to; when the alternative is to have no use of the work. For example, the "MP3 killer" audio format "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org is released under all permissive terms to encourage its widespread adoption. My sister's "USB music stick" portable player supports 3 formats - MP3, Microsoft Windows Media Audio, and Vorbis - and I didn't recommend that model to her :-) > > This is important for making a > > text typeface revival from an > > old book; if you use someone > > else's scans/photos, you will > > run into trouble > > Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well > believe it's the law. :( You seem to be suggesting that the public domain should be retrofitted with copyleft terms. I'd never thought of that, but it seems like a good idea! :-) -- Regards, Dave From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 20:41:53 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:41:53 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4210 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/33ba2d84/attachment-0006.bin From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 23:25:16 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:25:16 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0CA@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Sorry if this shows up twice. Since it hasn't shown up in almost three hours I'm guessing it may have been lost. Gunnar -----Original Message----- From: Swanson, Gunnar Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 2:41 PM To: Discussions about information design Subject: RE: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/74d9f44a/attachment-0006.htm From shailey_lists at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 14 15:02:49 2008 From: shailey_lists at yahoo.co.uk (Shailey Minocha) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:02:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Research Opportunity at the Open University, UK In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <116597.847.qm@web25110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Full-time PhD Studentship Closing date for applications: 22nd February 2008 Centre for Research in Computing (http://crc.open.ac.uk), The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Influence of 3-D Virtual Worlds on Expectations in 2-D E-Commerce Environments This PhD studentship is jointly funded by the Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology and the Business School of the Open University (OU). You will join the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) group in the Department of Computing of the OU. The research project aims to examine the effect of 3-D multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs) such as Second life (www.secondlife.com) on consumers' expectations, behaviours, and satisfaction with 2-D e-commerce environments. Specifically the research will investigate questions such as: Whether and how the expectations and behaviours of consumers with experience of 3-D MUVEs differ from those of consumers without such experience? How avatar-based consumption behaviours in 3-D MUVEs can influence the choices and behaviours of consumers in 2-D e-commerce environments? How 3-D MUVEs can be integrated within the service design of 2-D e-commerce environments for a positive seamless consumer experience with 2-D e-commerce? Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the proposed research we would like to hear from candidates who have a Masters Degree in HCI, Psychology, Sociology, or a related discipline, and have an outstanding research potential and a keen interest in Usability, Consumer Behaviour and 3-D virtual worlds. Informal enquiries about the proposed research can be made by e-mail to Dr. Shailey Minocha (S.Minocha at open.ac.uk). The studentship provides a standard living allowance (of ?12,600 per annum and tax-free) for up to three years subject to satisfactory progress. For detailed information and how to apply go to (http://www.computing.open.ac.uk/research-degrees/studentships); or contact the postgraduate admissions tutor, Dr. Leonor Barroca (l.barroca at open.ac.uk); or email the Research School (http://www.open.ac.uk/research-school/). Closing date for applications: 22nd February 2008. --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080114/5a0c9e51/attachment-0005.htm From dtp at she-philosopher.com Tue Jan 15 00:51:58 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:51:58 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> Gunnar, > If I took a Shakespeare play and > re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of > a Danish" and inserted the line > "I feel like the hole in a donut > and am looking fairly pastry" > after "To be or not to be" then > my copyright would cover any > version of the play that > included that line but would > not cover any version that did > not contain the line. Presumably > one could copy my version minus > my original creative work (thus > restoring the original) without > infringing on my copyright. But this assumes that the reader knows your edition of _Hamlet_ by William Shakespeare has been altered. If I innocently copy your interpellation about donut holes, thinking it's part of the original play by Shakespeare -- because there's no other author cited anywhere, and no notice to the reader that you've altered the original content -- am I in violation of your copyright? > On the other hand, if I took > the Shakespeare original and > printed it in red ink to > match the Danish flag, I > doubt I could get a court to > agree that this was an > original creative work on my > part, thus enjoining you > from printing the play in > red. OK, except that these days, I think, new editions of "classic" works -- every one of which is copyrighted -- often do little more than creatively reformat the original author's words.... And then they use that unique redesign as their marketing come-on. I guess I'm of the school that figures once you publicly issue something -- i.e., put a concept out there for all to see -- you can't then put the design genie back in the bottle. Ergo, ReadHowYouWant.com should be able to copyright their exact printing of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, but nothing more (including their hyphenation of words and layout of MC's text in 24pt type). I shouldn't be able to photocopy their text, and offer an identical version of their edition at, say, the cut rate of US$5.99. But I should be able to re-create their transcription of MC's text (which I expect isn't original to them, anyway) in 24pt Officina Sans, if I wish -- let the hyphenation fall where it may! ;-) -- and sell it for the exact same price under a competitor brand name. FWIW, all of this raises several troubling issues for scholars, like me, whose stock-in-trade is public discussion of archival research and our ideas/concepts about that research. Generally, scholars have looked to institutionalized procedures of citation, etc. to establish precedence, originality and creativity, and to protect their place in the great chain of academic being. But all the confusion over copyright in the new Web-based market of ideas undermines those of us who adhere to the old-fashioned way of doing things. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but as someone who believes that citation trails still have an important role to play (esp. vis a vis how we uphold the quality of research), I'm not happy about the rush to copyright I see going on around me. (And I'm especially not happy about any further attempts at privatizing the commons.) As "Fair Use" gets curtailed by pay-per-use databases and overly restrictive copyright claims, it becomes increasingly difficult to have substantive public discussion of shared online resources. Worried about prohibitive charges for use and/or denial of permissions, more and more people have simply stopped asking, and are just taking what they want, without acknowledging their sources. And that's no way to build the commons.... Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dtp at she-philosopher.com Tue Jan 15 00:56:02 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:56:02 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <478BF692.3080201@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > You seem to be suggesting that > the public domain should be > retrofitted with copyleft terms. I suppose I am.... I have personally been resistant to this sort of thing, hoping that the whole issue would just go away if I ignored it long enough. ;-) But, given our insatiable need for content -- and the huge expense of producing it -- I think the trend to copyrighting everything that isn't already claimed by some private interest is just going to continue. Oh, joy! I suppose next we can all look forward to incorporating clever copyright notices in our signature lines for e-mail.... ;-) Haven't yet had a chance to follow-up on all your URLs (I'm especially interested in learning more about > the "MP3 killer" audio format > "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org ) and am off to get started on that now. Hopefully, I'll have a response for you tomorrow, Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Tue Jan 15 16:28:15 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:28:15 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0DB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Deborah, Again, I'm not a good source for legal advice but: If they have taken a work in public domain and reformatted it in some way that could be considered an artistic interpretation, that artistic interpretation is protected by copyright US law. They in no way gain rights over the original nor can they stop you from reproducing the original or reformatting it in another manner. I assume that unintended infringement based on the copyright holder's misrepresentation of the nature of the content would not be taken seriously by a court. To the extent they seem to be representing the work as an accurate transcription of a public domain work, they undermine any claim of copyright on their version of the text. If you do work based on old fairy tales that are in public domain, you have no problem. If you include details of costume, plot, or dialog that do not exist in the old fairy tales but do exist in the Disney cartoon version, you will have Disney lawyers crawling all over you. If you do something based on Disney's movies that isn't a major commercial venture and you respond to their first cease and desist letter by ceasing and desisting, it is highly unlikely that anything more would come of it. If you do something based on my work, you might get some form of a cease and desist letter but unless you or someone connected to your project were looking like really deep pockets, it is highly unlikely that I could afford to do much more. It's possible that I could get really vindictive and stupid but most likely that I'd see that it isn't worth much of a fight; Disney would see protecting against any infringement as a reasonable business expense. I suspect the publisher in question would be closer to my situation than to Disney's. Gunnar From: Deborah Taylor-Pearce sent: Mon 1/14/2008 6:51 PM > If I innocently copy your interpellation about donut holes, > thinking it's part of the original play by Shakespeare -- > because there's no other author cited anywhere, and no > notice to the reader that you've altered the original > content -- am I in violation of your copyright? and > often do little more than creatively reformat the original > author's words.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4174 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080115/b0318a58/attachment-0004.bin From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 16 08:22:41 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:22:41 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <478DB0C1.5010409@she-philosopher.com> Dave, Well, I've just finished taking your introductory tour of the copyleft universe (many thanks, BTW), and have a lot to think about.... As I expect you already know, I, personally, have been relying on "Fair Use" doctrine (such as it is ;-) hoping that it's squishy enough to allow for still-generous interpretations of scholarly borrowings and reproductions of source materials, but muscular enough to extend traditional academic protections to independent scholars working in the electronic margins (and lacking the institutional resources available to those with academic careers). But now you tell me > Google News is mired in > controversy because by > aggregating and republishing > 'real' newspapers websites, > it goes beyond that implicit > license; Google tries on a > "fair use" defence, but here > in the UK there is no flexible > fair use, only stiffly defined > "fair dealings." and > This is important for making a > text typeface revival from an > old book; if you use someone > else's scans/photos, you will > run into trouble Many scholars are already really nervous about publicly posting pictures of the archival documents & artifacts they study ... so they don't ... which means that they are (as I see it) unfairly limited in what they're able to say & show online. As someone who does not have a high-visibility academic position to protect, I reveled in the early promise of the Web as the great academic leveller. And true enough, in the earliest days, anyone with a real interest in a subject could take it on, spread their learning around, and even challenge those who wished to maintain a monopoly over, e.g., archival studies. But I now see past gains on this front eroding rapidly as more and more publishers move to digitizing their backlists, and in so doing, further restrict PD access to scholarly materials. From my vantage point, this looks to be a free speech issue (less free & easy access = less speech). Regardless of how we categorize it, we still end up in a dialectical struggle between intellectual vs. commercial interests -- a binary which has bedeviled the academic community in the Latin west, at least since the ancient Greeks. ;-) For those of us who work in the "humanities," academic values are often perceived as being at odds with commercial values, and as a result, we tend to intertwine Fair Use protections with prohibitions against "commercial use," which I gather from the webpages at < http://www.freedomdefined.org/Definition > and < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > and < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html > means that we cannot properly call the online fruits of our intellectual labor "free cultural works." I *do* understand the rationale for this. Quoting from < http://www.freedomdefined.org/Definition >: "In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called 'free.'" And from < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html >: "A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission." "In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her." But for me, at least, this redefinition of "free culture" involves a real paradigm shift. And I'm a bit uneasy about what the consequences might be. > so I recommend > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ > in that case. (Technical aside: I was not able to follow the link _Learn how to distribute your work using this license_ at this webpage, receiving the error message: Bad Request Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand. The number of request header fields exceeds this server's limit. Fortunately, the same link worked on the first page I went to < http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ > so I was able to get what I wanted there instead.) Personally, I would be quite happy to move to a "strong copyleft" license such as this, with Attribution of Authors and Transmission of Freedoms clauses, which as I understand things at the moment, are probably a better answer to traditional academic concerns about questionable commercial uses of research. Still, I can't help worrying about what I'd be giving up in shifting from Fair Use protections to copyleft activism.... E.g., might this restrict my scholarly speech even more than it already is, by making it impossible to reproduce copyrighted materials to which I now have access under Fair Use? > For example, the "MP3 killer" > audio format "Vorbis" from > www.xiph.org is released under > all permissive terms to > encourage its widespread > adoption. FWIW, I thoroughly enjoyed my browse of the www.xiph.org website. (*Loved* the paranoia logos at < http://www.xiph.org/xiphname > ) I shall return when it's time to begin formatting the audio podcasts for my physician podcast project, having now decided to make these available in Vorbis (as well as other) formats. So in this case, at least, a wide-open permission strategy will pay off, since my physician podcast project will be free (free beer + free speech) in all senses but one: "* the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works" I simply can't give folks carte blanche to play around with and alter sensitive medical information intended for cancer patients, their friends & families. So while the audio podcasts will be a gift for anyone, anywhere, in the digital commons who wants to listen in, I don't know of any way to protect and ensure the professional integrity of the podcasts (and the physicians making them) other than with an "All rights reserved." copyright. > It is legally possible to > copyright what is in the > public domain, but unless > you have the sole copy of > something, this isn't a > problem because everyone > else can also go to the > original PD source. If you can find it.... How many PD sites pay for targeted above-the-fold exposure in google's righthand sidebar? How many PD sites expend time and attention on improving their rankings in search results listings (assuming they're even listed to begin with)? How many PD sites repackage their own materials for sale with such powerhouses as amazon.com? I've actually been pondering this myself, of late -- ever since Yateen raised the topic of amazon.com's new Kindle technology, in fact. Based on what I've learned thus far about the Kindle (admittedly, not all that much), it would seem as though we are experiencing what the rhetoricians call a *kairic* moment. (From the Greek *kairos*, which roughly translates as timely, opportune, appropriate, although any rhetoric scholar worth her salt would tell you that it's really a lot more complicated than that, of course ;-). Thus far, there isn't a huge library of titles expertly repurposed for the Kindle (whatever that may entail), which set me to thinking that even the kind of intense stuff I write might find an audience among early Kindle adopters desperate for reasonably-priced titles to add to their libraries. To wit, I've been mulling over the possibility of re-issuing some of my own PD materials in Kindle-friendly format, just to see what happens. I expect that purists may not approve of repackaging PD content for (proprietary?) Kindle technology, but in my scenario of how this might work, the Kindle Store version of material would complement (not replace) the PD version, which would continue to be freely available in its present format (and one could even make a point of letting Kindle readers know what/where that is, too). If I thought I could make any real money from this -- which I could then invest in more she-philosopher.com PD offerings -- I'd start Kindling in a jiffy.... ;-) Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Wed Jan 16 11:27:05 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:27:05 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <478DB0C1.5010409@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0F3@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Deborah, I'm not following the conversation. I thought you were talking about 16C and 17C texts. There are no fair use issues involved since such texts are public domain, thus not covered by copyright, thus a copyright exception is unneeded. Are you talking about recent writings about texts that are in the public domain? You say that "Many scholars are already really nervous about publicly posting pictures of the archival documents & artifacts they study." Why? > For those of us who work in the "humanities," academic > values are often perceived as being at odds with commercial > values, and as a result, we tend to intertwine Fair Use > protections with prohibitions against "commercial use," "Fair use" -is- intertwined with commercial use and prohibitions against or restrictions of commercial use. I'm not sure what your specific ethical worries are about formatting and selling public domain materials for a reader. How does that differ from someone printing copies of a bible or -The Wealth of Nations- or -Huckleberry Finn- and selling them? Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3674 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080116/f9ab3deb/attachment-0003.bin From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 16 23:17:03 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:17:03 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0DB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0DB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <478E825F.3050901@she-philosopher.com> Gunnar, > If you do something based on > Disney's movies that isn't a > major commercial venture and > you respond to their first > cease and desist letter by > ceasing and desisting, it is > highly unlikely that anything > more would come of it. I've always hoped this would be the case. Most folks I know running "scholarly" PD websites have good intentions, and post images with this caveat in mind. If the museum etc. (holder of the historical artifact, and hence of the rights over its reproduction) and/or any publishers who have paid a hefty fee for permission to print a photographic reproduction of an artifact issue a "cease and desist" letter, most Web author-scholars I know (including me) would immediately remove the copyrighted image. I doubt many of us have the time (or financial resources) to test the protections of "Fair Use" in court. > If you include details of > costume, plot, or dialog > that do not exist in the > old fairy tales but do > exist in the Disney cartoon > version, you will have > Disney lawyers crawling all > over you. Well, this is certainly good to know, since I'm planning an extensive gallery exhibit on historical visions of Pocahontas (and other AmerIndian women of what is now the southeastern U.S.), from C17 through C21. So I was, in fact, thinking of juxtaposing images of Disney's Pocahontas with Aphra Behn's C17 depiction of a Virginia Indian queen in her play, _The Widdow Ranter_ (there's this astounding engraving of the stage actor Anne Bracegirdle in costume as Behn's Indian queen, Semernia, when the play was first staged in 1690) ... and both of these dramatic portraits with some wonderful C19/early C20 B&W pix of real Pamunkey Indian women on their reservation near Richmond ... along with facsimile reproductions of several C17 engravings and painted portraits (some famous and well-known, some not). Since I'd rather not attract the attention of Disney's legal team, I expect I'd be best off not including any images (even thumbnails) relating to their biopic, period. Thanks for the heads-up! Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From markb at textmatters.com Wed Jan 16 23:24:40 2008 From: markb at textmatters.com (Mark Barratt) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:24:40 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Job opportunity at Text Matters Message-ID: <478E8428.7070306@textmatters.com> Text Matters is looking for a web developer/information designer to join our small team of editors, designers and developers in Reading, UK, working on a variety of projects, mostly interesting and mostly for not-for-profit clients. It's possible, but not likely, that a 'virtual worker' would meet our needs. A requirement is good technical skills in HTML/CSS, including the ability to create templates in HTML+whatever (where 'whatever' may be ASP, PHP, or some other TLA). That's an absolute: please don't talk to us unless you feel you meet that requirement. Beyond that, we are looking for some evidence of analytic ability, a passion for good communication, and some skill in one or more of our core competencies: communication design, effective language and 'usability' in its broadest sense. Experience of, and coherent views on, eLearning environments would be an advantage. In the first instance please email me with a CV and any questions. Thanks -- Mark Barratt Text Matters Information design: we help explain things using language | design | systems | process improvement ______________________________________________________ phone +44 (0)118 986 8313 email markb at textmatters.com skype mark_barratt web http://www.textmatters.com From dtp at she-philosopher.com Thu Jan 17 08:54:09 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:54:09 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0F3@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <478DB0C1.5010409@she-philosopher.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0F3@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <478F09A1.9030003@she-philosopher.com> Gunnar, > I'm not following the > conversation. I thought you > were talking about 16C and 17C > texts. I was. But I'm also now thinking about copyright issues vis a vis a range of digital publications. > There are no fair use issues > involved since such texts are > public domain, thus not > covered by copyright, thus a > copyright exception is unneeded. Not if you're using reproductions of the text controlled by the holding institution. The example Dave gave about a typeface designer working from facsimile reproductions she didn't pay for (or paid a nominal fee for, which didn't include permission to reproduce) is relevant. In the old days, scholars used to read C17 texts in museum libraries or private collections, and painstakingly transcribe the text by hand (using pencils only, at first, then electronic typewriters, and now computers). The resulting copy of the text (a handwritten, typed, or digital transcription) is unquestionably the property of the scholar, and there are no copyright questions attaching to it (at least as far as I know ... and anyone who accepts what a scholar with her head in the 17th century has to say on the subject of C21 copyright law is an even bigger idiot than she who takes legal advice from a graphic designer! ;-). At some point during the 20th century, many archival works were photographed and put on 35mm microfilm, microfiche, and micro-opaques (my least favorite of the three!). These were then aggregated into enormous collections (such as "French books before 1601") and university libraries that could afford to do so, purchased copies of these filmed collections from whoever held the copyright (e.g., UMI). This meant that scholars no longer *had* to visit special collections departments all over the world in order to have access to early printed works, but could read French medieval texts on microfilm, as I did a couple of months ago when I looked through a 1486 edition of Anglicus Bartholomaeus's _De proprietatibus rerum_, hoping to learn if/how his illustration of global wind currents had changed from the 1482 edition. Reading a microfilm copy of a 1486 MS. with obliterated text from centuries of wear and print transfer is something of an art in itself, but those of us who do it, are (in most cases ;-) grateful for the research opportunities it affords. Even scholars who claim they will *never* trust a microfilm copy of an archival text -- usually, the same scholars who most enjoy traveling to remote locales to do research in spectacular museum environments -- have been known to use film copies on occasion to look up some detail or another they forgot to take note of when they had the chance. In my particular case, I was reading Bartholomaeus's text for a colleague in northern California, since I had access to the film copy through my local university library, and he did not. Not only did I take copious notes (presumably my copyright, although I *was* working from copyrighted images of the original) which I passed on to him via e-mail, I was also able to capture digital images from the 35mm film of those pages I knew he would want to see, and send these images to him later that evening as attachments to e-mail ... an act which is probably in violation of somebody's copyright, even though I would maintain that everything I did falls under the protections of Fair Use. I certainly don't make any money from doing collaborative scholarship such as this. And the information I passed him will end up being written up in a scholarly article to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, so it's certainly legitimate scholarship (although I think "legitimacy" is irrelevant and a bogus issue). ... But back to microfilm reproductions of out-of-copyright MSS.... We've since entered a new phase of (copyrighted) photographic reproductions with the ongoing digitization of the microfilm/microfiche collections, now aggregated in massive online databases such as "Early English Books Online" (copyright Chadwick-Healey), which are closed to the non-paying public. And big university libraries are pretty much the only entities with sufficient funding to buy the licenses guaranteeing access to the database for N library users at a given time. If I, as a scholar, am lucky enough to have access to such online collections through my university library, I now get to read microfilmed copies of C17 texts online, including ready access to a range of database tools which make it easy for me to capture (even print) text images in varying resolutions. But only for my private use. So, if I use these copyrighted images to produce a transcription of an out-of-copyright text which I then typeset and sell for a fee through amazon's Kindle Store am I in violation of Chadwick-Healey's copyright? How about if I substantially alter Chadwick-Healey's digitization of UMI's 35mm film image of a page from a C17 edition held by the British Library (e.g., turning an unreadable digital facsimile into something readable), and post it to my website? Even though I've added value to the original, I've still created a derivative work and wouldn't feel comfortable *selling* it, since that would go against the very Fair Use principles that allow me to aggregate bits & pieces from the works of others in the first place. Similarly, libraries are now digitizing their archival holdings, sometimes posting digital facsimiles of their collections to the public domain, and sometimes not. One of my favorite examples of a PD model is the University of Wisconsin Digital Collections Center's History of Science project < http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/HistSciTech/ > which is really very well done, and freely accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. (Their online archival texts are even searchable, although their OCR software was not sophisticated enough to correct for old-style typography, so the user needs to be somewhat clever when formulating search queries.) Other libraries, such as the U.S. National Library of Medicine's "Historical Anatomies on the Web" website, have chosen to close off their digital collections to the non-paying public. So, were I to include NLM's facsimile image of the engraved title page for William Cheselden's _Osteographia, or the Anatomy of Bones_ (London, 1733) -- which shows Cheselden using a camera obscura of his own design to produce the fantastic illustrations for his majestic atlas of comparative osteology (he even engraved his own copper plates!) -- in my PDF on Robert Hooke's camera obscura designs (a PD document), I believe this would be OK under the conditions of Fair Use. But I would *not* feel right reformatting this same PDF for sale in amazon.com's Kindle Store. For this, I would have to take and use my own photographic image of Cheselden's title page. (And, as if all of this isn't murky enough, we haven't even gotten started on the subject of modern reproductions of antique maps and prints! ... ;-) > You say that "Many scholars are > already really nervous about > publicly posting pictures of > the archival documents & > artifacts they study." Why? If I'm involved in an online discussion of whether or not the so-called Velasco map of 1610/11 is a C19 forgery, I think I have the right under Fair Use to reproduce earlier printed facsimiles of the map -- even when they're still under publisher's copyright -- and post them to my website so that those who are interested in the controversy can compare and contrast all the images for themselves, and reach their own conclusions. Most reputable map scholars would not do this sort of thing. But since I'm not a card-carrying member of the community of cartographic historians, I have a bit more leeway. And since my intent is always to make obscure cartifacts (J. B. Post's nice coinage) more accessible to all, I'm more willing than some to push the boundaries of scholarly decorum. But as Dave is always telling us, digital information usually takes on a life of its own, and I find myself in the awkward position now of being asked more and more often for permission to reuse/reprint she-philosopher.com images (some of which are out-of-copyright, and some of which aren't). Last year, I even received notice from the editor of a high-school yearbook that they were planning to reprint the Velasco Map on the yearbook's title page. The students' theme for the yearbook was "A New Voyage," and the editor had been searching for "something different" to use when he stumbled across my reproductions of the Velasco Map. He wrote to let me know how they were going to be using she-philosopher.com materials (as I request on my site), and concluded with the comment: "Thank you for making such resources freely available." I was, of course, delighted to learn that a group of U.S. high school students took it upon themselves to study the Velasco Map -- who would have thought?! -- and consider this an example of the very best that Fair Use has to offer. But how far does it really apply? Aren't student yearbooks commercial, for-profit ventures? And I don't even know which version of the Velasco Map (some of which are still in copyright) the students were going to rework for the yearbook's title page. I never asked. > Are you talking about > recent writings about > texts that are in the > public domain? Yes, this too. Fair Use allows me to quote judiciously from other people's printed works -- without asking permission -- even while the works are still copyrighted. Can I still do this sort of thing if I self-publish a derivative work for the Kindle, and slap a copyleft statement on it? What does this do to the underlying copyrights of the original authors/publishers? Scholarly texts -- which are polyvocal in ways that, e.g., novels and fairy tales are not -- seem to me to pose unique difficulties in this area. > How does that differ from > someone printing copies > of a bible or -The Wealth > of Nations- or -Huckleberry > Finn- and selling them? This is a really good question. I think the answer has to do with the differing natures of what exactly is in the public domain.... E.g., if you wanted to print your own copy of the bible, I expect it would be easy to secure a copy of the King James version (which dates from the early 17th century). No doubt, it's on the Internet -- in several places -- and is quite obviously public property. After all, Christian missionaries have been trying to give copies of it away for centuries. Let's say, however, that you want to prepare a modern edition of Margaret Cavendish's _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_ (1666 and 1668) for the Kindle reader. As far as I know, this text of hers has never been printed in facsimile, unlike say, MC's _Grounds of Natural Philosophy_ (London, 1668), which was published as a facsimile reprint in 1996 by Locust Hill Press, with an introduction by Colette V. Michael. So where do you get your text from? Various libraries in Europe and the U.S. have C17 copies of MC's book in their collections, and you're going to have to travel to one of them, and be prepared to spend a considerable amount of time in their reading room, because Margaret's _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_ runs about 392 folio pages. That's a lot of transcribing to do, and the task will be even more arduous if you're unfamiliar with C17 typography and scientific jargon. Obviously, it would be a lot easier to just scan and OCR the *modern* text version of _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_ prepared by Eileen O'Neill, published with extensive notes and the usual scholarly introduction by Cambridge University Press in 2001. Technically, neither O'Neill nor CUP has a copyright on MC's printed words, and once they've been publicly distributed like this, I suppose they're probably fair game (unlike the scrupulously prepared HTML transcription of MC's _Observations_ available as part of the Renaissance Women Online textbase -- another online collection which is closed to the non-paying public; besides, RWO copyrights all their materials, and would not take kindly to anyone pinching their work). So you're probably within your rights to reissue O'Neill's transcription of MC's original work -- newly in the "public domain" by way of O'Neill's edition -- as your own. Would it be ethical? No, I don't think so. Certainly not without passing an agreed-on percentage of any profits to O'Neill/CUP. After all, I'm sure they could make a good case that you've stolen their work and are cutting into their profits. Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From andrew at boag.co.uk Mon Jan 7 18:43:16 2008 From: andrew at boag.co.uk (Andrew Boag) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Financial statement design, best practice In-Reply-To: <71188228-73B9-48A3-BBEF-3F98471C0C16@alphabyte.co.nz> Message-ID: We're always on the look out for good examples of best-practice information design for use in brainstorming discussions, for example, and at the moment we're particularly interested in financial statement designs (e.g. Pension policies, bank statements, investment funds, etc.). I wondered if you have good examples that you might have designed? Alternatively, do you have good examples that you've seen in your own course of research etc? We're particularly interested in examples that push the use of print and database (and potentially online) technologies to deliver statements that use personalisation well (i.e. to help the customer really understand the content and any potential calls to action) Marketing content is also of interest (e.g. Cross selling or up-selling presented appropriately). I would be very interested to hear from anyone regarding current best practice in this area - particularly outside the UK. Regards, Andrew Boag ----------------------- Boag Associates T +44 (0)20 3008 6491 F +44 (0)20 3008 7759 http://www.boag.co.uk From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 9 06:20:49 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:20:49 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Cafe, Does anyone have personal experience with the EasyRead paperbacks issued by ReadHowYouWant.com? I'm curious about the quality of their printed books, which run from about US$9.99 - US$14.99, and are sold directly by the publisher (Objective Systems Pty Ltd of NSW, Australia) and by amazon.com. As far as I can tell, ReadHowYouWant.com paperbacks typically come in 7 formats EasyRead Edition EasyRead Comfort Edition EasyRead Large Edition EasyRead Large Bold Edition (aka Large Type 16pt Bold Edition) EasyRead Super Large 18pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 20pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 24pt Edition with the 1st three set in Verdana, and the remaining four set in a combination of TiresiasLPfont and MicrosoftSansSerif. All the 2006 EasyRead editions use an uninspired layout template, and I expect have been designed to suit some kind of print-on-demand digital publication model. My own sudden interest in EasyRead publications has to do with the fact that ReadHowYouWant.com is now printing C17 texts as part of their "Classics Library," including two titles by Margaret Cavendish, duchess of Newcastle: _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ and _The Description of a New World, Called The Blazing World_. Although the ReadHowYouWant.com copyright notice for all 2006 editions of both Cavendish books reads: "The text in this book has been downloaded from the internet and has been extensively edited and typeset. "Copyright c. 2006 Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953" there is little evidence of much real editorial work having been done here. Indeed, one searches in vain (in both the PDF "preview" files offered by the publisher: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10243# > < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > and in the "SEARCH INSIDE" feature offered by amazon.com: < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Chastity-EasyRead-Margaret-Cavendish/dp/1425067123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-1 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425067808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-2 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Large/dp/1425068480/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-3 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-Large-Print/dp/1425066445/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425001688/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425016405/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199250334&sr=1-4 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425032303/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425017851/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-8 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-Called-Blazing-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425020410/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425023150/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1554806836/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > ) for any discussion of editorial responsibility, period. This is particularly interesting to me in light of some changes to the copyright notice introduced with the only 2007 edition listed above: < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > (here you can view the copyright page using amazon's SEARCH INSIDE feature). This is how the new copyright notice reads: "The text in this book has been formatted and typeset to make reading easier and more enjoyable. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized and standardized, and hyphens have been avoided when possible. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. In addition, the text has been formatted to the specifications indicated on the title page. The original text is out of copyright. The edited text in this edition and the formatting are the copyright of Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953." While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 original (which I can guarantee involved a *substantial* amount of value-adding labor!), and it's not enough to just vaguely claim that you "downloaded" the text from the internet ... then proceed to copyright someone's else's work and profit from it. There are several modern editions of Cavendish's _Blazing World_ floating around (it resonates with modern readers, unlike, say, some of MC's more intense works of science which have yet to see the light of day ;-). So Objective Systems Pty Ltd could have taken their text from any one of these, and IMHO, they ought to tell us their source. There are several reasons for such disclosure, including the fact that MC's texts are notoriously "unstable." E.g., there were at least 3 17th-century issues of MC's _The Blazing World_, which was originally appended to a scientific work titled, _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: To Which Is Added the Description of a New Blazing World_ (London, 1666 and 1668). _The Blazing World_ was also issued as a stand-alone publication in 1668, and for this edition, MC wrote a new 2-page preface ("To all Noble and Worthy Ladies") containing critical information about the text, and her intent in writing it. Since "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies" is short, and not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com EasyRead editions (which reprint only the original preface "To the Reader"), I will pass on (free of charge ;-) my own transcription of the 1668 replacement preface for everyone here: "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies. "This present _Description of a New World_, was made as an *Appendix* to my _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_; and, having some Sympathy and Coherence with each other, were joyned together as Two several Worlds, at their Two Poles. But, by reason most Ladies take no delight in *Philosophical Arguments*, I separated some from the mentioned _Observations_, and caused them to go out by themselves, that I might express my Respects, in presenting to Them such *Fancies* as my Contemplations did afford. The First Part is *Romancical*; the Second, *Philosophical*; and the Third is meerly Fancy; or, (as I may call it) *Fantastical*. And if (*Noble Ladies*) you should chance to take pleasure in reading these *Fancies*, I shall account my self a *Happy Creatoress*: If not, I must be content to live a Melancholly Life in my own World; which I cannot call a *Poor World*, if *Poverty* be only want of *Gold*, and *Jewels*: for, there is more *Gold* in it, than all the *Chymists* ever made; or, (as I verily believe) will ever be able to make. As for the *Rocks of Diamonds*, I wish, with all my Soul, they might be shared amongst my Noble *Female Friends*; upon which condition, I would willingly quit my Part: And of the *Gold*, I should desire only so much as might suffice to repair my Noble Lord and Husband's Losses: for, I am not Covetous, but as Ambitious as ever any of my Sex was, is, or can be; which is the cause, That though I cannot be *Henry* the Fifth, or *Charles* the Second; yet, I will endeavour to be, *Margaret* the *First*: and, though I have neither Power, Time, nor Occasion, to be a great Conqueror, like *Alexander*, or *Cesar*; yet, rather than not be Mistress of a World, since Fortune and the Fates would give me none, I have made One of my own. And thus, believing, or, at least, hoping, that no Creature can, or will, Envy me for this World of mine, I remain, "Noble Ladies, "Your Humble Servant, "M. Newcastle." Not only do I question ReadHowYouWant.com editorial choices about which C17 copy-text to use, how much to modernize and "correct" it, etc., I take issue with the design of the EasyRead editions. Unfortunately, _The Blazing World_'s front matter is not included as part of amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE selection, so if you want to see how it's been formatted, you'll need to download a preview PDF of the EasyRead Large Bold version (set in 16pt TiresiasLPfont) from the ReadHowYouWant.com website: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > Page 1 of the PDF is a 12-line poem ("To the Duchesse ...") which is left-justified in the C17 originals, but centered in the C21 EasyRead editions, and I'm not sure why the anonymous editor(s) at ReadHowYouWant.com chose to do it this way. The centered text is not, to my mind, a readability improvement. One thing they did pretty well during the 17th century was to lay out -- often quite beautifully -- text-heavy pages in large-sized type. For purposes of comparison, I've temporarily posted a facsimile of the page from the original stand-alone 1668 edition of _The Blazing World_ at my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_BWorld1668_preface1.gif > In addition to the changed alignment of the text, notice the difference between how the title of the poem is handled in the 1668 original vs. the 2006 EasyRead reprint. This, too, is poorly done, as far as I'm concerned. Surely it's possible to come up with a design template -- able to accommodate a range of type sizes -- that more closely retains the look-and-feel of the original printed poem? And I question other ReadHowYouWant.com design decisions as well, especially the artwork for front and back covers. The EasyRead covers for MC's _The Blazing World_ are not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com PDF previews, so for these, you'll have to use amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE feature (see above URLs). All the 2006 EasyRead editions of _The Blazing World_ use the same cover design (with orange and green backgrounds to more easily differentiate formats). Of note, the one 2007 edition of _The Blazing World_ < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > sports a newly-designed cover, but features the same cover illustration. I find the illustration anachronistic (looks to be something from _Alice in Wonderland_ ???), and would rather have seen a simple period-style fleuron deployed artistically on the cover, than such an inappropriate graphic. Plus, on the back cover (of all EasyRead titles for Margaret Cavendish), we have a picture of MC which is NOT in fact her portrait, but a painting of MC's elder sister, Mary Lucas (c. 1635). (FWIW, the original "School of van Dyck" painting is held by the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia, and is catalogued as a portrait of Mary Lucas. However, it was at some point misidentified by art historians and the early C20 scholar Douglas Grant, with this error further propagated by Kathleen Jones, whose non-scholarly biography of MC in 1988, _A Glorious Fame_, featured the image on its cover.) As for the EasyRead editions of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, I have a similar list of criticisms. For starters, there is no mention anywhere that this is a tale excerpted from MC's _Natures Pictures drawn by Fancies Pencil to the Life_ (pp. 394-514 of a 718-page book, not counting front matter). And again, there is no indication of which copy-text was used (a transcription of the 1656 or 1671 edition of _Natures Pictures_?), and why. Moreover, the ReadHowYouWant.com reprint opens with verses Thus in this Semy-Circle, wher they Sitt, Telling of Tales of pleasure & of witt, Heer you may read without a Sinn or Crime, And how more innocently pass your tyme. that are NOT part of the 1656 or 1671 printed text of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_; rather, these serve as the gloss to a (very rare) frontispiece engraving found in only *some* C17 copies of _Natures Pictures_. Nor were these verses written by MC, so strictly speaking, they shouldn't head up her "Preamble" (a reader cue used for her prefatory remarks in the 1671 revised edition of _Natures Pictures_, although not in the EasyRead versions) ... especially with no explanation of such a peculiar editorial intervention. And again, the pic used for the front cover of EasyRead editions of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ has *nothing* to do with MC or her works, prompting me to wonder: why not use the frontispiece engraving, that has a real connection with the work, instead? For those of you who are curious about the frontispiece, engraved by Peter Clouwet (aka Petrus Clouet), after a design by Abraham van Diepenbeke, I've temporarily posted a facsimile to my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_NaturesPix1656_frontispiece.gif > And, of course, there's a story behind the frontispiece that should be told also. The engraving actually deviates from the earlier Diepenbeke study in significant ways -- all part of the complicated visual rhetoric of MC's texts, designed to convey multiple messages to multiple audiences. Diepenbeke's original study, which was probably commissioned by Margaret and William for use in their publications, shows Margaret (seated far right, wearing the poet's garland of bay leaves) as the animated teller of the "Tales of pleasure & of witt" described in the frontispiece gloss. In the original study, it is Margaret who holds up her hand, commanding the attention for her audience. But in the engraving (which would have been sold separately as a stand-alone print, as well as bound into some -- especially presentation -- copies of MC's texts), Margaret's husband William (seated next to her, and similarly crowned with a laurel wreath) becomes the active narrator. In the engraving, it is William who gestures for audience attention with a pointing finger. Nonetheless, this visual concession to patriarchal rule (Margaret's critics had accused her of entrenching on "the male prerogative" with her publications, and both she and her husband were at pains to defend her against this charge) is neatly undercut by the text that follows. In Margaret's verses describing the frontispiece (from the 1656 ed. of _Natures Pictures_), she reclaims her role as narrator: My lord and I here in two chairs are set, And all his children, wives and husbands, met, To hear me tell them tales as I think fit, And hope they're full of fancy and of wit. Ladies, I ask your pardons, mercies, I, Since I talk all, and many ladies by. So, if any verses are to be inserted at the head of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, it should be these 6 lines, I think, and not the 4-line gloss to the frontispiece (which was probably written by William). Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sat Jan 12 17:17:17 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:17:17 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> On 09/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly > falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have > any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." > > After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 > original (I am not a lawyer but I play one on TV^W internet mailing lists ;-) If they derived work directly from something with expired copyright (or assigned to the public domain, a feature of US copyright not found elsewhere) then their derived work is now 100% copyright to them. If they made a derived work indirectly, they are probably guilty of copyright infringement. That is, they made a derived work from a work that is 100% copyright to someone else, and that this work was derived directly from the original public domain work doesn't matter. This is important for making a text typeface revival from an old book; if you use someone else's scans/photos, you will run into trouble, and need to either do the digitization from originals yourself, or work from digitizations that are already free culture. -- Regards, Dave From dtp at she-philosopher.com Sun Jan 13 05:24:09 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:09 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > or work from digitizations that > are already free culture. But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free culture"? In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the group in my original post, assuming that it would become part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright it as their own work? I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? > This is important for making a > text typeface revival from an > old book; if you use someone > else's scans/photos, you will > run into trouble Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well believe it's the law. :( Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sun Jan 13 14:03:21 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:03:21 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > > or work from digitizations that > > are already free culture. > > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? Oops - free culture is a tightly defined 'term of art' - http://www.freedomdefined.org - and I apologies for not including that link when I used the term. (Similarly, "free software" is tightly defined at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and spending a lot of time in a community that understands that term to mean that kind of thing, its all too easy when not in that community to blather on about "free software" and then have someone say, "but err, how does anyone make money if its free?") It is legally possible to copyright what is in the public domain, but unless you have the sole copy of something, this isn't a problem because everyone else can also go to the original PD source. It is not ethically legitimate - "not OK" - to turn what is already free culture into proprietary culture, no. To protect against this, we use "copyleft" - you can copyright a work and add a restriction that maintains the freedom of the work for all later recipients. > In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of > MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of > _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the > group in my original post, assuming that it would become > part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- > include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright > it as their own work? Almost certainly not, and you have a slam-dunk copyright infringement case against them. I suggest looking in the business directory for "no win no fee" lawyers if they do this :-) If you are are in the USA and dedicate it to the public domain, this is true though. But that dedication is only valid in the USA jurisdiction, and that's only when its done properly. Saying "you may have a copy" is not legally binding; you need to state two things; one, a copyright notice - "Copyright (c) Deborah Taylor-Pearce, 2008." - and two, a copyright license. That could be http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ although that is no longer recommended because of the international problem, so I recommend http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ in that case. The web works because when you post something on a public website, you give an implicit copyright notice to download a copy for viewing it - but that is all. Google News is mired in controversy because by aggregating and republishing 'real' newspapers websites, it goes beyond that implicit license; Google tries on a "fair use" defence, but here in the UK there is no flexible fair use, only stiffly defined "fair dealings." The RIAA recently sued someone in the USA for copying music on a CD into their iPod, and this is a dumb move in the USA where fair use flexes to include this activity. In the UK, it is illegal - but fortunately politicians bought iPods already and so recognized it as stupid, so the fair dealings definition is being updated. In Sweden, politicians started using BitTorrent already and so recognised that making p2p illegal is stupid, and have been in the news this week because they are working to decriminalise it - http://sigfrid.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/decriminalize-file-sharing/ > I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed > "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? The GPL is a "strong" copyleft license for software (although it is used for other kinds of works) and its terms are that you can only combine GPL works with other works no more restrictive than the GPL. So you can combine a GPL program with a public domain program, but not with a "non-commercial use only" program. If you use a simple all-permissive non-copyleft license, like the Creative Commons Attribution license ("CC-BY") then proprietors can combine your work (that is still copyright to you) with their redesign of it, and make the whole available under proprietary terms. Therefore I recommend strong copyleft for all free culture works unless it is strategic not to; when the alternative is to have no use of the work. For example, the "MP3 killer" audio format "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org is released under all permissive terms to encourage its widespread adoption. My sister's "USB music stick" portable player supports 3 formats - MP3, Microsoft Windows Media Audio, and Vorbis - and I didn't recommend that model to her :-) > > This is important for making a > > text typeface revival from an > > old book; if you use someone > > else's scans/photos, you will > > run into trouble > > Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well > believe it's the law. :( You seem to be suggesting that the public domain should be retrofitted with copyleft terms. I'd never thought of that, but it seems like a good idea! :-) -- Regards, Dave From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 20:41:53 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:41:53 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4210 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/33ba2d84/attachment-0007.bin From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 23:25:16 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:25:16 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0CA@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Sorry if this shows up twice. Since it hasn't shown up in almost three hours I'm guessing it may have been lost. Gunnar -----Original Message----- From: Swanson, Gunnar Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 2:41 PM To: Discussions about information design Subject: RE: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/74d9f44a/attachment-0007.htm From shailey_lists at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 14 15:02:49 2008 From: shailey_lists at yahoo.co.uk (Shailey Minocha) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:02:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Research Opportunity at the Open University, UK In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <116597.847.qm@web25110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Full-time PhD Studentship Closing date for applications: 22nd February 2008 Centre for Research in Computing (http://crc.open.ac.uk), The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Influence of 3-D Virtual Worlds on Expectations in 2-D E-Commerce Environments This PhD studentship is jointly funded by the Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology and the Business School of the Open University (OU). You will join the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) group in the Department of Computing of the OU. The research project aims to examine the effect of 3-D multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs) such as Second life (www.secondlife.com) on consumers' expectations, behaviours, and satisfaction with 2-D e-commerce environments. Specifically the research will investigate questions such as: Whether and how the expectations and behaviours of consumers with experience of 3-D MUVEs differ from those of consumers without such experience? How avatar-based consumption behaviours in 3-D MUVEs can influence the choices and behaviours of consumers in 2-D e-commerce environments? How 3-D MUVEs can be integrated within the service design of 2-D e-commerce environments for a positive seamless consumer experience with 2-D e-commerce? Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the proposed research we would like to hear from candidates who have a Masters Degree in HCI, Psychology, Sociology, or a related discipline, and have an outstanding research potential and a keen interest in Usability, Consumer Behaviour and 3-D virtual worlds. Informal enquiries about the proposed research can be made by e-mail to Dr. Shailey Minocha (S.Minocha at open.ac.uk). The studentship provides a standard living allowance (of ?12,600 per annum and tax-free) for up to three years subject to satisfactory progress. For detailed information and how to apply go to (http://www.computing.open.ac.uk/research-degrees/studentships); or contact the postgraduate admissions tutor, Dr. Leonor Barroca (l.barroca at open.ac.uk); or email the Research School (http://www.open.ac.uk/research-school/). Closing date for applications: 22nd February 2008. --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080114/5a0c9e51/attachment-0006.htm From dtp at she-philosopher.com Tue Jan 15 00:51:58 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:51:58 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> Gunnar, > If I took a Shakespeare play and > re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of > a Danish" and inserted the line > "I feel like the hole in a donut > and am looking fairly pastry" > after "To be or not to be" then > my copyright would cover any > version of the play that > included that line but would > not cover any version that did > not contain the line. Presumably > one could copy my version minus > my original creative work (thus > restoring the original) without > infringing on my copyright. But this assumes that the reader knows your edition of _Hamlet_ by William Shakespeare has been altered. If I innocently copy your interpellation about donut holes, thinking it's part of the original play by Shakespeare -- because there's no other author cited anywhere, and no notice to the reader that you've altered the original content -- am I in violation of your copyright? > On the other hand, if I took > the Shakespeare original and > printed it in red ink to > match the Danish flag, I > doubt I could get a court to > agree that this was an > original creative work on my > part, thus enjoining you > from printing the play in > red. OK, except that these days, I think, new editions of "classic" works -- every one of which is copyrighted -- often do little more than creatively reformat the original author's words.... And then they use that unique redesign as their marketing come-on. I guess I'm of the school that figures once you publicly issue something -- i.e., put a concept out there for all to see -- you can't then put the design genie back in the bottle. Ergo, ReadHowYouWant.com should be able to copyright their exact printing of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, but nothing more (including their hyphenation of words and layout of MC's text in 24pt type). I shouldn't be able to photocopy their text, and offer an identical version of their edition at, say, the cut rate of US$5.99. But I should be able to re-create their transcription of MC's text (which I expect isn't original to them, anyway) in 24pt Officina Sans, if I wish -- let the hyphenation fall where it may! ;-) -- and sell it for the exact same price under a competitor brand name. FWIW, all of this raises several troubling issues for scholars, like me, whose stock-in-trade is public discussion of archival research and our ideas/concepts about that research. Generally, scholars have looked to institutionalized procedures of citation, etc. to establish precedence, originality and creativity, and to protect their place in the great chain of academic being. But all the confusion over copyright in the new Web-based market of ideas undermines those of us who adhere to the old-fashioned way of doing things. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but as someone who believes that citation trails still have an important role to play (esp. vis a vis how we uphold the quality of research), I'm not happy about the rush to copyright I see going on around me. (And I'm especially not happy about any further attempts at privatizing the commons.) As "Fair Use" gets curtailed by pay-per-use databases and overly restrictive copyright claims, it becomes increasingly difficult to have substantive public discussion of shared online resources. Worried about prohibitive charges for use and/or denial of permissions, more and more people have simply stopped asking, and are just taking what they want, without acknowledging their sources. And that's no way to build the commons.... Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dtp at she-philosopher.com Tue Jan 15 00:56:02 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:56:02 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <478BF692.3080201@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > You seem to be suggesting that > the public domain should be > retrofitted with copyleft terms. I suppose I am.... I have personally been resistant to this sort of thing, hoping that the whole issue would just go away if I ignored it long enough. ;-) But, given our insatiable need for content -- and the huge expense of producing it -- I think the trend to copyrighting everything that isn't already claimed by some private interest is just going to continue. Oh, joy! I suppose next we can all look forward to incorporating clever copyright notices in our signature lines for e-mail.... ;-) Haven't yet had a chance to follow-up on all your URLs (I'm especially interested in learning more about > the "MP3 killer" audio format > "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org ) and am off to get started on that now. Hopefully, I'll have a response for you tomorrow, Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Tue Jan 15 16:28:15 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:28:15 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0DB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Deborah, Again, I'm not a good source for legal advice but: If they have taken a work in public domain and reformatted it in some way that could be considered an artistic interpretation, that artistic interpretation is protected by copyright US law. They in no way gain rights over the original nor can they stop you from reproducing the original or reformatting it in another manner. I assume that unintended infringement based on the copyright holder's misrepresentation of the nature of the content would not be taken seriously by a court. To the extent they seem to be representing the work as an accurate transcription of a public domain work, they undermine any claim of copyright on their version of the text. If you do work based on old fairy tales that are in public domain, you have no problem. If you include details of costume, plot, or dialog that do not exist in the old fairy tales but do exist in the Disney cartoon version, you will have Disney lawyers crawling all over you. If you do something based on Disney's movies that isn't a major commercial venture and you respond to their first cease and desist letter by ceasing and desisting, it is highly unlikely that anything more would come of it. If you do something based on my work, you might get some form of a cease and desist letter but unless you or someone connected to your project were looking like really deep pockets, it is highly unlikely that I could afford to do much more. It's possible that I could get really vindictive and stupid but most likely that I'd see that it isn't worth much of a fight; Disney would see protecting against any infringement as a reasonable business expense. I suspect the publisher in question would be closer to my situation than to Disney's. Gunnar From: Deborah Taylor-Pearce sent: Mon 1/14/2008 6:51 PM > If I innocently copy your interpellation about donut holes, > thinking it's part of the original play by Shakespeare -- > because there's no other author cited anywhere, and no > notice to the reader that you've altered the original > content -- am I in violation of your copyright? and > often do little more than creatively reformat the original > author's words.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4174 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080115/b0318a58/attachment-0005.bin From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 16 08:22:41 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:22:41 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <478DB0C1.5010409@she-philosopher.com> Dave, Well, I've just finished taking your introductory tour of the copyleft universe (many thanks, BTW), and have a lot to think about.... As I expect you already know, I, personally, have been relying on "Fair Use" doctrine (such as it is ;-) hoping that it's squishy enough to allow for still-generous interpretations of scholarly borrowings and reproductions of source materials, but muscular enough to extend traditional academic protections to independent scholars working in the electronic margins (and lacking the institutional resources available to those with academic careers). But now you tell me > Google News is mired in > controversy because by > aggregating and republishing > 'real' newspapers websites, > it goes beyond that implicit > license; Google tries on a > "fair use" defence, but here > in the UK there is no flexible > fair use, only stiffly defined > "fair dealings." and > This is important for making a > text typeface revival from an > old book; if you use someone > else's scans/photos, you will > run into trouble Many scholars are already really nervous about publicly posting pictures of the archival documents & artifacts they study ... so they don't ... which means that they are (as I see it) unfairly limited in what they're able to say & show online. As someone who does not have a high-visibility academic position to protect, I reveled in the early promise of the Web as the great academic leveller. And true enough, in the earliest days, anyone with a real interest in a subject could take it on, spread their learning around, and even challenge those who wished to maintain a monopoly over, e.g., archival studies. But I now see past gains on this front eroding rapidly as more and more publishers move to digitizing their backlists, and in so doing, further restrict PD access to scholarly materials. From my vantage point, this looks to be a free speech issue (less free & easy access = less speech). Regardless of how we categorize it, we still end up in a dialectical struggle between intellectual vs. commercial interests -- a binary which has bedeviled the academic community in the Latin west, at least since the ancient Greeks. ;-) For those of us who work in the "humanities," academic values are often perceived as being at odds with commercial values, and as a result, we tend to intertwine Fair Use protections with prohibitions against "commercial use," which I gather from the webpages at < http://www.freedomdefined.org/Definition > and < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > and < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html > means that we cannot properly call the online fruits of our intellectual labor "free cultural works." I *do* understand the rationale for this. Quoting from < http://www.freedomdefined.org/Definition >: "In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called 'free.'" And from < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html >: "A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission." "In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her." But for me, at least, this redefinition of "free culture" involves a real paradigm shift. And I'm a bit uneasy about what the consequences might be. > so I recommend > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ > in that case. (Technical aside: I was not able to follow the link _Learn how to distribute your work using this license_ at this webpage, receiving the error message: Bad Request Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand. The number of request header fields exceeds this server's limit. Fortunately, the same link worked on the first page I went to < http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ > so I was able to get what I wanted there instead.) Personally, I would be quite happy to move to a "strong copyleft" license such as this, with Attribution of Authors and Transmission of Freedoms clauses, which as I understand things at the moment, are probably a better answer to traditional academic concerns about questionable commercial uses of research. Still, I can't help worrying about what I'd be giving up in shifting from Fair Use protections to copyleft activism.... E.g., might this restrict my scholarly speech even more than it already is, by making it impossible to reproduce copyrighted materials to which I now have access under Fair Use? > For example, the "MP3 killer" > audio format "Vorbis" from > www.xiph.org is released under > all permissive terms to > encourage its widespread > adoption. FWIW, I thoroughly enjoyed my browse of the www.xiph.org website. (*Loved* the paranoia logos at < http://www.xiph.org/xiphname > ) I shall return when it's time to begin formatting the audio podcasts for my physician podcast project, having now decided to make these available in Vorbis (as well as other) formats. So in this case, at least, a wide-open permission strategy will pay off, since my physician podcast project will be free (free beer + free speech) in all senses but one: "* the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works" I simply can't give folks carte blanche to play around with and alter sensitive medical information intended for cancer patients, their friends & families. So while the audio podcasts will be a gift for anyone, anywhere, in the digital commons who wants to listen in, I don't know of any way to protect and ensure the professional integrity of the podcasts (and the physicians making them) other than with an "All rights reserved." copyright. > It is legally possible to > copyright what is in the > public domain, but unless > you have the sole copy of > something, this isn't a > problem because everyone > else can also go to the > original PD source. If you can find it.... How many PD sites pay for targeted above-the-fold exposure in google's righthand sidebar? How many PD sites expend time and attention on improving their rankings in search results listings (assuming they're even listed to begin with)? How many PD sites repackage their own materials for sale with such powerhouses as amazon.com? I've actually been pondering this myself, of late -- ever since Yateen raised the topic of amazon.com's new Kindle technology, in fact. Based on what I've learned thus far about the Kindle (admittedly, not all that much), it would seem as though we are experiencing what the rhetoricians call a *kairic* moment. (From the Greek *kairos*, which roughly translates as timely, opportune, appropriate, although any rhetoric scholar worth her salt would tell you that it's really a lot more complicated than that, of course ;-). Thus far, there isn't a huge library of titles expertly repurposed for the Kindle (whatever that may entail), which set me to thinking that even the kind of intense stuff I write might find an audience among early Kindle adopters desperate for reasonably-priced titles to add to their libraries. To wit, I've been mulling over the possibility of re-issuing some of my own PD materials in Kindle-friendly format, just to see what happens. I expect that purists may not approve of repackaging PD content for (proprietary?) Kindle technology, but in my scenario of how this might work, the Kindle Store version of material would complement (not replace) the PD version, which would continue to be freely available in its present format (and one could even make a point of letting Kindle readers know what/where that is, too). If I thought I could make any real money from this -- which I could then invest in more she-philosopher.com PD offerings -- I'd start Kindling in a jiffy.... ;-) Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Wed Jan 16 11:27:05 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:27:05 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <478DB0C1.5010409@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0F3@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Deborah, I'm not following the conversation. I thought you were talking about 16C and 17C texts. There are no fair use issues involved since such texts are public domain, thus not covered by copyright, thus a copyright exception is unneeded. Are you talking about recent writings about texts that are in the public domain? You say that "Many scholars are already really nervous about publicly posting pictures of the archival documents & artifacts they study." Why? > For those of us who work in the "humanities," academic > values are often perceived as being at odds with commercial > values, and as a result, we tend to intertwine Fair Use > protections with prohibitions against "commercial use," "Fair use" -is- intertwined with commercial use and prohibitions against or restrictions of commercial use. I'm not sure what your specific ethical worries are about formatting and selling public domain materials for a reader. How does that differ from someone printing copies of a bible or -The Wealth of Nations- or -Huckleberry Finn- and selling them? Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3674 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080116/f9ab3deb/attachment-0004.bin From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 16 23:17:03 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:17:03 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0DB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0DB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <478E825F.3050901@she-philosopher.com> Gunnar, > If you do something based on > Disney's movies that isn't a > major commercial venture and > you respond to their first > cease and desist letter by > ceasing and desisting, it is > highly unlikely that anything > more would come of it. I've always hoped this would be the case. Most folks I know running "scholarly" PD websites have good intentions, and post images with this caveat in mind. If the museum etc. (holder of the historical artifact, and hence of the rights over its reproduction) and/or any publishers who have paid a hefty fee for permission to print a photographic reproduction of an artifact issue a "cease and desist" letter, most Web author-scholars I know (including me) would immediately remove the copyrighted image. I doubt many of us have the time (or financial resources) to test the protections of "Fair Use" in court. > If you include details of > costume, plot, or dialog > that do not exist in the > old fairy tales but do > exist in the Disney cartoon > version, you will have > Disney lawyers crawling all > over you. Well, this is certainly good to know, since I'm planning an extensive gallery exhibit on historical visions of Pocahontas (and other AmerIndian women of what is now the southeastern U.S.), from C17 through C21. So I was, in fact, thinking of juxtaposing images of Disney's Pocahontas with Aphra Behn's C17 depiction of a Virginia Indian queen in her play, _The Widdow Ranter_ (there's this astounding engraving of the stage actor Anne Bracegirdle in costume as Behn's Indian queen, Semernia, when the play was first staged in 1690) ... and both of these dramatic portraits with some wonderful C19/early C20 B&W pix of real Pamunkey Indian women on their reservation near Richmond ... along with facsimile reproductions of several C17 engravings and painted portraits (some famous and well-known, some not). Since I'd rather not attract the attention of Disney's legal team, I expect I'd be best off not including any images (even thumbnails) relating to their biopic, period. Thanks for the heads-up! Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From markb at textmatters.com Wed Jan 16 23:24:40 2008 From: markb at textmatters.com (Mark Barratt) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:24:40 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Job opportunity at Text Matters Message-ID: <478E8428.7070306@textmatters.com> Text Matters is looking for a web developer/information designer to join our small team of editors, designers and developers in Reading, UK, working on a variety of projects, mostly interesting and mostly for not-for-profit clients. It's possible, but not likely, that a 'virtual worker' would meet our needs. A requirement is good technical skills in HTML/CSS, including the ability to create templates in HTML+whatever (where 'whatever' may be ASP, PHP, or some other TLA). That's an absolute: please don't talk to us unless you feel you meet that requirement. Beyond that, we are looking for some evidence of analytic ability, a passion for good communication, and some skill in one or more of our core competencies: communication design, effective language and 'usability' in its broadest sense. Experience of, and coherent views on, eLearning environments would be an advantage. In the first instance please email me with a CV and any questions. Thanks -- Mark Barratt Text Matters Information design: we help explain things using language | design | systems | process improvement ______________________________________________________ phone +44 (0)118 986 8313 email markb at textmatters.com skype mark_barratt web http://www.textmatters.com From dtp at she-philosopher.com Thu Jan 17 08:54:09 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:54:09 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0F3@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <478DB0C1.5010409@she-philosopher.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0F3@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <478F09A1.9030003@she-philosopher.com> Gunnar, > I'm not following the > conversation. I thought you > were talking about 16C and 17C > texts. I was. But I'm also now thinking about copyright issues vis a vis a range of digital publications. > There are no fair use issues > involved since such texts are > public domain, thus not > covered by copyright, thus a > copyright exception is unneeded. Not if you're using reproductions of the text controlled by the holding institution. The example Dave gave about a typeface designer working from facsimile reproductions she didn't pay for (or paid a nominal fee for, which didn't include permission to reproduce) is relevant. In the old days, scholars used to read C17 texts in museum libraries or private collections, and painstakingly transcribe the text by hand (using pencils only, at first, then electronic typewriters, and now computers). The resulting copy of the text (a handwritten, typed, or digital transcription) is unquestionably the property of the scholar, and there are no copyright questions attaching to it (at least as far as I know ... and anyone who accepts what a scholar with her head in the 17th century has to say on the subject of C21 copyright law is an even bigger idiot than she who takes legal advice from a graphic designer! ;-). At some point during the 20th century, many archival works were photographed and put on 35mm microfilm, microfiche, and micro-opaques (my least favorite of the three!). These were then aggregated into enormous collections (such as "French books before 1601") and university libraries that could afford to do so, purchased copies of these filmed collections from whoever held the copyright (e.g., UMI). This meant that scholars no longer *had* to visit special collections departments all over the world in order to have access to early printed works, but could read French medieval texts on microfilm, as I did a couple of months ago when I looked through a 1486 edition of Anglicus Bartholomaeus's _De proprietatibus rerum_, hoping to learn if/how his illustration of global wind currents had changed from the 1482 edition. Reading a microfilm copy of a 1486 MS. with obliterated text from centuries of wear and print transfer is something of an art in itself, but those of us who do it, are (in most cases ;-) grateful for the research opportunities it affords. Even scholars who claim they will *never* trust a microfilm copy of an archival text -- usually, the same scholars who most enjoy traveling to remote locales to do research in spectacular museum environments -- have been known to use film copies on occasion to look up some detail or another they forgot to take note of when they had the chance. In my particular case, I was reading Bartholomaeus's text for a colleague in northern California, since I had access to the film copy through my local university library, and he did not. Not only did I take copious notes (presumably my copyright, although I *was* working from copyrighted images of the original) which I passed on to him via e-mail, I was also able to capture digital images from the 35mm film of those pages I knew he would want to see, and send these images to him later that evening as attachments to e-mail ... an act which is probably in violation of somebody's copyright, even though I would maintain that everything I did falls under the protections of Fair Use. I certainly don't make any money from doing collaborative scholarship such as this. And the information I passed him will end up being written up in a scholarly article to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, so it's certainly legitimate scholarship (although I think "legitimacy" is irrelevant and a bogus issue). ... But back to microfilm reproductions of out-of-copyright MSS.... We've since entered a new phase of (copyrighted) photographic reproductions with the ongoing digitization of the microfilm/microfiche collections, now aggregated in massive online databases such as "Early English Books Online" (copyright Chadwick-Healey), which are closed to the non-paying public. And big university libraries are pretty much the only entities with sufficient funding to buy the licenses guaranteeing access to the database for N library users at a given time. If I, as a scholar, am lucky enough to have access to such online collections through my university library, I now get to read microfilmed copies of C17 texts online, including ready access to a range of database tools which make it easy for me to capture (even print) text images in varying resolutions. But only for my private use. So, if I use these copyrighted images to produce a transcription of an out-of-copyright text which I then typeset and sell for a fee through amazon's Kindle Store am I in violation of Chadwick-Healey's copyright? How about if I substantially alter Chadwick-Healey's digitization of UMI's 35mm film image of a page from a C17 edition held by the British Library (e.g., turning an unreadable digital facsimile into something readable), and post it to my website? Even though I've added value to the original, I've still created a derivative work and wouldn't feel comfortable *selling* it, since that would go against the very Fair Use principles that allow me to aggregate bits & pieces from the works of others in the first place. Similarly, libraries are now digitizing their archival holdings, sometimes posting digital facsimiles of their collections to the public domain, and sometimes not. One of my favorite examples of a PD model is the University of Wisconsin Digital Collections Center's History of Science project < http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/HistSciTech/ > which is really very well done, and freely accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. (Their online archival texts are even searchable, although their OCR software was not sophisticated enough to correct for old-style typography, so the user needs to be somewhat clever when formulating search queries.) Other libraries, such as the U.S. National Library of Medicine's "Historical Anatomies on the Web" website, have chosen to close off their digital collections to the non-paying public. So, were I to include NLM's facsimile image of the engraved title page for William Cheselden's _Osteographia, or the Anatomy of Bones_ (London, 1733) -- which shows Cheselden using a camera obscura of his own design to produce the fantastic illustrations for his majestic atlas of comparative osteology (he even engraved his own copper plates!) -- in my PDF on Robert Hooke's camera obscura designs (a PD document), I believe this would be OK under the conditions of Fair Use. But I would *not* feel right reformatting this same PDF for sale in amazon.com's Kindle Store. For this, I would have to take and use my own photographic image of Cheselden's title page. (And, as if all of this isn't murky enough, we haven't even gotten started on the subject of modern reproductions of antique maps and prints! ... ;-) > You say that "Many scholars are > already really nervous about > publicly posting pictures of > the archival documents & > artifacts they study." Why? If I'm involved in an online discussion of whether or not the so-called Velasco map of 1610/11 is a C19 forgery, I think I have the right under Fair Use to reproduce earlier printed facsimiles of the map -- even when they're still under publisher's copyright -- and post them to my website so that those who are interested in the controversy can compare and contrast all the images for themselves, and reach their own conclusions. Most reputable map scholars would not do this sort of thing. But since I'm not a card-carrying member of the community of cartographic historians, I have a bit more leeway. And since my intent is always to make obscure cartifacts (J. B. Post's nice coinage) more accessible to all, I'm more willing than some to push the boundaries of scholarly decorum. But as Dave is always telling us, digital information usually takes on a life of its own, and I find myself in the awkward position now of being asked more and more often for permission to reuse/reprint she-philosopher.com images (some of which are out-of-copyright, and some of which aren't). Last year, I even received notice from the editor of a high-school yearbook that they were planning to reprint the Velasco Map on the yearbook's title page. The students' theme for the yearbook was "A New Voyage," and the editor had been searching for "something different" to use when he stumbled across my reproductions of the Velasco Map. He wrote to let me know how they were going to be using she-philosopher.com materials (as I request on my site), and concluded with the comment: "Thank you for making such resources freely available." I was, of course, delighted to learn that a group of U.S. high school students took it upon themselves to study the Velasco Map -- who would have thought?! -- and consider this an example of the very best that Fair Use has to offer. But how far does it really apply? Aren't student yearbooks commercial, for-profit ventures? And I don't even know which version of the Velasco Map (some of which are still in copyright) the students were going to rework for the yearbook's title page. I never asked. > Are you talking about > recent writings about > texts that are in the > public domain? Yes, this too. Fair Use allows me to quote judiciously from other people's printed works -- without asking permission -- even while the works are still copyrighted. Can I still do this sort of thing if I self-publish a derivative work for the Kindle, and slap a copyleft statement on it? What does this do to the underlying copyrights of the original authors/publishers? Scholarly texts -- which are polyvocal in ways that, e.g., novels and fairy tales are not -- seem to me to pose unique difficulties in this area. > How does that differ from > someone printing copies > of a bible or -The Wealth > of Nations- or -Huckleberry > Finn- and selling them? This is a really good question. I think the answer has to do with the differing natures of what exactly is in the public domain.... E.g., if you wanted to print your own copy of the bible, I expect it would be easy to secure a copy of the King James version (which dates from the early 17th century). No doubt, it's on the Internet -- in several places -- and is quite obviously public property. After all, Christian missionaries have been trying to give copies of it away for centuries. Let's say, however, that you want to prepare a modern edition of Margaret Cavendish's _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_ (1666 and 1668) for the Kindle reader. As far as I know, this text of hers has never been printed in facsimile, unlike say, MC's _Grounds of Natural Philosophy_ (London, 1668), which was published as a facsimile reprint in 1996 by Locust Hill Press, with an introduction by Colette V. Michael. So where do you get your text from? Various libraries in Europe and the U.S. have C17 copies of MC's book in their collections, and you're going to have to travel to one of them, and be prepared to spend a considerable amount of time in their reading room, because Margaret's _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_ runs about 392 folio pages. That's a lot of transcribing to do, and the task will be even more arduous if you're unfamiliar with C17 typography and scientific jargon. Obviously, it would be a lot easier to just scan and OCR the *modern* text version of _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_ prepared by Eileen O'Neill, published with extensive notes and the usual scholarly introduction by Cambridge University Press in 2001. Technically, neither O'Neill nor CUP has a copyright on MC's printed words, and once they've been publicly distributed like this, I suppose they're probably fair game (unlike the scrupulously prepared HTML transcription of MC's _Observations_ available as part of the Renaissance Women Online textbase -- another online collection which is closed to the non-paying public; besides, RWO copyrights all their materials, and would not take kindly to anyone pinching their work). So you're probably within your rights to reissue O'Neill's transcription of MC's original work -- newly in the "public domain" by way of O'Neill's edition -- as your own. Would it be ethical? No, I don't think so. Certainly not without passing an agreed-on percentage of any profits to O'Neill/CUP. After all, I'm sure they could make a good case that you've stolen their work and are cutting into their profits. Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From andrew at boag.co.uk Mon Jan 7 18:43:16 2008 From: andrew at boag.co.uk (Andrew Boag) Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:43:16 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Financial statement design, best practice In-Reply-To: <71188228-73B9-48A3-BBEF-3F98471C0C16@alphabyte.co.nz> Message-ID: We're always on the look out for good examples of best-practice information design for use in brainstorming discussions, for example, and at the moment we're particularly interested in financial statement designs (e.g. Pension policies, bank statements, investment funds, etc.). I wondered if you have good examples that you might have designed? Alternatively, do you have good examples that you've seen in your own course of research etc? We're particularly interested in examples that push the use of print and database (and potentially online) technologies to deliver statements that use personalisation well (i.e. to help the customer really understand the content and any potential calls to action) Marketing content is also of interest (e.g. Cross selling or up-selling presented appropriately). I would be very interested to hear from anyone regarding current best practice in this area - particularly outside the UK. Regards, Andrew Boag ----------------------- Boag Associates T +44 (0)20 3008 6491 F +44 (0)20 3008 7759 http://www.boag.co.uk From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 9 06:20:49 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:20:49 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Cafe, Does anyone have personal experience with the EasyRead paperbacks issued by ReadHowYouWant.com? I'm curious about the quality of their printed books, which run from about US$9.99 - US$14.99, and are sold directly by the publisher (Objective Systems Pty Ltd of NSW, Australia) and by amazon.com. As far as I can tell, ReadHowYouWant.com paperbacks typically come in 7 formats EasyRead Edition EasyRead Comfort Edition EasyRead Large Edition EasyRead Large Bold Edition (aka Large Type 16pt Bold Edition) EasyRead Super Large 18pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 20pt Edition EasyRead Super Large 24pt Edition with the 1st three set in Verdana, and the remaining four set in a combination of TiresiasLPfont and MicrosoftSansSerif. All the 2006 EasyRead editions use an uninspired layout template, and I expect have been designed to suit some kind of print-on-demand digital publication model. My own sudden interest in EasyRead publications has to do with the fact that ReadHowYouWant.com is now printing C17 texts as part of their "Classics Library," including two titles by Margaret Cavendish, duchess of Newcastle: _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ and _The Description of a New World, Called The Blazing World_. Although the ReadHowYouWant.com copyright notice for all 2006 editions of both Cavendish books reads: "The text in this book has been downloaded from the internet and has been extensively edited and typeset. "Copyright c. 2006 Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953" there is little evidence of much real editorial work having been done here. Indeed, one searches in vain (in both the PDF "preview" files offered by the publisher: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10243# > < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > and in the "SEARCH INSIDE" feature offered by amazon.com: < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Chastity-EasyRead-Margaret-Cavendish/dp/1425067123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-1 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425067808/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199321687&sr=1-2 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Large/dp/1425068480/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-3 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-Large-Print/dp/1425066445/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425001688/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425016405/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199250334&sr=1-4 > < http://www.amazon.com/Assaulted-Pursued-Chastity-EasyRead-Super/dp/1425032303/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199398322&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425017851/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-8 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-Called-Blazing-EasyRead-Comfort/dp/1425020410/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-5 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-World-Called-Blazing-EasyRead/dp/1425023150/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-6 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1554806836/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199401120&sr=1-7 > < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > ) for any discussion of editorial responsibility, period. This is particularly interesting to me in light of some changes to the copyright notice introduced with the only 2007 edition listed above: < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > (here you can view the copyright page using amazon's SEARCH INSIDE feature). This is how the new copyright notice reads: "The text in this book has been formatted and typeset to make reading easier and more enjoyable. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized and standardized, and hyphens have been avoided when possible. Obvious typographical errors have been corrected. In addition, the text has been formatted to the specifications indicated on the title page. The original text is out of copyright. The edited text in this edition and the formatting are the copyright of Objective Systems Pty Ltd ACN 085 119 953." While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 original (which I can guarantee involved a *substantial* amount of value-adding labor!), and it's not enough to just vaguely claim that you "downloaded" the text from the internet ... then proceed to copyright someone's else's work and profit from it. There are several modern editions of Cavendish's _Blazing World_ floating around (it resonates with modern readers, unlike, say, some of MC's more intense works of science which have yet to see the light of day ;-). So Objective Systems Pty Ltd could have taken their text from any one of these, and IMHO, they ought to tell us their source. There are several reasons for such disclosure, including the fact that MC's texts are notoriously "unstable." E.g., there were at least 3 17th-century issues of MC's _The Blazing World_, which was originally appended to a scientific work titled, _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy: To Which Is Added the Description of a New Blazing World_ (London, 1666 and 1668). _The Blazing World_ was also issued as a stand-alone publication in 1668, and for this edition, MC wrote a new 2-page preface ("To all Noble and Worthy Ladies") containing critical information about the text, and her intent in writing it. Since "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies" is short, and not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com EasyRead editions (which reprint only the original preface "To the Reader"), I will pass on (free of charge ;-) my own transcription of the 1668 replacement preface for everyone here: "To all Noble and Worthy Ladies. "This present _Description of a New World_, was made as an *Appendix* to my _Observations upon Experimental Philosophy_; and, having some Sympathy and Coherence with each other, were joyned together as Two several Worlds, at their Two Poles. But, by reason most Ladies take no delight in *Philosophical Arguments*, I separated some from the mentioned _Observations_, and caused them to go out by themselves, that I might express my Respects, in presenting to Them such *Fancies* as my Contemplations did afford. The First Part is *Romancical*; the Second, *Philosophical*; and the Third is meerly Fancy; or, (as I may call it) *Fantastical*. And if (*Noble Ladies*) you should chance to take pleasure in reading these *Fancies*, I shall account my self a *Happy Creatoress*: If not, I must be content to live a Melancholly Life in my own World; which I cannot call a *Poor World*, if *Poverty* be only want of *Gold*, and *Jewels*: for, there is more *Gold* in it, than all the *Chymists* ever made; or, (as I verily believe) will ever be able to make. As for the *Rocks of Diamonds*, I wish, with all my Soul, they might be shared amongst my Noble *Female Friends*; upon which condition, I would willingly quit my Part: And of the *Gold*, I should desire only so much as might suffice to repair my Noble Lord and Husband's Losses: for, I am not Covetous, but as Ambitious as ever any of my Sex was, is, or can be; which is the cause, That though I cannot be *Henry* the Fifth, or *Charles* the Second; yet, I will endeavour to be, *Margaret* the *First*: and, though I have neither Power, Time, nor Occasion, to be a great Conqueror, like *Alexander*, or *Cesar*; yet, rather than not be Mistress of a World, since Fortune and the Fates would give me none, I have made One of my own. And thus, believing, or, at least, hoping, that no Creature can, or will, Envy me for this World of mine, I remain, "Noble Ladies, "Your Humble Servant, "M. Newcastle." Not only do I question ReadHowYouWant.com editorial choices about which C17 copy-text to use, how much to modernize and "correct" it, etc., I take issue with the design of the EasyRead editions. Unfortunately, _The Blazing World_'s front matter is not included as part of amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE selection, so if you want to see how it's been formatted, you'll need to download a preview PDF of the EasyRead Large Bold version (set in 16pt TiresiasLPfont) from the ReadHowYouWant.com website: < http://www.readhowyouwant.com/pcsWebUI/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=10858# > Page 1 of the PDF is a 12-line poem ("To the Duchesse ...") which is left-justified in the C17 originals, but centered in the C21 EasyRead editions, and I'm not sure why the anonymous editor(s) at ReadHowYouWant.com chose to do it this way. The centered text is not, to my mind, a readability improvement. One thing they did pretty well during the 17th century was to lay out -- often quite beautifully -- text-heavy pages in large-sized type. For purposes of comparison, I've temporarily posted a facsimile of the page from the original stand-alone 1668 edition of _The Blazing World_ at my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_BWorld1668_preface1.gif > In addition to the changed alignment of the text, notice the difference between how the title of the poem is handled in the 1668 original vs. the 2006 EasyRead reprint. This, too, is poorly done, as far as I'm concerned. Surely it's possible to come up with a design template -- able to accommodate a range of type sizes -- that more closely retains the look-and-feel of the original printed poem? And I question other ReadHowYouWant.com design decisions as well, especially the artwork for front and back covers. The EasyRead covers for MC's _The Blazing World_ are not included in the ReadHowYouWant.com PDF previews, so for these, you'll have to use amazon.com's SEARCH INSIDE feature (see above URLs). All the 2006 EasyRead editions of _The Blazing World_ use the same cover design (with orange and green backgrounds to more easily differentiate formats). Of note, the one 2007 edition of _The Blazing World_ < http://www.amazon.com/Description-New-World-Called-Blazing/dp/1427012148/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199820197&sr=1-1 > sports a newly-designed cover, but features the same cover illustration. I find the illustration anachronistic (looks to be something from _Alice in Wonderland_ ???), and would rather have seen a simple period-style fleuron deployed artistically on the cover, than such an inappropriate graphic. Plus, on the back cover (of all EasyRead titles for Margaret Cavendish), we have a picture of MC which is NOT in fact her portrait, but a painting of MC's elder sister, Mary Lucas (c. 1635). (FWIW, the original "School of van Dyck" painting is held by the National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia, and is catalogued as a portrait of Mary Lucas. However, it was at some point misidentified by art historians and the early C20 scholar Douglas Grant, with this error further propagated by Kathleen Jones, whose non-scholarly biography of MC in 1988, _A Glorious Fame_, featured the image on its cover.) As for the EasyRead editions of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, I have a similar list of criticisms. For starters, there is no mention anywhere that this is a tale excerpted from MC's _Natures Pictures drawn by Fancies Pencil to the Life_ (pp. 394-514 of a 718-page book, not counting front matter). And again, there is no indication of which copy-text was used (a transcription of the 1656 or 1671 edition of _Natures Pictures_?), and why. Moreover, the ReadHowYouWant.com reprint opens with verses Thus in this Semy-Circle, wher they Sitt, Telling of Tales of pleasure & of witt, Heer you may read without a Sinn or Crime, And how more innocently pass your tyme. that are NOT part of the 1656 or 1671 printed text of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_; rather, these serve as the gloss to a (very rare) frontispiece engraving found in only *some* C17 copies of _Natures Pictures_. Nor were these verses written by MC, so strictly speaking, they shouldn't head up her "Preamble" (a reader cue used for her prefatory remarks in the 1671 revised edition of _Natures Pictures_, although not in the EasyRead versions) ... especially with no explanation of such a peculiar editorial intervention. And again, the pic used for the front cover of EasyRead editions of _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_ has *nothing* to do with MC or her works, prompting me to wonder: why not use the frontispiece engraving, that has a real connection with the work, instead? For those of you who are curious about the frontispiece, engraved by Peter Clouwet (aka Petrus Clouet), after a design by Abraham van Diepenbeke, I've temporarily posted a facsimile to my website: < http://www.she-philosopher.com/home/temp/MC_NaturesPix1656_frontispiece.gif > And, of course, there's a story behind the frontispiece that should be told also. The engraving actually deviates from the earlier Diepenbeke study in significant ways -- all part of the complicated visual rhetoric of MC's texts, designed to convey multiple messages to multiple audiences. Diepenbeke's original study, which was probably commissioned by Margaret and William for use in their publications, shows Margaret (seated far right, wearing the poet's garland of bay leaves) as the animated teller of the "Tales of pleasure & of witt" described in the frontispiece gloss. In the original study, it is Margaret who holds up her hand, commanding the attention for her audience. But in the engraving (which would have been sold separately as a stand-alone print, as well as bound into some -- especially presentation -- copies of MC's texts), Margaret's husband William (seated next to her, and similarly crowned with a laurel wreath) becomes the active narrator. In the engraving, it is William who gestures for audience attention with a pointing finger. Nonetheless, this visual concession to patriarchal rule (Margaret's critics had accused her of entrenching on "the male prerogative" with her publications, and both she and her husband were at pains to defend her against this charge) is neatly undercut by the text that follows. In Margaret's verses describing the frontispiece (from the 1656 ed. of _Natures Pictures_), she reclaims her role as narrator: My lord and I here in two chairs are set, And all his children, wives and husbands, met, To hear me tell them tales as I think fit, And hope they're full of fancy and of wit. Ladies, I ask your pardons, mercies, I, Since I talk all, and many ladies by. So, if any verses are to be inserted at the head of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, it should be these 6 lines, I think, and not the 4-line gloss to the frontispiece (which was probably written by William). Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sat Jan 12 17:17:17 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 16:17:17 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> On 09/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > While I accept that the formatting of EasyRead texts clearly > falls within their copyright, I do NOT believe they have > any right to copyright "the edited text in this edition." > > After all, someone else did the transcription from the C17 > original (I am not a lawyer but I play one on TV^W internet mailing lists ;-) If they derived work directly from something with expired copyright (or assigned to the public domain, a feature of US copyright not found elsewhere) then their derived work is now 100% copyright to them. If they made a derived work indirectly, they are probably guilty of copyright infringement. That is, they made a derived work from a work that is 100% copyright to someone else, and that this work was derived directly from the original public domain work doesn't matter. This is important for making a text typeface revival from an old book; if you use someone else's scans/photos, you will run into trouble, and need to either do the digitization from originals yourself, or work from digitizations that are already free culture. -- Regards, Dave From dtp at she-philosopher.com Sun Jan 13 05:24:09 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:24:09 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > or work from digitizations that > are already free culture. But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free culture"? In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the group in my original post, assuming that it would become part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright it as their own work? I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? > This is important for making a > text typeface revival from an > old book; if you use someone > else's scans/photos, you will > run into trouble Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well believe it's the law. :( Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dave at lab6.com Sun Jan 13 14:03:21 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:03:21 +0000 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > > > or work from digitizations that > > are already free culture. > > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? Oops - free culture is a tightly defined 'term of art' - http://www.freedomdefined.org - and I apologies for not including that link when I used the term. (Similarly, "free software" is tightly defined at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and spending a lot of time in a community that understands that term to mean that kind of thing, its all too easy when not in that community to blather on about "free software" and then have someone say, "but err, how does anyone make money if its free?") It is legally possible to copyright what is in the public domain, but unless you have the sole copy of something, this isn't a problem because everyone else can also go to the original PD source. It is not ethically legitimate - "not OK" - to turn what is already free culture into proprietary culture, no. To protect against this, we use "copyleft" - you can copyright a work and add a restriction that maintains the freedom of the work for all later recipients. > In other words, could they take my ASCII transcription of > MC's replacement preface for the 1668 stand-alone edition of > _The Blazing World_ -- which I freely passed out to the > group in my original post, assuming that it would become > part of what I think of as the intellectual commons -- > include it in one of their EasyRead editions, and copyright > it as their own work? Almost certainly not, and you have a slam-dunk copyright infringement case against them. I suggest looking in the business directory for "no win no fee" lawyers if they do this :-) If you are are in the USA and dedicate it to the public domain, this is true though. But that dedication is only valid in the USA jurisdiction, and that's only when its done properly. Saying "you may have a copy" is not legally binding; you need to state two things; one, a copyright notice - "Copyright (c) Deborah Taylor-Pearce, 2008." - and two, a copyright license. That could be http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ although that is no longer recommended because of the international problem, so I recommend http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ in that case. The web works because when you post something on a public website, you give an implicit copyright notice to download a copy for viewing it - but that is all. Google News is mired in controversy because by aggregating and republishing 'real' newspapers websites, it goes beyond that implicit license; Google tries on a "fair use" defence, but here in the UK there is no flexible fair use, only stiffly defined "fair dealings." The RIAA recently sued someone in the USA for copying music on a CD into their iPod, and this is a dumb move in the USA where fair use flexes to include this activity. In the UK, it is illegal - but fortunately politicians bought iPods already and so recognized it as stupid, so the fair dealings definition is being updated. In Sweden, politicians started using BitTorrent already and so recognised that making p2p illegal is stupid, and have been in the news this week because they are working to decriminalise it - http://sigfrid.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/decriminalize-file-sharing/ > I.e., they could copyright my content (perhaps better termed > "my gift" ;-), as well as their own redesign of it? The GPL is a "strong" copyleft license for software (although it is used for other kinds of works) and its terms are that you can only combine GPL works with other works no more restrictive than the GPL. So you can combine a GPL program with a public domain program, but not with a "non-commercial use only" program. If you use a simple all-permissive non-copyleft license, like the Creative Commons Attribution license ("CC-BY") then proprietors can combine your work (that is still copyright to you) with their redesign of it, and make the whole available under proprietary terms. Therefore I recommend strong copyleft for all free culture works unless it is strategic not to; when the alternative is to have no use of the work. For example, the "MP3 killer" audio format "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org is released under all permissive terms to encourage its widespread adoption. My sister's "USB music stick" portable player supports 3 formats - MP3, Microsoft Windows Media Audio, and Vorbis - and I didn't recommend that model to her :-) > > This is important for making a > > text typeface revival from an > > old book; if you use someone > > else's scans/photos, you will > > run into trouble > > Personally, I think this is ridiculous, but I can well > believe it's the law. :( You seem to be suggesting that the public domain should be retrofitted with copyleft terms. I'd never thought of that, but it seems like a good idea! :-) -- Regards, Dave From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 20:41:53 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:41:53 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4210 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/33ba2d84/attachment-0008.bin From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Sun Jan 13 23:25:16 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:25:16 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0CA@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Sorry if this shows up twice. Since it hasn't shown up in almost three hours I'm guessing it may have been lost. Gunnar -----Original Message----- From: Swanson, Gunnar Sent: Sun 1/13/2008 2:41 PM To: Discussions about information design Subject: RE: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions On 13/01/2008, Deborah Taylor-Pearce wrote: > But surely it's not OK to copyright what is "already free > culture"? I'll start with my standard disclaimer: Anyone who takes legal advice from a graphic designer is an idiot. Also, I know a lot more about US copyright law than other countries' so what I say applies only to US copyright. The "what can you copyright?" question seems to represent a confusion. You can't copyright anything. You can register a copyright. You can place a copyright notice on something. Copyright, however, is automatic. As soon as you make a creative work, its author automatically holds the copyright. ("Author" here is a legal term. It is normally the creator of the work but if done as part of employment, the employer is the legal author.) A creative work can be based on a previous creative work. Such derivative works make things a bit more complex. I hold the copyright to this email. If you expand on it using my work, you have a copyright on your expansion but any exercise of that copyright is likely to be contingent on my similar exercise of my original copyright. (Your derivative work does not affect my original copyright on my original work.) If instead you base a derivative work on something that is in public domain, your copyright is not contingent on another copyright but it only covers new creative work. If I took a Shakespeare play and re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of a Danish" and inserted the line "I feel like the hole in a donut and am looking fairly pastry" after "To be or not to be" then my copyright would cover any version of the play that included that line but would not cover any version that did not contain the line. Presumably one could copy my version minus my original creative work (thus restoring the original) without infringing on my copyright. On the other hand, if I took the Shakespeare original and printed it in red ink to match the Danish flag, I doubt I could get a court to agree that this was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining you from printing the play in red. I certainly could not get a court to agree that red ink was an original creative work on my part, thus enjoining anyone from using red ink to print anything. In no case have I gained copyright ownership over Will's play. Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080113/74d9f44a/attachment-0008.htm From shailey_lists at yahoo.co.uk Mon Jan 14 15:02:49 2008 From: shailey_lists at yahoo.co.uk (Shailey Minocha) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:02:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Research Opportunity at the Open University, UK In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <116597.847.qm@web25110.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Full-time PhD Studentship Closing date for applications: 22nd February 2008 Centre for Research in Computing (http://crc.open.ac.uk), The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK Influence of 3-D Virtual Worlds on Expectations in 2-D E-Commerce Environments This PhD studentship is jointly funded by the Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology and the Business School of the Open University (OU). You will join the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) group in the Department of Computing of the OU. The research project aims to examine the effect of 3-D multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs) such as Second life (www.secondlife.com) on consumers' expectations, behaviours, and satisfaction with 2-D e-commerce environments. Specifically the research will investigate questions such as: Whether and how the expectations and behaviours of consumers with experience of 3-D MUVEs differ from those of consumers without such experience? How avatar-based consumption behaviours in 3-D MUVEs can influence the choices and behaviours of consumers in 2-D e-commerce environments? How 3-D MUVEs can be integrated within the service design of 2-D e-commerce environments for a positive seamless consumer experience with 2-D e-commerce? Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the proposed research we would like to hear from candidates who have a Masters Degree in HCI, Psychology, Sociology, or a related discipline, and have an outstanding research potential and a keen interest in Usability, Consumer Behaviour and 3-D virtual worlds. Informal enquiries about the proposed research can be made by e-mail to Dr. Shailey Minocha (S.Minocha at open.ac.uk). The studentship provides a standard living allowance (of ?12,600 per annum and tax-free) for up to three years subject to satisfactory progress. For detailed information and how to apply go to (http://www.computing.open.ac.uk/research-degrees/studentships); or contact the postgraduate admissions tutor, Dr. Leonor Barroca (l.barroca at open.ac.uk); or email the Research School (http://www.open.ac.uk/research-school/). Closing date for applications: 22nd February 2008. --------------------------------- Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080114/5a0c9e51/attachment-0007.htm From dtp at she-philosopher.com Tue Jan 15 00:51:58 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:51:58 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Message-ID: <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> Gunnar, > If I took a Shakespeare play and > re-titled it "Hamlet, Prince of > a Danish" and inserted the line > "I feel like the hole in a donut > and am looking fairly pastry" > after "To be or not to be" then > my copyright would cover any > version of the play that > included that line but would > not cover any version that did > not contain the line. Presumably > one could copy my version minus > my original creative work (thus > restoring the original) without > infringing on my copyright. But this assumes that the reader knows your edition of _Hamlet_ by William Shakespeare has been altered. If I innocently copy your interpellation about donut holes, thinking it's part of the original play by Shakespeare -- because there's no other author cited anywhere, and no notice to the reader that you've altered the original content -- am I in violation of your copyright? > On the other hand, if I took > the Shakespeare original and > printed it in red ink to > match the Danish flag, I > doubt I could get a court to > agree that this was an > original creative work on my > part, thus enjoining you > from printing the play in > red. OK, except that these days, I think, new editions of "classic" works -- every one of which is copyrighted -- often do little more than creatively reformat the original author's words.... And then they use that unique redesign as their marketing come-on. I guess I'm of the school that figures once you publicly issue something -- i.e., put a concept out there for all to see -- you can't then put the design genie back in the bottle. Ergo, ReadHowYouWant.com should be able to copyright their exact printing of MC's _Assaulted and Pursued Chastity_, but nothing more (including their hyphenation of words and layout of MC's text in 24pt type). I shouldn't be able to photocopy their text, and offer an identical version of their edition at, say, the cut rate of US$5.99. But I should be able to re-create their transcription of MC's text (which I expect isn't original to them, anyway) in 24pt Officina Sans, if I wish -- let the hyphenation fall where it may! ;-) -- and sell it for the exact same price under a competitor brand name. FWIW, all of this raises several troubling issues for scholars, like me, whose stock-in-trade is public discussion of archival research and our ideas/concepts about that research. Generally, scholars have looked to institutionalized procedures of citation, etc. to establish precedence, originality and creativity, and to protect their place in the great chain of academic being. But all the confusion over copyright in the new Web-based market of ideas undermines those of us who adhere to the old-fashioned way of doing things. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but as someone who believes that citation trails still have an important role to play (esp. vis a vis how we uphold the quality of research), I'm not happy about the rush to copyright I see going on around me. (And I'm especially not happy about any further attempts at privatizing the commons.) As "Fair Use" gets curtailed by pay-per-use databases and overly restrictive copyright claims, it becomes increasingly difficult to have substantive public discussion of shared online resources. Worried about prohibitive charges for use and/or denial of permissions, more and more people have simply stopped asking, and are just taking what they want, without acknowledging their sources. And that's no way to build the commons.... Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From dtp at she-philosopher.com Tue Jan 15 00:56:02 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:56:02 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <478BF692.3080201@she-philosopher.com> Dave, > You seem to be suggesting that > the public domain should be > retrofitted with copyleft terms. I suppose I am.... I have personally been resistant to this sort of thing, hoping that the whole issue would just go away if I ignored it long enough. ;-) But, given our insatiable need for content -- and the huge expense of producing it -- I think the trend to copyrighting everything that isn't already claimed by some private interest is just going to continue. Oh, joy! I suppose next we can all look forward to incorporating clever copyright notices in our signature lines for e-mail.... ;-) Haven't yet had a chance to follow-up on all your URLs (I'm especially interested in learning more about > the "MP3 killer" audio format > "Vorbis" from www.xiph.org ) and am off to get started on that now. Hopefully, I'll have a response for you tomorrow, Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Tue Jan 15 16:28:15 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:28:15 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com><2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com><47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0C7@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> <478BF59E.20600@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0DB@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Deborah, Again, I'm not a good source for legal advice but: If they have taken a work in public domain and reformatted it in some way that could be considered an artistic interpretation, that artistic interpretation is protected by copyright US law. They in no way gain rights over the original nor can they stop you from reproducing the original or reformatting it in another manner. I assume that unintended infringement based on the copyright holder's misrepresentation of the nature of the content would not be taken seriously by a court. To the extent they seem to be representing the work as an accurate transcription of a public domain work, they undermine any claim of copyright on their version of the text. If you do work based on old fairy tales that are in public domain, you have no problem. If you include details of costume, plot, or dialog that do not exist in the old fairy tales but do exist in the Disney cartoon version, you will have Disney lawyers crawling all over you. If you do something based on Disney's movies that isn't a major commercial venture and you respond to their first cease and desist letter by ceasing and desisting, it is highly unlikely that anything more would come of it. If you do something based on my work, you might get some form of a cease and desist letter but unless you or someone connected to your project were looking like really deep pockets, it is highly unlikely that I could afford to do much more. It's possible that I could get really vindictive and stupid but most likely that I'd see that it isn't worth much of a fight; Disney would see protecting against any infringement as a reasonable business expense. I suspect the publisher in question would be closer to my situation than to Disney's. Gunnar From: Deborah Taylor-Pearce sent: Mon 1/14/2008 6:51 PM > If I innocently copy your interpellation about donut holes, > thinking it's part of the original play by Shakespeare -- > because there's no other author cited anywhere, and no > notice to the reader that you've altered the original > content -- am I in violation of your copyright? and > often do little more than creatively reformat the original > author's words.... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4174 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080115/b0318a58/attachment-0006.bin From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 16 08:22:41 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:22:41 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <478DB0C1.5010409@she-philosopher.com> Dave, Well, I've just finished taking your introductory tour of the copyleft universe (many thanks, BTW), and have a lot to think about.... As I expect you already know, I, personally, have been relying on "Fair Use" doctrine (such as it is ;-) hoping that it's squishy enough to allow for still-generous interpretations of scholarly borrowings and reproductions of source materials, but muscular enough to extend traditional academic protections to independent scholars working in the electronic margins (and lacking the institutional resources available to those with academic careers). But now you tell me > Google News is mired in > controversy because by > aggregating and republishing > 'real' newspapers websites, > it goes beyond that implicit > license; Google tries on a > "fair use" defence, but here > in the UK there is no flexible > fair use, only stiffly defined > "fair dealings." and > This is important for making a > text typeface revival from an > old book; if you use someone > else's scans/photos, you will > run into trouble Many scholars are already really nervous about publicly posting pictures of the archival documents & artifacts they study ... so they don't ... which means that they are (as I see it) unfairly limited in what they're able to say & show online. As someone who does not have a high-visibility academic position to protect, I reveled in the early promise of the Web as the great academic leveller. And true enough, in the earliest days, anyone with a real interest in a subject could take it on, spread their learning around, and even challenge those who wished to maintain a monopoly over, e.g., archival studies. But I now see past gains on this front eroding rapidly as more and more publishers move to digitizing their backlists, and in so doing, further restrict PD access to scholarly materials. From my vantage point, this looks to be a free speech issue (less free & easy access = less speech). Regardless of how we categorize it, we still end up in a dialectical struggle between intellectual vs. commercial interests -- a binary which has bedeviled the academic community in the Latin west, at least since the ancient Greeks. ;-) For those of us who work in the "humanities," academic values are often perceived as being at odds with commercial values, and as a result, we tend to intertwine Fair Use protections with prohibitions against "commercial use," which I gather from the webpages at < http://www.freedomdefined.org/Definition > and < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > and < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html > means that we cannot properly call the online fruits of our intellectual labor "free cultural works." I *do* understand the rationale for this. Quoting from < http://www.freedomdefined.org/Definition >: "In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be considered and should not be called 'free.'" And from < http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html >: "A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission." "In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run a program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her." But for me, at least, this redefinition of "free culture" involves a real paradigm shift. And I'm a bit uneasy about what the consequences might be. > so I recommend > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ > in that case. (Technical aside: I was not able to follow the link _Learn how to distribute your work using this license_ at this webpage, receiving the error message: Bad Request Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand. The number of request header fields exceeds this server's limit. Fortunately, the same link worked on the first page I went to < http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/ > so I was able to get what I wanted there instead.) Personally, I would be quite happy to move to a "strong copyleft" license such as this, with Attribution of Authors and Transmission of Freedoms clauses, which as I understand things at the moment, are probably a better answer to traditional academic concerns about questionable commercial uses of research. Still, I can't help worrying about what I'd be giving up in shifting from Fair Use protections to copyleft activism.... E.g., might this restrict my scholarly speech even more than it already is, by making it impossible to reproduce copyrighted materials to which I now have access under Fair Use? > For example, the "MP3 killer" > audio format "Vorbis" from > www.xiph.org is released under > all permissive terms to > encourage its widespread > adoption. FWIW, I thoroughly enjoyed my browse of the www.xiph.org website. (*Loved* the paranoia logos at < http://www.xiph.org/xiphname > ) I shall return when it's time to begin formatting the audio podcasts for my physician podcast project, having now decided to make these available in Vorbis (as well as other) formats. So in this case, at least, a wide-open permission strategy will pay off, since my physician podcast project will be free (free beer + free speech) in all senses but one: "* the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works" I simply can't give folks carte blanche to play around with and alter sensitive medical information intended for cancer patients, their friends & families. So while the audio podcasts will be a gift for anyone, anywhere, in the digital commons who wants to listen in, I don't know of any way to protect and ensure the professional integrity of the podcasts (and the physicians making them) other than with an "All rights reserved." copyright. > It is legally possible to > copyright what is in the > public domain, but unless > you have the sole copy of > something, this isn't a > problem because everyone > else can also go to the > original PD source. If you can find it.... How many PD sites pay for targeted above-the-fold exposure in google's righthand sidebar? How many PD sites expend time and attention on improving their rankings in search results listings (assuming they're even listed to begin with)? How many PD sites repackage their own materials for sale with such powerhouses as amazon.com? I've actually been pondering this myself, of late -- ever since Yateen raised the topic of amazon.com's new Kindle technology, in fact. Based on what I've learned thus far about the Kindle (admittedly, not all that much), it would seem as though we are experiencing what the rhetoricians call a *kairic* moment. (From the Greek *kairos*, which roughly translates as timely, opportune, appropriate, although any rhetoric scholar worth her salt would tell you that it's really a lot more complicated than that, of course ;-). Thus far, there isn't a huge library of titles expertly repurposed for the Kindle (whatever that may entail), which set me to thinking that even the kind of intense stuff I write might find an audience among early Kindle adopters desperate for reasonably-priced titles to add to their libraries. To wit, I've been mulling over the possibility of re-issuing some of my own PD materials in Kindle-friendly format, just to see what happens. I expect that purists may not approve of repackaging PD content for (proprietary?) Kindle technology, but in my scenario of how this might work, the Kindle Store version of material would complement (not replace) the PD version, which would continue to be freely available in its present format (and one could even make a point of letting Kindle readers know what/where that is, too). If I thought I could make any real money from this -- which I could then invest in more she-philosopher.com PD offerings -- I'd start Kindling in a jiffy.... ;-) Deborah _____ Deborah Taylor-Pearce dtp at she-philosopher.com From SWANSONG at ecu.edu Wed Jan 16 11:27:05 2008 From: SWANSONG at ecu.edu (Swanson, Gunnar) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:27:05 -0500 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: ReadHowYouWant.com paperback editions References: <478459B1.3060606@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801120817q3989fa95r9bd1c350ed588987@mail.gmail.com> <47899269.5030505@she-philosopher.com> <2285a9d20801130503s19a3205em2d8d1d5ad326c280@mail.gmail.com> <478DB0C1.5010409@she-philosopher.com> Message-ID: <556BA53FA6DBA14CBD1605F1735C0FEC76F0F3@ecufs9.intra.ecu.edu> Deborah, I'm not following the conversation. I thought you were talking about 16C and 17C texts. There are no fair use issues involved since such texts are public domain, thus not covered by copyright, thus a copyright exception is unneeded. Are you talking about recent writings about texts that are in the public domain? You say that "Many scholars are already really nervous about publicly posting pictures of the archival documents & artifacts they study." Why? > For those of us who work in the "humanities," academic > values are often perceived as being at odds with commercial > values, and as a result, we tend to intertwine Fair Use > protections with prohibitions against "commercial use," "Fair use" -is- intertwined with commercial use and prohibitions against or restrictions of commercial use. I'm not sure what your specific ethical worries are about formatting and selling public domain materials for a reader. How does that differ from someone printing copies of a bible or -The Wealth of Nations- or -Huckleberry Finn- and selling them? Gunnar ---------- Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville, North Carolina 27858 USA gunnar at gunnarswanson.com +1 252 258 7006 http://www.gunnarswanson.com at East Carolina University: swansong at ecu.edu +1 252 328 2839 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3674 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.webtic.nl/pipermail/infodesign-cafe/attachments/20080116/f9ab3deb/attachment-0005.bin From dtp at she-philosopher.com Wed Jan 16 23:17:03 2008 From: dtp at she-philosopher.com (Deborah Taylor-Pearce) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:17:03 -0800 Subject: InfoD-Cafe: Re