Scans Daily
I really don’t know that much about Scans Daily. Apparently, it was an online community where people posted reviews, comments, and scans of comic books. I have seen it maybe two or three times (Or five, dunno.)
I’m told it was against the rules to post entire stories, but the couple of times I visited was because someone had posted entire stories of mine and a concerned fan wrote me to inform me of the copyright violation. I chose not to do anything about it because I didn’t want to draw attention to it. As I recall, you could find many of my short stories published in their entirety on that website.
I saw reviews of my works posted there with a few pages scanned to accompany the comments. Fair Use, in my humble opinion. And in at least one case, the poster was conscientious enough to park a link back to my own site. Cool. Others simply do not grant creators even that small courtesy.
I get the impression most of the fans at Scans Daily really didn’t want to do any creators any harm, they just wanted to have a good time. But as always, some people were abusive and didn’t follow the rules or spirit of the rules within the community.
In any case, the community was shut down by Live Journal this weekend and I got a couple of letters from folks asking what I knew about it.
Absolutely nothing.
I haven’t even looked at Scans Daily in I don’t know how long, and didn’t even know about the shut down until folks wrote me about it. And since we haven’t had power or satellite access much of the weekend, I’m a little slow on the news.
Anyway, the most interesting discussion of the matter is over here at Peter David’s website. Some fans have gotten the impression Peter David is personally responsible for shutting down the site, and some have sent threats while others have promised to boycott his work.
Interesting reading for all the wrong reasons.
The comments thread is about as diverse a discussion of the attitudes for and against copyright protections – and the attitudes of the general public toward creators – as I’ve ever seen. (EDIT) I’ve had a chance to do a more thorough read of the comments thread and some of it is downright scary. “It’s just the internet! That’s the way people are!” is not a suitable reaction to threats.
c
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:31 pm
the original intent was to discuss current or old comics, with appropriate scans to illustrate the point. IN practice, people were uploading whole issues of new comics, with minimal commentary, as far from fair use as it can get.
I just don’t get that whole attitude of “if I read it/hear it/watch it, I own it”. And even less I don’t get the “I can republish your stuff for free, you already got paid for it and asking me to buy my own copy is greed” theory.
Someone ’splain that one.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Ay yi.
I’m not a copyright absolutist, I really don’t care about an occasional Youtube post, or half a dozen pages from a comic, but the site went way beyond fair use.
The threats against Peter David for pointing that out are just appalling. All that over some free comic reads? Wow.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Saturday, I was at a Roundtable discussion of Dante’s Inferno. Interesting. And the Presenter pointed out along the way that Dante had placed those who commit fraud/theft against art in the next to last (deepest) Circle of Hell.
According to Dante’s outlook, because God is Creator, abuse of created works (either of nature, or from the hands of artists) is an abuse of the works of God. (Human creators sharing in the nature of God.) And because the works and property were an extension of the identity of the artist, abuse of the works was considered an abuse of the person as well.
After reading some of the comments over on PAD’s site, I could wish this outlook were prevalent today. Yet, too many of those folks seem to feel that once the work is in *their* hands, regardless of how they came by it, but especially if they managed to get it for “freeâ€, the concerns of the artist are irrelevant. They are not the least interested in whether or not the artist can make a living from his work, they are only interested in their ability to HAVE the work. That really is the mind-set of a thief. But they would be incredibly offended if you called them that. And they heap scorn on artists (be they writers, graphic artists or musicians) who want to protect their copyrights and distribution of their work.
A truly sorry state of affairs.
And one reason why I try and make a point of *buying* the work of writers and artists and musicians I like. I do NOT think it cool or smart to be able to find some way of acquiring it for free. The only “free†things I want to own are those that have been GIVEN me by the writer/artist. Because *that* is an expression of a genuine relationship!
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm
I was one of the people arguing in favor of copyright protection in that thread. I’ll be the first to admit — unapologetically — that I tend to dig in my heels on this issue. It makes my molars grind when I hear the various rationalizations used to justify what amounts to theft of intellectual property.
I know someone who works in the comics industry. He holds down a day job and fits in his assignments around that, and will continue to do so until he can make a living off of his comic-book work. Those who commit flagrant copyright infringements make it harder for him to achieve that goal whether they choose to admit it or not.
Chances are, I was probably debating with goddamn high school kids or something. It probably wasn’t worth it, but the entitlement mentality expressed by many of the drive-by posters dropping their stink-bombs in PAD’s blog is something that really gets under my skin. No one is entitled to someone’s creative output for free unless the creator freely chooses to give it away.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
“It’s just the internet! That’s the way people are!†is not a suitable reaction to threats.
If I never read someone telling someone else to “DIAF” (die in a fire) again, it’ll be too soon. Good GOD, what are people THINKING when they write stuff like that???
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
God only knows, Bill. But I agree, it’s sickening. I’d almost believe that they don’t really think there a living human beings on the other side of the screen – that’s it’s all a made up fantasy land or role-playing-game of some sort.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
The other day I was reading some comment thread (which I now cannot find) about a pirate site, which is on trial in Sweden.
Almost all the commenters expressed utter contempt for creators, over and over again stating that creating art/music/etc. wasn’t a real job. Creators should not expect to get paid. Creators should only be paid for performances and not for reproductions of work.
Eye opening.
So, I suppose writers should only be paid for open readings, artists should only be paid for original art (what digital artists are supposed to do I don’t know), and musicians should only be paid for live concert performances?
The majority of the posters expressed these views.
I will try to find the link.
I am especially disturbed by the number of people who actually believe creators are paid up front for their work. Um…no. Many of us only get paid AFTER publication. You know. AFTER the works sell.
Ay yi.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
It’s amazing how many think that they are doing the artists/writers a “favor” by posting the work online and finding all sorts of justification for it. It’s up to the OWNERS of the IP to decide if they want it dispersed in that manner. If the “fans” cared so much, maybe if they contacted the creators/publishers first, then that would convey an honest attempt at marketing a comic they like, as opposed to just “here it is, don’t pay for it, enjoy!”
A few scans is fair use, but posting enough in different threads so as to able to piece the whole story together, no way!
People sure are brave behind a keyboard making death threats and brushing it off as standard procedure for being on the Internet.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
One of Peter David’s detractors has explained his belief that laws allowing corporations to hold copyrights is immoral. By reading comics online for free, he isn’t stealing. He’s nobly working to change the system for the better.
He advocates a model that will destroy Marvel, DC and the like and create one where artists will post their work online and live off of donations. It may not be good for the artist, he admitted, but he believes it will be good for the art.
I can only describe such thinking as mental alchemy. Because really, how else can you describe a thought process that conflates theft for personal gratification as a noble act?
I’m sorry to post here while I’m still hopping mad, but that’s the thing. This isn’t just apathy towards creative types, it’s antipathy. I don’t get it. I’m grateful that there are creative people out there who produce work I enjoy, and I’d prefer to pay for it fair and square to help ensure that they are in a position to produce more of it.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:00 pm
If artists are to live off donations, we will all surely starve.
It seems we have moved from a print model where publishers often failed to pay creators fair remuneration for their work, to an online model where consumers often fail to pay creators fair remuneration for their work.
Antipathy is a strong word. Do you see this arising from a kind of class envy?
I know a LOT of fans have a very unrealistic idea of the lives – and incomes/privileges – of creators. I notice that many, when discussing the lives of creators, denounce the things we do as not being “real work”.
Personally, I am not really sure what the heck the deal is, but there does seem to be a genuine anger toward creators, that we make money doing things that are fun and not “real work”.
You know, I have a farm, and have spent hours digging, planting, hoeing, etc, and the comics business is harder than all of that. Really.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:04 pm
So artists are to somehow survive off the kindness of the same lowlifes that tell others online to “die in a fire”? Sounds like a bunch of freeloaders who think the world is at their beck and call.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Hi Jeremy! I was editing my comment even as you posted.
It guess there are many people out there who simply don’t think the things creators do for a living is real work. So, we shouldn’t get paid for it, and if we do, lucky us. I know not all readers feel that way, and this strays a bit from the Scans Daily discussion.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Sounds like a bunch of freeloaders who think the world is at their beck and call.
He shoots HE SCORES!
All of this sort of talk about copyrights being antiquated, and artists working for tips, and internet piracy helping print sales is nonsense, pure and simple. It’s just another way of saying, “I am entitled to something simply because I want it.”
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:20 pm
You know, it just occurred to me: I believe Paramount has actually sanctioned a number of Star Trek fan productions with one caveat: they are not to make a single penny off of what they do. Peter David has stated that if someone wants to post more pages of “Fallen Angel” than is allowed under fair use, they should contact him and he’d be willing to work with them. It’s not as though “the man” is always unwilling to play ball with “the fan.”
On the other hand, Peter David does NOT own the copyright to X-Factor. That belongs to Marvel. When he saw Marvel’s intellectual property being infringed upon, he felt the need to tell them. Unfortunately, there are those who draw the illogical inference that “Peter David shut down S-D.”
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Oh, in case it’s not clear above… Peter David owns the copyright to “Fallen Angel.”
It’s late and I’m tired and I should shut my yap and go to bed. Therefore I will do both.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:34 pm
It’s not just an economic issue. It does seem odd that there are people out there who really believe that creators should have no say what happens to their work, how it is presented, where it is available, etc. Again, it harkens back to the idea that what we create does not belong to us.
I’ve often read that because there are no new ideas that no one should have a right to own ideas. But we don’t own ideas. No one does. We own the execution of those ideas.
If I spend over 15 years writing and drawing a comic series, there are people out there who tell me I have not created anything I can actually own. The public should be the sole arbiter of whether or not I benefit from my labor depending entirely on how they decide they like the product of my labor after they have made full use of it.
Tell you what, I will decide how I like clothes after I have worn them for awhile. And if they have given me sufficient service, I will decide how much to pay the manufacturer.
And I will decide whether or not I will pay for my house after I have lived in it for awhile. I need time to decide whether or not it is a real home. And then I will decide how much I will pay for it.
It’s entirely up to me to put my work here on my website, and if people want to buy my graphic novels and drop a tip in my jar, that’s great. But that’s my choice. Pirates take that choice away from me.
Again, we are straying from the scans daily site discussion, because I don’t think everything going on there was pirating, but it’s a pretty good bet scans daily went way beyond fair use often enough to get yanked.
I won’t soon forget the reaction of the very disturbed man who got upset when I suggested that people who visit pirates ought to at least hit the tip jar of the creators whose work they are reading without paying for.
He went insane with rage, of course. How dare I suggest creators get paid?
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Some of these “fans” are possibly bitter at not being able to break into the business and try to diminish the creators since they don’t have the drive or talent to be one as well.
I saw a clip of Harlan Ellison giving a talk about people putting his work online and people getting upset with him because he sued people. So he asked someone if they had a car and if so, to leave the keys in the ignition since he needs a ride. Since there is no ownership, it’s not the person’s car, Harlan can do as he wishes to the car.
Sadly, the point was lost on people.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:51 pm
They just don’t believe there should be ANY pay for reuse of work. NO royalties.
I don’t get paid for A Distant Soil EXCEPT as royalties. I get paid not ONE PENNY up front. If I don’t get royalties at all, I don’t get paid at all. And if I don’t get paid, I have to chuck it and get a day job.
They simply don’t understand that intellectual property IS property, and those that understand it don’t think it SHOULD be property. And a good deal of the whole point of royalties is risk. Many creators risk less money up front for the gamble that there may be more money on the back end later.
MOST works don’t pay on the back end at all.
What some people want is for creators to live on tips, basically.
Funny how back in the day, merchandising your work (mugs, t-shirts, etc) was considered a sign of selling out.
Now it’s the only way to sell.
Again, this strays from the scans daily issue. I’m sure most people there were just trying to post comic pages and discuss the material. But the point is, some were not, and for whatever reason, the site got yanked.
I’ll just point out that half a book is not fair use by a long shot. And as I said, I found entire stories of mine on there.
But before someone comes at me with an axe…I never said boo about it all, and just ignored it.
I’ve been posting for a long time about the financial realities of the life of creators in this business. I have no idea if it has any impact on people, but I can’t emphasize enough that the vast majority of creators in this business do not make a living at it at all. Very few are even in the middle class range. And a small fraction are wealthy.
If some of the resentment toward creators does come from a form of envy (and I don’t really know), I can only reemphasize that there is little to envy about the life of creative people.
They risk a great deal in the hope that the work they love will pay off someday. Most creative people never make any money.
And making art is not finance free. It never was.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:45 am
Yeah, it doesn’t cost anything for artists to make things, right?
Oh, wait…. you mean canvases, canvas-boards, paper, paint, pencils, pens, ink…. all that COSTS something?
Nevermind the computer equipment and the PRO version of Photoshop (not cheap by any means).
You mean, that stuff isn’t FREE? Wow.
/sarcasm.
That’s biting me because I just purchased a set of Faber-Castell color pens, because I wanted something between crayons & color pencils and acrylic paints to play with. With a storage box – to the tune of $122.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:00 am
Antipathy is a strong word. Do you see this arising from a kind of class envy?
Antipathy may be a strong word but I don’t think it’s too strong, at least not based on some of the comments I’ve seen in PAD’s blog. I believe some of these people who envy artists to the point of resentment, and want to level the playing field by demanding the “right” to play with someone else’s creations however they choose.
I can’t say how prevalent this point of view may be. Those who feel this way may look greater in number than they are because they’re so vocal. I want to believe they are a small but noisy minority. I hope I’m right about that, but I dunno.
In fairness, this sort of thing pisses me off and that emotion is probably causing me to paint in overly broad strokes. There are obviously some S-D users who who don’t give a crap about intellectual property rights, but I’m sure there are others who really don’t understand the damage that is caused by illegally reproducing works. I’m sure there are still others who are upset because they really were limiting their activities to what would fall under fair use, and have seen their community closed down.
I’m sure S-D will come back in one form or another. I hope that when it does, the more reasonable members will realize they have a vested interest in more actively policing the community. In so doing, they can enjoy the benefits of sharing their love of this medium we call comics without infringing on anyone’s copyright. I’m sure there is a benefit to creators and publishers when fans gather online and spread the word about their favorite comics. But I think that benefit can be outweighed when people engage in flagrant copyright violations.
What’s sad about this whole thing is that not only is Peter David being pilloried and even threatened online for shutting down S-D when in fact he did no such thing (Photobucket and/or LiveJournal did that before Marvel could act on what Peter David told them), “fans” are now sending abusive e-mails to Peter David’s wife. Yet Peter has stated repeatedly that he feels S-D’s demise was unfortunate. He laments the fact that he never got to see a post that humorously ascribed homoerotic subtext to a page or two of an issue of “Young Justice” that he wrote.
PAD has also said that if someone had approached him about posting more pages of “Fallen Angel” than is allowed under fair use, he’d have worked with them to make that happen because he wants to promote the book. But he owns the copyright and that’s his decision to make. When he saw half of an issue of X-Factor posted online he felt obligated to report that to Marvel and let them decided what to do since they own the copyright. I think he was right to do so.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:41 am
I am getting a little bogged down with work today, so I will try to keep it short (and you know how hard that is for me.)
Scribbler, the one other thing people seem to forget about the cost of art making: it costs money to live.
The more time we spend making art, the less time we have to spend making money to live. And the money we get to live on must also pay for the art. I don’t know what some people expect artists to use for food and shelter while the art making goes on.
Clearly, they think it is all just a glorified hobby.
Bill: When you wrote that people were sending abusive mail to Peter’s wife, my head spun around and I spat pea soup.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:40 pm
and a lot of it can be ascribed to just flat out rudeness and entitlement. These are the same people who are at a party and learn they’re talking to a dentist and then open their mouth and say “can you take a look at this for me?” Or who get angry if they meet a comedian at the grocery store and the comedian doesn’t tell them a joke. Because of course not only should everything be on demand, it should be free, right?
(the same people, it should be noted, who balk at paying a few bucks for an original sketch at a convention from an artist, and then bitch about how greedy the artist is and how they should be flattered that someone wants their art! I’ve seen that more than once…)
March 4th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
One thing that sort of – SORT OF – surprises me about these folks is that one of the characteristics of comics fandom is how close the fans and creators can get. I think it’s easier to self-justify downloading Britney Spears’ new album or getting a bootleg of Sony’s new major motion picture, because the consumer is at a complete remove from the creators. However, it’s always been really easy for fans to make contact with comics creators, even pre-Internet. Comics creators are not anonymous “product” like movie or rock stars; we’re all aware of them as actual people. Not that illegal distribution of movies or music is better than bootleg comics, but . . . I pay for the media I consume, but I could probably sleep at night if I got a bootleg copy of Benjamin Buttons. Because I don’t have any sense of a personal connection with Brad Pitt and whoever wrote and directed and produced that movie. But I’d feel pretty bad about ripping off Colleen Doran, because I can talk to her on her blog. But these folks seem to not take that into consideration. They are talking DIRECTLY TO the creators they are supposedly fans of, and telling them that ripping them off is FOR THEIR OWN GOOD! Wow.
P.S. Colleen, a woman posted a response on The Beat saying that LiveJournal closing down Scans Daily reflected sexism and gender bias, since women have a different perspective on IP issues. I dared her to make her argument on your blog, but I don’t think she will!