Monday, March 31, 2008
Well, that didn't work as I'd hoped
Problems with ourmedia, so I'm going to post the rest of the podcasts here.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
The final links in the podcast chain
Here is the best help I found in terms of getting things set up on the blog.
Here are two excellent, free media storage sites: ourmedia.org and mediamax.com.
And here are some narrative examples:
This is a wonderful site (Immigration Tales) that, I think, exemplifies the promise of what the internet could be/is/will be. It hasn't been updated in a while, but it has immigrants relating stories from home or experiences as immigrants.
Perhaps not an "excellent" example of an "engaging, successful narrative," this is too crazy to not include. Rolemonkeys is a group of role playing gamers who podcast some of their campaigns, such as this one--a D&D campaign. Incredible that people listen to other people (not even watch, but listen) play a role playing game. It's pretty cool and speaks to how the internet can so easily serve all the disparate niche groups in the world. Maybe only handful of people in your town like what you like, but on the internet there are thousands of people like you. I listened for almost a half an hour!
Okay, so I'm a sucker for NASA. I don't follow space exploration like I did when I was a kid, but the science.nasa.gov site has podcasts that explain, in a narrative way--the story of the exploration and collection of data. Geek out!
Here are two excellent, free media storage sites: ourmedia.org and mediamax.com.
And here are some narrative examples:
This is a wonderful site (Immigration Tales) that, I think, exemplifies the promise of what the internet could be/is/will be. It hasn't been updated in a while, but it has immigrants relating stories from home or experiences as immigrants.
Perhaps not an "excellent" example of an "engaging, successful narrative," this is too crazy to not include. Rolemonkeys is a group of role playing gamers who podcast some of their campaigns, such as this one--a D&D campaign. Incredible that people listen to other people (not even watch, but listen) play a role playing game. It's pretty cool and speaks to how the internet can so easily serve all the disparate niche groups in the world. Maybe only handful of people in your town like what you like, but on the internet there are thousands of people like you. I listened for almost a half an hour!
Okay, so I'm a sucker for NASA. I don't follow space exploration like I did when I was a kid, but the science.nasa.gov site has podcasts that explain, in a narrative way--the story of the exploration and collection of data. Geek out!
A small break in the podcasting action (Updated below)
Via CBR News and Newsarama comes the recent ruling on the Superman property and Jerry Siegel's estate. Obviously this is pending an appeal (and DC's already pretty lawyered up, of course) but this could have a huge impact on not just the comics industry, but the way we think about corporate characters.
It's pretty clear to anyone who cares to know, that Siegel and Joe Shuster were thoroughly ripped off by what would become DC Comics in the 1930s when they created one of the biggest cash cows in modern publishing. But what is most interesting is the way that companies like DC (and Disney) have successfully lobbied to extend copyright protections over the years. It once took 56 years for a property to enter public domain, since revised to 75 years with, strangely, another 20 tacked on for properties like Superman and Mickey Mouse. Nevertheless, DC's claim that Siegel and Shuster's original Superman was "work for hire" has failed a big court test, meaning their families (a bit more problematic with Joe Shuster's heirs, apparently, since he has no direct descendants--why should that matter?) regained at least part of the copyright as of 1999 (a provision in the law that extended the copyright from 56 to 75 years).
This could mean a ton of money is owed these people (anyone remember a recent 200 million dollar blockbuster featuring a soap opera actor in a red cape?)
More details are here in the Times, but I'm interested in this question of public domain. Superman should enter the public domain in 2033, although I'm sure we'll see all kinds of battles to extend this. This most recent decision seems to be a blow in the favor of creativity and against the lazy exploitation of publishers. See it from this angle--Supes, in 2033, could be the subject, legally, of any movie, comic, book, whatever, that anyone wants to publish. This means Marvel Comics (DC's biggest competitor) could publish its own Superman comic, whereas DC would have no legal right to Marvel's big cash cow, Spiderman, for almost 25 more years. Or will work for hire characters (like Spidey, I presume) ever enter public domain? Just because a corporation owns a character shouldn't mean it can own it in perpetuity, right?
And it isn't just Superman--Batman and Wonder Woman are also pretty long in tooth (as are Marvel's Captain America and Sub-Mariner). I'll be getting pretty old by then (60!) but shouldn't we be able to see some of these characters enter the public domain? Just because the Disney company never dies, why should the character of Mickey Mouse remain an inviolate entity? This seems to miss out on the spirit of public domain which would make old films (like Snow White, for example) available free on the internet or for republication. Do scholars have a more difficult time with access if Disney and DC attempt to hang onto these old properties in perpetuity? When Disney wants to keep Song of the South away from the public, shouldn't there come a time when anyone can rebroadcast or publish that film as a historical document (like Huckleberry Finn)?
The next couple of decades will be interesting--the 1930s and 1940s saw the creation of a lot of classic properties that persist (don't forget Bugs Bunny, folks!)--and public domain can't be held off forever--can it?
Update: A nice legal FAQ is here. Mark Evanier has a post about the Times getting Joe Shuster's name wrong! (They've since corrected it...).
And Jenny's favorite (or at least, the oft-mentioned) comic writer, Neil Gaiman weighs in...
It's pretty clear to anyone who cares to know, that Siegel and Joe Shuster were thoroughly ripped off by what would become DC Comics in the 1930s when they created one of the biggest cash cows in modern publishing. But what is most interesting is the way that companies like DC (and Disney) have successfully lobbied to extend copyright protections over the years. It once took 56 years for a property to enter public domain, since revised to 75 years with, strangely, another 20 tacked on for properties like Superman and Mickey Mouse. Nevertheless, DC's claim that Siegel and Shuster's original Superman was "work for hire" has failed a big court test, meaning their families (a bit more problematic with Joe Shuster's heirs, apparently, since he has no direct descendants--why should that matter?) regained at least part of the copyright as of 1999 (a provision in the law that extended the copyright from 56 to 75 years).
This could mean a ton of money is owed these people (anyone remember a recent 200 million dollar blockbuster featuring a soap opera actor in a red cape?)
More details are here in the Times, but I'm interested in this question of public domain. Superman should enter the public domain in 2033, although I'm sure we'll see all kinds of battles to extend this. This most recent decision seems to be a blow in the favor of creativity and against the lazy exploitation of publishers. See it from this angle--Supes, in 2033, could be the subject, legally, of any movie, comic, book, whatever, that anyone wants to publish. This means Marvel Comics (DC's biggest competitor) could publish its own Superman comic, whereas DC would have no legal right to Marvel's big cash cow, Spiderman, for almost 25 more years. Or will work for hire characters (like Spidey, I presume) ever enter public domain? Just because a corporation owns a character shouldn't mean it can own it in perpetuity, right?
And it isn't just Superman--Batman and Wonder Woman are also pretty long in tooth (as are Marvel's Captain America and Sub-Mariner). I'll be getting pretty old by then (60!) but shouldn't we be able to see some of these characters enter the public domain? Just because the Disney company never dies, why should the character of Mickey Mouse remain an inviolate entity? This seems to miss out on the spirit of public domain which would make old films (like Snow White, for example) available free on the internet or for republication. Do scholars have a more difficult time with access if Disney and DC attempt to hang onto these old properties in perpetuity? When Disney wants to keep Song of the South away from the public, shouldn't there come a time when anyone can rebroadcast or publish that film as a historical document (like Huckleberry Finn)?
The next couple of decades will be interesting--the 1930s and 1940s saw the creation of a lot of classic properties that persist (don't forget Bugs Bunny, folks!)--and public domain can't be held off forever--can it?
Update: A nice legal FAQ is here. Mark Evanier has a post about the Times getting Joe Shuster's name wrong! (They've since corrected it...).
And Jenny's favorite (or at least, the oft-mentioned) comic writer, Neil Gaiman weighs in...
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Some podcasting links
Here are a few, hopefully, helpful links for those interested in podcasting.
The Podcasting Legal Guide
RSS Feed creation software
(and here)
Some recording software
and, of course Audacity
The Podcasting Legal Guide
RSS Feed creation software
(and here)
Some recording software
and, of course Audacity
More podcasting
So here: is the second podcast entry. Hey Kids! Fanny Fern!
I've had problems with setting up the pods in feeds of their own. Of course, one could always set up my blog's RSS feed and subscribe to my podcast that way. This is not uncommon as often podcasters include blog as well.
I've had problems with setting up the pods in feeds of their own. Of course, one could always set up my blog's RSS feed and subscribe to my podcast that way. This is not uncommon as often podcasters include blog as well.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Iowa and the thesis
Via Lindsey comes this rather interesting Megan Pillow piece about Iowa's Writers' Workshop and the new policy of signing over internet rights for the graduate thesis.
And that is what such a policy amounts to, an abdication of internet rights. I think there's a bit of hysteria developing here--the "no one will ever publish my book and students will be encouraged to submit crap to finish the program" stuff is a slippery slope. The truth is, there's no way to really know what might result from having this kind of work freely available. Some could argue that it's good publicity for these up and coming writers (although you'd think simply graduating from Iowa would open that door at least a little) to make this stuff available.
Nevertheless, I think such a policy serves Iowa's program far more than the students. It becomes a kind of showcase, especially if an author is on his/her way to fame/fortune/good reviews, and a way to promote the program. And this smacks a bit of extortion--I'm always leery of new rules that ask you to give up something just to play their game. Students are right to be concerned about internet rights. Part of the responsibility of a writing program is to help students navigate some of the publishing game, of which the internet is, increasingly, becoming a big part. It is true that your Master's thesis is, technically, published, but the rights remain with the author and the "publication" ends up in a dusty college library.
I think this is of particular interest to writers who want to teach. Most writers are not living off of their novels/short story collections/chapbooks. Sure, many are making a living from writing, but those of us that teach need publication--at this point that mostly means print publication--for things like tenure and promotion. Does having a thesis freely available online jeopardize this? I can imagine a PhD dissertation, ready to be turned into a book or chopped into articles published in academic journals, may be a tougher sell for such publication if it's readily available online. Or is this a totally different situation since we're dealing with creative work?
There's no way to tell--much of the impact of "new media" is difficult to predict. Still, I would hope that one of the premier writing programs would be a bit more careful with the publishing rights of its students.
And that is what such a policy amounts to, an abdication of internet rights. I think there's a bit of hysteria developing here--the "no one will ever publish my book and students will be encouraged to submit crap to finish the program" stuff is a slippery slope. The truth is, there's no way to really know what might result from having this kind of work freely available. Some could argue that it's good publicity for these up and coming writers (although you'd think simply graduating from Iowa would open that door at least a little) to make this stuff available.
Nevertheless, I think such a policy serves Iowa's program far more than the students. It becomes a kind of showcase, especially if an author is on his/her way to fame/fortune/good reviews, and a way to promote the program. And this smacks a bit of extortion--I'm always leery of new rules that ask you to give up something just to play their game. Students are right to be concerned about internet rights. Part of the responsibility of a writing program is to help students navigate some of the publishing game, of which the internet is, increasingly, becoming a big part. It is true that your Master's thesis is, technically, published, but the rights remain with the author and the "publication" ends up in a dusty college library.
I think this is of particular interest to writers who want to teach. Most writers are not living off of their novels/short story collections/chapbooks. Sure, many are making a living from writing, but those of us that teach need publication--at this point that mostly means print publication--for things like tenure and promotion. Does having a thesis freely available online jeopardize this? I can imagine a PhD dissertation, ready to be turned into a book or chopped into articles published in academic journals, may be a tougher sell for such publication if it's readily available online. Or is this a totally different situation since we're dealing with creative work?
There's no way to tell--much of the impact of "new media" is difficult to predict. Still, I would hope that one of the premier writing programs would be a bit more careful with the publishing rights of its students.
Monday, March 10, 2008
The updating flurry continues...
Midterms, of course, make updating a bit sporadic (sorry you die-hard YFatC fans!) but I also wanted to mention that I contacted the Career Center this morning about an appointment for the group-who-none-dare-speak-its-name (perhaps the Alas! Only Lovecraft Could Have Named Our Group group).
The Name
So nobody seems to like my name for the group (the TTDC). Personally, I think it's funny--it's a pun, but not a crazy one that makes people groan. In any event, someone please name this group!
In other news, I composed an email that, I hope, Kendra will send around soon.
In other news, I composed an email that, I hope, Kendra will send around soon.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Slight update
Fear not, true believers--the Tenure Track Document Concern is still on its way. I just needed to grade a lot of papers this weekend (still not finished) as well as finish the project for this class.
In any event, I still hope to draft that email and get it out before spring break. Anyone want to post a comment about a possible time and place to meet?
In any event, I still hope to draft that email and get it out before spring break. Anyone want to post a comment about a possible time and place to meet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
