Jump to content

Talk:Joe Sinnott

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Copyright holder"

[edit]

The editor User:JimAE refers in his History page note to Jim Amash being "copyright holder" of the Joe Sinnott interview. A person's quotes are public domain. While the format of the interview, the questions in the interview, the introduction to the interview, and the images and graphic design in an interivew are copyrightable, the quotes of the interview subject are not. An interview subject's quotes may be freely used. As someone who writes Wikibios of often unsung comics professionals, and who believes in going outside the Web for printed sources, particularly first-person sources, and admire Jim Amash, Jon Cooke, Roy Thomas, and Dr. Michael J. Vassallo in particular, no one can change coopyright law and and assert they are the copyright holder of an interview subject's quotes. -- Tenebrae 07:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether you are right or not Tenebrae, and maybe I'm a bit touchy because I have been plagarized twice in the past year or so. I've been led to believe the interviews I do are copyrighted to me, especially since many of the quotes are rewritten (with permission of the interview subject) before publication. To me, it's not a matter of vanity, but wanting credit for the work I've done. Believe me, those of us who work on these fanzines make little money and we all want to give credit to the unsung heroes of the past. But since my work is being quoted so much by you and others, it just seems appropriate to me to credit the author of the interviews. I've seen many others quoted in the bios, so why not me, too? -Jim Amash <JimInks@aol.com>

Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines or not? Ask the Wikipedians! : -)

[edit]

Well, I'm not going to get into a revert war about it. I understand the money thing and the need for recognition. But Wikipedia doesn't exist to give you recognition, and so it's not a reasonable use of this encyclopedia.

It's important to cite the source from which a quote comes -- title, date, page number. But an interview is very different from an article that one has written from scratch and which may contain quotes from a subject.

To squeeze your name into the spotlight next to Joe Sinnot or Will Eisner or whomever takes away from them, adds to Wiki clutter, creates potential confusion over whether something is the interview subject or the interviewer speaking, or a paraphrase by the interviewer. Also, it's just unseemly. If you want to go through Wikipedia and add your name to every footnoted quote from an interview you've done, then that's your thing. But at the very least, before adding all that, you might want to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics and ask for some consensus on this. Just because I believe this is contrary to Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines doesn't make it so, but I think it's only proper to ask for consensus on this.

None of this in any way detracts from my immense respect for you, Roy, et al., in finding and interviewing these pillars of the form. I'm probably one of a select few who can't wait for the Leon Lazarus interview on which one of you is working! The work you do is a valuable exploration of pop-culture history, of a genuinely indigenous American artform, and thank goodness for you.

Thanks, too, for your reasoned discourse on this. Hell, I give Comic Book Artist and Alter Ego rightful credit and links as well wherever I can. All the best, -- Tenebrae 22:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your respect for my work and in that spirit, it does surprise me that you'd think I'm trying to squeeze my name in with others for vanity's sake. When people write articles, they are credited when footnoted and the same does go for interviews. I have asked several professional writers (three of whom write books for a living, plus Roy Thomas and Joe Sinnott himself) and they disagree with you for the most part. I really don't wish to fight with you either, since we both have the love of comics in common. but my request for proper source attribution is not unreasonable. The magazines should be credited, as you have rightly done, but so should the people who write and conduct and own the interviews. And considering the work I've done, which as you know is extensive, it's not like I'm asking for a whole lot: just credit for the work I've done, which I do own. So, yes, I do intend to put my name back on my work and I hope you will respect this. In my first response, I gave my e-mail address if you'd like to respond to me personally. Though we aren't seeing eye-to-eye, I do like to talk to people who like what I like. -Jim Amash
By the way, Joe's last name is misspelt in the Tom Sawyer caption and I can't seem to fix it. Can anyone here do that? -Jim Amash

Set you up with a User page!

[edit]
First off, caption spelling fixed.
Secondly, congrats on your spanking new User page! I've set one up for you at User:JimAE. "User" it in good health!
Thirdly: Jim, I know you mean well, so why not give a read over at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. God knows I've been at this for months, and I still stumble over rules inadvertantly! Wikipedia works by consensus. I've aksed, on this page, above, for comments by other, disinterested Wikipedians. I'd rather not invoke the three-revert rule and bring this to mediation or arbitration. We're supposed to get comments from other Wikipedians first. So I ask you to respect this established policy and guideline.
Here's why I think the addition of your name all over Wikipedia for brief quotes taken not from an article but from a Q&A is a matter for Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines:
It does not add to the fact of or the sourcing for the citation itself. Your rationale that "those of us who work on these fanzines make little money and...it just seems appropriate to me to credit the author of the interviews" says that it's a quid pro quo. By that standard, why not credit the Q&A's art director? Wikipedia is not the place for that. (See Self-Promotion under Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.) It's the source and the subject's words — and we're talking brief quotes here — that are important — not the person asking the questions. No Q&A interview from The Comics Journal, Comic Book Marketplace, Time, Playboy, The New Yorker, or any of the other dozens of magazines I cite for their brief interview quotes have ever pursued this. It's only you, which I think needs to be considered.
Lastly, and I urge you to talk to the magazine's attorney about this, no one owns the copyright to people's quotes. What someone says in a newspaper article or a magazine article is public domain. I'm talking only about the actual, verbatim words someone is quoted as saying. That's what makes works of biography possible. So honestly, and I've asked this before, please stop claiming you own the copyright to Joe Sinnott's words, or Will Eisner's words. That's just not true. — Tenebrae 00:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mike Ambrose here. If I may inject a bit of rational third-party observation: Tenebrae, you are way off base here. The quotes you extract from Jim's interview with Joe are part of an article copyrighted by Jim Amash. That those quotes are by an individual who is not Jim is immaterial. The quotes are taken from material under copyright. Your use of those quotes is a fair use by any definition of the term, and Jim concedes that. Under the Copyright Act, you may make fair use of such material--but you must credit the source. I will be happy to quote the relevant section of the United States Code if you like.

That would be great. And Wikipedia is crediting the source; I'm not sure your unjustifiable implication that the source is not being credited is warranted. In addition, we are also talking Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines — the community and the Admins have the final say. Attempting to supersede the community for vanity's sake is really unseemly, in that Wikipedia is not an avenue for advertising or self-hype.
The Q&A source is being credited; anything more than that, inserted by a not-disinterested party interested not in accuracy (since the source is accurately and properly cited) but for his own self-aggrandizement is offensive to the community. There's a reason for anti-hype policies.
For the second time now, I reiterate that I have brought the issue up so that disinterested Wikipedians may comment. That's the proper way. Incidentally, Wikipedia frowns on Ballot stuffing. BTW, your statement that your "third-party" observation is "rational" implies that other observations are not. That's personally offensive, and I ask you to respect Wikipedia:Etiquette. If I'm "off base", pls cite the Wikipedia policy I'm not observing. -- Tenebrae 01:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike again: I apologize if you found my use of the word “rational” offensive. I did not mean to imply that anything about the foregoing dialog was irrational. Perhaps a better word choice would have been “reasoned.” On the other hand, you go on to accuse me of “ballot stuffing,” so maybe we’re even. I don’t know what you mean by that; you did invite third-party commentary. Jim is a good friend and a frequent contributor to my magazine (Charlton Spotlight), he brought this to my attention, and he asked me to comment on it. Maybe that disqualifies me from being a disinterested Wikipedian. If so, so be it.

Anyway, that aside, I promised to quote relevant sections of the copyright law. This is from 17 U.S.C. § 106, “Exclusive rights in copyrighted works”:

“Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending[.]”

Section 107, “Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use,” addresses the rights of others to use copyrighted material. I won’t quote the entire section; you can access the whole thing at the copyright office's website [1]: “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 …, the fair use of a copyrighted work … for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching …, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” The statue sets out guidelines for determining whether the use made of a work in a particular case is fair. A use for “nonprofit educational purposes” is considered fair. This part of the law is intentionally general and vague, because each case must be decided on its own merits. There is no “one size fits all” rule about what constitutes fair use. But one of the factors that always comes into play is whether proper attribution is made for the use. This is where I think you are “off base” in your refusal to credit Jim Amash as the source of the quoted material. Jim is the author of the Joe Sinnott interview; it’s his copyrighted work. Yes, Joe’s words are Joe’s, but the form in which they are presented belongs to Jim. Full and proper attribution to the source should credit Jim along with Alter Ego magazine. I’m not alone in this; the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (4th ed.), section 4.7.1, specifies the form of a citation to a periodical as author’s name, title of the article, and publication information. I really don’t see where “vanity” figures into it.

No one disputes that your use of Joe’s quotes from Jim’s article is a fair use. I think your are wrong in your contention that “a person’s quotes are public domain.” It depends on the person and the circumstance. If a public figure (such as the president) gives a public speech, you can quote that in full anywhere you like. If the president later issues a collection of his speeches under copyright, you may not be able to quote without permission. If you doubt this, try quoting any of the speeches of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. without the permission of his estate. I’m not just talking through my hat here. I’ve worked in publishing for 34 years, the last 11 of them in legal book publishing. I deal with copyrights and permissions issues regularly. To my mind, the point here is proper credit. What you’re doing to promote knowledge about our unsung comics creators is a great thing, as so many of them labored for years in obscurity without the credit due them. Jim is a creator, too. Would you deny him the same?

Quoting three sentences from Joe Sinnott's own words in Q&A is not the same as taking Jim Amash's words from an article. I also see that all editorial material in Alter Ego is copyrighted to Roy Thomas, so Jim Amash's supposed copyright isn't even an issue. Many published Q&A's don't even bother with a interviewer's credit. And I've never seen a Playboy interview citation where anyone listed the interviewer; I'm sure an example exists here or there, but the vast majority of references rightly just give the periodical, issue, date, and page number. Why? Because the point of the quote is the subject's words. If the magazine is being properly cited, if not one single word of Amash's is being used, why is he being so insistent on squeezing his name in? Anyone who checks the citation will see his name. Interviewers at Comic Book Artist, the Comics Journal, etc., seem more concerned with history and proper citation that their own self-aggrandizement.
No, you are not a disinterested party — you're advocating for a friend, which is laudable.
But Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion, and that is the only reason Jim Amash is doing this. His rationale has nothing to do with accuracy or verifiability. He's said so himself. -- Tenebrae 19:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I really don't see what the fuss is about. Mr. Amash isn't the one being quoted. I don't see Gary Groth or Roy Thomas acting so childishly. -- Herculaneum 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Tenebrae, if you'll look at the indicia, you'll see this: "All material is copyright their creators unless otherwise noted." That means articles, art, interviews, etc. So, yes, I own the copyright, no matter what you think. That's what the statement means. The editorial matter copyright notice is for Roy's work only.

As far as quoting name and source, I've many, many examples of such in history books and even on Wikipedia. I've tried to follow that example and had expected Wikipedia to do the same. The Modern language Association of America Handbook, by Joseph Gibaldi, 2003 edition, states that proper form for attribution should include the author's name (pages 180 and 187). Regardless of whose quotes you are using from my interviews, I am still considered the author of the interview, not only by established sources, but by the interview subjects themselves (I won't even get into what Joe Sinnott has had to say about this beyond his extreme unhappiness over your attitude). To state that quotes are public domain, as you had earlier, is absurd and incorrect. I consulted writer David Hajdu,who also teaches journalism at Syrcuse and is a former editor at Time, Inc., and he agrees with me. His credentials are good enough for me.

I also called the American Society of Journalists and Authors about this matter and they said, while it is not illegal to leave out the name of an author, they considered it "tacky and ill mannered" to do so. The National Writers Union also agreed with this assessment. Both organizations said that an interview deserves the same attributions as written articles, which is contrary to your assertions.

You said, "But Wikipedia is not the place for self-promotion, and that is the only reason Jim Amash is doing this. His rationale has nothing to do with accuracy or verifiability. He's said so himself." This is a misquote. I said," Believe me, those of us who work on these fanzines make little money and we all want to give credit to the unsung heroes of the past." This was a reference to my work on Alter Ego and has nothing to do with Wikipedia. You have cast an unfair, insulting, and inaccurate spin on my motives. I never said what you claim I did and you know it. Since you have read and used quite a bit of my interviews, you should have figured out by now that I'm doing this out of love for my profession and the people in it. In all the years I've done this, you and only you have reached the misguided conclusion that I've been doing it for other reasons. I was only asking for the same right I've seen others get and sadly, you don't think I deserve it.

To Herculaneum (I wonder why you guys don't use your real names?): I've tried to act fairly and responsibly, and only expected Wikipedia to quote and attribute the same way I've seen Historians do in their books. That's not childish. Roy Thomas, who is aware of all of this, doesn't think so either. At any rate, so long as I'm not being plagarized, this is not worth any more of my time, so this is the last of this discussion, so far as I'm concerned. I've spent too much time with this as it is.

The indicia of Alter Ego reads: "All editorial material copyright Roy Thomas." I don't believe I'm misunderstanding the defintion of the word "All".
I checked into some of the sources Mr. Amash / his friend cite. They refer to articles — not Q&As, many of which don't even carry bylines.
Additionally, Mr. Amash did not change the citations to the style he / his friend mention, with full title, etc., but merely added his own name. That speaks to intent. — Tenebrae 21:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Joe Sinnott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Sinnott&oldid=1208330240"