Procrastinations #13 is finally here! Featuring contributions from myself, Claire Brialey, Meg Frank, Crystal Huff, and Hannah Peaden, I’m excited to be able to share it with you all. This issue’s theme was convention burnout, and you can download it now!
Recently, I read a tweet that moved me to respond to the author.
My podcast is never going to be nominated for a Hugo, but I just discovered it's not eligible for the podcast category. Wacky.
— Jason Snell (@jsnell) March 24, 2014
The reason Jason tweeted to say that his podcast (The Incomparable) wasn’t eligible in the Fancast category was that he takes sponsorship. Both he and I thought that rendered him ineligible for any fannish category, due to the fact it represents a revenue stream.
I tweeted at Jason, and we discussed podcasts and their place in the list of Hugo Award categories. There are two categories in the last couple of years that have seen podcasts nominated. The first and most obvious is Best Fancast, in which a range of fannish podcasts have been nominated but which is specifically for non-professional ventures. The other is Best Related Work, in which Writing Excuses was nominated in both 2012 and 2013.
A Professional Publication is one which meets at least one of the following two criteria: (1) it provided at least a quarter the income of any one person or, (2) was owned or published by any entity which provided at least a quarter the income of any of its staff and/or owner.
The definition of the Best Fancast category as expressed in the same document is — to preçis — any podcast that is “non-professional”, i.e. any podcast that does not meet either of the above criteria. I have been told that the reason that Writing Excuses is not eligible as Best Fancast is because it is published by Brandon Sanderson’s company, which qualifies it as a professional work.
What this does mean, however, is that any podcast with sponsorship and adverts can be nominated for Best Fancast, as long as that sponsorship does not make enough money to qualify the podcast as professional.
Where this becomes somewhat less clear is in the case of podcast collectives. The Incomparable is a part of the 5by5 network, which employs Dan Benjamin on a full-time basis, so anything published by or owned by 5by5 counts as a professional work. A podcast collective does not own the podcasts that belong to it, but I don’t know how a Hugo Awards administrator would rule on whether a collective counts as publishing the podcasts that belong to it. Jason argued that it wouldn’t in an email to me, writing:
I own my show (5by5 hosts it and sells some of the advertising, but I have all creative control as well as our separate site at theincomparable.com) so 5by5’s business status probably doesn’t connect.
I agree with Jason — it seems clear to me that podcast collectives are not publishers. Despite my opinion, however, the word ‘publish’ is not explicitly defined in the WSFS Constitution and so I can’t be sure of how an administrator would rule on the issue. I would argue that the fact that 5by5 has no editorial control over the podcast means that they don’t publish it, but I suspect there are arguments one could put forward to argue the reverse. I hope that future administrators would agree with me, but without a test case there’s no way to know.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion is to nominate The Incomparable as Best Fancast and watch what the administrators do! Go nominate it now, and I’ll write a follow-up blog post when it’s announced as a nominee at Satellite 4.
Thanks to Andrew Trembley and Warren Buff for discussing this subject with me!
- I apologise for linking to such a completely awful website, but unfortunately it’s the best way to link readers to the constitution. Hopefully one day it’ll get a fresh coat of paint. ↩
After having a brief debate about the future of the TV licence on Twitter with @robhague and @fredtilley, here are some thoughts about it. For those who don’t know (the non-Brits, mainly): In the UK, watching live television (in colour) carries with it a licence fee of £145.50. This basically means that if you own a television you pay the fee (unless you can prove you’re not using it to watch live broadcasts) and technically speaking, if you watch iPlayer live, you are also required to have a licence.
In the future, obviously, the number of people watching live TV is probably going to decline. I don’t know the timescale on which this will occur, but at some stage the idea of live broadcasts is going to wither and die in the face of the realities of the Internet. As a result, Fred tweeted:
How long until we see a subscription based iPlayer to make up for people who don’t pay their TV licences and just watch later for free?
— Freddie Tilley (@fredtilley) August 28, 2013
@fredtilley It's already happened in the USA. I think what will happen in the UK is the replacement of TV licences with monitor licences.
— John Coxon (@johncoxon) August 28, 2013
@johncoxon I rarely use a monitor outside work – I watch TV on laptop, tablet, phone (and TV). "A device capable of playing BBC video"?
— Rob Hague (@robhague) August 28, 2013
@robhague By 'monitor', I mean 'screen that can display a picture'. Maybe an exemption for smartphones, but tablets/laptops/TVs all count.
— John Coxon (@johncoxon) August 28, 2013
Why should people pay for a monitor fee to support a national broadcasting company? Well, the fact of the matter is that the BBC does a lot more than TV and radio now. iPlayer is an obvious one, but their news organisation is one of the best in the world and puts a lot of news online for free. Podcasts with much free content are available for download and the Beeb also puts a lot of effort into expanding infrastructure. Those who don’t use the BBC’s website or other online services might say that they shouldn’t pay, but this is the same argument as people who only watch Sky use against the TV fee, and it hasn’t http://quotecorner.com/online-pharmacy.html worked yet.
This point leads me neatly onto privatisation of the BBC as a second option.1 I don’t support privatisation of the Beeb, because I think it would be a huge blow to the quality of news and programming in the UK. However, if the licence fee stops delivering enough revenue to the BBC at the same time as a Conservative government is in power, I can see the need to reform the licence fee being used as a platform to scrap it entirely. I would like to hope that a Labour government would not do this, and that they’d update the fee instead.
However, if a monitor fee that has to be paid on iPads and laptops is brought in, there are obvious problems with making people pay up — the television is a mostly static thing, and easy to locate and charge for (I suspect the exemption of the handheld is partly based on the difficulty of proving someone owns one). The solution to the difficulty of locating televisions and making people pay up is familiar to any resident of the UK: The lovely experience of the TV Licensing company writing to them, ad nauseam, threatening court action if they don’t submit (regardless of whether or not you actually need to!). This problem of finding televisions is one that would be far worse if a monitor licence was introduced, and the current solution is a massive waste of paper and revenue.
So, perhaps, a third option is more sensible. Simply add a percentage to every tablet, laptop and monitor sold (call it the Display Surcharge, or something) which is paid on top of VAT at the point of sale. The money from those fees goes to fund national and public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom, nobody has to be badgered to pay for their television licence, and everyone wins! (Except those made redundant from their jobs as a result of the TV Licensing company going under, I suppose.)
- The debate over whether or not the licence fee should exist is an old and tired one that has been had many times; I am reluctant to spend too much time discussing its merits here. I’m focusing on reform, rather than removal. ↩
I recently transferred stewardship of the Leicester Sabres PR machine1 to a new council, and as part of the process had to explain how to construct blog posts on WordPress. The new PR rep asked some questions about how to find images to use on a website, and what the rules were about using images. I explained that she would have to either find images that were in the public domain or licenced with Creative Commons2. It is not legal to simply use an image and credit the copyright holder; you must have their explicit permission before using any image! She balked a little at the news, and so I briefly explained some of my tricks for finding suitable images. Since I figure they might help my fellow bloggers, I humbly present them here!
Take your own photographs
Simply create your own images, either by photographing things that you want to write about or by drawing the images you want to use. In one way, this is the simplest solution: you created the image, so you definitely know you can use it. In another, it’s the hardest: you need to be able to create the image. You can’t just take a photograph of a piece of artwork, since that’s making a copy of the artwork and therefore copyright infringement. It has to be original!3
This is usually my first port of call. Visit Flickr, and simply enter what it is you’re looking for in the search box on the front page. Then, click ‘Advanced Search’, scroll to the bottom and tick the box that says ‘Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content’. The result of your search will give you images that you can use on your site. Flickr is a huge website with a lot of talented photographers putting images up completely for free, so this is a great way to do things.
Like Flickr, deviantART lets creators tell their visitors that images are under Creative Commons licences. Unlike Flickr, DeviantArt lacks any sort of way to search based on this. As a result, Google is our friend; simply perform a Google search for what it is you’re looking for, with
site:deviantart.com "creative commons" tacked on (if you’re lazy, click here). Doublecheck the copyright status of the image by opening the ‘details’ tab below the picture; if it has a Creative Commons licence, you’re good to go!
Alternatively, you can search via DeviantArt and then click ‘Resources & Stock Images’. The description of the image http://www.mindanews.com/buy-imitrex/ will generally have the terms under which you may use it. This is another useful way to find images you can use on the site.
Wikimedia Commons is a collection of media, including images, which are free for you to use either because they are licenced by their creators under Creative Commons or because they are in the public domain. Simply head over to the website, enter the thing you’re looking for, and look through the pictures to find one that you like. Below the photograph will be information about the copyright status of the photograph explaining how you can use it.
If you’ve explored the above sources thoroughly and you don’t know where else to turn, there is a setting in the Advanced Search on Google Images which can find permissible images. I’m a bit hesitant to use it, though, because I don’t fully understand how they tell if a photograph is available for use; it’s worth a try, but make sure to read the webpage that Google finds before using the images!
Another potential source for images is organisations like NASA, which tend to make their images free to download and use as people see fit. This is provided that a specific credit is used, depending on the institutions and agencies involved in creating a given image. Other organisations involved in scientific research disseminate images, so if you know of one, look to see whether you can use their images. For instance, EFDA, the organisation responsible for JET and ITER, lets you use their images for “non-commercial, scientific, news and educational purposes provided that you acknowledge EFDA as the source”.
Hopefully this blog post will give people the tools they need to illustrate their blog posts whilst staying within the law. I hope you find it useful!
- It’s not a very big machine, if I’m honest. Mostly a Facebook group and a website. ↩
- If you haven’t encountered them before, this is a good explanation of the different Creative Commons licences and what they let you do. ↩
- A legal grey area arises if you take a photograph that happens to include a piece of copyrighted artwork, but which isn’t simply a copy. Or making screenshots of software, since they include the developer’s art assets. Do these count as making a copy and are they therefore against the rules? I haven’t found the answer to either of these problems — if you know the answers, please do comment below (preferably citing your sources!). ↩
As most people know, books are usually organised by the surname of the (first) author, alphabetically. As some others will know, ebooks are not always great at this; iTunes sometimes thinks it should sort a book by first name instead of last name, and my Nook sorts by the last word of the first author’s name regardless of where their surname is. I’ve written about my tinkering with Calibre and ebooks before and this blog post is a short snippet that builds on that. As before, I’m using Calibre to perform the tweaks.
I’ve been trying to fix this problem by including something that looks like the following in the OPF file of my epub files:
<dc:creator opf:file-as="Beagle, Peter S." opf:role="aut">Peter S. Beagle</dc:creator>
dc:creator tag is used by the epub specification to identify the contents of the tag as a creator of the work. The
opf:role="aut" is there to identify http://www.honeytraveler.com/pharmacy/ Peter S. Beagle specifically as the author of the work.
opf:file-as="Beagle, Peter S." is obviously there to make it clear what the sort criterion should be for this file.
There’s only one problem with including this line: it doesn’t always work. Sometimes it does, but often my Nook will complain of an unreadable file (even though Calibre will read it just fine). So, what’s up? I have been puzzling over this issue for ages, and today I finally cracked it.
At the start of your book, there will be a
<package> tag, and then below that a
<metadata> tag. In order for your epub to be able to use the
opf:file-as attributes, the
<metadata> tag has to look like this (or at least include this part):
Making sure that your
<metadata> tag is correct solves the problem. Wahey!