kate_nepveu: Suggestion to Helix authors

Entry tags:

Suggestion to Helix authors

(For background, see Tobias Buckell's post.)

William Sanders continues to distinguish himself in response to authors' requests to have their stories removed from Helix in reaction to his behavior. The latest update is that he wants authors to pay $40 to have their stories removed.

Now, my understanding is that under at least one version of Helix's contract, the magazine gets web publication rights in perpetuity. However, I also understand that those web publication rights are non-exclusive (nb. I haven't seen any contract and cannot give legal advice), and therefore there's no reason that authors can't put up their stories on their own web space.

I suggest, then, that any Helix authors who no longer want to be associated with the magazine but who don't want to pay for it [*] should repost their story someplace—preferably with a nice big explanation why—and change all their links to that new space and ask everyone else to do the same.

It might even be worth getting a central space just for such stories. I'd be glad to donate a domain name and web hosting if people are interested.

[*] I express no opinion on whether they should or not; I can well imagine it might be worth $40 to not have one's story on that website any more.

(22 comments) - (Post a new comment)

calimac
2008-07-15 12:19 pm UTC (link)

What interests me is the moral standing of online archives. Say that Helix had been a print magazine. Then it wouldn't be possible to remove a story from the archives. Does having a story in an online archive indicate a continuing relationship with the publishing entity in a way that having a story in a print publication doesn't? Or is it just that ripping your story out of everybody's print copies isn't practical? If so, would the story-pulling authors go around ripping it out of copies (given these circumstances) if they could? Or does mutilating a print publication give a pang in a way that removing it from an online archive does not?

For me as a reader, my main concern is ensuring that an online-published story still remains accessible somewhere. As a librarian, the fragility of online files frightens me more than does that of acidic paper.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

kate_nepveu
2008-07-15 12:44 pm UTC (link)

Does having a story in an online archive indicate a continuing relationship with the publishing entity in a way that having a story in a print publication doesn't?

I think it certainly can--I have not visited Helix's website because I don't want to give it hits, but if it has ads, for instance, then the continued presence of stories is a ongoing tangible benefit to it in a way that isn't possible in a print publication.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	calimac 2008-07-15 02:49 pm UTC (link)
	Excellent point. The only print magazine equivalent of this is reprint issues and house anthologies (e.g. Best of F&SF, not that F&SF would ever behave like Helix), and I can imagine an author trying to buy back a story to prevent it appearing in those. (Reply to this) (Parent)

merhawk
2008-07-15 02:57 pm UTC (link)

As a librarian, the fragility of online files frightens me more than does that of acidic paper.

Amen to that. However, that wars with my understanding of how people would not want to be associated with these loonies. I've published some work related papers; if the publisher ever went off the deep-end, I might not want to be associated with them either.

BTW, have you ever tried the Internet Archive?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	calimac 2008-07-15 03:37 pm UTC (link)
	I use the Internet Archive frequently. Though rather more accessible and a bit easier to sort through, it is the online equivalent of a guy storing old books and magazines in his barn. (Online equivalent of mice and silverfish included.) Much better than nothing, but not a library or anything like it. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	merhawk 2008-07-15 04:50 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, of course. But when you deal with lawyers like I do, that need that specific copy from 1982, and the 1984 version that's in all the libraries won't do, it's a great resource. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	calimac 2008-07-15 05:00 pm UTC (link)
	Hmm. Academic and law libraries keep the old texts of most updated things for exactly that reason. (Well, that's one reason.) Public libraries don't, except for municipal government stuff, but public libraries aren't archival; academic libraries are. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	merhawk 2008-07-15 06:25 pm UTC (link)
	You're assuming that they're asking for commonly held items. You might get lucky and find the 1999 user manual in OCLC, but they really want the 1997 version. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	calimac 2008-07-15 09:48 pm UTC (link)
	No, doesn't have to be commonly held at all. Besides, looking for serialized monographs in a database as crufty as OCLC's is inherently tricky. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	ginny_t 2008-07-16 01:11 am UTC (link)
	The Canadian Archives is working to archive websites as well as print medium. I know this because they've contacted the editor of knitty (a knitting site) to archive that one. I think it's pretty darned nifty (and not just because I work for the branch of the Ontario government that does all the transcripts). It's Canadian only, but a good direction and start, I think. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	Tasini v New York Times (Anonymous) 2008-08-02 11:12 pm UTC (link)
	I suspect (IANAL, TINLA) that the matter legally hinges on whether the "archive" is a different "edition" of the print magazine or not, the precedents initially being about multiple editions of a newspaper within the same day; until Tasini showed how this applies to authors' rights in encyclopedias, databses, micofiche, and magazines. -- Prof. Jonathan Vos Post (Reply to this) (Parent)

	fledgist 2008-07-15 12:23 pm UTC (link)
	Is there a lawyerly term for 'arsehole'? (Reply to this)

	pnkrokhockeymom 2008-07-15 12:31 pm UTC (link)
	I think this is a great idea! (Reply to this)

	faithhopetricks 2008-07-15 01:46 pm UTC (link)
	As usual, a v logical and well-thought out response to a totally BAFFLING AND INFURIATING situation. Je-sus. (Reply to this)

	janni 2008-07-15 02:54 pm UTC (link)
	There must be a word that's a synonym for helix (corkscrew? spiral?) (or something like "unravelled"?) than could be used as a domain name for a site with those stories. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	kate_nepveu 2008-07-15 04:03 pm UTC (link)
	I was thinking of something like rejecting-helix.org to avoid any possibility of reasonable accusations of confusion, but I'll leave that up to anyone who's actually interested in posting their stories somewhere central. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	brown_betty 2008-07-15 07:55 pm UTC (link)
	anti-helix means counterclockwise, doesn't it? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	kate_nepveu 2008-07-15 08:13 pm UTC (link)
	I don't know; the first couple pages of Google results are about a part of the ear that apparently gets pierced sometimes. => (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	brown_betty 2008-07-15 08:14 pm UTC (link)
	Not quite as poetical, somehow. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	kate_nepveu 2008-07-15 08:31 pm UTC (link)
	Well, ears aside, anti- sounds better than rejecting-, but as I said, I'll let that question wait on those who might actually use such a thing. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	janni 2008-07-15 09:17 pm UTC (link)
	I like rejecting-helix.org, actually. Just hadn't thought of it! (Not that I have a story to "pull"--though I would if I did. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	elynross 2008-07-15 04:15 pm UTC (link)
	This is a terrific idea, I think. I'd love to see all stories by people who want to disassociate themselves from Helix posted together, with an explanation of why. (Reply to this)

(22 comments) - (Post a new comment)