The Online Gadfly deliberately violates numerous rules of
"smart" web-meistering. Most obviously, this site is text-heavy
and graphics-lite. Because we hesitate to make bold pronouncements without
the benefit of evidence and argument, our articles generally run to a length
that is unstylish among web-publishers. We'd like to believe that many of you
download and even print out some of these papers for unhurried and critical
attention off-line. The papers have no animated titles, navigation
bars, or other such filigree, believing that you might prefer the luxury of a screen full
of text and empty of distractions. Moreover, as experienced
"surfers" are well aware, graphics significantly "stall"
the downloading of web pages.
Put simply, we've offered you a "thinking-person's website," and by
so doing we are displaying our curmudgeonly resistance to "info-tainment"
and "edu-tainment." To those of you have returned for more,
consider yourselves flattered.
That much said, we will also acknowledge that
we have a great deal to learn about web-writing and web-design and, as we
explore the capabilities of this more powerful software, we will cautiously move
toward a more visual and browser-friendly format. But as this site evolves, we will
never lose sight of our "prime directive:" The Online Gadfly is
about ideas and opinions, supported by evidence and argument. And all
these are best conveyed through structured and linear thought processes -- i.e.,
through carefully weighed and articulated words.
We freely offer materials with our copyright for educational use, with
only these provisos: (a) that the materials be credited to the author,
Ernest Partridge, and (b) that this author be notified of these adoptions.
However, we also ask you to be mindful that not all these materials bear our
copyright, as we have in some cases been obliged to yield our copyrights to
publishers. Finally, we would appreciate (but do not require) inclusion of
the name of this site, "The Online Gadfly," and our URL:
www.igc.org/gadfly.
A WORD ABOUT COPYRIGHTS
The Gadfly has never turned down a royalty check.
Thus it ill-behooves him to freely gather and publish, without
permission, the work of others. Besides which, such conduct is
illegal.
And yet . . .
Copyright law is a tangle of vagueness, ambiguity, and
contradiction -- a realm with fuzzy boundaries, and with uncharted
and disputed territories, further complicated by the appearance of a
brand-new mode of publication: cyberspace.
To change the metaphor, one might imagine a continuum. On one
extreme there are "slam-dunk" restrictions -- e.g., plagiarism
(taking personal credit for another's work, whether copyrighted or
public domain), or using extensive copyrighted material without
permission for monetary gain. On the other extreme are obvious cases
of public domain, including ancient texts (e.g. the Bible and
Shakespeare) and common-use phrases. (Yet even here, some caution is
in order. Did you know, for example, that the song "Happy Birthday to
You..." is still in copyright?)
It is the "middle ground" that give writers and publishers fits.
The boundaries of "fair use" in scholarly works are notoriously
vague. And what if one sends a newspaper clipping of Paul Krugman's
column or a Doonesbury cartoon to Aunt Sophie? What of those
unpublished "one-pagers" of uncertain origin that are found on office
doors and bulletin boards on every campus in the realm? Few would
take issue with such practices. After all, in such cases "the folk
process" is often hard at work, as these little gems move and evolve
from office to office and from campus to campus.
However, an office door is one thing, but a web site is another.
Or is it? The Gadfly believes that there is a difference, and
apparently quite a few lawyers and courts agree. Our personal
newsletter, The Sporadical Gadfly, was printed at personal
expense and distributed free of charge to our Northland College
colleagues and to a few personal friends ("circulation" less than
100). We regarded it as little more than an extension of our office
door, and thus included cartoons and column excerpts that we would
not for a moment think of including, without permission, on this
site.
Still, we've found a couple of items to be
irresistible. Why these,
while the others remain out of bounds and in our files?
Some items come to us with no indication of the
original source. In such cases, we make a good-faith effort
to locate the author only to find that our immediate source
(usually from the e-mail) was likewise unaware of the original source.
Furthermore, if we ever do locate an author, we will only post these
items with his or her permission. Beyond that, we proceed on the
assumption that such "one pagers" are written and distributed as 100% bonafide "larks" -- as freely offered moments of levity, which the
creators gave to the world for the sweet Hell of it, with both the
hope and expectation that these items would evolve and circulate on
their own merits. In our own career, we have also tossed out such
pieces, with just such hopes and expectations. We believe that if the
heavy hand of copyright laws extend to office doors and e-mail
attachments, far more will
be lost to spontaneity and innocent entertainment, than would be
gained through legal enforcement.
This policy defines the far limits of our testing of copyright
restrictions. If and when we are advised by informed legal opinion to
pull back, we will do so at once. In the meantime, we will continue
to study the letter of that law. In fact, we did so by contacting the
excellent public-service web site of Attorney Benedict O'Mahoney at
www.benedict.com.
Unfortunately, while lucid and extensive, the site gave us no clear
instruction regarding "office-door one-pagers."
The aforementioned is our policy regarding brief, unpublished,
anonymous items -- subject (as we said) to revision. Regarding works
by The Gadfly (cf. "The Gadfly Papers" on this site), we claim full
protection of the Copyright laws. Accordingly, as you may have
noticed, we have added copyright notices ("Copyright, [date],
by Ernest Partridge") to all our papers. We do so, not to discourage
distribution, but to avoid plagiarism.
We freely offer materials with our copyright for classroom use, with
only these provisos: (a) that the materials be credited to the author,
Ernest Partridge, (b) that they include the source URLs, (c) that they include
the copyright notice, and (d) that this author be notified of these
adoptions. However, we also ask educators to be mindful that not
all these materials bear our copyright, as we have in some cases been
obliged to yield our copyrights to publishers. Income-producing use of
our copyrighted material requires our permission and possibly a royalty fee.
