Twitter Drama In The News

Oye.  From CNN: “Woman sued over defamatory tweet”

So while this is not strictly publishing related, the going on’s and changing policies of Web 2.0 is something that is important to the industry.  Also, this situation is so outrageous that it begs commentary.  I expected the media to grab am hold of Twitter related lawsuit some where down the line when a story broke. But seriously?  I cannot believe that Horizon Realty is pursuing this.

The tweet in question reads:

“@JessB123You should just come anyway. Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s okay.”

The company followed up by bringing suit against the user on the grounds that they:  “maliciously and wrongfully published the false and defamatory Tweet on Twitter, thereby allowing the Tweet to be distributed throughout the world.” Oh and they are suing for $50,000.  I have to really agree with CNN here.  “Unfortunately for Horizon, the media attention surrounding this Twitter lawsuit will likely damage the company’s reputation far beyond the scope of @abonnen’s message to her 20 followers.”

My disbelief stems from a few of the specifics that make the whole thing absurd.  The user in question had roughly 20 followers (and has since deleted the account), verses the legions that many other Twitter users can claim.  The damages real estate company is seeking seems disproportionate to the actual exposure the user’s personal opinion was likely to receive.  My understanding is that @abonnen’s Twitter account was a personal account and made no claims to be a journalistic microblog.  There was no hash tag and the complaint was attached to @reply to another user which indicates more of a direct correspondence.

There are situations where I could understand a defamation and libel case regarding a Twitter account, but only where it could be proven or observed that the user in question is using Twitter as a platform to -widely- defame and damage the reputation of an individual or corporation –and- that it has had an effect before you seek damages in the tens of thousands of dollars.  If Twitter were more formally a journalistic platform, it would make more sense, but most commonly it seems like a place to chronicle one’s stream of consciousness throughout the day.  It’s a personal and public space for opinions and people are really quite liberal with what they’ll say on Twitter.  And that’s interesting, or at least I find it interesting.  I love searching hastags when I have the time to watch the tides change when media releases or geek stories break.  I would hate to see that jeopardized and I find it unlikely that lawsuits like this will have either much success or much effect.  There are far too many angsty teenagers out there needing to shout at the world, hehe. Anyone else have any thoughts?

/End of Line

~ L.

Let the countdown resume.

Warner Brothers and Fox have finally agreed to terms in the Watchmen legal dispute, thank the light.  

Under the agreement Fox will not be co-distributor of the film, but they are getting a sizable payoff, 8.5% of box office profits, and reimbursement for their legal fees and the original $1.4 million dollar investment they put forth back in the 80’s for their own failed vision of Watchmen.  

The movie will release as scheduled on March 6th 2009, and we can all breathe a huge sigh of relief.

/End of Line

~ Darcy

Fanboys and Fangirls Say the Darnedest Things!

The two largest YA fandoms are rising up against certain media giants this week.

The Twilighters are out to crucify comedian Russell Brand for cutting off Robert Pattinson mid-sentence.

“F— U Russell for interrupting Spunk!” a reader named Nightmare and Dream commented, using a nickname Pattinson earned from one of his “Twilight” Tuesday appearances on MTV. “Rob has an amazing hot voice, and we only heard 1.5 words from him!”

It will be okay; I promise you.  Let’s not forget that there is a whole movie on its way.  We will all get our Spunk fix very soon.  Though Twilighters, write away.  You are entitled to express to MTV that you didn’t care for the host and you should.  They need to know that you don’t like Russell Brand so as not to ask him back, but handle it maturely.  You’ll have more of an impact if you avoid profanity and make it about more than just the host screwing up at a life event. Things like that happen.  

Now over at the Harry Potter camp, fans have apparently been sending the Warner Bros. executives -death threats- after the release of the sixth movie (Half-Blood Prince) was pushed back.

Some of these are just hilarious.

Jean Fink, a 51-year-old Los Angeles artist who also works as an administrative assistant, was so distraught after a night of fitful sleep that she dashed off a scathing message to the man who’d betrayed her. “I can’t breath amymore [sic] because you just ripped out my heart,” she wrote in an Aug. 15 email.

Ms. Fink, the artist and administrative assistant, recently stood outside Warner Bros.’s Burbank lot with a large sign. “Dear Mr. Horn,” she scrawled in red marker. “You will forever be known as ‘The man who changed Harry Potter’s release date.’ Are you happy now?”

“Harry Potter is for the fans, he’s for the underdogs, and so am I,” Ms. Fink says. “I won’t stop fighting this.”

To that I have…no words. *Facepalm*

New Morality Clause In Random House UK Contracts

On Boing Boing

Apparently, Random House UK is asking its YA writers to agree to a new morality clause in their contracts allowing the publisher to delay or cancel production of the book and perhaps even take back the advance.  Actually, I’m surprised that such a clause wasn’t already in those contracts considering how much more weighty an accusation of wrong doing could be when brought against a Children’s or YA author.  I don’t think it’s entirely unfair to give a publisher the opportunity to cancel or delay production of a book.   When a house publishes a book, that title and author are in a way a reflection of the company.  If the publisher no longer feels that author represents company in a positive light, then perhaps the two should part ways.  With that being said, I also think that in -most- cases the author is entitled to keep their advance.  The publisher is buying the rights to a manuscript, first and foremost.  They are not purchasing the authors private life.  If the publisher for some reason no longer wishes to carry that title through production, they are choosing not to act upon that right.  That should not be used to punish an author who has turned in a publishable manuscript.

A Hole In The Japanese Book Market

PW Article, 8/11 “Yohan Bankruptcy Leaves Void

“While most of Japan’s largest booksellers buy English language titles directly from big wholesalers, Yohan was the key supplier of those books into mass merchants, independents and other retailers. According to the U.S. Commerce Department, book exports to Japan totaled $78 million last year. Now, said a source at one of the major houses, “there’s no major English book distribution in Japan.” This, the source noted, “hurts on all accounts.”

This may not be all bad news.   Apparently, there was a lot to complain about with regards to Yohan.  Perhaps this will open up the market for other distributors who have been struggling in the shadow of Yohan.

Enjoying Breaking Dawn On Your Kindle Yet?

I’m not sure how many of you were affected by this.  I was, and it was a crushing blow to certain well laid plans.  Originally the E-book version of Breaking Dawn was scheduled to release simultaneously with the print version on August 2nd.  Just two days before the release Little Brown Books decided to push back the release of the e-book verison until the 3rd.  I didn’t hear about this until friday afternoon.  I thought it was very unprofessional of the publisher to change their minds so close to the final hour.  My friends and I were looking forward to a relaxing evening and party at home, but plans changed when discovered we’d have to trek out to the bookstore to pick up a copy at midnight.  

I bring this up not to yammer on about Breaking Dawn, but because this brings up an interesting problem with regards to e-books.  If other publishers follow this trend, I fear that the e-book revolution will take quite a hit.  I buy books in multiple formats, but most people want one or the other.  Twilight fans were given no choice in this case.  The message Little Brown sent by this action is that “if you want an e-book, you have to get in the back of the line.”

I understand the concern the publisher must have felt thinking that customers might be able to get their books ahead of time living in different time zones, but this does not make for an even playing field.  If e-books are going to make it, publishers have to be trust the infrastructure of online book retailers.  If the infrastructue doesn’t exist yet, then those retailers need to get on the ball with that. 

Here’s another article on the matter.

Cellist of Sarajevo vs. Author Steven Galloway

Saw this story, on the Book Ninja this morning.

Now I can easily understand how the cellist would be upset over the fact that his face has been printed on this book’s cover without permission or notification, but what boggles my mind is that this man is accusing author, Steven Galloway, of stealing his story? Or as he puts it “my work, my, my sadness, my tragedy.” I did not realize that life came with a copyright.

Back in 1992, cellist Vedran Smailovic, performed atop a pile of rubble for 22 days during the Bosnian conflict. Now I’ve seen some of these images before produced on posters and the like before. They are very beautiful, and the act was quite inspiring. So much so, that it continues to inspire and then along comes Steven Galloway’s book.

What I take from this article is that Galloway treated the matter very respectfully in the physical writing. The cellist character appears only for the first five pages and never actually speaks. The rest of the novel is a fictional work focusing on three other characters. What Smailovic did was a public performance, live art. I can’t see him receiving compensation for anything, unless he actually owned that photo that was used on the cover. As a performer isn’t he technically a public figure?