Comment from Rod Peña
Time May 4, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Dear Darryl:

Despite the fact that I follow you fanatically on Twitter, I have refused to use your material on any of my blogs out of deep respect for your intellectual property rights and those of cartoonists on your site. After reading your post, I can empathize with how the market is not only putting pressure on you and your peers on the internet, but on printed media.

I can only suggest that, in addition to the embed code, you consider the option that is now popular among bloggers who want to make a living out of their work themselves: please install a “DONATE” button on the very same toolbar. I think you’d be surprised at how many folks will go out of their way to do right by you and your peers. I know I will if you pursue the option. Until then, I shall continue refraining from using your material and that of your colleagues, but I’ll continue RT’ing any of your tweets that are appropriate for my audience.

I’m sorry it’s come to this. I wish you and your associates nothing but the best with your new model.

Comment from Donna Barstow
Time May 4, 2009 at 6:05 pm

When I saw your Twitter about this, I got all excited, thinking it was a way to track bloggers who are stealing cartoons. But it\’s kind of the opposite - allowing them to take more.

That\’s a good word, devalue. I\’m sorry to say that most cartoonists don\’t give a damn about this because they\’re still nerdy, desperate, unsophisticated and insecure artists. Yes, I said that.

Since I\’ve been working on copyright issues for a few years now, I am rabid about fighting online theftI totally agree that allowing 3rd parties to use the embed doesn\’t benefit you at all, obviously. But I will be interested to see if it actually does benefit you directly from this site.

I don\’t get your point that NOT using the embed stuff would make you less popular. Since bloggers don\’t pay, and the readers of those blogs don\’t pay, and neither of them will ever pay, how does the name/image of your websites benefit you?

Comment from Donna Barstow
Time May 4, 2009 at 6:06 pm

Rod, good point!

Comment from Daryl Cagle
Time May 4, 2009 at 6:15 pm

Hi Donna,

Not having the embed code would mean that other sites and cartoonists that feature embed code, will beat us in the long run.

It isn’t hard to deal with bloggers who steal - we’ve done a lot of that. But it costs time, and it doesn’t generate any revenue.

Rod, You’re welcome to use our embed code. You shouldn’t read this post to mean that we don’t want bloggers using it, just that it is a fine line for us to walk, and frustrating to have to make these decisions. The “donate” button is a good idea.

Comment from Nate O
Time May 4, 2009 at 6:33 pm

You said, “It isn’t a response to piracy; rather it is a response to the market. If we don’t offer embed code for our cartoons, while other syndicates do, soon it will be the other syndicate’s cartoons that are seen in the blogosphere, and the other syndicates sites that become the most popular, and we’ll be marginalized. It is a competitive march to devalue cartoons, and we’re swept along with it.”

You’re right about most of this I think. On the web, people are going to look at the high-quality content that is most available to them. High-quality content that isn’t as accessible will fall by the wayside and fail to be centrally included in viral culture.

You gain from the clicks back to your site. Your site is a more valuable resource for a reader/blogger because you now offer the ability to use you as a portal to talk about these cartoons (and the politics they confront). Use my clicks on your site as best you can to make money.

I think you are wrong in thinking that the ability to embed and discuss them across the web is devaluing cartoons. I think this new technology is letting them back into the political discussion, wherever it is happening. And that is valuable for our democracy.

Comment from Michael
Time May 4, 2009 at 6:41 pm

I praise your decision. I know it was a difficult decision, and I understand you and I stand apart on the Intellectual Property divide. DMCA is a horrible law designed to gut culture.

Rather than trying to contain information, like the old dying business model dictates, I suggest you travel this new road with Gusto. Add the Donate button, people will pay if they think your talent is worth it ( I DO think your talent is worthy)

I hope you find this experiment to be successful. It is the way of the future. Embrace it.

Comment from Donna Barstow
Time May 4, 2009 at 8:04 pm

Nate O,
But what if what is good for democracy is bad for artists? If you read the DMCA and copyright law, you ‘ll see something interesting: the purpose of copyright is to protect artists and ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO MORE BY PROVIDING THEM A LIVING.

Michael, let me guess: you’re a blogger who doesn’t create a thing. And you’ve never made a penny from your creative work. So your suggestion that no one else do so is jealousy.

Comment from Scott K
Time May 4, 2009 at 8:06 pm

I don\’t know that not having the embed code will mean that other sites will beat you in the long run. What you have is a limited resource that cannot be obtained easily else where without a fee, well at least you did.

If you run a cookie shop and people stop buying your cookies, I would say that the bad business decision is to decide that for the rest of time you will just plan on putting your whole selection of cookies outside the door. Allowing people to on their honor only take one for free. Doing this with the hope that a few will find them so good that they come in and purchase a dozen. The issue here is that one cookie will be more than enough for most people. What you do is possibly put a few samples out, or make cookie baskets, or sell cookies online or maybe do short promotional one time runs of cookies. Deciding to perpetually give away your goods for free generally isn\’t a winning tactic, unless you are also selling the antidote.

I think the issue with editorials and comics in general is that the \"other business\" model outside of old school syndication hasn\’t been discovered yet and everyone is trying to figure out what it is. Most creators don\’t have access to the merchandising machine that is \"Garfield\" or the spare time away from their craft to self promote enough to make a go a the profession speaking circuit. While I agree information and ideas want to be free, craftsman deserve to get paid for working their trade. Nobody has the answer to this in place now and it\’s a topic of much discussion.

Comment from Daryl Cagle
Time May 4, 2009 at 9:58 pm

Bloggers don’t buy many cartoons. The issue for us is whether letting the bloggers run the embed code will undermine the value of our product to the paying subscribers on the web. I’m hoping that it won’t and we’ll watch to make sure the cartoons aren’t used regularly like a real client would do.

I wouldn’t explore this if not for everyone else doing it.

Comment from Donna Barstow
Time May 5, 2009 at 2:42 am

That was mean of me to Michael. Sorry. Everyone is creative in some way. But the hope that everything on the internet will be free is very selfish and short-sighted. I sure don’t plan to work for nothing, ergo no cartoons here.

Comment from Nate O
Time May 5, 2009 at 3:32 am

Donna Barstow said, \"But what if what is good for democracy is bad for artists? If you read the DMCA and copyright law, you ‘ll see something interesting: the purpose of copyright is to protect artists and ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO MORE BY PROVIDING THEM A LIVING.\"

Copyright law protects Progress, which is often realized by ensuring creators get paid, but is also more thoroughly realized by ensuring that ideas can spread.

The ability to bring relevant political cartoons into discussions on the Web is good for democracy, but I think embedding is good for artists too. I think artists should try to make their content as available as possible and collect associated rewards, but they should try not to rely on copyright to make money by making their ideas limited resources. I want people who can\’t afford to pay $10 to be able to access my ideas, and I want to legally protect their right to do that. I have published my thesis that argues this principle under a Creative Commons license that protects people\’s rights to share any good ideas they may find in my writing with each other. Anyone can read it (or embed it in their own webpage): http://www.scribd.com/doc/1481.....rations-10

If people like it, they might contact me and send me a donation. But more importantly, if they like it, they might link it to their friend. This is also good for me, the artist.
Mr. Cagle, your site is ten times better this year because of the new interactivity (with your blog, your twitter, and now–through embeddability–your site\’s collection of cartoons).

Comment from Steve Holden
Time May 5, 2009 at 7:06 am

As one of the bloggers who didn\\\’t use your cartoons because I had no budget for them, at least the embed code means that I can now give cagle.com some useful publicity (which I already have). The issues raised by copyright are serious, but would be less so if Congress hadn\\\’t pandered to Disney by extending the term to a ridiculous 70 years. Also the DMCA is bringing copyright into disrepute because of Draconian \\"take-down\\" provisions.

You will almost certainly find a \\"donate\\" button will net the artists some income: the open source world is getting used to the idea of \\"pay as a reward\\" rather than \\"pay to use\\". Donations will increase over time.

ps: each time a security code fails the blog software inserts yet another level of quoting in the text - I am a crappy typist, and I now see all kinds of weird backslashes in the text. A “Preview” button might also help

Comment from Michael
Time May 5, 2009 at 10:35 am

Donna, No hard feelings. Im not a blogger, but your right, I do not create. I do not believe that everything is free, but at the same time, I get all of The cartoons for free anyway by coming to this site. adding the embed means that there will be a greater distribution of what is already a free resource…so what changes…more people now have an opportunity to purchase because more people know about it. Actually I am a poly Sci student studying IP

Im not a commie or anarchist. I do believe that IP producers will have to learn to thrive in a new buisness Model. read Lawrence Lessig, Boyle or Corey Doctorow. All three are IP producers that let people have their material for free if they want, or pay if they want…Guess what, All three do just fine financially.

Thie Internet revolution is not over, people will have to adapt or die in the buisness. Adaptive people will be far more successful.

Comment from Michael
Time May 5, 2009 at 12:19 pm

By the way Donna. The DMCA is a total perversion of what copyrights intent is. Copyright is NOT intended to protect the artist. Anyone who argues it is has not read Jeffersons writings on this nor the contitution’s clearly stated intent.

Copyright is not for the artist, Patent law is not for the inventor. Copyright and Patent are Temporary monopolies designed to induce creation for the masses, for culture. Nowadays, people assume copyright is for the creator, so they can make money in perpetuity. Copyright was originally 14 years with a possible 14 year extension. today it is Life plus fifty, and it gets longer everytime congress gets their hands on IP legislation.

Ever since another cartoonist created a mouse on a boat, the Public Domain has just about become obsolete. This was not our founders intentions

Comment from Donna Barstow
Time May 6, 2009 at 5:15 am

When I meant I won\’t work for nothing, so I\’m not here, I didn\’t mean Daryl\’s site, I meant if I don\’t make money, I stop creating, and the cartoons won\’t exist.

I\’m glad you\’re happy that you can come here and get a free look, Michael. But your free look means a cartoonist is starving tonight. That whole internet is free mentality is why I stopped going to the Wisenheimer - it\’s just so ignorant. Does it make you happy that newspapers are dying, Michael? Magazines? Cartoonists? So long as you\’re happy. I hope businesses crack down and get a business model that works. I don\’t know the authors you mention. What is doing okay? Numbers, please.

Nate 0, say you sell tshirts on the corner. Everyone else charges $20 but you give them to everyone passing by. Sure, the guy you give one to for free will tell other people, and they\’ll take them, too. Great business plan you have there. I think the lottery might work better than donations. And how do you feel as the creator? Crap. Do they value what they got for free? No, they wear it once, it gets dirty, they toss it. After all, it didn\’t cost them anything. They can go get another one for free!

I\’m a capitalist, more and more.

Comment from Donna Barstow
Time May 6, 2009 at 2:36 pm

Oh, I forgot one of the most important side effects of the tshirts you are offering for free.

The tshirt sellers on the other corners must then lower their prices, to compete with your free tshirts. They go down to $15. Or even half price.

You are literally dragging down the whole marketplace with this \"plan.\" Isn\’t it called deregulating or is it just recessionary thinking? In any case, it is surely devaluing cartoons. Not sure if that was your intent.

Comment from Michael
Time May 6, 2009 at 6:10 pm

Donna,

you say you dont know the authors I speak of, but then you blast my point….ugh, I thought you said you have been working on copyright issues for years. these authors have written about copyright issues for years, you are obviously not well versed in the subject for which you claim expertise.

As for the rest of your points,

1. No artist is starving because Daryl runs an online site, if they are, that is on Daryl’s head not mine,complain to him

2. I don’t know this weisenhiemer you speak of, but the internet my dear is free. It is not a mentality. It is an actuality, except the fees I pay my ISP, The internet is as free as the content providers wish it to be, and so far that is really free.

3. I am not happy about newspapers dying, I have a subscription to my local paper and I enjoy it quite a lot, as well as several magazines. I do not appreciate you telling me how I feel. Just ask. I do not presume to know your motivations or predilections.

4. As far as the numbers you want, all I can tell you is that Lessig, Boyle, and Doctorow all testify that there incomes are sufficient for them. Ask them what is Okay.

5. You point to Nate is not very well thought out. the guy giving away free shirts will either go out of business very quickly or people will pay him enough money to stay in business. If he stays in business it is a good plan. If he goes out of business, then he has no recessionary effect on his competition.

I don’t mean to sound rude, but your responses are neither intelligent or subtle. You come off as screechy and preachy.

Comment from Michael
Time May 6, 2009 at 6:13 pm

Ok, after reading my post that last comment was uncalled for and I apologize

Comment from Meredith
Time May 6, 2009 at 7:45 pm

The future of the political cartoon seems to rest with the future of the news media. The whole model is still evolving. I\’m not sure how the collective will fare, but as for individual artists they may consider partnering with a news site and getting paid for exclusive cartoons.

Wish I had a crystal ball…

Comment from JonB
Time May 7, 2009 at 5:20 am

Donna:

RIGHT ON, SISTA! LOL
However, as the author has noted the need for ‘free’ is upon us, as echoed by Micheal and all other leeches.

Why value anything, haven’t the great aggregators (uhh did I say Google?) shown us that the way to prosper is through indexing the works of others? Some may say - “its all for the good” - but I’m with you Donna, its the ‘freeway to the bottom”:

Those who violate copyright, don’t understand it, or its origins. BTW, I am totally opposed the the DMCA, as it discourages creativity through its prohibition on a sacred science concept “reverse engineering” (which is how we discover how things work). I’m ALSO opposed to the ideas of Perpetual Copyright and Patents as exemplified by Corporate IP litigants who wish sorely for the ‘forever patent’ and ‘undying copyright’. They would have NOTHING fall into the public domain. Governments have their version of this too its called a ‘Top Secret’. ALL BAD!

Copyright should serve its proper purpose - protecting the rights of authorship against unauthorized copying (that IS what it means - despite all attempts to dissuade you).

Comment from JonB
Time May 7, 2009 at 5:38 am

and what would this be?

“I don’t mean to sound rude, but your responses are neither intelligent or subtle. You come off as screechy and preachy”

I would say it sounds ‘rude’ - probably right about ’screechy and preachy’… so you must NOT mean what you say, right - dear?

talk about pots calling kettles black -

Comment from JonB
Time May 7, 2009 at 6:56 am

Rather than continuing any observations about other posts, I’d like to make a positive comment about this original post itself.

Daryl - Thanks for saying what an agonizing choice this is, taking the time to express yourself, and giving the examples and analogies to explain the perplexing situation we are in.

To an extent, I agree with Nate O about the Creative Commons concept. That is certainly a valid option, and gives some modicum of control and allows dissemination of ideas.. I also believe that its become very very difficult to find a good model. What about the author/artist who DOESN’T produce a constant stream of work? Should the adaptation of ‘workstream’ related ideas diminish his/her rights to what might be a single act (I’m avoiding the term ‘work’ deliberately) of creation? Should only ‘professional’ creators be protected? Because that is where the ‘generalized’ logic takes you. You should let go, so there will be more - popularize your work. What if you don’t wish there to be more, OR can’t create more (for many possible reasons)? What then? Did the individual’s creative process somehow become the common birthright of all? “I am, therefore I am entitled?”. “I” don’t think so. The word for that is co-opting.

As a content producer, I have always given way and freely posted some work using the Internet. This took the form of USNET posts in the old days, then Yahoo Groups, then several blogs and finally RSS, all the while selling content for subscription fees. I have always believed in promotion. But, I’m not sure I want someone else deciding for me what and how to promote, particularly if they never had a ‘copy right’ to the content in the first place. So when web-miners came along I did everything in my power to block them. Because the site itself is an act of creation and creates the ambiance for appreciation of the creative work. Just like a gallery exposition, the site frames the work in its best light, and provides the audience with the intended insight into the collection. I guess you could make the case that is what well made sites do anyway…

Its all about the experience, and giving up control of the presentation is unsettling, at least for me.

Thank you for a look into the workings of brain of Cagle.

Many thanks actually

Comment from Michael
Time May 7, 2009 at 10:26 am

Jon b, that is why I attempted to redact my statement, keep reading bro, I called myself out.

As for being a leach, not quite and you completely misread my post. I do not demand anything be made free. If I find something I like and it is free, I consume it, If I find something I like and it costs money, if it is worth it, I will pay for it and consume it.

Unless you are paying Daryl to view this page, then calling me a leach is well…..high pot, have you met kettle.

Daryl is not giving up anything. I hope he finds his experiment rewarding, and I believe that if he embraces it, he will be very successful.

“Just like a gallery exposition, the site frames the work in its best light, and provides the audience with the intended insight into the collection. I guess you could make the case that is what well made sites do anyway…”

Saying that the work is best framed in this light is a bit presumptious. It is the lifght the creator made, but is it THE best light. I could see a blog post highlighting a topic Daryl alliterated framing both creations magnificently.

Daryl did not give up control of the presentation. Can you not see that by allowing others to use the work, with an embed that guarantees proper attribution that Daryl is doing two things…

1. Maintaining control. He is giving permissible access, that is a CONTROL. If he was denying access and people stole it, that would be losing control. but giving permission is not relinquishing control.

2. rather than removing from the “gallery” consider the sites that will embed these creations as billboards advertising the gallery. Every cartoon that goes out will provide anyone interested the ability to come to this site and view his cartoons.

All of this is a bit tiresome, though I love a good copyright fight.

The point is this. DMCA is a law intended to maintain a status quo that cannot be maintained. The Internet is too vast to be able to police by any government. that is why the DMCA gives private interests the function to police for themselves. A power that is too large for private interests, hence 30% of DMCA take downs are illegitimate attempts to infringe on “Fair Use” and half are complaints from competitors seeking to remove legitimate competition from the marketplace.

Daryl, or at least the marketplace, is realizing that the internet is inefficient to police, and therefore, are seeking a new business model. I applaud Daryl and wish him great success.

Comment from Michael
Time May 7, 2009 at 10:39 am

Oh as for the purpose of copyright…..Lets check and see what the Constitution says as Joe B likes to point out the \"real\" origins (Yes I realize the concept originates with the statute of Ann, but as we are in America, at least ostensibly, lets discuss American origins.)

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;” Article I, Sect 8

Very clearly the intent was to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. Protecting authors is the how, not the why. the purpose is for the masses, so lets not call us leeches.

That limited time was originally fourteen years with a possible 14 year extension. 28 years tops. not perpetuality

Comment from JonB
Time May 7, 2009 at 8:50 pm

I’ll clarify myself on the mattter of ‘leeching’ on the internet. (leaching is a chemical process).

I meant it in this sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech_(computing)

which is to say to benefit from the efforts of others. And since I am not reusing or blogging with this comment nor have I linked it in - I’m not leeching here, nor are you… Google, Yahoo and the rest - hard to say. Do I use Google, yep. very handy Do I also shield some assets and info from the bots? YOU BET!

We can agree, for sure, that the DMCA is a bad idea on many levels. You see it from a market and access aspect, I see it from the intellectual freedom side. You don’t like the Market Police, I don’t like the Thought Police. As to what ‘fair use’ is, it appears to be whatever a court says it is.

Cartoons are, for the most part, one-up creations that stand freely. They are reflections of a moment. So I’m of the mind they are more context independent than many other creative forms. A single chapter from a book ‘might’ be a sales tool - a teaser , but its unlikely to stand on its own. On the other hand, the ‘hook’ of a jingle, tune, or a pop composition may be its most valuable aspect. Quick - who made $70M from one game show theme/jingle and what is its one word title? Answers later. but it exemplifies that point. Its unmistakable at only a few bars (hint: do do do do doop de do do) extra hint - he was also the producer…

I actually never said anything about Daryl’s decision to choose to embed, I just enjoyed the opportunity to think about it. And I congratualated him on sharing the difficult process with us. I have a video wall under construction and am busy giving consideration to just such decisions, so I enjoyed reading what he thought. (Although I like, err love the cartoons, I have never ‘lifted’ a one) Now, however some will find their way into my posts as they were intended to. Just like the content I have been giving away for now 10 years roughly. BUT the author/creator should be the one who decides WHAT can be re-used.

Sadly - with the demise of the newspapers, I’m unsure of the fate of this vital instrument in political commentary. (bummed in fact) I don’t have to agree with the point being made to support the idea of political discourse.

As for the origins of copyright law - I again will say we are seeing two different sides of the same coin, and agreeing - I’m against the manipulation of the law to artifically extend copyright and patents. My dad was a research engineer and I grew up with lucite cubes that held the symbolic dollar for the assigment of the rights to the corporations he worked for. AND I totally advise others on all the many aspects of the issue in my consulting work. Its complex as I am sure you are aware. So I am for the rights of the inventors and creators for some reaonable period of time. NOT ‘as long as our IP attorneys can make it work or we can lobby for.’ There is another alternative we did not really discuss as it really is relevant mostly to patents - trade secrets - shut up! - but its on you, LOL.

Summary - against leeching/scraping all content from sites, good with Creative Commons, against artificially extending copyrights and patents, for self-promotion by providing free content.

the timing of this exchange might be ironic:

http://www.paidcontent.org/ent.....t-program/

As a complete BTW - unless one is a web-content producer with real in-house delivery systems, you might never discover that some ‘bots’ willfully ignore the the ‘robots.txt’ directives. That advice about watching your ‘web-rep’ is very valid, and regular searchs are the best method. Take-down orders (surprisingly enough) are actually pretty effective (even in China and Russia amazingly enough) except in the case of willful pirates like you-kow-who-bay. But they got theirs. (for now).

Comment from James H
Time May 13, 2009 at 9:07 am

In the past, I subscribed to Cagle Cartoons for a blog I maintained. I’m an on-again, off-again blogger now, although I haven’t re-subscribed to Cagle toons. What are the terms of use for the new embed button? What would transmute my little blog (such as it is) from a blog that is permitted to use the Embed button into a commercial site that is (presumably) required to subscribe to Cagle toons? My blog, for example, has a couple Google ad placements on it, and I might add Blogads or something similar if I ever re-dedicate myself to the blog. Is my blog “commercial” now?

Additionally, would bloggers be able to search Cagle’s deep, impressive cartoon database, then use the resulting embed code on their blogs?

Like others, I refuse to use others’ copyrighted content on my blog except under terms of fair use or unless i have paid for the privilege to use that content. I have a couple other questions, but those are better handled elsewhere.

Comment from Donna Barstow
Time May 19, 2009 at 1:23 am

Michael, just you even using the word screechy tells me how sexist you are. You just lost a hella lot of points.

As far as my tshirt analogy, I directed that to Nate O, not Daryl. Sorry I haven’t read the copyright authors you speak of. Instead, I’ve been talking with the Dept of Justice, Intellectual Property, in Wash DC, and with Digg’s lawyers. I’d say I’m up on copyright issues.

Comment from Michael
Time May 20, 2009 at 3:20 pm

Donna, your conclusion tells me how myopic you are. I was just going to say preachy, but I like rhyming adjectives.

I did apologize by the way, but thanks for the continued name calling. It really rises the level of discourse.

Would those be bush Admin Justice dept. corporate lawyers bending over backwards to scratch corporate interests.Actually Obama’s not much better on this issue hence Biden’s comments about needing a copyright Czar. I would say you are actually no where near up on copyright issues, but you probably are down with the company line