|
|
Join us each Tuesday as Bob Ingersoll analyzes how the law
is portrayed in comics then explains how it would really work.
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
THE LAW IS A ASS for 10/23/2001
DOCKET ENTRY
"The Law is a Ass" Installment # 118
Originally written as installment # 107 and published in Comics Buyer's Guide issue # 700, April 17, 1987 issue
It's my practice that, in these Docket Entries, I give you some "Behind the Scenes" information about how I came to write the installment. Or, at least, some interesting tidbit about the creation process of the column or my life at the time. Something that helps all understand better the creative process.
Here's the "Behind the Scenes" information for today's column: I received mail, I answered it.
Hey they can't all be stellar!
******
"The Law is a Ass"
Installment # 118
by
Bob Ingersoll
I was stuck. I needed a column for this week, but had nothing to write about. Then I got a package from Don & Maggie with fan mail. Oh boy, I thought, I can do a fan mail column and all of the letters will be current. No apologizing about not having answered year-old mail.
Then I thought, maybe I shouldn't. After all, think of the unworkable precedent I'd be establishing. I'd feel compelled to answer my mail on time all the time.
But, on the other hand, if I didn't answer the mail, I wouldn't have a column topic to write about. Surely Don & Maggie wouldn't print several column inches of blank paper.
But, on the other, other hand, if I did answer the mail, that was it. I was committed. Never again could I indulge in my favorite pastime of procrastination. I would always have to answer my mail immediately.
But on the other, other--
Oh the heck with it, I decided, live dangerously for once, answer the mail now.
(The preceding exercise in minute-by-minute minutia has been brought to you by the Send a Plot to Cerebus Foundation. Please give, it's a worthy cause.)
******
The first letter is from a Larry T. I'm not going to tell you his last name or where he's from. He knows. I don't want anyone else to know. Larry is breaking the law, and I don't want to get him in trouble. I'm giving him this warning and hoping he'll heed it.
Larry self-publishes a newsletter. It includes copyrighted cartoons and articles he cuts out from other sources and reprints. Larry charges for his newsletter. Only enough to meet his printing costs; he does not make any money from it. Still, he does charge for it. Larry wanted to know how big he has to get, before his sources will sue him for copyright infringement.
You're big enough now, Larry.
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement, no matter on what scale. It is equally as illegal for a small press publisher to infringe copyright as it is for a major motion picture studio. There is no "Little Guy" defense.
My advice to Larry and everyone else who does this--I know the practice exists in more than Larry's isolated case--is not that they should seek the copyright holder's permission, before they reprint something in their publications. They must seek the copyright holder's permission. If they do not, they are opening themselves up to civil suits and criminal liability.
******
Jol Silversmith of Rockville, Maryland watched a recent episode of G.I. Joe. In it Cobra took over Washington and demanded that Congress surrender the President, which Congress did. Then Cobra demanded that the President surrender the United States, which the President did. Jol wants to know if Congress and the President have the authority to surrender like this.
Yes. The President is both our head of state and the commander-in-chief of our armed forces. That gives him the authority. It doesn't mean, however, that the citizens have to obey him. They could resist and become underground freedom fighters trying to wrest the country from foreign rule. Of such things are long and very boring TV mini-series made.
I doubt Congress has the authority to surrender the President, it sounds kind of like slavery. But, what difference does it make? After it happens and some other power is in control of the country, where do you complain? "I'm sorry, Mr. Invader, Congress doesn't have the authority to surrender. You'll have to give the country back, your invasion was unconstitutional." I'd rather rely on the freedom fighters.
******
Anthony Cardno of Mahopac, N.Y. asked about a recent episode of Gimme a Break. In it Nell Carter's character is entertaining her foster son's teacher. The teacher slips on a skate board, claims grievous injury (faked, of course), and sues. Later, when he wins a TV quiz show and performs a decidedly acrobatic celebration dance, his lies are revealed. Tony wants to know if Nell could do anything to the guy.
Yes. She could file criminal charges against him for attempted theft or fraud. She could initiate a malicious prosecution or abuse of process suit against him. She could also make sure that the guy never gets a spin-off series.
Who says the virtuous don't triumph?
******
Jeffrey Cohen of Great Neck, N.Y. asked me about a recent story in Brenda Starr. Gabriella Van Slander, a fellow employee of the "Daily Flash", the paper Brenda works for, discovers some untrue information about Brenda and puts it into a novel, which features a character who's a thinly disguised version of Brenda. Brenda threatens to sue, but the Gabby defends on the grounds that the work is a roman a clef.
No, that's not a new Italian restaurant. A roman a clef is a work of fiction containing disguised--usually thinly disguised--versions of real people. The name derives from the French phrase "novel with a key," I guess because usually the key to enjoying the novel is to figure out who the hell the author is talking about. The Valley of the Dolls was a roman a clef novel, although most literature critics would have preferred that, on this occasion, a roman a clef really was a new Italian restaurant.
The fiction disclaimer (you know, "any similarity is purely coincidental") is no longer a proof positive defense against libel suits. Recently, someone--I think it was a doctor--successfully sued over a novel which contained a thinly disguised, very uncomplimentary version of him. The court ruled that, where the real identity of the character is readily apparent and where the novel includes facts and incidents which are not true but are presented in such a way as to cause people to believe they were true, the author and publisher can be liable for libel, even though the work is fictitious. Such novels are the functional equivalent of printing false and defamatory facts in a newspaper article and should not be privileged from civil action just because the writer chose to publish his lies in the more lucrative form of a novel instead of in a newspaper.
Incidentally, Jeff, Gabriella's name isn't just really clumsy, it isn't really correct, either. It should have been Gabriella Van Libel. But that's probably too fine a point for writers who think roman a clefs are still absolutely privileged against libel suits.
******
A while back I talked about a civil suit, where a thief was trying to gain entry into a store by a second story skylight which was defective and broke. The thief fell through it and injured himself. I knew that the thief sued, but I didn't know what happened. Well, Mike Bolder of Bonita, California and Randy Freeman of Riverside, California knew. And they told me.
According to what they told me, a school (not a store--my mistake) in California had defective skylights, which--instead of fixing--the school board gave some cosmetic changes to so that it looked like they had been fixed, when, in fact, they were still defective. A second story man did, indeed, fall through the skylights and successfully sued the school board for big bucks.
Don't go getting any ideas, though. I can think of easier and more honorable ways to earn money. Like rigging charity Bingo.
******
Steve Erwin of Hurst, Texas (who also told me he had just been named the regular artist on DC's The Vigilante, so congrats, Steve) wanted to know why I was so against a ratings system for comics. There are many reasons, Steve.
The first is that I am adamantly opposed to censorship. Even though DC imposing a ratings system on itself isn't censorship, it demonstrates that DC has chosen to give in to the demands of the censors by creating a ratings system. Such actions only show the censors weakness and prompt them to increase their demands.
Moreover, I don't like ratings systems. They're unworkable. The movie ratings don't work. Before there were ratings so-called family movies (those that would now receive a G rating) were prevalent. Now G-rated movies are impossible to find, because the studios have discovered that PG and R movies make more money. Thus, they make more PG and R movies--even Disney now has a division which makes R movies--and the G has virtually disappeared. Gone are the concepts of artistic freedom and letting a movie find its audience. Instead we have the corrupt concept of shaping a movie to fit some artificial rating.
As far as the comic ratings system is concerned, I have no reason to expect anything different. Indeed, I have heard from reliable sources stories which prove that the abuses have already spread into comics.
Finally, I don't like ratings, because they are imposed on creators by distributors, retailers, and parents who are too lazy to do their own jobs. Distributors refuse to take care that they do not distribute to children that which they should not distribute to children. Retailers refuse to take care that they do not sell to children that which should not be sold to children. Parents refuse to take care that their children do not buy that which they don't want their children to buy. So, rather than do their jobs, these people instead demand ratings. Then, because certain ratings sell better than others, the creators are forced to conform their works to the ratings, instead of having the rating applied to the work. The creators must eviscerate their work so that it will conform to some artificial rating appealing to the lowest common denominator. Forget artistic integrity. Forget telling the story in the most effective way possible. Remember only that the artist cannot do his job correctly, because everyone else is too lazy do to their job properly and wants the artist to do it for them.
Yes, I rant. It's my usual response to irrationality.
******
And that brings me to the end of another mail column. If you enjoyed it, then do me a favor, don't write me any mail for a few months. That way I won't have to fret over the moral dilemma of how quickly I should answer for awhile.
Bob Ingersoll
<< 10/16/2001 | 10/23/2001 | 10/30/2001 >>
Discuss this installment with me in World Famous Comics' General Forum.
Recent Installments:
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
|
|
|
Anything Goes Trivia
