On the Road

 

It has been a long time since I took a road trip in the U.S. just for fun. Yes, I’ve done several over the past few years, but their primary purpose was to research a book. But this year Roland and I decided to take a road trip to Arizona to see his sister and her husband, no research involved.

We have a map of the world in our hallway showing all the places we have been. We frequently add pins for the new places we visit, but lately they’ve all been international. (The photo at the head of this post was taken in January 2019 and does not show any of the places we have traveled since.) Roland wanted to add pins for Oklahoma and New Mexico, which he has driven through but never stopped and visited. So after a short visit with Roland’s brother in Lebanon, Missouri, we were off to Oklahoma, where we visited two museum complexes.

The Woolaroc Museum and Wildlife Preserve was created by Frank Philips, who founded Philips 66. During his lifetime, he brought in a number of exotic animals that still live there today (or their children and grandchildren do). I wasn’t happy with most of the animal photos I took, but here are a llama and an ostrich. The next two photos show the museum building and the Mountain Man Camp, which is a living history exhibit showing how trappers lived when they came to sell their furs.

The Museum of the Great Plains in Lawton, Oklahoma was also interesting. My favorite part inside the museum was a multi-media presentation about “Terrible Tuesday” in 1979, when twelve tornados struck an area in Oklahoma and Texas in 2 hours. Unfortunately, it wasn’t the kind of exhibit I could take photos of. I did take photos of the show outside the museum, where the prairie dogs watched us watching them. It was hard to get good photos in the bright sun, but here are two of the best.

From Oklahoma, we drove through Texas to New Mexico. I took the next photo in Texas. By then I was riding with my camera in my lap, and this was a common scene in the oil country of Oklahoma and Texas and even some of the time in Arizona.

Our first sightseeing stop in New Mexico was at Carlsbad Caverns National Park. The ranger-guided tour was sold out, but the self-guided tour was fantastic by itself. The timing wouldn’t have worked out anyway because it took us almost twice as long to get through the self-guided tour as they said it would. That’s because they don’t base it on people like me who keep stopping to take photos. Here are just a few. I named the Flying Eagle, Frankenstein, and Jabba the Hutt based on what I saw in them, but the Lion’s Tail had already been given that name. The other two are just pretty.

New Mexico was also where we saw the White Sands National Park. The sand is white because it is gypsum from an ancient sea. We climbed one of the dunes to see what was on the other side (more of the same), but we didn’t take any of the longer trails because it was 98° out. There are several plants that seem to thrive in the dry, sandy soil, though. The cactus is a Soup Yucca and I don’t know what the yellow flowers are. The other two photos show the terrain.

The scenery along the way was gorgeous. I took lots of photos but mourn the ones that I missed because I was driving.

Driving along I-10 in New Mexico with its 75 mph speed limit, we kept seeing signs warning of possible dust storms with zero visibility. These were followed by signs giving instructions in this order:

• 1.     Pull off to the side;
• 2.     Shut the engine off;
• 3.     Take your foot off the break (presumably so that if somebody hits you from behind your car will move forward rather than crushing in on you); and
• 4.     Stay buckled up.

Fortunately, we encountered only one dust storm. It occurred when Kathryn was driving through Oklahoma or Texas and lasted for just a few feet.

We ended up at Lake Havasu City, Arizona, where we had a good visit with Sue and Bob. The highlight there is the London Bridge, which the founder bought in London, had dismantled, and reassembled in Lake Havasu.

After leaving Lake Havasu, we stopped at Wupatki National Park. Wupatki is a Native American pueblo inhabited over a thousand years ago. While we were walking around the ruins, we saw thunder in the distance. We made it to our car before there was any rain but got confused when we left (the GPS kept trying to send us down dirt or even nonexistent roads) and ended up leaving the park the way we entered it although it was probably the longer way around. It also meant that we missed seeing an old volcano. We did see a smaller pueblo with a nice view into a canyon. The final two photos show the main building at Wupatki and the canyon as seen from the smaller pueblo.

Wupatki was the last sightseeing stop on our trip. The temperature was in the upper 90s and even reached 101 for most of the trip, but it dropped into the 50s at Wupatki. There were some serious thunderstorms, and we drove through rain so heavy that at one point we pulled off at a truck stop for over half an hour as we waited for the rain to let up enough to restore a minimum of visibility. We also drove through what looked like snow on the side of the road but was actually hail. Fortunately, it had stopped by the time we got there.

We enjoyed our trip, but it’s always nice to come home again.

Copyright Bullies

 

Here is the second post on copyrights, which takes the same position (in support of copyrights) but looks at it from a different angle. Although I have made some changes, this is basically a reprint of a rant that was last posted on this blog on January 20, 2020.

Copyright Bullies

The copyright law’s fair use doctrine ensures that copyrighted works can be borrowed—within limits—to promote knowledge. “Fair use” is a complicated concept designed to ensure that information can be shared without impairing an author’s basic right to control the use of his or her material. Additionally, certain materials are in the public domain, which means there are no use restrictions whatsoever. Publishers who try to deny you these uses are copyright bullies.

These days we hear a lot about children and teens who bully their classmates. We also hear about the copyright police—the ones who remind bloggers and middle school music pirates to honor copyrights. But we rarely hear about the copyright bullies.

Copyright bullies are those publishers who try to scare us out of using their materials for any purpose whatsoever (with the sometimes exception of book reviews). The law reserves certain rights to the public, but these copyright bullies and their lawyers don’t want us to know that.

Many books have this warning in the front: “No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without permission in writing from the publisher.”

Wrong. There are a number of what the law calls “fair uses,” and brief quotations in printed reviews is only one of them. To make a general and far too simplistic statement, a fair use is one that takes a short excerpt and uses it in a way that transforms or complements the copyrighted material rather than replacing it. You can find a detailed discussion of fair use in my book, Writers in Wonderland: Keeping Your Words Legal (KP/PK Publishing 2013), which is available from Amazon and other retailers.

Then there are those works that have been around so long that copyright laws no longer protect them. These works are in the public domain. People can use public domain materials any way they want, although they should attribute the source.

I found the most flagrant attempt at copyright bullying in a book that compiles several of Lewis Carroll’s works—all of which entered the public domain decades ago. In that book the warning states: “No part of this publication may be reproduced in any way or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or stored in an information retrieval system of any kind, without the prior permission in writing from [Publisher], except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.”

Huh? All the material in that book is in the public domain, which is where the publisher got it from in the first place. The reader is free to copy at will without worrying about copyright infringement.

Here is the language I use:

©[year] by Kathryn Page Camp. All rights reserved. Copyright fair uses are encouraged, and material in the public domain remains in the public domain. Send requests for permission to . . .

We should all be careful not to violate copyrights, and some warning is necessary.

But don’t be intimidated by copyright bullies.

Copyright Champion

 

Every now and then the practice of copyrighting “creative” works comes under fire. I’m going to jump into the debate this week and next by reprinting two posts from 2020. This first one was originally posted on this blog on January 13, 2020.

Copyright Champion

I recently looked for the copyright date in a book published by Viking, which is an imprint of Penguin Random House. Instead of the normal copyright warning, it made this statement:

Penguin supports copyright. Copyright fuels creativity, encourages diverse voices, promotes free speech, and creates a vibrant culture. Thank you for buying an authorized edition of this book and for complying with copyright laws by not reproducing, scanning, or distributing any part of it in any form without permission. You are supporting writers and allowing Penguin to continue to publish books for every reader.

I agree.¹

Some people argue that copyright inhibits creativity and knowledge by restricting what people can copy, but those people are wrong. First, I don’t understand how anyone can think that copying is creative. And boiled down to its basics, that’s all copyright restricts others from doing. So how can it inhibit creativity when the only activity it prohibits is the very antithesis of creativity?

Copyright is protected by the U.S. Constitution precisely because it encourages creativity. It isn’t a reward: it’s a bribe. It isn’t wages for an author’s or artist’s finished work: it’s motivation to start working in the first place. In other words, a writer doesn’t receive the copyright because he deserves it. He gets it as an incentive to keep writing.

Second, the law’s fair use doctrine ensures that copyrighted works can be borrowed to promote knowledge. “Fair use” is a complicated concept that is beyond the scope of this post, but I will cover it briefly next week.

Although I am a strong proponent of copyright protection, I do believe that the law can be improved. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to give authors the exclusive right to their works “for a limited time” but lets Congress decide what that time is. Right now, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus seventy years (or for 95 years for certain works where the legal “author” isn’t a known individual). I think that’s way too long. Copyright shouldn’t end with the life of the author since that penalizes writers and other artists who are 80 years old or dying of cancer, and they should be encouraged to write, too. But I could easily live with the life of the author plus twenty years and with 40 or 50 years for works without an individual author.

Copyrights foster creativity, and, like Penguin Random House, I support them.

But read next week’s blog post to discover how I feel about copyright bullies.

­­­__________

¹ [Added September 11, 2023.] I do disagree with the part of the statement that implies all copying without permission violates the copyright laws, but that will be covered in my next blog post.

History Dates Terminology

When writing historical fiction, the vocabulary is almost as important as the story. Labor Day has always been called that and has been celebrated on the first Monday of September ever since it became a national holiday in 1894. But stories that occur before then had better not talk about a national Labor Day holiday. That reference simply was not in the vocabulary at the time. (Not unless they were talking about trying to promote one, anyway.)

Memorial Day, on the other hand, started out as Decoration Day. It was called that because it was dedicated to decorating the graves of fallen servicemen. People gradually started calling it Memorial Day, especially after World War II, and the name became official in 1967. It was originally observed on May 30, regardless of the day of the week. Then, in 1968, in a quest for three-day weekends, Congress moved it to the last Monday in May. Anyone who includes Memorial Day in a historical novel needs to be award of this history.

So what made me think about historical terminology now? I am currently researching a book that takes place during World War I. But I can’t call it that because, at the time, nobody knew there would be a World War II. In fact, some people called it “the war to end all wars.” Obviously, they were wrong. During that war, and up until there was a second world war to make this one the first, people called it “the war in Europe” or “the Great War” or simply “the war.” In writing my story, I need to use the same terminology that my characters would have used.

Because the wrong vocabulary tells the world that you don’t care about historical accuracy.

__________

The picture at the top of this post shows an early Labor Day parade. I couldn’t find an exact year or location for the photo, but it is in the public domain because of its age.

Floral Photography

 

I mentioned last week that I had a goal to beat out a particular one of my fellow camera club members, and I did it this year in the Color/Weather category at the Lake County Fair. His specialty is flowers, so the next logical goal would be to beat him in that category. But I’m not even going to try. Yes, I’ll continue submitting flower photos at the fair, but not with a goal of besting him.

Michael’s flowers are gorgeous, and I love looking at them. There are several reasons why mine will never look that way, however.

First, Michael’s floral photographs are mostly close-ups with black backgrounds, and they look as if they were taken in a studio even when they weren’t.

Second, Michael spends thousands on equipment and hours in post-processing. Although I enjoy photography that’s not where I want to spend my time and money.

Third, Michael also spends more time than I do tracking down the perfect flower at the best time of day and finding just the right angle to shoot from.

While that kind of search might be fun, I’m a working writer and can’t always take time off when conditions are best. Many of my flowers are taken in full sun simply because that’s when I see them. While there are some adjustments I can make to compensate for that, there are other problems that I can’t fix, such as when the sun washes out the details.

That’s what happened in the photo at the top of the page. Not only was the detail washed out, but the flower itself looked a little artificial in the harsh light. Even so, I liked it well enough that I decided to enter it in the Color/Floral category at the fair. So I tried to give it a little more interest using post-processing to soften the image. Roland thinks it looks a bit like a painting. It didn’t win a ribbon, but I like it.

The next photo is the one I entered in B&W/Floral. It didn’t win a ribbon, either, although I had higher hopes for it than for the color one I entered. Unlike the color photo, this was taken on a darker day and you can see more details, such as the rain drops. Several months ago, I entered it in competition at my photo club as a color photograph, and the score there was sort of middle-of-the-road. During the critiquing afterwards, one judge told me it would have scored higher if I had cloned out the stalk behind it.

I could have done that. I have the software and the knowledge and often clone out imperfections and distractions, but her suggestion would have changed the context and the impact of the photo. Besides, the stalk is almost as interesting as the flower, although that might be part of the problem if it draws attention away from the main subject of the photo. Still, I like the way it looks in black and white, so I went ahead and entered it at the fair without changing the background.

As you can see, I like my flowers in a natural setting, such as against a brick wall or with a stalk in the background. That’s part of the reason they don’t do well at the fair.

But I’ll keep on entering them.

Another Year at the Fair

 

I entered 17 photos in the Advanced Division of the Lake County Fair this year and won three 3^rd place ribbons and one 1^st. I had to laugh because the blue ribbon was for a “just because I can” photo, meaning one that fit the category and didn’t embarrass me but that I didn’t expect to win anything. The one I thought was my best and had my hopes riding on got a 3^rd place. Photography is subjective, and you can never predict what a judge will do.

The photo at the top of the page is the first-place winner from the Color/Weather category. It is from my trip to Iceland. An interesting fact is that I took it on my cell phone because I couldn’t get my more sophisticated camera to set up correctly. The best thing about this win is that I met my long-time goal to beat a particular member of my camera club.

This next photo is the one that I really, really like. It was taken at the Waterford Crystal factory in Ireland. The woman is cutting a design into a wineglass, and I love the concentration on her face. The category was B&W/Human Interest.

"Man and Mountain Goat" took third place in the Color/Portrait category. The man was obviously expecting people to photograph him and his goat because he had a cap out to accept donations. I dropped money in his cap and asked for permission anyway, which he gave.

The final photo took third place in the Color/Architecture category. Competition wise, I do better with photos showing details of buildings than I do with photos of an entire building. That’s probably true for others as well, since taking the entire building is more touristy. (I take both, though.) This photo shows some of the detail of the Melbourne (Australia) Arts Center, which was designed to look like the Eifel Tower.

I’ve been entering in the Advanced Division for several years now, with varying results. I’m up against strong competitors, and many of them take a lot more time with their photos than I do with mine (both in setting up the photo itself and in post-processing). So I’m happy with whatever I get.

With this year’s fair behind me, I can’t wait for next year.

The Dangers of Modeling Characters on Real People

 

Every character we include in our fiction reflects people we have known. Each characteristic—whether noble, embarrassing, or quirky—came from our experience with someone. It may be buried deep in our subconscious, but we didn’t create it. Even so, some people stand out more than others, and we may be fascinated with them and their lives. So how can we write about them without getting into trouble?

As I promised last week, this week’s post discusses some of the dangers of modeling characters on real people. It will start by discussing two of the cases covered in my book Writers in Wonderland: Keeping Your Words Legal and will end with some ideas on how to avoid the pitfalls.

Fetler v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 364 F.2d 650 (2d Cir. 1966)

Imagine yourself living in the glow that follows your first published book. Then the sheriff knocks on the door and hands you a summons. Your brother has sued you for defamation.

Oh, you say, that won’t happen to me. I only write fiction, and everybody knows fiction isn’t true. Besides, I’ll have a disclaimer at the beginning of my book saying that any resemblance to any person living or dead is purely coincidental.

That may have been what Andrew Fetler thought when he published The Travelers. If so, he soon discovered that he was wrong.

The novel revolved around a family very much like Andrew’s family and an older brother very much like Andrew’s older brother, Daniel. But the fictional parts portrayed the older brother taking actions Daniel found repugnant. So Daniel sued, and the entire family took sides.

The lower court judge dismissed the case without a trial, but the federal appeals court overturned the decision. It said the similarities between Daniel and the character in the novel were strong enough to let a jury decide whether readers would identify the real brother as the fictional one, and it sent the case back for a trial.

There is no more information on the case after that, and I don’t know how the story ended. The dispute might have gone to trial or, more likely, it may have settled. But even if Andrew ultimately won the case, he had to bear the expense and stress of a lawsuit and live with the knowledge that his novel had divided the family.

Smith v. Stewart, 660 S.E.2d 822 (Ga.Ct.App. 2008)

I do know how this story ended. A jury found that Smith (the author) had defamed Stewart. Putting Stewart in the novel also turned a friend into an enemy, and Smith may have regretted both outcomes.

Haywood Smith’s novel The Red Hat Club included a character named “SuSu.” In the book, SuSu received a large insurance settlement after her first husband was killed in a car accident. Later, she became engaged to a man who owned nursing homes in Florida and was already engaged to another woman. This man eventually stole SuSu’s insurance settlement, moved to Florida, and transferred his assets to his mistress. Although a court awarded SuSu $750,000, she was unable to collect it from him. Then, at the age of fifty, SuSu became a flight attendant.

These facts weren’t unique to the fictional character. They also fit the author’s real-life friend, Vickie Stewart.

Maybe it would have been all right if Smith had stopped there. Unlike the real-life model, however, SuSu was a sexually promiscuous alcoholic who drank on the job. Stewart took offense and sued for defamation.

The appeals court held that fiction could be defamatory if the statements were about an identifiable person, and it found enough factual similarities to let a jury decide whether readers would identify Stewart with SuSu. The jury concluded that readers who knew Stewart would realize that SuSu was based on her. Since there was no evidence that Stewart was a sexually promiscuous alcoholic, the jury also found that Smith had defamed her.

Avoiding the Pitfalls

If you want to use a real person in your fiction, change some of the facts and make the character a composite of several people. If you are fascinated by a few of your Aunt Martha’s characteristics or experiences, by all means use them, but give some of them to other characters. Change her name and physical characteristics, place her in a different job and setting (unless the job or setting are part of what makes her interesting), and mix in several noticeable personality traits that the real Aunt Martha doesn’t have. If you change enough, she is no longer recognizable. Or at least the reader who knows her will realize that your character is mostly fictional.

Daddy was a minister who wrote sermons and letters but never considered anything longer until he retired and started his autobiography, while Becky’s father is a college professor who is writing a book on Sir Walter Scott. Daddy was always taking pictures, while I gave that role to the mother in my novel. Still, the two quirks I mentioned in my last blog post were part of his personality, and using them together makes Becky’s father a more interesting character. They also make him easily recognizable to people who knew him.

As I said earlier, I’m sure Daddy would laugh while reading the passages about Becky’s father, but there is another reason I’m not worried about him getting angry and suing me. Simply put, the easiest way to avoid the pitfalls of writing about a real person is to write about somebody who is dead. You can’t libel the dead, and they can’t sue you, either.

A writer also isn’t liable for libel if the person has given his or her consent. Wait, you say, why would someone agree to be negatively portrayed? For the same reason people agree to go on reality television shows where they come across looking like jerks. Some individuals will do anything for publicity or money. Or they don’t realize how something looks until they read it on paper, watch it on TV, or hear their friends’ comments.

Make sure the consent is in writing and is broad enough to cover whatever you want to say. You also don’t want them complaining later that you didn’t tell them how the character would appear, so full disclosure is best.

Actually, there is a another way to protect yourself, but it is chancy. If you stick to the facts and make sure they can’t be misinterpreted, it isn’t libel. That doesn’t keep someone from suing you in the first place, however. Even when you win, lawsuits are expensive in time, money, and relationships.

So if you want to model characters on real people, make sure you consider the consequences.