Art Machine
Just another former infatuation junkie

That Pesky Apostrophe has found that John Kerry has had charges of heresy filed against him in the Catholic church.

A Catholic lawyer has filed heresy charges against Sen. John Kerry with the Archdiocese of Boston, accusing the Democratic presidential candidate of bringing “most serious scandal to the American public” by receiving Holy Communion as a pro-choice Catholic.

The 18-page document was sent to the archdiocese June 14, but released to the public only yesterday by Marc Balestrieri, a Los Angeles-based canon lawyer and an assistant judge with the Archdiocese of Los Angeles’ tribunal, an ecclesiastical court. If the Boston Archdiocese, which is refusing comment on the case, decided to press heresy charges, the Massachusetts senator could be excommunicated.

“My goal is his repentance, not excommunication,” Mr. Balestrieri said. The charges do not seek monetary damages.

Waitaminnit. I think I’ve read this one before – what was it called? Oh, yeah! I think Mario Puzo wrote it. Man, I’ll tell you. That’s Original Gangster-with-an-e-r.

I’m not Catholic, and I understand that Pope John Paul is a very conservative man – but I can’t help but feel that John Paul would be much more likely to support Kerry than Bush. The Pope and Kerry may disagree when it comes to gay marriage and abortion, but John Paul disagrees with Bush on the death penalty, Iraq, and Bush’s foreign and domestic policies in general. Plus, John Paul is Polish and has never really been keen on fascists.

And if you trace the issue over Kerry receiving Communion, you find that it doesn’t start with the Pope – it starts with one of the Cardinals. A Cardinal was the first to announce that he felt John Kerry shouldn’t be allowed to receive Communion because of his political beliefs, and that rallying cry was picked up by ultra-conservatives in the Catholic church worldwide. Meanwhile, the Pope – who, let’s face facts, is growing weak and feeble in his mortal shell – can only answer politically when asked what he thinks of the issues, saying that it’s for the arch-diocese to make their own decisions. Which is the religious equivalent of the Federal government saying it’s the states’ responsibility to decide for themselves.

When you’re in the position John Paul is in and you’re surrounded by many, many people who are just waiting for you to die so they can have a shot at the Big Hat, then you’ve got to realize that it’s time to make non-committal statements. Otherwise, you might wake up to find your – well, on second thought, you might not. The Pope’s no fool. He’s probably read The Family.

Family

I awoke this morning to 39 spam comments posted on my blog overnight and no MT-Blacklist to be found.

Comments will require registration at least temporarily.

Razzafrackin’ spammers ruin everything….

I think it’s fair to say that I’ve always been open and honest about my use of iStockPhoto graphics. In particular, I’ve been very careful with my book cover designs. The license for iStock includes permission to use the images on the covers of books, so I felt safe in doing so. I’ve used iStock on the LPE for Deciphering Sydney and for every other play I’ve created a reader’s edition of. I even submitted a couple of my cover designs to the Designer’s Spotlight section of iStockPhoto. Anybody looking at the design entry for And All My Numbered Days had only to click on the product link to discover that the images were being used as covers for books sold through CafePress Publishing.

To all of the iStocker’s whose work I used, I owe you my thanks.

And, as it turns out, I also owe you an apology.

iStock has recently posted their clarified license for use of iStock images. Among the other points clarified in the new license (clarified, not added – all of these points were part of the original license, according to iStock), none of these images can be used in a “Print on Demand” store.

As I stated, it was my understanding that I had the right to use the material on the covers of my books – it was never my intent to cheat or defraud. It simply never occurred to me that in terms of a stock photography license, print-on-demand would be treated any differently from other forms of publishing. In the next week, I will be removing the offending book covers from my CafePress store. Unfortunately, there are also a couple of iStock images used on the cover of my Lulu.com book, and there are more issues with changing the artwork on that book than on the CafePress books. However, I will make every effort to contact the artists for permission to use the artwork, or – in the case that permission cannot be given – to remove the artwork in question.

I have no intention of arguing with iStockPhoto over their policy, as I understand where they are coming from. It is difficult at times to protect the rights of your artists, and the iStockPhoto license is intended to protect those rights zealously. I will not argue that I do not have to follow the license agreement simply because I disagree with it. As previously stated, I will remove the photos in question quickly and completely.

I will, however, state that I feel the logic used to exclude print-on-demand from the iStockPhoto license is flawed.

iStockPhoto’s license – as far as I can tell without a law degree – states that the transfer of a design to a print-on-demand company’s servers for the purpose of printing goods constitutes a transfer of the image to a third party – a big no-no when it comes to stock photography. Your purchase license grants you the right to use the photo and only you. So, naturally, uploading the photo to a print-on-demand service means you’ve transferred the photo to them, right?

Except that the same could be said about when you upload a template to your web server containing an iStock image. Or when you send a magazine to the printers with an ad you created using iStock images.

But wait! In that case, you’re still the only person authorized to access those images.

The same could be said in the case of print-on-demand.

When I upload a cover design to CafePress, I am the only one who can determine what products it goes on. I effectively become the only person with access to that image on the server. And even if the site gets hacked, my account can’t allow somebody else to download the full-resolution image. The only image that will be available if somebody tries to download my design is an image that would never be suitable for print.

My design, my product – CafePress acts as my printer.

Similarly with Lulu – my design, my product, Lulu just handles printing and distribution.

It’s a complex world, but in my opinion it’s perfectly logical that a designer designing a book with an iStock photo should be seen as using the photo in their own project, and not as turning that photo over to a third party.

But it’s a touchy issue. Print-on-demand is still scary to a lot of people. But, frankly, while I feel that iStockPhoto has the best interests of its photographers at heart (yours truly included), their licensing agreement is a bit of an overreaction to the issues surrounding print-on-demand. A quick glance at Corbis’ licensing agreement – remembering that it was a quick glance that got me into this mess in the first place – shows that Corbis does not feel inclined to bar print-on-demand specifically from their license, but rather lists some common print-on-demand goods as barred (posters, picture mugs, mousepads to name a couple). Which perhaps shows a better understanding – when you talk about print-on-demand, a poster is one thing – a book is something else entirely.

But, as I said, I’m no lawyer. Take my opinions with a grain of salt.

To my American audience, happy 4th of July!

To any international readers, happy yet another day on the calendar!

Now that your RSS readers have gone nuts, I should explain that I just experienced a slight hiccough in MovableType brought about by my lack of experience and/or common sense. The past few entries might be doubled up on my system, now – or they might not. I’m not too certain.

What I do know is that that wonderful, talented brother of mine has upgraded my MovableType, and I have finally switched my bookmarks to reflect the change in my account login.

Return to life as normal, now.

In the “Hoist By Our Own Petard (Ouch)” department, the unscrupulous exploiteers over at the House of Mouse might be getting their comeuppance as they’re hauled into an African court to answer to a Zulu family who claims to be owed back royalties by Disney.

The executor of the estate of Solomon Linda, who died with less than 25 dollars in his bank account in 1962, will on behalf of his family claim 1.6 million dollars (1.3 million euros) in damages against Disney in a complaint to be filed in a South African court next week.

Disney is targeted as the “most active user” of the song, said copyright lawyer Owen Dean.

“They are using his music in the Lion King musical, which is running to full houses all over the world while Linda’s daughters work as domestic servants, living in shacks and struggle to feed their families,” Dean told reporters in Johannesburg.

The song “The Lion Sleeps Tonight,” which Disney shamelessly lifts for a scene in The Lion King – both film and stage versions – is based on a Zulu song transcribed by Pete Seeger, who called his version “Wimoweh” (from the zulu “uyiMbube” – meaning, “he is a lion”). That Zulu song was actually written in 1938 (well within the numerous copyright extensions that Disney has fought for to keep anybody else from making money off of “Steamboat Willie”) by Solomon Linda. The family claims that over the years they have defended their copyright, but have never received royalties anywhere near what they’re owed. The Disney case is their first case trying to get the family the money that they should have for crafting one of the most memorable pop hooks to ever hit the radio.

And it makes for a nice, fuzzy feeling when you realize that they’re suing Disney. That’s Disney, who over the years has confused the line between Trademark and copyright, argued for inappropriate and undemocratic extension of copyright, and even sued people for copyright/trademark infringement when they didn’t even own the trademark they were suing over.

Go, Lindas, Go!

Author: Tite Kubo
Genre: Manga, Supernatural Adventure
Publisher: Viz
Cost: $7.95
Rating: ***• (3 1/2 out of 4)
Availability:Widely Available

Viz has taken to coding their pocket-sized manga with icons on the spine. Look for a girl standing on a crescent moon, and you’ve found “Shoujo” manga – fantastic storylines generally concerning true love and the importance of self esteem. If you’re looking at a guy standing on a ringed planet, that means the manga is “Action” and contains all that genre usually entails. A crown means “Editor’s Choice,” and is reserved for manga that pushes the boundaries of genre and the art form.

The colorful “SJ” logo on the spine of Bleach marks it as part of the “Shonen Jump” manga line, featuring stories that first saw the light of day in what is probably the world’s most popular manga magazine, Shonen Jump.

Bleach is the story of high school student Ichigo Kurosaki. With his slender build and orange-colored hair, Ichigo is your typical teenager with your typical teenage problems. His family runs a clinic to treat the sick and injured, he worries about his classes and grades, and his father keeps him to a strict curfew.

Ichigo can also see ghosts.

It’s no secret that Ichigo can see them. He’s seen them all his life, and has spent most of his life helping these ghosts to find peace. As a result, Ichigo gets very little peace, himself – as soon as he’s finished helping one ghost, another is quick to latch onto him. Ichigo’s father is without the talent and is jealous of his son’s gift, while his sister actually shares the talent, but is smart enough to ignore the ghosts and avoid constant entaglements.

But as much as Ichigo knows about spirits and the spirit world, he quickly finds out that he doesn’t know everything.

Rukia Kuchiki is a Soul Reaper – a creature that Ichigo has never before encountered or even heard of. Working for the Soul Society, Rukia’s job is to send the souls of the dead on to a place of peace. Which would be all well and good if that were her sole responsibility. Unfortunately, in additon to the generally benign spirits of the dead, Rukia has to deal with Hollows.

Hollows are evil spirits who swallow the innocent souls Rukia is sworn to protect and who prey off of humans who display high levels of psychic energy.

Humans like, say, Ichigo Kurosaki.

Through an unfortunate twist during a battle with a Hollow, Rukia is forced to give Ichigo a small amount of her Reaper’s powers to allow him to fight. But something goes wrong in the transfer, and Ichigo winds up taking every last drop of Rukia’s powers into himself – turning Ichigo into a full-fledged Soul Reaper and leaving Rukia nearly powerless to fulfill her obligations.

The character design for Bleach is sleek and stylish, similar in feel to Masashi Kishimoto’s long and lean ninjas of Naruto, with creature design paying homage to great freak-outs such as Takahashi’s Mermaid Saga and Matsuri Akino’s Pet Shop of Horrors. The storyline flows smoothly through silken action scenes that feel neither hurried nor drawn-out, while the comic relief shines as some of the best in young adult manga, never coming across as too heavy-handed or extreme.

Where Bleach shines, however, is in its treatment of the people who haunt Ichigo’s life – both the living and the dead. The family that constantly surrounds him, his friends and colleagues – even the Hollows, it turns out, are not completely devoid of emotion and character. At the heart and soul, Bleach is about action and magic – but along the way it never forgets that action can’t exist in a vacuum of character and plot.

Bleach, Volume 1