Does Da Capo owe YOU money?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

FYI: I recently got in touch with Da Capo about their minor debts to various ilxors, in the classic spirit of (a) "having principles," (b) "liking to cause trouble," and/or (c) "actually needing the money."

I can't recall who else is owed, but if you email me at (myrealfirstname)@gmail.com, I will happily pass along the replacement permissions forms and the email address of the seemingly-quite-nice person who's said he'd be happy to take care of this.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 16:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Let me name Jess Harvell because he'll just as likely pipe up as not.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 16:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Me, you, Jess ... Josh? Daver? Scott P? Kris?

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Me? Not me!

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Lucky bastard. That was the thread where I'm all like "Nah, I don't think the Strokes are really gonna go anywhere..."

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I told them explicitly NOT to use my stuff in that book and then when it appeared and I pointed it out that the least they could do was pay me they ignored my emails.

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Could someone direct me to some backstory on this? I am always hearing references to this incident, but it was before my time.

― AdamL :') (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Some of it's here: The new *Da Capo Best Music Writing 2002* book is out...

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:44 (twenty-one years ago)

thx, nits!

― scott pl. (scott pl.), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:49 (twenty-one years ago)

did they really publish certain posts with getting permission from their authors? that's astonishing. do they not have an in-house person responsible for clearing rights?

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Pfft. This is part of why I was semi-vehement on that ILE copyright thread: there are plenty of publishers out there who are perfectly willing to play fast-and-loose with internet material, particularly public posts that aren't in article formats.

― nabiscothingy, Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I actually got paid for having ONE LINE QUOTED! I'm still reeling, and my freelance writing career (COUGH COUGH) still hasn't recovered.

― David R. (popshots75`), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:04 (twenty-one years ago)

well the dumb thing is that they asked for permission and then ignored my refusal ... if they just hadn't bothered to ask in the first place i probably wouldn't even have cared as much

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, it's strange: they sent out requests, but they pretty much stopped there, and didn't follow through on the important steps of, like, paying any attention to people's responses, or paying the agreed-upon sums. For instance, I agreed to be included only if they included a contextual note explaining that at the time of those posts the Strokes only had one single out. Said note did not appear, meaning on some level that they didn't have a right to include my crap, either.

― nabiscothingy, Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:07 (twenty-one years ago)

when i was in publishing, we ran into some problems when i would send out rights-clearance forms to contributors to edited volumes. every now and then a contributor would respond that they hadn't even been informed that their article was being included in a published title. we usually delegated the responsibility for that to the book or series editor. but ultimately, we (the publishing house) took responsibility for all rights issues, and i don't recall any incidents where people were not consulted or paid for their work appearing in one of our books (even if it was a nominal payment).

i really do find it astonishing that a publishing house would be oblivious to rights issues (it could cause a much bigger problem for them in the future, unless they are being canny and consciously screwing over only the most marginal of contributors). my innocence is destroyed. :(

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Also Adam: Here's the original thread that was published (excerpted, of course).

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Jaymc, did u get my email???

― AdamL :') (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:21 (twenty-one years ago)

also: it seems like a strongly-worded, albeit diplomatic, letter to dacapo's president would do much to see that they don't take internet writing for granted in the future. (the letter could include that bit of the ILX FAQ that asserts that posters have copyright over their posts.)

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Jaymc, did u get my email???

Yes, just replied.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Amateurist, after the publication, I wrote three or four emails directly to the editor who had contacted me initially (P*ul Br*snick), none of which were answered. I guess I could have tried to go over his head, but I honestly didn't want to get hime in any trouble!

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:39 (twenty-one years ago)

This seems precisely the sort of thing that should get an editor in trouble, but I'm a prick.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm guessing Br3snick, while busy assembling the book, looked upon us as a two-page pay-no-mind novelty, and prioritized his time as such. Now that it's after-the-fact, the new person -- theoretically a dedicated contracts/permissions person -- seems happy to just do the clerical portion of his job and get the checks out.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Is the "thread" as republished a whole chapter in the book, or just an excerpt within a chapter?

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I.e. are you guys being "published" or "cited"?

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:53 (twenty-one years ago)

It's a two or three-page independent piece, highly edited and abridged. Thus "published" -- theoretically it collectively constitutes some of the Best Music Writing etc.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 18:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I think nits's point a few posts back makes sense, I never got the sense that it was malicious... it just seemed that somebody was a little careless and didn't deal with the permissions carefully. after the fact, i think they just hoped I would forget about it and

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 19:03 (twenty-one years ago)

i wouldn't presume any maliciousness either, but the gaffe is a pretty bad one for a publishing house.

― amateur!st (amateurist), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 19:05 (twenty-one years ago)

sounds more like negligence than malice

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 28 July 2004 19:06 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.