[Nfb-editors] Re-printing&Websites&Newsletter uses

[Robert Leslie Newman]

Chris and Mike and others

RE: 3 questions

 

#1 about the Re-print issue: I dig our normal mind-set and approach --- of
just using good stuff and if from another NFB source, being nice and letting
them know (receiving one of those is a "good feel" moment). And I suppose
the public law notice could potentially nip-in-the-bud any reaction from an
outside source. So using it seems like a good thing, but not a necessity
thing. 

 

#2 Chris, your describing the change in distribution of your newsletter was
surprising! (Posting it to the website only and no longer sending out an
email version.) What else on the website is of special significance that
your board is wanting people to be exposed to? (didn't want that question to
sound too stupid --- just digging for additional rassionalization/thought.)
and so I just took a look at the website of CT and see that you have a lot
going on there! Directing members there would be a way to expose them to ---
more. 

 

#3 And here is a question- some affiliates will make use of their newsletter
as an educational and/or change-the-mind document for like --- legislatures,
educators, general public and more --- do you intend to get this newsletter
under the noses of others that youall want to influence?

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Chris Kuell [mailto:ckuell at comcast.net] 

Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 1:38 PM

To: newmanrl at cox.net; Correspondence Committee Mailing List

Subject: Re: [Nfb-editors] public law 104-197, the Copyright Amendment of
1996

 

Hello, Robert.

 

I took over as editor of the Connecticut newsletter four years ago. Since we
rarely get submissions from Connecticut members, our newsletter has always
reprinted articles of interest to our readers, primarily short pieces from
local newspapers which highlight our members or, just as often, their guide
dogs. When I took over, I was told that I needed to obtain permission from
the publication before reprinting an article. I did this for a while, but
found it to be a real pain in the ass--especially if I wanted to reprint
something from a big paper like the NY Times or Boston globe. They wanted me
to jump through hoop after hoop, and I figured there had to be a better way.

 

Among the many things I enjoy reading are choice Magazine, and formerly, the
Matilda Ziegler magazine for the blind, both of which reproduce published
materials for our enjoyment. They both use the copyright amendment act
boiler-plate sentence you referred to. One day I called Greg Evanina, then
the editor of the Ziegler, to ask if he got permission to reprint material. 

He told me they used to, but for the past 10 years or so they just put the
copyright amendment clause in the beginning of the publication, and nobody
had ever bothered them about it. So, I decided to use the same approach,
however I do still request permission from time to time. For instance, in
our Spring/Summer 2011 issue, I was so impressed with the article, Blind
Faith, by Georgina Kleege, that I found her on facebook, contacted her and
asked permission to use it, but I also wanted to tell her how much I enjoyed
her writing.

 

Now, to complicate matters, for the first time our affiliate has decided to
put the entire issue up on the web site, and not send it out via email. The
reasoning is that it will force people to visit our site. I'm not sure I
agree with this logic, although there has been some positive response. But
more importantly, it is no longer in a specialized format to be used
exclusively by blind people... which makes the copyright amendment of 1996 a
moot point.

 

As for your question about on-line dictionaries, I usually go to google,
type in the word and 'definition' in the edit box, and the first dozen will
be from various on-line dictionaries. Depending on what I'm looking for, one
of the hits will undoubtedly lead me to the right answer.

 

Good luck with studying for your exam.

 

chris