The Spontaneous Huddle

Drawing's more fun than Xanax.

Like most people, I’ve always had at least one regular hobby. It didn’t really matter what it was, but it usually ended up being some creative outlet, like ice skating, drawing, singing, or dancing. I would spend my free time enjoying that hobby whenever I wasn’t doing other, more important things.

Since beginning graduate school, though, I haven’t felt like I had the luxury to continue my hobbies. For most grad students, there’s an end goal in sight in all your work. Everything you’re doing is propelling you closer and closer to being the successful professional you’ve dreamed of. Why would we want to waste time drawing a picture or going to take a dance class?

As I’ve discovered, I can’t deal with the stress of my program without my hobbies. For a while, I thought I was just being weak, and that if I worked harder, longer days I would get used to it. While I’m sure (I know, in fact) that some people have unlimited energy and work ethic, I personally can’t keep going at such an intense pace. At least not without breaks to enjoy myself in other, less intellectual ways.

We often forget about the health benefits of the arts, although art therapy is a widely-used strategy in mental health settings. At a 2003 seminar of the Institute for Public Policy Research, Mike White discussed the importance of the arts. He noted some important related findings:

An arts in health questionnaire survey carried out by the Health Education Authority
in 1998 produced 90 responses from arts organisations, an ‘overwhelming’ number of
which identified improvement of mental health. There was observational evidence of
participants achieving stress reduction (53% of projects), therapeutic benefit (57%),
improved sociability (59%), and skills development (70%).

~From White, Mike (2003). ARTS IN MENTAL HEALTH FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION– A Discussion Paper. Mental Health and the Arts IPPR Seminar, London.

After some deep thought about my own mental health, I have realized that I won’t become an effective Psychologist without taking care of myself first. While at first it seemed trivial, I bought a sketchbook and some colored pencils, and started to spend time in the evenings drawing. I’m going to yoga or the gym a couple times a week too. Nothing too crazy, but it’s making all the difference. In the end, it makes my hours devoted to work more efficient and reminds me that there’s more to life than schoolwork.

For most students and young professionals with so many responsibilities weighing us down, it’s difficult to remember to prioritize our own well-being, but vital to our success in life. Ultimately, we can either be exhausted and too stressed to function effectively in our careers, or instead sacrifice a few hours a week to partake in some creative outlet. The latter option will make us physically and mentally healthier and more content overall.

If you, like me, are getting sucked into the American workaholic frenzy, I suggest you give some hobbies a try. They might improve more than just your drawing skills.

Shayna Skelley Main Career Development, Employment, Mental Health

If you make the decision to tough life out as a working writer, it’s pretty much a given that at some point or other, you’ll have to supplement your income. And that means part-time jobs, thankless jobs, mindless jobs, labor-intensive jobs. But you take your lumps, because hey, it’s all just fodder for your future novel/memoir.

Yours truly has worked her fair share of side gigs–waitress, office assistant, PR rep, lab study participant, etc.–for the sake of some extra income. And I’m planning to dive into the exciting world of food service again, very soon.

But apparently–and I’m totally stoked about this–there’s a universe out there where professional writers don’t have to do any jobs but writing. They’ve never had to lift a finger in their lives to do anything more strenuous than clack away on their laptops.

And if they do, well–well gosh, it’s just quaint, isn’t it?

Take it from this New York Times piece by Caitlin Kelly, a freelance writer who decided to pick up a part-time job (part-time as in once a freakin’ week) working as a salesperson at a clothing boutique–for funsies!

Sometimes I feel like Alice slipping through the looking glass, toggling between worlds. In one world, I interview C.E.O.’s, write articles for national publications and promote my nonfiction book. In the other, I clock in, sweep floors, endlessly fold sweaters and sort rows of jackets into size order. . .

The contrasts between my former full-time job and my current part-time one have been striking. I slip from a life of shared intellectual references and friends with Ivy graduate degrees into a land of workers who are often invisible and deemed low-status.

Congratulations, Caitlin. You just discovered that there are other people in the universe! People who aren’t journalists. And have crazy things like diversity and no college degrees. OMG! Read more…

Jenna Scherer Main Boston Globe, Employment, Journalism, New York Times, Second Job, Writing

Previous live blogs from the event:  Part 1; Part 2; and Part 3.  Please remember that these are not transcriptions, and therefore should not be relied on or ascribed to those whose statements they are based on.

4:00 pm The Public Interest
Moderator: Mary Rasenberger, Counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Panelists: Jeffrey Cunard, Managing Partner, Washington, D.C. office, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP;
Robert Darnton, Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and Director of the Harvard University Library;
James Grimmelmann, Professor, New York Law School;
Alexander Macgillivray, Associate General Counsel for Products and Intellectual Property, Google Inc.;
Carol A. Mandel, Dean, Division of Libraries, New York University

Read more…

Joshua L. Simmons Google Books, Main Intellectual Property, Internet, Litigation

More live blogging after lunch, with…

2:00 am Authors and Incentives
Moderator: Professor Jane C. Ginsberg, Columbia Law School
Panelists: Tracey Armstrong, President and CEO, Copyright Clearance Center;
Michael J. Boni, partner, Boni & Zack LLC, lead counsel for the Authors Guild and the Author Sub-Class in the Google Settlement;
Jan Constantine, General Counsel & Assistant Director of the Authors Guild;
Arthur Klebanoff, President of both Scott Meredith Literary Agency and RosettaBooks, an e-book publisher;
Eugene Linden, Author, Winds of Change, The Future and Plain Sight and other books;
Victor S. Perlman, General Counsel and Managing Director, American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. (ASMP)

Read more…

Joshua L. Simmons Google Books, Main Intellectual Property, Internet, Litigation

Live blogging continued…Please note this is not a transcript.

11:00 am The Future of “Books”
Moderator: June M. Besek, Executive Director, Kernochan Center, Columbia Law School
Panelists: Allan R. Adler, Vice President – Legal and Governmental Affairs, Association of American Publishers (AAP);
Richard Sarnoff, Co-Chairman, Bertelsmann, Inc. and President, Bertelsmann Digital Media Investments;
Jule Sigall, Senior Policy Counsel/Copyright and Trademark, Microsoft Corp.;
Herman Spruijt, President, International Publishers Association;
Lois F. Wasoff, Legal Consultant, former Vice President and Corporate Counsel, Houghton Mifflin Company

Read more…

Joshua L. Simmons Google Books, Main Intellectual Property, Internet, Litigation

Today, Columbia Law School’s Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts is holding a symposium on the Google Books settlement.  Keep checking in as I blog about the event.

An introduction; Marybeth Peters, U.S. Register of Copyrights; and Professor Randal C. Picker, Paul H. and Theo Leffmann Professor of Commercial Law, University of Chicago Law School; after the break.

Read more…

Joshua L. Simmons Google Books, Main Intellectual Property, Internet, Litigation

One of our commenters provided some meaningful feedback to my post from last week on the Google Books settlement. For round two of my Google Books discussion, I would like to address some of those arguments. The poster (Law Student) made two claims: members of the Google Books settlement class should not be considered legally knowledgeable; and the notice provided through the settlement is insufficient to inform members of the class.

Photo by MargauxV (licensed under CC)

Those that are members of the Google Books settlement are not unknowledgeable about issues of copyright and licensing. The settlement specifically only incorporates copyright holders of books that have been registered with the United States Copyright Office. Authors that do not know enough about copyright to register are not considered members of the settlement class and therefore retain their rights against Google. Those that have registered fall into one of two categories: either they are book publishers that share or own copyright in the books, or they are individual authors. To argue that book publishers, who work with copyright issues on a daily basis, are not aware of what rights are involved in the settlement would be an odd claim, so I must assume that Student’s concern was primarily directed at book authors that had sufficient knowledge of copyright to register their books. For those authors, Google and the class action plaintiffs have not only created a website from which authors can download the settlement agreement, but they have also summarized that agreement in question and answer style so that those that are not legally trained may understand what is happening with their rights. For those that still have questions, they can contact the settlement administrator by mail or e-mail. The administrator will answer any questions, and from personal experience, they respond within 48 hours.

Given all of these avenues of information, I find it unconvincing that these somewhat informed authors would not be able to get the information necessary to understand the settlement. The remaining question then is whether the class members will be provided adequate notice. Again, the definition of the settlement class helps assist the class members. By defining the class as only those that have registered with the Copyright Office, the class administrator automatically started out with access to fairly accurate contact information for the rights holders. One might argue that since registering an author might have moved, but most authors that would care enough about their rights to be concerned about the settlement would likely update their copyright registrations with that information. In addition, there is a settlement website, and there has been quite a bit of media exposure concerning the entire case. Finally, Google has paid for an international advertising campaign by which hopefully any author who falls through the cracks will be informed. Student is right that this is constructive notice, but what a construction! Even in a “regular” lawsuit a party can be given notice by constructive notice, such as publication in newspapers, and I am sure that those notices are not nearly as clear or widely read as the ones in this class action.

Student also raised concerns about “other people getting to litigate a person’s rights absent proof that that person was sufficient notified of her involvement.” I have already pointed out that notice of the settlement will more than likely reach all those affected, but even if it didn’t those involved in the settlement negotiations came as close to representing those affected as one could muster, including representatives from both the Author’s Guild and the Association of American Publishers.

In my opinion, anyone who has enough copyright knowledge to register their work with the Copyright Office and who has notice that a settlement regarding their rights has been reached, should be expected to go online and choose to opt-out if that is what they want to do. I apologize if that opinion appears to be “bashing” these authors, but honestly one can not imagine a more tailored and informed class.

Joshua L. Simmons Main Intellectual Property, Internet, Litigation

Next week, Columbia Law School’s Kernochan Center for Law, Media and the Arts will be presenting a symposium primarily focused on the Google Books settlement. For those of you who don’t know, a group of authors and book publishers sued Google in a class action because Google had been scanning books from various libraries without permission, and making them available to the public on their website.

Photo by 0olong (licensed under CC)

What Google was doing was certainly an infringement of copyright law. Google was not only making copies of the works, but it was displaying them to the public. However, Google defended itself by arguing that what it was doing was a fair use. Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, and Google’s argument basically hinged on the fact that had it not infringed, the market for its product—subscription access to every book on the planet—would not have existed.

Whether or not what Google was doing constituted fair use is still up for debate. What isn’t up for debate is the fact that Google and the class action plaintiffs reached a settlement. The settlement itself is quite long, but the gist of it is that if you hold a copyright in a book that has been registered with the copyright office, you are in the class unless you opt out. For those who remain in the class, they will receive an initial payment for each book that Google actually scanned, and from this point they will receive a portion of the profits from Google’s exploitation of their work.

What was amazing about this settlement is that it could not have occurred without the power of a class action. Class actions are special creatures that allow a representative group to sue on behalf of all similarly effected individuals. Had every individual author been required to either sue Google or negotiate terms for use, it would have been prohibitively expensive and time consuming. By suing in a class action, however, the plaintiffs were able to wrap up everyone represented and negotiate en masse for them, without consultation or agreement. Obviously there will be those that choose not to be members of the class, but by using a class action the plaintiffs changed the burden from opt-in to opt-out. Those that would have been too lazy or apathetic to opt-in, now must muster enough attention and interest to opt-out of the settlement. Failure to do so doesn’t mean their work will automatically be available to the public (unless it is out-of-print), but it does mean that they are members of the class, and Google will be able to make certain “Non-Display” uses of their work.

The settlement, of course, leaves open several questions including whether Google’s service will be able to make money. Obviously, the subscription based portions will make some, but the real question is how much Google will charge for its service and whether that amount will translate to any real returns for the authors who have given up the use of their works.

Joshua L. Simmons Google Books, Main Intellectual Property, Internet, Litigation