My fame continues far and wide…

…or is that infamy??

Apparently my website bio appeared in a keynote address at this year’s Slayage Conference. I have no idea what was said about it, LOL.

(heads up courtesy of Midwestern Watcher from the Voy board)

22 thoughts on “My fame continues far and wide…

  1. I recall being a bit embarrassed when my website was featured on the “Screensavers” television show. It looked so primitive compared to the fancier websites. But html was the only web language I knew or cared to know, and I thought content trumped style. Still, that choice left me wiggling in my chair for the short space of my website’s 15 minutes of fame. Similar story with my silly “bio” on the website.
    Just goes to show you, you need to put some thought into everything you post publically on the interwebs.

  2. I’m starting to wonder if this person should have gotten my permission first before using me as a visual aid!

  3. I was wondering the same thing– in fact, that was the very first thing that came to mind looking at the pic above. Your site content is copyrighted, is it not?

  4. Is it? I don’t think I can copyright material I just plopped on the internet giving a critical analysis of someone else’s work. I suppose maybe if a publisher wanted to put it in book form.

  5. Actually, according to copyright law anything you write is copyrighted as soon as it’s written. Whether you register your copyright is a different issue. If you don’t register it, after 5 years anyone can lay claim to the copyright (although in your case I think you have enough evidence that you wrote it!).
    From the US Copyright Office website:
    “Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work.”
    “No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright…. There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See ‘Copyright Registration’ on page 7.”
    I’ll leave it up to you if you want to follow the link & go to p. 7. @>) The above may already be more than you cared to know! But the main point is, what you write is copyrighted even w/no registration or copyright notice.
    PS: & it’s cool that you were referenced at Slayage! I hope they also cited something more represaentative of your site, though.

  6. So does this mean that after 5 years, the material becomes “public domain” unless the copyright has been registered? If registered, how long does that extend the copyright?

  7. I can tell you more or less what was said, if you’re interested. Nothing that reflects badly on you or ATPo, in any case! Part of a larger project documenting those who study the works of Joss Whedon: Whedonversed
    You should probably be included!

  8. Accurately quoting a brief excerpt from an author’s work, with suitable acknowledgment, as part of a scholarly presentation, may be considered fair use. Author still owns the copyright, of course.

  9. Was their a “suitable acknowledgement”??
    LOL. I suppose that’s odd territory where I’m not revealing my RL name.

  10. The speaker is Tanya Cochran, one of the Whedonversed documentary producers. She’s multitalented, intelligent, and a good person as well. Her presentation was “Whedon Fan-Scholars and Scholar-Fans: Life in the Shadowlands”.
    If I remember correctly, she was basically trying to define fan-scholars as those who think and write seriously about Whedon (or just about any pop culture text), but aren’t paid for it and maybe even look on academe with suspicion–most Existential Scoobies qualify, IMO. Scholar-Fans are “professional” academics in some area or other, but study Whedon/pop culture because they love it. This causes their professional colleagues to look at them with suspicion.
    The “shadowlands” is the grey area where neither group is getting respect from either each other or others–at least, I think that’s what she said. Hopefully we’ll all work on that!
    Nikki Stafford Nik at Nite and Matthew Pateman did a funny version of the same debate Friday night.

  11. Well, I am an ex-academic, and in no way look on academia with suspicion. I wonder if my bio gives the impression that I do.
    I’d say I’m in a Shadowland between Fan-Scholar and Scholar-Fan.

  12. Furthermore, I think it’s a *huge* assuming that fans who take a scholarly approach to the Whedonverse but are not in academia look upon academia with suspicion. Certainly, I don’t think that’s true of any of the serious participants at ATPo. Envy maybe, but not suspicion.
    But then, no one in this study bothered to interview me…..
    ; )

  13. No. It means that after 5 years, someone else could register the copyright if the writer hasn’t. The writer (or other kind of creator) can contest it, but it’s much harder if s/he hasn’t registered the copyright within 5 years of writing the material; however, s/he can still register it at any time if no one else has. How the copyright PTBs can tell that the wrong person has registered the copyright even before the 5-year limit, I don’t know.
    Registering doesn’t extend the copyright either. Congress keeps doing that; last I remember, it was 70 years after the death of the writer (becoming part of the writer’s estate once s/he dies). The work isn’t in the public domain until after that period.

  14. I have the impression that she has a done interviews & has additional data, but you’re right–if she didn’t interview you personally, then your bio is just a sort of “text bite.” It was tempting, I suspect, because it seems to equate an academic career with Maggie Walsh-type “evil bitch monster of death” (crossed out). You & other Existential Scoobies may know that’s a joke, but the irony-font…
    If you’re willing to be interviewed, you should get in touch with Tanya C.
    I have seen anti-academic comments at other sites which shall not be named, and in a well-known fan book.

  15. It was entirely tongue-in-cheek, and if the good presenter recalls, is a quote from the source text by a character who is, in fact, an academic scholar, or, least, her academic scholar TA’s.
    …And though I never was “suspect” of academic Buffy scholars before, now I am starting to suspect their research methodology a little.

  16. Your “bio” may have been taken out of context, but I don’t think it was intended to be presented as or taken as 100% serious. Really, “buffyology” or Whedon studies, or whatever it is–they don’t take themselves that seriously.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s