This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1lorannen
We've discussed this before. The last attempt was long and well-reasoned, but also somewhat nasty. Here is my attempt to restart it—and settle it. Please be kind.
Here are the rules Tim and I came up with. We lay them on the table for discussion, but we are going to settle on rules, and, well, not everyone will be happy with them!
Policy on Non-Representational Author Images
Authors should normally get photos, or other attempts to represent what they really look like (e.g., a photo of a statue) as their primary photo.
Organizations can have "non-representational" images—logos, photographs of buildings, and so forth—because there is no "person" there.
All non-representational images should be marked "non-representational." Note: This requires a new feature. I will build it, if this is approved.
Non-representational images are always allowed as secondary author photos. (This is a change.)
Non-representational images are allowed as primary images if and only if:
1. There are no representational images, and
2. The image is demonstrated to have been used consistently as an author image elsewhere on the web.
Author images are documentation of fact, not marketing or branding. The author should enjoy a certain informal grace in choosing the picture they like best. But the author does not get to hoist a non-representational image over a representational one, if a representational one exists.
Here are the rules Tim and I came up with. We lay them on the table for discussion, but we are going to settle on rules, and, well, not everyone will be happy with them!
Policy on Non-Representational Author Images
Authors should normally get photos, or other attempts to represent what they really look like (e.g., a photo of a statue) as their primary photo.
Organizations can have "non-representational" images—logos, photographs of buildings, and so forth—because there is no "person" there.
All non-representational images should be marked "non-representational." Note: This requires a new feature. I will build it, if this is approved.
Non-representational images are always allowed as secondary author photos. (This is a change.)
Non-representational images are allowed as primary images if and only if:
1. There are no representational images, and
2. The image is demonstrated to have been used consistently as an author image elsewhere on the web.
Author images are documentation of fact, not marketing or branding. The author should enjoy a certain informal grace in choosing the picture they like best. But the author does not get to hoist a non-representational image over a representational one, if a representational one exists.
2_Zoe_
Organizations can have "non-representational" images—logos, photographs of buildings, and so forth—because there is no "person" there.
All non-representational images should be marked "non-representational." Note: This requires a new feature. I will build it, if this is approved.
This will be only for photos uploaded on author pages, right? Because a) I'd generally consider a photograph of a bookstore to be representational, if I'm putting it on, say, a venue page; and b) it would be annoying to add another step to uploading images all over the site.
All non-representational images should be marked "non-representational." Note: This requires a new feature. I will build it, if this is approved.
This will be only for photos uploaded on author pages, right? Because a) I'd generally consider a photograph of a bookstore to be representational, if I'm putting it on, say, a venue page; and b) it would be annoying to add another step to uploading images all over the site.
3timspalding
Let's stick to authors for now.
4brightcopy
#1 by @lorannen> There are no representational images, and
if a representational one exists.
What about the cases where a photo appears to exist, but the author either remains silent on whether it's them or claims it's not, mainly to avoid having their picture out there?
In other words, what is the standard of proof/definition of authority when it comes to deciding that a given existing photo really is of a certain person?
if a representational one exists.
What about the cases where a photo appears to exist, but the author either remains silent on whether it's them or claims it's not, mainly to avoid having their picture out there?
In other words, what is the standard of proof/definition of authority when it comes to deciding that a given existing photo really is of a certain person?
5Nicole_VanK
#2. (The image is demonstrated to have been used consistently as an author image elsewhere on the web.) might get tricky to track down sometimes. But I'll gladly comply.
6brightcopy
#5 by @BarkingMatt> Well, I think if you could e.g. find it as the image on Amazon, Goodreads, Wikipedia, the publisher's site for the author's book, you could pretty easily consider that consistent.
7elenchus
For the typical author, the proposal seems reasonable.
For edge cases, as Tim memorably terms it, would it make sense to state in the policy that disagreements will be settled by LT staff, or should there be some sort of a thread created to discuss and perhaps vote publicly? Maybe that's overengineering it, but I assume one of the primary objectives here is to avoid conflict up front by outlining a policy rather than trying to duke it out when a specific case arises. At least outlining the approach we prefer could help tamp down emotions in the specific situation.
For edge cases, as Tim memorably terms it, would it make sense to state in the policy that disagreements will be settled by LT staff, or should there be some sort of a thread created to discuss and perhaps vote publicly? Maybe that's overengineering it, but I assume one of the primary objectives here is to avoid conflict up front by outlining a policy rather than trying to duke it out when a specific case arises. At least outlining the approach we prefer could help tamp down emotions in the specific situation.
8LShelby
>1 lorannen: I like it as outlined. :)
>4 brightcopy: If the image is disputed... Ie, there is no official source recognizing it as being an image of that author, and somebody thinks it isn't, then I think it should be flagable as not an image of that author.
I'd much rather have accurate but non-representative images showing than to have a representative image that actually happens to be of someone else.
>4 brightcopy: If the image is disputed... Ie, there is no official source recognizing it as being an image of that author, and somebody thinks it isn't, then I think it should be flagable as not an image of that author.
I'd much rather have accurate but non-representative images showing than to have a representative image that actually happens to be of someone else.
9timspalding
Right. The standard should be high certainty. Now and then we get an author who doesn't want their picture up. If the picture is "out there" and not otherwise illegal or improper*, sorry. But if there's any real doubt, kill it. False data is certainly worse than a lack of data.
*For example, not all pictures of Anthony Weiner should be on his author page.
*For example, not all pictures of Anthony Weiner should be on his author page.
10lorax
8>
And I'd rather not have the author be able to say "That's not me and you can't prove it, neener neener", when it's (for example) a personal photo taken at a book signing that doesn't exist at an "official source", just because she doesn't think it's a flattering photo. I would say that the burden of proof should be for someone to provide good evidence that the photo is in fact of someone else.
And I'd rather not have the author be able to say "That's not me and you can't prove it, neener neener", when it's (for example) a personal photo taken at a book signing that doesn't exist at an "official source", just because she doesn't think it's a flattering photo. I would say that the burden of proof should be for someone to provide good evidence that the photo is in fact of someone else.
11LShelby
>10 lorax: An author who behaves in this way can be reported for abusive flagging and kicked off the site, no? It would probably have to happen more than once to be a provable offense, until then it's just the uploader versus the author... but if it doesn't happen more than once, why are we worried about it?
12r.orrison
I'm happy with the things that are going to be allowed, but I'm wondering what now won't be allowed. Specifically, what are considered allowable non-representational secondary images? Book covers? Works of art by but not of the author?
13Keeline
Organizations can have "non-representational" images—logos, photographs of buildings, and so forth—because there is no "person" there.
I know that the main thrust here so far is where a single author is being represented by a logo, etc. instead of a traditional photo.
However, since the whole policy is under consideration, I would like to note that there are real, sometimes identifiable, people who ply their skills to these works. Nevertheless, some names are owned by organizations (book packagers like the Stratemeyer Syndicate or publishers) and, as such, no one ghostwriter should be attached to this kind of pseudonym. Even in the cases where the only five volumes were ghostwritten as a work for hire by a single individual, the pseudonym is not a personal one of the "Mark Twain"=Samuel L. Clemens example. The book packager or publisher could (and often does) hire another writer as circumstances require.
For this reason, on the pseudonyms used by the Stratemeyer Syndicate we invented an image to note this status of the name. The individual ghostwriters, often authors on their own hook, would naturally have photos on their own pages. I merely contend that "Carolyn Keene" is not a single person like Mildred Wirt Benson or Edward Stratemeyer or Harriet Stratemeyer Adams.
Perhaps this use is acceptable in the spirit and practice of the policy. It does not seem to be a source of controversy after its initial use. However, since it seems to relate to this policy, I would like to see language that will minimize problems in the future for this rather large edge case for book packager- and publisher-owned pen names.
James
I know that the main thrust here so far is where a single author is being represented by a logo, etc. instead of a traditional photo.
However, since the whole policy is under consideration, I would like to note that there are real, sometimes identifiable, people who ply their skills to these works. Nevertheless, some names are owned by organizations (book packagers like the Stratemeyer Syndicate or publishers) and, as such, no one ghostwriter should be attached to this kind of pseudonym. Even in the cases where the only five volumes were ghostwritten as a work for hire by a single individual, the pseudonym is not a personal one of the "Mark Twain"=Samuel L. Clemens example. The book packager or publisher could (and often does) hire another writer as circumstances require.
For this reason, on the pseudonyms used by the Stratemeyer Syndicate we invented an image to note this status of the name. The individual ghostwriters, often authors on their own hook, would naturally have photos on their own pages. I merely contend that "Carolyn Keene" is not a single person like Mildred Wirt Benson or Edward Stratemeyer or Harriet Stratemeyer Adams.
Perhaps this use is acceptable in the spirit and practice of the policy. It does not seem to be a source of controversy after its initial use. However, since it seems to relate to this policy, I would like to see language that will minimize problems in the future for this rather large edge case for book packager- and publisher-owned pen names.
James
14eromsted
I remain against non-representational author images. See my comment in the other thread. But it's not a very big issue for me.
15timspalding
Book covers? Works of art by but not of the author?
I think it needs to be either a picture of the author or an intentional avatar. But not a book cover.
I think it needs to be either a picture of the author or an intentional avatar. But not a book cover.
16lorannen
>10 lorax: I sincerely doubt we'd see much of that. And wouldn't it make sense, if the author doesn't like the photo because it's unflattering, to provide one themselves that they like better?
18barney67
What about caricatures? Esp. unflattering ones, which most of them are.
A long time ago, someone put up a caricature as an author photo and I flagged it because it was not a representation of the author and because it made the author look like an idiot. But I was outvoted by people who were probably motivated more by their dislike of the author, who was a political figure, than by some site rule.
I encountered this when I worked for a newspaper. If there was a story about a political figure an editor disliked, he printed a bad picture of the politician alongside the story. For example, if there was a story about an increase in the number of homeless, he might print a photo of the politician smiling. And so on. Or whenver the person appeared in a story, he might use a picture with a mean or ugly expression.
A long time ago, someone put up a caricature as an author photo and I flagged it because it was not a representation of the author and because it made the author look like an idiot. But I was outvoted by people who were probably motivated more by their dislike of the author, who was a political figure, than by some site rule.
I encountered this when I worked for a newspaper. If there was a story about a political figure an editor disliked, he printed a bad picture of the politician alongside the story. For example, if there was a story about an increase in the number of homeless, he might print a photo of the politician smiling. And so on. Or whenver the person appeared in a story, he might use a picture with a mean or ugly expression.
19brightcopy
#11 by @LShelby> We're not talking about an author flagging stuff, just stating "that's not me, prove it" and now you have "real doubt" (what more authoritative source could there be than the author?)
And to lorannen's post, if they don't want their picture on their page at all, what motivation would they have to provide another one?
Just seems like a bit loophole that encompasses almost the entirety of the authors who were in question to begin with. This is a nice policy, but I'm afraid it might effectively only cover the Betty Crocker's of the world and tell the rest "if you don't like photos of yourself being posted to LT, you can put a stop to it as long as you're not a big name author that has their photo on a dustjacket."
And to lorannen's post, if they don't want their picture on their page at all, what motivation would they have to provide another one?
Just seems like a bit loophole that encompasses almost the entirety of the authors who were in question to begin with. This is a nice policy, but I'm afraid it might effectively only cover the Betty Crocker's of the world and tell the rest "if you don't like photos of yourself being posted to LT, you can put a stop to it as long as you're not a big name author that has their photo on a dustjacket."
20prosfilaes
#13: Even in the cases where the only five volumes were ghostwritten as a work for hire by a single individual, the pseudonym is not a personal one of the "Mark Twain"=Samuel L. Clemens example. The book packager or publisher could (and often does) hire another writer as circumstances require.
You can find a lot of real authors used that way: Isaac Asimov (written by someone else), Tom Clancy (written by David Michales), or HP Lovecraft (written by August Derleth). (Tom Clancy's Net Force: State of War, which we list by Tom Clancy right now, is an excellent example of this.) I don't the sole idea that a pseudonym might be used for someone is a reason not to connect to that person.
#19: Just seems like a bit loophole that encompasses almost the entirety of the authors who were in question to begin with. This is a nice policy, but I'm afraid it might effectively only cover the Betty Crocker's of the world and tell the rest "if you don't like photos of yourself being posted to LT, you can put a stop to it as long as you're not a big name author that has their photo on a dustjacket."
I'm sort of left wondering why that's a problem; if some minor author doesn't want their picture on their page, why push it?
You can find a lot of real authors used that way: Isaac Asimov (written by someone else), Tom Clancy (written by David Michales), or HP Lovecraft (written by August Derleth). (Tom Clancy's Net Force: State of War, which we list by Tom Clancy right now, is an excellent example of this.) I don't the sole idea that a pseudonym might be used for someone is a reason not to connect to that person.
#19: Just seems like a bit loophole that encompasses almost the entirety of the authors who were in question to begin with. This is a nice policy, but I'm afraid it might effectively only cover the Betty Crocker's of the world and tell the rest "if you don't like photos of yourself being posted to LT, you can put a stop to it as long as you're not a big name author that has their photo on a dustjacket."
I'm sort of left wondering why that's a problem; if some minor author doesn't want their picture on their page, why push it?
21Keeline
#20 by @prosfilaes>
You can find a lot of real authors used that way: Isaac Asimov (written by someone else), Tom Clancy (written by David Michales), or HP Lovecraft (written by August Derleth). (Tom Clancy's Net Force: State of War, which we list by Tom Clancy right now, is an excellent example of this.) I don't the sole idea that a pseudonym might be used for someone is a reason not to connect to that person.
When a real author dies and their name is used to continue works, that is another kind of situation, of course. There are some interesting examples of this among the juvenile series books outside of the Stratemeyer Syndicate.
Horatio Alger Jr. was a writer of many stories. However, after he died, 11 more stories were put into publishable shape by Edward Stratemeyer. The way I handled this was to split Horatio Alger Jr. into 2 authors and used the (2) author for the Stratemeyer completions. It does mean some required periodic maintenance on the author page to allocate titles to the (1) and (2) authors and perform the combinations of titles.
Clive Cussler uses a number of collaborators on his series other than Dirk Pitt but since he owns the stories, I believe, his name appears largest on the book and his photo is the one that appears on the books.
However, these are not examples that inspire "non-representational" authors.
James
You can find a lot of real authors used that way: Isaac Asimov (written by someone else), Tom Clancy (written by David Michales), or HP Lovecraft (written by August Derleth). (Tom Clancy's Net Force: State of War, which we list by Tom Clancy right now, is an excellent example of this.) I don't the sole idea that a pseudonym might be used for someone is a reason not to connect to that person.
When a real author dies and their name is used to continue works, that is another kind of situation, of course. There are some interesting examples of this among the juvenile series books outside of the Stratemeyer Syndicate.
Horatio Alger Jr. was a writer of many stories. However, after he died, 11 more stories were put into publishable shape by Edward Stratemeyer. The way I handled this was to split Horatio Alger Jr. into 2 authors and used the (2) author for the Stratemeyer completions. It does mean some required periodic maintenance on the author page to allocate titles to the (1) and (2) authors and perform the combinations of titles.
Clive Cussler uses a number of collaborators on his series other than Dirk Pitt but since he owns the stories, I believe, his name appears largest on the book and his photo is the one that appears on the books.
However, these are not examples that inspire "non-representational" authors.
James
22prosfilaes
#21: I'm still not seeing a reason to take an author who wrote all the books under a pseudonym and not connect it to their real life identity.
23SimonW11
22> I think the problem is when you do not know if the author did write all the books under that pseudonym. A long running series might have a will have a number of people writing works for hire under a pseudonym and they will be contractually obliged not to tell any one that. So discovering that volume Three Gun Pete and the Pirates was by John Steinbeck does not mean we can use Steinbeck's Picture for Rock Hunter,the putative author of the Three Gun Pete series.
24Keeline
The question is largely based on who owns the pseudonym.
Collectors and booksellers have heard that Upton Sinclair did early work on dime novels under two publisher-owned pseudonyms, "Ensign Clarke Fitch" (Annapolis stories) and "Lieutenant Frederick Garrison" (West Point stories). Some of the dime novels were assembled, fix-up style, into thick paperback and hardcover books.
However, he did not write all of the dime novels under these names. Many were written by Henry "Enrique" Harrison Lewis. When it comes to the stories published in hardcover, the Garrison titles are from Sinclair's dime novels but the Fitch titles are from stories by Lewis.
This means that libraries, collectors, and booksellers have been trumpeting Lewis texts as being early Sinclair work and asking high prices for them on the commerce side or perhaps drawing misled conclusions on the academic side. It will take a while for word to get around. Some notions are applied stubbornly, especially when it comes to money.
In any case, it is not correct to use Sinclair's face for even the Garrison books and certainly not the Fitch. It is not a personal pseudonym of Sinclair but one for his 1890s employer, Street & Smith.
Some people blithely don't care about such authorship issues but since a significant number do, it is fair that the LT data try to move towards this level of data rather than the "anything goes".
As house names, Garrison and Fitch could be displayed as non-gendered and non-representational images.
When the pen name is personal of the "Mark Twain"=Samuel L. Clemens type then it is natural to see Sam's face on the "Mark Twain" entry. There are many examples of this but it is only one type of simple pseudonym. Others are far more complex.
James
Collectors and booksellers have heard that Upton Sinclair did early work on dime novels under two publisher-owned pseudonyms, "Ensign Clarke Fitch" (Annapolis stories) and "Lieutenant Frederick Garrison" (West Point stories). Some of the dime novels were assembled, fix-up style, into thick paperback and hardcover books.
However, he did not write all of the dime novels under these names. Many were written by Henry "Enrique" Harrison Lewis. When it comes to the stories published in hardcover, the Garrison titles are from Sinclair's dime novels but the Fitch titles are from stories by Lewis.
This means that libraries, collectors, and booksellers have been trumpeting Lewis texts as being early Sinclair work and asking high prices for them on the commerce side or perhaps drawing misled conclusions on the academic side. It will take a while for word to get around. Some notions are applied stubbornly, especially when it comes to money.
In any case, it is not correct to use Sinclair's face for even the Garrison books and certainly not the Fitch. It is not a personal pseudonym of Sinclair but one for his 1890s employer, Street & Smith.
Some people blithely don't care about such authorship issues but since a significant number do, it is fair that the LT data try to move towards this level of data rather than the "anything goes".
As house names, Garrison and Fitch could be displayed as non-gendered and non-representational images.
When the pen name is personal of the "Mark Twain"=Samuel L. Clemens type then it is natural to see Sam's face on the "Mark Twain" entry. There are many examples of this but it is only one type of simple pseudonym. Others are far more complex.
James
25gilroy
#15
I think that should be stated explicitly in the policy. Must be a photo of the author or an approved avatar. No Book Covers.
I think that should be stated explicitly in the policy. Must be a photo of the author or an approved avatar. No Book Covers.
26AndreasJ
15, 25 > A lot of ancient authors have busts or drawings of dubious or unknown accuracy for author pictures. Would these could as "approved avatars"? If not, perhaps the policy should explicitly allow these too.
27Nicole_VanK
>26 AndreasJ:: As far as I know those have always been allowed on LT. But okay, maybe it should be made explicit.
28jjwilson61
26> Post #1 does say or other attempts to represent what they really look like (e.g., a photo of a statue). Isn't that explicit enough?
29AndreasJ
28 > It is, but post #15 spoke only of photos and "approved avatars", and I didn't have the OP formulation fresh in memory when I replied to Tim and gilroy.
(One might quibble whether a bust of Homer represents an attempt to show what he really looked like as opposed to an attempt to show what the sculptor thought the ideal poet should have looked like, but such pin-dancing can probably be safely ignored here.)
(One might quibble whether a bust of Homer represents an attempt to show what he really looked like as opposed to an attempt to show what the sculptor thought the ideal poet should have looked like, but such pin-dancing can probably be safely ignored here.)
