Image was Flagged: Frank V Webster
DiscussieAuthor and venue pictures
Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.
Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1Keeline
http://www.librarything.com/pic/234300
Okay, folks, it was flagged and a bunch of you are voting to remove it so I need to know--
This is not a real person. It is a pseudonym owned by a company that doesn't even exist anymore but was hugely influential and important.
Not everyone who owns a book by Frank V Webster knows that he isn't a real person and I thought that a photo (instead of the generic silhouette) would be nice and also allows for info about the Syndicate to be up front and center and gives more info to the owner of the book right off the bat. This may help people track down other syndicate books they might like to have.
Apparently some of you disagree and I wanted to start a discussion to see what to do.
---
Here is what I said on the photo after it was flagged:
Perhaps you already know about the Stratemeyer Syndicate. This entity produced hundreds of popular children's series books in the 20th century. They created complete outlines for series and titles and then hired ghostwriters to work from these. Upon submission of an approved manuscript, the ghost was paid a sum roughly equivalent to two months' wages as a newspaper reporter (the most common "day job" for these writers) in exchange for a transfer of all rights to the story the Syndicate planned. The Syndicate arranged for publication of the series and specific title well before the ghost ever saw the outline. They also set a pen name for publication purposes which was their business property. The Syndicate earned back its investment through royalties, eventually, so that they could earn a profit on the books. The ghostwriters had no further claim on the books, of course, and could not use the pen name owned by the Syndicate in any way.
Multiple ghostwriters might write volumes (or parts of volumes) under a given name. So, unlike the case where an author adopts a personal pseudonym, like "Mark Twain" for Sam Clemens, these names are owned by an organization, the Stratemeyer Syndicate, and some of them now by Simon & Schuster.
Under this situation, no single person's face can be associated with these books. Even when specific ghostwriters can be identified (and I have done so for 98% of the more than 1,400 books they produced), that ghost has no claim on the book and probably did not do *all* of the works under that pen name.
For these reasons Kim and I created and applied the textual graphic that identifies a name as one of the Stratemeyer Syndicate pseudonyms so that readers and users of LT could be informed about this lineage of the books. It is more specific than a generic silhouette or a question mark but also reflects the semi-anonymous nature of these works.
--
My question, is it really preferable to have a blank photo which gives no info than to have a graphic that allows you the viewer to know that this is a pen name belonging to a famous organization.
There are several people who wrote under this pseudonym. And then there are the Syndicate people themselves who created the series, wrote the book outlines, edited it, etc. Whose photo belongs?
I thought my Syndicate graphic was the best of all possible worlds. Give me your thoughts.
Okay, folks, it was flagged and a bunch of you are voting to remove it so I need to know--
This is not a real person. It is a pseudonym owned by a company that doesn't even exist anymore but was hugely influential and important.
Not everyone who owns a book by Frank V Webster knows that he isn't a real person and I thought that a photo (instead of the generic silhouette) would be nice and also allows for info about the Syndicate to be up front and center and gives more info to the owner of the book right off the bat. This may help people track down other syndicate books they might like to have.
Apparently some of you disagree and I wanted to start a discussion to see what to do.
---
Here is what I said on the photo after it was flagged:
Perhaps you already know about the Stratemeyer Syndicate. This entity produced hundreds of popular children's series books in the 20th century. They created complete outlines for series and titles and then hired ghostwriters to work from these. Upon submission of an approved manuscript, the ghost was paid a sum roughly equivalent to two months' wages as a newspaper reporter (the most common "day job" for these writers) in exchange for a transfer of all rights to the story the Syndicate planned. The Syndicate arranged for publication of the series and specific title well before the ghost ever saw the outline. They also set a pen name for publication purposes which was their business property. The Syndicate earned back its investment through royalties, eventually, so that they could earn a profit on the books. The ghostwriters had no further claim on the books, of course, and could not use the pen name owned by the Syndicate in any way.
Multiple ghostwriters might write volumes (or parts of volumes) under a given name. So, unlike the case where an author adopts a personal pseudonym, like "Mark Twain" for Sam Clemens, these names are owned by an organization, the Stratemeyer Syndicate, and some of them now by Simon & Schuster.
Under this situation, no single person's face can be associated with these books. Even when specific ghostwriters can be identified (and I have done so for 98% of the more than 1,400 books they produced), that ghost has no claim on the book and probably did not do *all* of the works under that pen name.
For these reasons Kim and I created and applied the textual graphic that identifies a name as one of the Stratemeyer Syndicate pseudonyms so that readers and users of LT could be informed about this lineage of the books. It is more specific than a generic silhouette or a question mark but also reflects the semi-anonymous nature of these works.
--
My question, is it really preferable to have a blank photo which gives no info than to have a graphic that allows you the viewer to know that this is a pen name belonging to a famous organization.
There are several people who wrote under this pseudonym. And then there are the Syndicate people themselves who created the series, wrote the book outlines, edited it, etc. Whose photo belongs?
I thought my Syndicate graphic was the best of all possible worlds. Give me your thoughts.
22wonderY
I think your solution is elegant. Although it doesn't meet the legalistic definition of an author image, it certainly fulfills the spirit of the law.
But there are PowersThatBe to be reckoned with.
I counterflagged.
But there are PowersThatBe to be reckoned with.
I counterflagged.
3lilithcat
I think it is just as reasonable as the images that accompany Various, Anonymous, and similar "authors".
I voted against removing it.
I voted against removing it.
6CharlesFudgemuffin
My author photo has also been flagged. I write under the pen name 'Charles Fudgemuffin' and don't want to use actual photos of myself as that would ruin the image I want to create for my pen name. Like Frank V Webster, 'Charles Fudgemuffin' is also not a real person, so I like to keep Charles Fudgemuffin and myself separate.
So rather than leave my photo blank I used a photo of my book. Sorry if this is against the rules.
Are there no exclusions to the 'photo has to be a photo of the author' rule for cases when the author writes under a pen name? Or are there any alternatives? Basically, is it a case that you have to have either a real photo or no photo at all?
If that's the rules then no worries I'll remove the photo, but I just wanted to check if there were any alternatives first.
Thanks in advance for your help.
So rather than leave my photo blank I used a photo of my book. Sorry if this is against the rules.
Are there no exclusions to the 'photo has to be a photo of the author' rule for cases when the author writes under a pen name? Or are there any alternatives? Basically, is it a case that you have to have either a real photo or no photo at all?
If that's the rules then no worries I'll remove the photo, but I just wanted to check if there were any alternatives first.
Thanks in advance for your help.
