Comments on: Crockett Johnson and Ruth Krauss: How an Unlikely Couple Found Love, Dodged the FBI, and Transformed Children’s Literature

By: Johanna

Johanna — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:32:11 +0000

Sheeesh! That MOMA story is disturbing. You’d hope that a museum would be more open to education. Sorry to hear that, and thanks for the information you’ve shared.

By: Philip Nel

Philip Nel — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:23:52 +0000

I’m familiar with the Fair Use provision of U.S. Copyright law. While I agree that my book serves an educational purpose, there are very few rights-holders who agree with your interpretation of Fair Use. As a result, publishers always insist on the author getting permission to use images. If authors don’t obtain permission, the images don’t go in. Indeed, though I did obtain permission for all images in my Avant-Garde and American Postmodernity: Small Incisive Shocks (2002), the Museum of Modern Art threatened to send a collection agency after me unless I paid for an image I’d already paid to use (via Artists Rights Society, as I recall). Turns out MoMA also had a copy of the artwork in question.

In sum, I prefer your interpretation of copyright law, but it is unfortunately not an interpretation shared by most rights-holders or publishers.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:16:01 +0000

Yes, but there’s a fair use exception for works of journalistic and/or educational value, and I would say your book clearly falls into that category. It requires a publisher wiling to defend those rights, though, and many don’t want the hassle or risk if a copyright owner decides to be pushy.

By: Philip Nel

Philip Nel — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:44:53 +0000

Thanks for your reply. Apologies for the belated response. Works published prior to 1923 are public domain. US Copyright is currently the life of the author plus 70 years — so, when I was seeking these permissions, any author who had died by 1940 would have been public domain. As you know, Johnson, Krauss, and Sendak all lived well beyond that point. Phil Stern (my example above) and Marc Simont (who kindly let me use his art gratis) were born in 1919 and 1915, respectively — and both remain alive and (I hope!) well. So, that’s why nearly all of the images in the book fall under US Copyright law.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 22:39:35 +0000

Thank you very much for explaining the behind-the-scenes reasons! I would think that some, if not all, of the images would be considered fair use, but I know publishers would rather pay than risk it. It’s a shame that the ultimate result is a less-illustrated product. Overall, it’s a great book.

By: Philip Nel

Philip Nel — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:43:13 +0000

Thanks for your review! Glad you (mostly) enjoyed the book. I would love to have included more than the 88 illustrations, but that was already more than the publisher wanted. (Indeed, we’d originally planned for a color insert, but that was scuttled due to cost.) Also, one has to obtain permission to reprint each illustration … and that drives up the cost. To point to one of the more expensive ones, that Phil Stern photo of Johnson at New Masses in 1939 cost $525. (Stern became an internationally renowned photographer.) It also takes time to track down rights-holders … or (in some cases) to establish the piece as an orphan work. And I had to do all of that tracking-down myself. That said, had I been allowed, I’d gladly have done more such detective work. I sum, yes, in an ideal world, we’d definitely have included more images.

I can promise, however, that we will have lots of additional illustrations in each volume of the Barnaby books — that is, there’ll be more in there than just the Barnaby strips. Photos, other artwork, and so on. I’m truly thrilled with Dan Clowes’ design of volume 1, and I think readers are going to love it, too. Beautiful work! Can’t wait for everyone to see it.