New site captures authors' identities and won't let go

Why is it that Stephenie Meyer, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Stephen King are joining forces with the new website FiledByAuthor, now in beta?

They aren't. At least, not intentionally.

Without permission or advance notice, FiledByAuthor has cataloged the information of about 1.8 million authors into individual pages. There are biographies, photos, links to purchase books from online retailers and links to share the author's FiledBy page through a dizzying list of social networking sites. And everyone is there, from the novice self-published author to Stephenie Meyer.

In fact, Stephenie "Twilight" Meyer is the site's most-viewed author. But while this might appear to be a tacit endorsement, Meyer has nothing to do with the site.

After FiledByAuthor creates these Web pages, it then "invites" authors to "claim" their free pages. For a fee -- $99 or $399 per year -- an author can raise their membership level to "verified." This allows an author to gain more control over his or her page, being able to do things like add more than two links, use a blog tool, manage a calendar.

"I'm naturally dubious of sites that purport to be community building sites for authors, simply because authors today tend to build their own communities via their websites, blogs and MySpace or, increasingly, Facebook pages that allow them to control their content," says author Tod Goldberg, who compared FiledByAuthor to other literary websites that he's signed up for -- RedRoom, GoodReads -- and failed to maintain. Except there is one key difference.

At those sites, authors sign up voluntarily. At FiledBy Author, 1.8 million writers are already conscripted -- and they can't be removed from the site. There is no opt out.

In an email, Jacket Copy asked co-founder Peter Clifton, "If an author were to wish to not be listed by your site -- if, for example, they already have a significant Web presence -- how can they remove their name?" His reply:

Our goal is to be comprehensive in our listings. We will link out to existing author sites or other sites so if an author has a site, our page can link to it. I'd prefer that people think about the reverse, which is how they can participate.

There is literally no way for an author to go to the site and elect not to participate. But what do authors with large online followings -- John Scalzi and Cory Doctorow, for instance -- who already control their Internet presence (and have been nurturing their online audiences for years) need with this service? What author would want FiledByAuthor's SEO efforts -- putting  authors at the top of search engines is a big part of their sell -- to work to promote the FiledByAuthor page, rather than their own site?

These authors -- the community FiledByAuthor purports to serve -- are conscripted without the hope of going A.W.O.L.

Shakespeare is in the FiledBy army. So are Fitzgerald, Alexander Pope, Charlotte Brontë and lots of other dead authors who can't do a thing about their pages. The pages don't link to definitive biographical information or the public domain work made available on Project Gutenberg for free. And if there is no one charged with minding the literary heritage of an author who's shuffled off this mortal coil, who will polish the pages of our deceased literary greats?

Why Marion Ettlinger is going to be angry ... after the jump.

Photos by top author portraitist Ettlinger are all over the site (their Joyce Carol Oates page; Oates' publisher's page, with photo credit; their Cormac McCarthy page, McCarthy with photo credit). Her gorgeous black-and-white pictures are so iconic that they're recognizable, even when they're not credited -- and there are no photo credits for Ettlinger or anyone else on FiledByAuthor.

When asked where the photos came from, a representative told Jacket Copy that they were from various "data sources." We do not know if Ettlinger was one of those sources, or if she has given them permission to use her work uncredited.

Author Laila Lalami is open to the service, but cautions that permission is important. "I don't mind at all being listed, unless of course the information that is placed on the author page is incorrect, or misleading, or taken from the author's main site without prior permission. Listings are fine, but any use of a person's information should be in an opt-in, not an opt-out model."

There are plenty of online services that serve to help authors who'd like to have their work more widely read. FiledByAuthor's massive database has the potential to do that -- but to be truly author-friendly, it has to demonstrate that it values intellectual property. The Meyer bio was written by a person, and her photograph was taken by someone too; at the very least, those people deserve to be credited. Being compensated would be even better.

If FiledByAuthor can't remember that creators have a right to control their work, then is the site really on the side of authors?

-- Carolyn Kellogg

All photos taken from author profile pages on FiledByAuthor: Top row: Stephenie Meyer, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Julian H. Preisler. Bottom row: Phyllis Tickle, Magdalena Ball, Stephen King.

Comments

[cybele]

What an irritating and unuseful site. I looked up a few authors who haven't gone and claimed themselves. The site doesn't link together all the works. So search for, say, Cory Doctorow, and it lists six works but doesn't necessarily say that all were written by the SAME Doctorow.

You'd think they could at least must that authority, to know who is who. But it's exactly as if you went to a bookshelf and saw a bunch of names next to each other. Is this James Smith the same as that James Smith? FiledbyAuthor doesn't seem to think it needs to do that legwork.

[marguerite]

What a novel way to make money off of selling something you do not own! They don't own the pictures they are using to advertise the writers. They don't own the publishing rights or the contract to promote the writers work. Hopefully the publishers, the writers and the photographers and their agents will be able to litigate this form of highway robbery out of existence.

[Col. Bat Guano]

I don't understand the controversy. How is 'FiledByAuthor' any different than, say, IMDB?

[sbell]

Its not any different at all... and no one is forcing the authors to participate.

[Mark]

"Our goal is to be comprehensive in our listings" says it all.
Authority on the net is earned not bought.

[John Doherty]

I've managed to escape so far.

[Martha Moran]

I don't understand the paranoid reaction here. I agree with Col. Bat Guano and sbell -- this site is no different from IMDB - or Wikipedia, for that matter.
Authors automatically own their pages for free - and can update them, make all info is accurate and complete, etc., for free. In other words, the author is getting a basic web page that would cost them $1000-$2000 to create themselves, for free.
What is the down side to this for an author?

[Ashley Grayson]

This is pure theft of the author's identity. It's no different than grabbing physical property and demanding money for the return. It is even worse, because it attempts to compel an ongoing business relationship. Unlike fan-sites that readers put up to enjoy a favorite author with like minded friends and readers, this is designed to steal authors identities for profit.

[Peter McCafferty]

I'm sorry but if this bothers you, then you are what is known as a "moron." Like people said, Ever heard of Wikipedia? Hello and welcome to the internet. Have a seat. All the information is on here. Get used to it. If you don't like it, fee free to move to the 19th century.

Secondly, how is this anything but good for the writer? Completely free publicity? No one is taking credit for their work, and if you think that someone writing something ABOUT you somehow constitutes a "tacit endorsement" you are hopelessly without a clue as to the nature of cause and effect.

If you are going to continue to be outraged about the existence of the internet you might want to move into a retirement community and start writing a newsletter.

[J. M. Strother]

@Martha - the down side lies in the Search Engine Optimization (SEO). As pointed out in the column, many authors and their publicists have worked for years to build their web presence. Then this company comes along and builds a site, works on SEO so that anyone who searches for that author on the web gets directed not to the authors' own web page, but to FBA. They are trading off these author's names without permission. You don't see a problem with that?
~jon

[anonymot]

If the webwashed Peter McGafferty were a wee less angry he might think about the freedom to choose, even the freedom to not be listed where others may want to be. These FBA people have been hounding me to get onto their books and I don't wish to. If Peter can't tell the difference between Wikipedia and FBA I assume he's still in High school. We're a country where there are still a few rights left (though rapidly dwindling) and I don't care to be hijacked by anyone and driven down their authoritative street. Class, Peter. Wickipedia isn't perfection, but it's class to be listed there. There's nothing usefu or classy in being one of 1 1/2M in a listing!

[Martha Moran]

@J.M. -- I take your point about SEO, but don't agree it's a down side for authors, even those with established web sites. FBA provides every author a free link, which most authors, particularly an established web site, would use as a free link to their site. This is just one more way for readers to access good information about authors and their books. It's free marketing and publicity for authors.

[nojojojo]

Hmm. I smell some FBA shills here.

Wikipedia can be controlled. In fact, Wikipedia has a dedicated corps of volunteers who make an effort to ensure that the info added is accurate and not just a marketing job put together by some overzealous publicist. IMDB can be controlled. And neither shows up at the top of search listings if the author has put some effort into their own SEO.

The claim that anyone should want -- no, be grateful -- for free publicity is incredibly arrogant on this company's part, and is also marketing BS; they're simply trying to make money by holding the author's identity hostage. And I agree wholeheartedly with the OP, which noted that the people writing the copy on this site aren't being credited; considering how many authors pay the bills by doing stuff like that, it sends an ugly message to their potential customer base. Sorry, uglier.

::especially angry:: They've got my father in there, and he doesn't want a web presence. Period. He's a visual artist; his client/patron list is exclusive and private. He's going to have a kitten when he finds out about this.

[Martha Moran]

dear nojojojo
just because someone does not agree with you doesn't make them a shill. we sort of left that kind of thinking behind this past november...
if you want to remain exclusive and private, that is your choice. not every author does.

[DKM]

The only thing you really have is your identity, and you SHOULD be able to control where your identity turns up. What this site is doing is wrong. No matter who you are, having details about your identity out there should be opt-IN, not opt-OUT. And if you say, "Remove me from your listing" you should be removed, no questions asked. It's not THAT hard to show some respect for others, people. You do NOT have a right to anyone's personal information just because it's the Internet.

But at least it sounds like the site is already doing some legally-shady activities, even aside from holding identities hostage, so hopefully they'll change their ways to be more legit when the backlash bites 'em.

[Jacob Silverman]

It's disrespectful, but I don't think it's as big a deal as some critics make it out to be. No one takes this site seriously (yet), and its basic premise is clearly motivated by greed rather than any love of books. It's a joke. They're not exactly giving away home addresses. In fact, for even the most popular author pages, like Stephanie Meyer's, there's hardly any information there at all. (Presumably, that's where the paying author would come in, and I would think they'd be fools to go along with this.)

If they are indeed using copyrighted content, such as the Ettlinger photographs, then the appropriate parties should sue them.

Also, one can't instantly vault to the top of search rankings just by using SEO techniques. If this site ends up having any life-span, it'll have to find ways to attract credibility and links. Wikipedia and IMDB entries are so high in Google search results in large part because people LINK to them. No credibility, no usefulness -- no linkage.

[Mr. Baby]

Here's an interesting twist. I just looked up this site, having never heard of it, and found myself there (only 2 out of eight books listed). My page said, "If you are this person, and want to claim your page, click here." I clicked to see how they would know it was actually me. There is no verification. Anyone could take over my page, claim to be me, and post anything they wanted there--without my ever knowing.