Latest Tweet

15

Not quite academic, but I published a short work under a creative commons non-commercial license. Before publishing, I did research and read the FAQ to make sure this license was right for my work and would allow people to share it but not re-sell it. I, however, retain the rights to sell it under the license.

After the ebook had been on Amazon for about a year, I got an email mansplaining to me that by making money on something with a non-commercial license, I was 1) breaking the law, 2) violating the spirit and ethics of the Creative Commons. He said that he’d initially been happy to pay for my work, but when he saw the licensing, he felt called upon to defend the Creative Commons and reported me to Amazon (which caused a headache).

When I emailed him back to point out the relevant passage of the specific license and the FAQ on the subject and asked him to do at least a little research next time before he tries “defending” the Creative Commons, he conceded the point but said that I was being “aggressive.”

It’s apparently not aggressive for him to email me out of nowhere and accuse me of breaking a law and threatening an institution (with no grounds other than what he happened to think the law/institution were), but for me to correct him in a slightly-pissed-but-not-vitriolic manner? Aggressive.

  1. gabyrippling reblogged this from mansplained and added:
    Don’t you know? When it’s a woman, “aggressive” means “correct.”
  2. Pen in Hand submitted this to mansplained