User:Brooke McEldowney

One image of Pibgorn, as an illustration, is, I believe, consistent with copyright law in the U.S.A. Two are not. The inclusion of my drawings in Pibgorn, furthermore, included unattributed interpretations as to the purpose of the drawings. The interpretations were wrong, and betrayed, at best, a careless use of words, at worst, the hobbyhorse of the anonymous writer. In the one remaining image from Pibgorn, the term "sexualization of music" was included as the purpose of the dialogue. That also was not only wrong, but was stated without any effort to contact me to check out the assumption. The text in the cartoon is a joke, nothing more, and certainly has nothing to do with the "sexualization of music," whatever that is. The image from Pibgorn is expositional, leading into the story entitled, "Mozart and The Demon Lover." Any further interpretation does not represent my work, and should not be printed as fact, inasmuch as the only fact it represents is the bent of the person who wrote the caption. Keep in mind, Pibgorn and 9 Chickweed Lane are both copyright comic strips, licensed, and exclusive. To obviate my purpose in the publication of my strip and append opinion dressed as fact, speaks without authority as to the drawing, and is grossly misleading. I take these matters most seriously. --Brooke McEldowney (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: this text should probably have been posted to the article's talk page, not to your user page. (I do believe you're making some very good points here, but I'm not addressing them in any way - just suggesting where the argument should be made.) Cheers! Mark Shaw (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'm new to this, and hope to remain that way. All best. --Brooke McEldowney (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)