The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed a district court decision that the Internet Archive’s “Free Digital Library” violates the suing publishers’ copyrights. (A complete copy of the Second Circuit decision in Hachette vs. Internet Archive can be downloaded at the link. A discussion of the 2023 district court decision is here.)
The court summarized its ruling as follows:
Internet Archive creates digital copies of print books and posts those copies on its website where users may access them in full, for free, in a service it calls the “Free Digital Library.” Other than a period in 2020, Internet Archive has maintained a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio for its digital books: Initially, it allowed only as many concurrent “checkouts” of a digital book as it has physical copies in its possession. Subsequently, Internet Archive expanded its Free Digital Library to include other libraries, thereby counting the number of physical copies of a book possessed by those libraries toward the total number of digital copies it makes available at any given time.
Plaintiffs-Appellees―four book publishers―sued Internet Archive in 2020, alleging that its Free Digital Library infringes their copyrights in 127 books and seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Internet Archive asserted a defense of fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act. The district court rejected that defense and entered summary judgment for Plaintiffs.
This appeal presents the following question: Is it “fair use” for a nonprofit organization to scan copyright-protected print books in their entirety, and distribute those digital copies online, in full, for free, subject to a one-to-one owned-to-loaned ratio between its print copies and the digital copies it makes available at any given time, all without authorization from the copyright-holding publishers or authors? Applying the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act as well as binding Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, we conclude the answer is no. We therefore AFFIRM.
The Court’s analysis revolved around “four non-exclusive factors” for determining whether a particular use is “fair”: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
In the Court’s analysis of the fourth factor, “The effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the work”, it said:
…Within the framework of the Copyright Act, IA’s argument regarding the public interest is shortsighted. True, libraries and consumers may reap some short-term benefits from access to free digital books, but what are the long-term consequences? If authors and creators knew that their original works could be copied and disseminated for free, there would be little motivation to produce new works. And a dearth of creative activity would undoubtedly negatively impact the public. It is this reality that the Copyright Act seeks to avoid. While IA claims that prohibiting its practices would harm consumers and researchers, allowing its practices would―and does―harm authors. With each digital book IA disseminates, it deprives Publishers and authors of the revenues due to them as compensation for their unique creations…
We are disappointed in today’s opinion about the Internet Archive’s digital lending of books that are available electronically elsewhere. We are reviewing the court’s opinion and will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books.
What statutory damages the Internet Archive should owe is a question the district court is expected to revisit once the plaintiffs reduce their damage claims to judgment. In the district court case, the Internet Archive asked that damages be remitted if the court rejected IA’s fair use defense, citing Section 504 of the Copyright Act which directs courts to remit statutory damages where the infringer is a “nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives,” or one of its agents or employees, and the defendant “infringed by reproducing the work in copies” and “believed and had reasonable grounds for believing” that its use of the work was fair use. At the time of the district court’s decision they said the request was premature and that IA may renew the argument “in connection with the formation of an appropriate judgment” (i.e., when the plaintiffs try to get paid.)
In a new installment of the Tortoise Media podcast series Master: The Allegations Against Neil Gaiman, episode six – “The Pattern”, “Claire” (a name chosen to preserve her anonymity) gives details of an assault that occurred in 2013, and recorded calls she had from Gaiman last year offering compensation.
There's now an unofficial transcript for Tortoise's latest episode on the Neil Gaiman sexual assault allegations. Many thanks to reddit user ErsatzHaderach!The ep features "Claire", who first spoke out on the Am I Broken podcast in July.docs.google.com/document/d/1…
The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association (SFWA) today announced they will hold a Special Election to fill the offices of President and Secretary. Those elected will serve for the remainder of the current terms, until June 30, 2025.
Candidates for the two offices must post their platforms by September 24. Members will begin voting on October 9. The ballots will be counted after October 23.
The full SFWA Board consists of the President, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary, and five (5) Director-at-Large positions.
Progress Report. Also today, Interim President Anthony W. Eichenlaub sent members a “Report on SFWA Progress” with updates on these issues:
Non-Discloure Agreements:
The Board made significant progress on a new and limited confidentiality agreement to replace the current NDAs in last week’s meeting. This is the cornerstone of our push toward transparency, and we’re pleased with how it’s turning out. We spent the weekend wordsmithing and will be sending it to the lawyer at the beginning of this week. Our goal is to get it out as soon as possible.
SFWA Website:
A Website Content Audit Taskforce has been formed to locate and fix errors and omissions on the sfwa.org website. This is a limited duration taskforce and its goal is to fix inaccuracies and omissions on the current website as we put together plans for a full website overhaul. Please look in the next issue of the Singularity for volunteer opportunities to help with this taskforce.
International Writers:
The Board discussed our statement regarding writers in crisis around the world. This statement has been stalled too long, and now it’s on my desk. It needs some work, but I’m putting it as a top priority next week.
(1) CSFDB recommendations for the first half of 2024. The Chinese Science Fiction Database (CSFDB) has released a list of recommended works published in China in the first half of 2024. (The announcement on Weibo includes comments from fans, authors, translators and publishers.)
In summary:
Seven pieces of short fiction were recommended; at first glance the only authors I recognize are 2024 Hugo finalists Han Song and Baoshu.
No Chinese novels were recommended.
Three translated novels were recommended: Greg Egan’s Permutation City; Alastair Reynolds’ Chasm City, and Empire V, a 2006 Russian novel by Viktor Pelevin. The latter I must confess I’d never heard of, but it turns out to have received an English translation in 2016, but which hasn’t been published in North America.
Six translated short stories were recommended: three from Japan, and one from each of South Korea, Russia and the USA, the latter being Fredric Brown’s Pi in the Sky from 1945.
Miscellaneous recommendations included biographies of Tolkien and Terry Pratchett, essays by Margaret Atwood, and artbooks by John Harris and Sparth.
(Disclaimer: I correspond with at least two members of the team that put this list together.)
(2) Editorial changes at Science Fiction World. On Monday August 19, the Weibo account of Science Fiction World announced three changes in its senior management. The announcement (especially after being put through machine translation) seems fairly PR-speakish, but as I understand it, the main change is that double Hugo finalist Yao Haijun is now ultimately responsible for all SFW editorial output. (I think previously he was in responsible for just the book publishing side, not the magazines.) La Zi/Raz/Latssep has now moved over to take charge of the marketing department.
(3) Chengdu SF Museum updates. A 15-minute video touring the Chengdu Science Fiction Museum, with narration being a mix of English and Hindi, was uploaded to YouTube a couple of weeks ago. It gives a good idea of the current content on display in the museum.
More recently, it was announced that this coming Tuesday, the museum will see the staging of a play based on the China Orbit (Spring) juvenile SF/alternate history story by academic and author Wu Yan. WeChat/Weixin posts by the museum here and here. Per the second link (via Google Translate with minor manual edits):
Looking back at the history of China’s manned space flight, the grand blueprint of the dream of manned space travel was drawn up as early as 1966. At that time, China ambitiously planned to launch the “Dawn” spacecraft between 1973 and 1975, but due to various reasons, the relevant project stagnated after 1971, and the focus of national scientific research shifted to the development of satellites.
The science fiction stage play “China Orbit” is based on the assumption that “China successfully prepared its own space program in 1972” and tells an alternative history story that is detailed, vivid and interesting. What would it be like if the “Shuguang-1” manned spacecraft project (code-named Project 714) that carried countless expectations at the time had been successfully realized, and China’s manned space program had succeeded thirty years ahead of schedule?
The piece implies that this is the first of four parts (named after the seasons) adapting the original work.
(4) New Hugo-X/Discover-X video released. 2024 Hugo Best Related Work finalist Hugo-X/Discover-X released a new video on the Chinese Bilibili service on Wednesday, their first for several months. At time of writing, the video has not yet been uploaded to their YouTube channel.
The video was shot in and around the Glasgow Worldcon, including some footage from the Tianwen promotional event previously covered on File 770 (although Tianwen itself is never actually mentioned). The video is in Chinese – which may be the reason it hasn’t yet been uploaded to YouTube – but there’s nothing especially noteworthy in the narration, unless you want to hear Chinese observations on the Scottish summer climate or British cuisine.
(From top to bottom) Translation: “15 degrees Celsius in the summer”; Translation: “To be honest, British food punishes every curious person”; “Fixing British food with a sachet of Sichuan condiment”(From top to bottom) Joe Yao, Tina Wong and (I think) Tan Yuxi at the Tianwen event; Joe Yao talking about Tianwen; Tina Wong talking about Tianwen
A reply to a user comment indicates that a second season of Hugo-X/Discover-X is about to start; presumably interviews were filmed at Glasgow, similar to how their previous videos were from the Chengdu Worldcon.
The SLF is one of 49 nonprofit literary arts organizations across the United States awarded grants to support projects that build organizational capacity and ensure greater sustainability.
The Speculative Literature Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting literary quality in speculative fiction by encouraging promising new writers, assisting established writers, facilitating the work of quality magazines and small presses in the genre, and developing a greater public appreciation of speculative fiction.
The National Book Foundation is giving a total of $350,000 in capacity-building grants to organizations based in 22 states and Washington, DC, and with annual budgets that range from under $20,000 to over $4,000,000. Applications were reviewed by an independent grantmaking panel composed of Lilly Gonzalez, Executive Director of the San Antonio Book Festival; Michael Holtmann, Executive Director & Publisher at the Center for the Art of Translation; and Lisa Willis, Executive Director of Cave Canem. Final grant decisions were made by the National Book Foundation and approved by a committee of the NBF Board of Directors.
The National Book Foundation is the presenter of the National Book Awards.
The SLF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, entirely supported by community donations. It is partially funded by the Oak Park Area Arts Council, Village of Oak Park, Illinois Arts Council, National Endowment for the Arts and Oak Park River Forest Community Foundation.
The New York Sci-Fi Film Festival has announced the full program for its fourth event, with a lineup of films, discussions, virtual reality, and screenplay and graphic novel competitions. The festival is slated for Saturday, September 14, 2024 at Stuart City Cinema and Cafe, with all shorts streamed online the following day. Passes are available at the link.
As a lifelong admirer of science fiction, Daniel Abella established the festival to showcase the importance of the genre. “As our world becomes progressively technological, we need to find ways to protect our humanity, and the best way is through storytelling,” he said. “What was regarded as speculative years ago has now become fact, and this is the perfect medium to address the plethora of the issues we face.” In addition to film and virtual reality screenings, the festival will hold screenplay and graphic novel competitions. “The festival serves as a platform for rising talent, and writing is the beating heart of any good movie,” said Abella.
For one brief and shining moment Cedar Sanderson’s cover for Goblin Market was a 2024 Dragon Awards finalist in the Best Illustrative Book Cover category. Then it suddenly wasn’t. Sanderson appeared on the originally released version of the ballot. Hours later she was missing.
Her publisher demanded to know why. Jonna Hayden, Production Manager for Raconteur Press shared with her newsletter subscribers the complete text of her letter to the awards administrators: “Concerning the Dragon Awards”:
“I am the Production Manager for Raconteur Press, and our Lead Designer is Cedar Sanderson. Cedar was nominated for a Dragon Award for her work on our book “Goblin Market” and achieved a place on the final ballot in the category “Best Illustrative Cover” for 2024. Or so we thought. Several hours after the final ballot was announced (and we proudly shared the information) Cedar’s name was removed.
“We were surprised by this removal–there has been no explanation, no replacement name added to the list, and no comment of any kind from the Dragon Awards as to the reason behind it. Cedar has not been contacted, and multiple emails from many, many fans have gone unanswered.
“In their frustration, her fans have been emailing, messaging, and calling us, to see if we have any communication or information as to the ‘why’ of this. We are, unfortunately, equally in the dark. We’ve been referring them to the contact form on the Awards page, but no information has been forthcoming. The lack of any comment on the Dragon Awards’ part is now beginning to lead to speculation as to the integrity of the awards as a whole. In light of the recent Hugo issues at the China Worldcon, I would think your organization would be striving to maintain the utmost transparency.
“Is there any plan whatsoever to address this? Will there be a statement of any kind as to the reasons? I would like to return to my regular job of publishing great short fiction, and not be fielding the frustrated and angry messages of fans who nominated her in good faith.
“I’m sure there’s a reasonable explanation, and sharing it will help.
“Please let us know what the the plan for this is going forward.
“Thank you.”
There was immediate speculation that the cover’s use of AI art had something to do with the disqualification. Cedar Sanderson has openly defended the use of Midjourney and AI generally as an art tool in her work in posts like “The Mythos of AI” at Mad Genius Club. And in February 2024 Dragon Con announced a policy banning AI art from their art show – although added no comparable policy to the awards rules. Why they would not have identified an ineligible finalist up front if they had such a policy is a good question. Or did they only act in response to a complaint? That has proven to be the case.
THE OFFICIAL ANSWER. Today Dragon Con Co-Chair Dave Cody confirmed that Sanderson’s use of AI was the problem in a message posted by Raconteur Press: “Dragon Con Responds to our Inquiry”. Here is his response:
After posting the nominee list for the 2024 Dragon Awards on the Dragon Awards website, we were alerted to the fact that Cedar Sanderson’s entry in the Best Illustrative Cover category had been created in part using Artificial Intelligence tools. As a consequence, we removed her cover for The Goblin Market from consideration because we don’t allow AI in our Art Show, Comic and Pop Artist Alley, Vendor Halls or the Awards.
Though Sanderson’s nomination was included on the website for a short time, none of the ballots emailed to prospective voters included it.
Our intent with Dragon Awards is to provide a great list of books to read across eight categories, television shows and movies to watch, comic books to read and both tabletop and video games to play. And, in a category we added last year, admire the best artist work on book covers.
We recognize the AI is a new tool with enormous potential and society will eventually come to a consensus about how it should be used and how much content can be can be created using AI while still crediting a human for the work, at which time, we will consider changing our policy. Until then, however, we want the Dragon Awards to offer a fans an opportunity to recognize the humans who create the works that fans love best.
We apologize for the disruption this has caused and it was completely our fault for not catching that The Goblin Market cover was created with AI tools. We will be implementing process changes so that this does not happen again in the future.
As to Dragon Con’s policy, Raconteur Press’s response pointed out the flaws in their explanation.
David—
Thank you for your response.
While we’ve never hidden the fact that Cedar uses AI tools, and we have no issue with you choosing the standards for your award, we are a bit surprised that you removed her from the nomination based on a notification from someone without bothering to conduct due diligence by contacting either her or her publisher for clarification.
We note, as have many other people, that your stated rules for entry on the Dragon Awards site do not mention, in any way, shape, or form, that the artist’s use of AI tools in the work is not allowed for that nomination. Indeed, this is the only requirement listed:
“What is the best illustrative book cover for a qualifying work of Science Fiction, Fantasy, Young Adult, Alternate History, or Horror Novel first released in print or electronic format during the last half of a year, July 1st and later, and the first half of a year, January 1st to June 30th.”
Unless we are missing something — and please correct us if we are — nowhere on the Dragon Awards page does it say “no use of AI tools.”
This is clearly causing a lot of confusion with the nominations and the voting. If there was to be no AI tool use allowed, that should have been stated on the Awards page from the beginning of the nomination process. Sudden removal of a finalist, with no explanation and no direct contact, for a standard not listed as a disqualifying factor from the beginning of the nomination period, reduces the trust in the process substantially.
It would be remiss of us if we did not point out that many people have noted several other nominations in this category appear to have used AI processes. We will trust that after being notified about Cedar’s use of AI, you chose to verify with all the finalists that they didn’t use any AI tools in the production of their work, as it now will become a point of interest for those nominations disenfranchised by this lack of clarity.
Going forward, we would suggest that after this year’s confusion, that your organization take the necessary steps to make the requirements for a valid nomination in this category clear and precise, and that these clear and concise standards be applied consistently. What specific AI tools and processes are forbidden? Photoshop, for example, has built-in AI (Firefly). Does it disqualify an artist if they use it?
Again, we thank you for your response.
Raconteur Press
PUBLIC OPINION. Cedar Sanderson’s colleague at the Mad Genius Club blog, Sarah A. Hoyt, has had a few choice things to say: “Dragon Dragon, Quite Contrary!”
…Now, never assume malice when it might be — and probably is — rank stupidity. Or strange clumsiness.
What’s weird in all this, Cedar isn’t even in any sense one of the troublemakers, except for hanging out in this corner with the scum and villainy that is us. Surely no one could be so petty as to blacklist her just because she posts at MGC, right?
So I thought to myself, I thought… I’m sure they have an excellent explanation. A completely fair and aboveboard one….
…Who had “stupidity” on their bingo card? Apparently they disqualified Cedar for “The use of AI tools.” (Because “someone told them” she used them. Note they didn’t even verify.)
Is anyone going to tell them that practically everyone is using those for covers now, and that they won’t actually be able to tell if people use AI, if they’re competent artists who do post-processing and integrating properly? No? Yeah, I say no. Let’s leave them the fun of finding it out. And what fun it will be. I look forward to their demanding nominated artists PROVE they didn’t use AI.
And in further compounding of stupidity, of course there is nothing in the rules about AI. Because of course there isn’t….
Amanda S. Green, another Mad Genius Club veteran, also criticized how Dragon Con handled things: “Another Award Fail”.
…Now, I wouldn’t have a problem with this if—and this is a big if—the policy was made known before nominations went out. Or if those making the nominations (you know, the fans) were informed of the prohibition beforehand. Or if the voters were told. But no, no where could I find any such prohibition being made public.
So what happened?
We may never know. I can speculate, but I won’t. I will say that if Dragon, and other awards, are going to limit eligibility to art or any other work that doesn’t take advantage of AI tools, they will find the pool of potential winners seriously diminished. Think about it. If you use a word processing program or app, you are using AI. From predictive text to spell check and grammar check, to some of the new review tools, these programs are filled with AI. Photoshop and similar programs also utilize aspects of AI as well.
Are we going to require artists to prove they hand drew and then colored in the art used on a cover? Are we going to require writers to enter their hand-written drafts?
Or are we going to act like adults and simply make sure AI is used as a tool and not as the creator?
The Dragon Awards are free to prohibit the use of AI in artwork going forward. But they dropped the ball big time here. For the sake of the awards, they need to be transparent now. Did they require the artists who did make it onto the ballot to prove they did not use AI? What did they do to determine if AI was used on Cedar’s cover and did they do the same with the other covers?
Or are they going to admit what some of us already suspect: that they bent to the outraged will of one or two vocal folks and removed Cedar’s cover from consideration simply because she has made no secret of the fact she uses AI as a tool and isn’t always a “pure” artist?
Two more women “accuse Neil Gaiman of sexual assault and abuse” in a fifth installment of Tortoise Media’s podcast series Master: the allegations against Neil Gaiman. There is also an article synopsizing the podcast with quotes and specific details at the link. The women came forward after Tortoise published accounts last month of two other women who say they were sexually assaulted by Gaiman while in otherwise consensual relationships with him.
According to the new claims – which Gaiman denies – beginning in 2017 he pressured Caroline Wallner, a mother of three, to have sex with him in return for letting her live with her daughters at his property in upstate New York; and following negotiations between attorneys in 2021 obtained a non-disclosure agreement from her in return for a $275,000 payment to help her cope with post-traumatic stress and depression following their sexual relationship. The report says, “There is no suggestion of physical force, but rather of coercion in light of her housing and family situation.”
Wallner told Tortoise Media she said she wanted to speak out against feelings of “fear and shame – those feelings don’t belong to me”. She said she wanted to tell her story to support the first two women who came forward, adding “the fact they were the same age as my daughters now was painful to hear.” Wallner said that the trait she shared with the two women wasn’t age, but vulnerability. “Saying ‘yes’ to an exchange with a powerful, wealthy man when you are vulnerable and fearful is never simple or clear,” she said. “Even if it’s seemingly consensual.”
A second woman, Julia Hobsbawm OBE, was a 22-year-old book publicist when in 1986 she was with Gaiman, then 25, at her studio flat in Chalk Farm, London. In what was “an aggressive, unwanted pass” Hobsbawm says Gaiman tried to kiss her.
Tortoise represents to have an account from Gaiman “that when he realised Hobsbawm wasn’t receptive to his attempt to kiss her, he stopped. His position is that it was no more than a young man misreading a situation…”
Tortoise reports Hobsbawm “says she now wished she had called Gaiman out back then as she is plagued by the incident to this day and worries that she enabled his alleged misconduct to continue.”
This brings to five the number of women who have shared their stories accusing Gaiman of sexual misconduct, beginning with two in the original Tortoise Media release (which is free to listen to), and a third woman on the Am I Broken: Survivor Stories podcast.
(Note: the editor of File 770 has severe hearing loss and is unable to listen to podcasts, therefore this report will depend on the synopses of the Survivor Stories podcast posted by Stephanie Kay and Skyla Dawn Cameron on Bluesky.)
“Claire” says she met Gaiman at a book signing in 2012 and says Gaiman immediately kissed her. He invited her places, with VIP access; he appeared naked in Skype calls; there was unwanted phone sex and groping; culminating in a traumatic experience on his tour bus. Additional details in this Bluesky thread.
In 2019, when “Claire” was seeking help and tried to reach out to reporters, she was told there’s no story here. In 2022 she reached out to the podcast about her story but after talking to Gaiman she felt it was a one-off and decided not to go forward. But now there are other victims’ stories, she realizes her assessment was wrong, that this wasn’t a one-time situation, and someone else was hurt.
The first two women’s allegations were reported in a podcast on July 3, Master: the Allegations Against Neil Gaiman, a Tortoise Media investigation led by Rachel Johnson. One woman, called Scarlett in the podcast, worked for Neil Gaiman as a nanny, and the other called K., met him at a book signing.
In The Bookseller’s account of the accusations, “[Scarlett] alleges she was sexually assaulted by Gaiman in 2022 when she was working as a nanny to his child. She was 23 and he was in his 60s. This is also reported to be the subject of a police complaint in New Zealand. [K.], who describes herself as a ‘fan’, alleges Gaiman was ‘abusive’ and had non-consensual sex with her on one occasion, when she was 20 and Gaiman was in his 40s.” The article says Gaiman “reportedly ‘strongly denies’ the allegations, saying that he believed consent had been established. The two women making allegations were reportedly in otherwise consensual relationships with the author.”
The Bookseller also says crisis management firm Edendale Strategies – which has worked for Ezra Miller (The Flash) — is handling Gaiman’s media requests. Neil Gaiman has not posted on his X.com account since July 2.
The public’s common reluctance to believe survivors which greeted the Tortoise Media reports was compounded by skepticism about how the stories were presented by the creators of the podcast episodes. Also, there were indications that Gaiman’s statements quoted in them may have come from his PR firm and not from him. And one of the reporters, Rachel Johnson, is Boris Johnson’s sister, causing some to question the potential for bias due to Gaiman’s criticism of the Tories. Now that a third account has been shared by the Survivor Stories, what the first two women had to say is back in the foreground where it belongs.
As Markus Mäurer said on July 9 in his German-language column at Tor-Online, these revelations come as a shock, because Gaiman has long been considered an ally of marginalized groups, a prominent advocate for trans rights, feminism, and progressive causes. But these latest revelations have led Mäurer to demand, “We as fans should stop giving people a status that many consider almost sacred, so that when such misconduct occurs, it is not initially ignored, downplayed or even defended.”
By Steve Vertlieb: Maximillian Kolbe was a Franciscan priest in Poland during the invasion and occupation of his county by Germany during World War Two. While many of his Franciscan brothers understandably fled the monastery that Kolbe had founded, the priest was among the few who had remained. He continued to minister to the sick in the temporary hospital that he’d set up for his ailing, often injured Polish brethren. Proud and defiant, Kolbe refused to sign the Nazi Deutsche Volksliste which, he knew, might have given him the rights of a German citizen in tacit recognition of his own German ancestry. During their often besieged tenure at the occupied monastery, Kolbe and his fellow monks offered shelter to 2,000 Jews hiding from persecution from the Nazis at the friary in the Polish community of Niepokalanow.
The Germans finally closed down the monastery on February 17, 1941. Kolbe was arrested and sent to Pawiak prison. He was transferred to Auschwitz on May 28, 1941, as prisoner #16670. At the end of July, ten prisoners escaped from the notorious prison camp. In retribution, Deputy Camp Commander SS-Hauptsturmfuhrer Karl Fritzsh chose another ten men to be starved to death in their place in a Nazi underground bunker. It would serve as an example to those prisoners remaining in cruel captivity. Among these tragic figures was Franciszek Gajowniczek, a condemned captive who screamed “My wife! My children!” in utter despair.
Kolbe heroically volunteered to take his place in what he knew was a prolonged, agonizing death sentence. The priest continued to lead and conduct prayers for his fellow inmates in the secluded bunker. Following two weeks of starvation and dehydration, only Father Kolbe remained alive. The German guards needed the bunker emptied and so, on August 14, 1941, they gave Maximillian Kolbe a lethal injection of carbolic acid. The priest was said to have raised his arm in recognition of his fate, while waiting calmly and at peace for the soldiers to have administered the fatal dosage. Kolbe was canonized and made a saint in the Catholic Church by Pope John Paul II on October 10, 1982, at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.
Now, producer Pablo Jose Barroso and Mexico’s Dos Corazones Films, creators of The Greatest Miracle, have reunited to create a new animated screen adaptation of this emotional true story entitled Max And Me. With voice performances by Ashley Greene, Hector Elizondo, and Piotr Adamczyk as Father Maximillian Kolbe, the production has been designed and directed by production designer (and art director) Marec Fritinger. While a noble endeavor, the production has been plagued by difficulties and setbacks, delaying its promised release interminably. IMDB shows its release date now will be October 2023.
For the musical score to this most difficult, ambitious animated production, the producers turned once more to composer Mark McKenzie who had written the highly acclaimed music for their previous production of The Greatest Miracle. Praised by many in the motion picture music community as the finest film score of 2011, The Greatest Miracle was a haunting, ethereal work reminiscent in its thematic texture of the glory days of Hollywood composition, recalling the work of Alfred Newman in particular. McKenzie, an unabashed, unapologetic melodist and compositional romanticist, stands among a handful of present day film composers who continue to write thematic melody and classical structure. McKenzie, along with Lee Holdridge, James Newton Howard, Bruce Broughton, David Newman and, of course, John Williams, are seemingly the last of the traditional symphonists working actively within the Hollywood film music community today.
McKenzie’s scoring philosophy and textured presence are deeply imbedded within the Hebraic roots of such legendary film composers as Alfred Newman, Miklos Rozsa, Bernard Herrmann, Dimitri Tiomkin, Franz Waxman, Victor Young, Hugo Friedhofer, Max Steiner, Elmer Bernstein, Alex North, John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, John Barry, and David Amram, as well as innumerable other composers who created what has come to be known as “The Hollywood Sound.” As Jerry Goldsmith was losing strength in his valiant battle with Cancer some years ago, he asked McKenzie to help orchestrate his final seven film scores, calling Mark “My Godsend.” No less a musical presence than Sir Paul McCartney referred to McKenzie as “brilliant.”
Composer Mark McKenzie with Sir Paul McCartney at Abbey Road Studios
Working in the film community as a trusted, skilled orchestrator for decades, McKenzie began trying his hand at creating his own unique original stylings with sole scoring credit on such films as Death In Granada (1996), The Ultimate Gift (2006), Saving Sarah Cain (2007), The Greatest Miracle (2011), The Ultimate Life (2013), Dragonheart: Battle for the Heartfire (2017), and now Max And Me (2018).
Recorded at the famed Abbey Road Studios with large orchestra, The London Boys Choir (“Liberia”), and acclaimed solo concert violinist, Joshua Bell, Mark McKenzie’s truly remarkable score for this deeply moving motion picture has been released by Sony Classical on iTunes. While Sony’s decision to record and release the score is commendable, its decision to allow the music to be experienced only through iTunes is lamentable, if not tragic. McKenzie’s confidence and talent as a film composer have been gaining momentum with each new assignment, and his score for Max And Me is easily his most satisfying work to date, as well as the finest film music of 2018. McKenzie’s startlingly beautiful music reaches layers, depths and textures of ethereal redemption and spiritual ascension stunningly realized and performed. Joshua Bell’s superb virtuoso violin, along with the sublime vocal performance by The London Boys Choir, elevates the force and majesty of McKenzie’s remarkable score to unimagined heights of tearful grandeur. McKenzie’s faith filled musical portrait of Maximillian Kolbe’s humanity and ultimate sacrifice is both rapturously sacred and deeply moving, an inspirational testament to the indomitable human spirit, and to the overcoming power of humanity and spiritual goodness.
Listening to Mark McKenzie’s score without tears is virtually impossible. Among the notable highlights of this deeply moving score are “Prayer For Peace” (track #15) … hauntingly expressive in its plea for life and for the dignity, nobility, and preservation of the human soul. “Auschwitz Cries” (track #16) is utterly searing, a plaintive, devastating wail…remembering the six million Jews imprisoned, tortured, and decimated by Adolf Hitler and his abominable Nazi machine. “Triumph Over Fear” (track #19) is, perhaps, the score’s finest hour. Building to a shattering emotional crescendo from utter loneliness and desolation, McKenzie’s use of orchestra and choir bring hope filled ascension and spiritual redemption out of captivity, desperation, and mind numbing fear… a prayer to Jehovah that love and humanity will ultimately triumph in the face of overwhelming degradation and despair. “I Believe In You” (track #21) is a life affirming summation of the overcoming power of faith, while the concluding piece, “Heaven’s Welcome” (track 22), becomes an overwhelming orchestral testament to the divinity and spiritual ascension of the mortal soul … a symphonic, choral celebration of the joyous moment when God and Man conjoin, becoming as one as mortal life reaches its consummate, enduring summit.
Mark McKenzie’s score for Max And Me is a triumphant, ravishing masterwork … a glorious, infinitely exquisite tribute to the overpowering faith and inherent goodness alive within the human soul. It is a work of extraordinary beauty and dramatic power that cries out from the ashes of the concentration camps for recognition, for a voice, and for a legitimate CD release. Perhaps time and justice will ultimately prevail. Until then, the composer’s musical vision and ethereal artistry shall continue to prevail…while the charity and sacrificial nobility of men like Maximillian Kolbe will forever inspire the world.
