Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
I suspect a fair number of agents are telling Random House "You just got crossed off the list of publishers I'll submit to, and I'm advising all of my clients currently published by you that I will be looking for new homes for future books..."
|
I doubt it, in no small part because I'm certain almost every other publisher is also attempting to clarify their status in this matter. Plus, all new contracts explicitly include book rights.
Besides, the real question is whether the actual contract bestows an unspecified publication format onto the publisher, or if it will revert to the author. Since contracts vary from one publisher to another (and most likely, each publisher and inprint has used a variety of contract language over the years), there is no clear-cut answer.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DMcCunney
I'd hope a court would come down on Random House. Even back when, different kinds of rights were known to exist, and magazine rights, hardcover rights, paperback rights, and subsidiary rights were separate items, along with movie and TV rights.
|
Random House isn't doing anything particularly wrong -- or to be precise, the writers are doing exactly the same thing as Random House and with exactly the same motivation: attempting to clarify the terms of the contract, in the hopes it will go in their favor for their commercial gain.
If the contract doesn't grant comprehensive rights, then it doesn't grant comprehensive rights and (afaik) unspecified rights should revert to the author. But without actually reading the contract and the benefit of experience in contract law, you cannot say what the outcome ought to be.