Random House being sued for not paying royalties

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by darryl

@Steve. So there was an "agreement", verbal, written or both, for RH to pay Royalties. However, you say that agreement was not legally binding.

I don't say if it was binding. That's up to the court.

I hope the reports that there was a promise or agreement are wrong, because Random House shouldn't have agreed to such a thing. The fact that the author is against it only makes the idea of a agreement worse.

I do say I'm not reading "contract" in media reports.

By the way, would I be correct in assuming that your position is that RH could have simply published the diaries verbatim without commentary and without any obligation to pay royalties?

No. Let's not conflate quotations normally found in sourced non-fiction with publishing material in its entirety. I can't find such a rule for this board, but it's common to distinguish between quotation and reproduction of the whole, or most. Only the latter is piracy. Here is a sample rule in this spirit:

When reproducing material from other web sites, respect copyright by posting only a relevant excerpt and a link to the source, not the complete text of the original.

This should go for web sites, for newspapers, for magazines, and for books.

P.S. What about when the New York Times publishes presidential speeches in toto? The answer is that they are covered by a US legal exception to copyright. If the Times wanted to reproduce an entire speech delivered by a governor, they might have to pay. But ordinary reporting, with quotations, should be free and protected.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Goebbels wasn't a politician, Goebbels was a bureaucrat...

He very definitely was a politician starting in mid 1920s as a gauleiter through to being Minister of Propaganda throughout the years the Nazis were in power. One might draw a distinction in that he was not elected by the people but there are modern western governments that have politicians who are not elected by the people, both my own country and modern Germany included.

Moving on:

I have to say that I see it more than a little in the way of it being poetic justice that the rights holders of the diaries of an immoral politician who destroyed the rights of journalism and literature, are being circumvented by a claim of the moral rights of a free society.

[TechniSol]

I'm not in the mood for BS, legal or otherwise, at the moment.

I personally think it reprehensible that RH and it's author should have originally made any arrangement not based on the notion of the blood money(let's call a shovel a shovel) going to a charity directly beneficial to the descendants of the people harmed by the actions of the original author and the regime he represented or better yet a charity devoted to preventing such abuses of power worldwide ala Amnesty International, etc. This whole notion of reconsidering paying for something they originally agreed to, now on moral grounds, merely stinks of being self serving and, if possible, makes them look even worse.

I hope the judge or ruling body, etc. will find a way to employ common sense within the boundaries of the law and force the redirection of the funds to a beneficial purpose -failing that, I hope they force RH to pay and shame the planned recipients into doing the same, applying it to a humanitarian purpose.

A large part of me feels this should be more about what is right than what is "legal". We need to grow past petty loopholes and find a way to do the right things without having to rely on the letter of the law to force us into it. Yes, we need laws, but they should be there only when we can find no better resolution. If people tried harder to do the right thing to begin with we'd probably need far less laws.

I realize many will label this thinking hopelessly naive, but they will probably also be the ones profiting the most from obfuscation through legal means...

[murg]

Originally Posted by TechniSol

I personally think it reprehensible that RH and it's author should have originally made any arrangement not based on the notion of the blood money(let's call a shovel a shovel) going to a charity directly beneficial to the descendants of the people harmed by the actions of the original author and the regime he represented or better yet a charity devoted to preventing such abuses of power worldwide ala Amnesty International, etc.

I'm continually baffled by the modern assertion that doing something bad is bad, but giving the money to charity makes it acceptable.

[murg]

Aren't the diaries in the public domain, other than countries with a 'XX years since publication' clause?

Or coming close to being in the PD? Seventy years from Goebbels' death is next week.

[mrscoach]

Public domain is coming, but the work isn't there yet. Why not say, but we are CLOSE to the work being PD so we should be able to use it, about ANY work? What's 2 or 5 or even 10 years? Oh, right, the law. Whether you agree or not, it is the law. And publishers definitely aren't pushing to make copyright shorter.

If a work is copyrighted and is used in someone else's work the holder of the copyright should be paid. No moral objections should be made AFTER publication. You can morally object all you want before you use it, and then wait until the work is in PD.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by murg

I'm continually baffled by the modern assertion that doing something bad is bad, but giving the money to charity makes it acceptable.

Particularly given how many modern charities are run. Basically, at least here in Australia, there are far too many who spend inexcusable amounts on administration, and run campaigns where the marketing company profits far more than the charity. The proper test is to compare total donations with the actual amount reaching the class of beneficiaries.

Having said that, however, I don't think it is a case of giving money to charity making it acceptable. In this case I think it is actually good for the diaries to be published or referred to in academic literature. What is considered bad is that Goebbel's heirs or others may profit from his actions. Giving proceeds to charity, at least in theory, removes this bad outcome and hopefully does a little bit of good.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

Public domain is coming, but the work isn't there yet.

Yes.

It is close in Germany, where Prof. Longerich's biography was published in 2010. Per usual literary practice, there was no royalty payment asked for or given.

The biography is scheduled for release, in the United States, on May 7, 2015. That event seems to have put dollars signs, or maybe euro symbols, in Cordula Schacht's eyes. When the diaries come off copyright is a more complicated legal question is the US than in Germany. Nothing is scheduled to go off copyright in the U.S. until January 2019, and I don't think this is near the front of the list.

Originally Posted by mrscoach

If a work is copyrighted and is used in someone else's work the holder of the copyright should be paid.

Have you been paying people you quote on MobileRead? Why not? Their postings are certainly copyrighted. It's true that no one else is paying, but people don't normally pay off copyright holders of works quoted in biographies either.

P.S. Do you and I really hold personal United States copyrights to our posts? I believe so:

http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/whoowns.html

Unless the work for hire rules apply, the creators of the work are its authors and owners. . . .

Protecting your work is easy today, arguably too easy. It's protected from the moment you hit the save key on your computer, touch your pencil to paper, brush to canvas, well, you see what I mean. Works are protected from the moment of their fixation in a tangible medium of protection. This means that a grocery list enjoys the full force of federal copyright law for enforcing the owners' rights.

Ideally, posters should only quote parts of my posts when responding, not the whole. Or they can quote it all and send me a private message asking where to send their check

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Yes.

It is close in Germany, where Prof. Longerich's biography was published in 2010. Per usual literary practice, there was no royalty payment asked for or given.

The biography is scheduled for release, in the United States, on May 7, 2015. That event seems to have put dollars signs, or maybe euro symbols, in Cordula Schacht's eyes. When the diaries come off copyright is a more complicated legal question is the US than in Germany. Nothing is scheduled to go off copyright in the U.S. until January 2019, and I don't think this is near the front of the list.


Have you been paying people you quote on MobileRead? Why not? Their postings are certainly copyrighted. It's true that no one else is paying, but people don't normally pay off copyright holders of works quoted in biographies either.

P.S. Do you and I really hold personal United States copyrights to our posts? I believe so:

http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/whoowns.html



Ideally, posters should only quote parts of my posts when responding, not the whole. Or they can quote it all and send me a private message asking where to send their check

Originally you were stating that Random House was publishing this without expectation of profit. Now you're saying that the estate has dollar signs in their eyes for 1% of that net profit. Which is it?

[mrscoach]

The assertion that people don't normally pay for works quoted in a biography doesn't stand up, because the same material has been quoted by others who HAVE paid.
No, I don't expect to be paid if someone quotes a forum post because this is a public forum and my thoughts and words are free for public consumption and use. If I wrote something to publish and someone else quoted it for their own profit I would expect to be paid.

[Pulpmeister]

Goebels' estate would have got it through inheritance. Goebels' wife and children were all killed in the bunker, so there are no direct descendants. Brothers. maybe, nephews, or if no descendants or relatives under local inheritance law, the State.

Copyright is copyright and a contract is a contract under law. If you are going to abandon the law on moral grounds you are back to book burning, from the Alexandria Library to the present day.

My position is, if they didn't want to pay the royalties don't do the deal; they could confine themselves to the small extracts of "fair dealing". If they are using large amounts, which is what it sounds like, then they pay the royalties they agreed on. Or wait until the diaries go into the public domain in 2016.

Cheating a source because you disapprove of their morals/past etc is still cheating.

I have never read Goebels' diaries, can't imagine wanting to, but there are extracts, for those curious to see the style, in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L Shirer.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

The assertion that people don't normally pay for works quoted in a biography doesn't stand up, because the same material has been quoted by others who HAVE paid.

You mean this?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/hi...s-1530789.html

That was in a British newspaper, which hardly covered itself with glory here. And it wasn't a news story quoting Herr Goebbles, but a long article that consisted wholly of extracts. Except for the Nazi angle, this was closer to a Readers Digest condensed book. I agree that the publisher or author or heir should get paid for those.

I'm at least as sure that "people don't normally pay for works quoted in a biography" as you are sure of the opposite. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

If you are going to abandon the law on moral grounds you are back to book burning, from the Alexandria Library to the present day.

I think that the Alexandria Library burning was consistent with the laws of the governments doing it, and probably was consistent with any laws of war in place at the various times of destruction.

There only will be abandonment of the law if Bertelsmann ignores a final court ruling against it. If, let's say, the US subsidiary decided to defy German courts -- I'm sure they don't have the conjoins to do it, but say they did -- this would have no similarity to book burning.

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

Or wait until the diaries go into the public domain in 2016.

The issue here is the American edition. We have no public domain day coming until 2019, and, except maybe for a few entries made in 1923, that will not cover this. I think that what will govern is German copyright concepts and US copyright term. If there's a lawyer in the house who really knows, I will stand corrected. As for suppressing publication for a period of time, I think that would be a bad precedent.

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

My position is, if they didn't want to pay the royalties don't do the deal; they could confine themselves to the small extracts of "fair dealing".

"Fair dealing" is a concept in British and Canadian law. This may or may not be similar for Germany, and I guess it will be for the German courts to decide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_quote#Germany

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__51.html

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

I have never read Goebels' diaries, can't imagine wanting to, but there are extracts, for those curious to see the style, in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L Shirer.

By your own logic, I think you just advocated we become pirates. Either that, or you think Longerich quoted so extensively as to almost reproduce the diaries. But unless you have checked the German edition, that's speculation. And, given that Longrich's books generally get good reviews, I don't think he is that kind of hack.

When Shirer published in 1960, Cordula Schacht, not yet being a lawyer, couldn't engage in this kind of mischief.

[Pulpmeister]

I don't see where suggesting that we read Shirer constitutes advocating piracy. The extracts were few and small, and I am sure legal at that time and probably still legal, both in Germany and the USA.

They were probably published with approval of the then copyright holder, just as Shirer was meticulous in getting co-operation from Franz Halder, for example, for extensive quotes from Halder's diary. I would have to dig out my rather tattered and ancient old paperback copy of Shirer and recheck all the (many) copyright and citation notes to see, and at this stage of the evening I don't much feel like it.

As for the burning of the Library, I was referring, mildly tongue in check, to the two main mythical versions of the burning: the Christians burned it because it was full of pagan books and therefore immoral; or Moslems burned it because it was full of pagan books, etc.

[mrscoach]

I said that others paid for the use of Goebel's diary excerpts because the original artical that started this thread stated such. Have I looked it up to find who has? No, I haven't, because I don't care enough to put the effort in because it really doesn't matter. There is a copyright holder and RH refuses to pay for use of the work. The rest is a smokescreen.