Quote:
Originally Posted by ATDrake
...if they happen not to, then after enough time, their "exclusive right to buy the rights" in that particular medium, as you phrased it, should lapse and the author should be able to take her creative work elsewhere to try again rather than the publisher being able to block its production, unless they renew "the exclusive right to buy the rights".
|
This is not a job for copyright law. It's a job for the contracts, and the lawyers who write them up.
If it's important to the content creator to have certain rights exploited in a timely fashion, then they should get it into the contract.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ATDrake
I would opine that not publishing a work in a medium contracting specifically for the rights to publish in said medium would constitute some form of grounds.
|
So what is an appropriate time frame? 10 years? 5 years? 2? What starts the time period? After all, Project Gutenberg got its start in 1971 on a mainframe computer -- is that the start date of the ebook, even though it took nearly 30 years to become a viable commercial and public option?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ATDrake
I am only saying that if they do not intend to or are unable to publish, then the author ought to get a fair shot at taking her work elsewhere after a certain length of time and inactivity should the publisher not wish to negotiate again for more time.
|
They can... by requesting or purchasing back the rights. Or, getting that language into the initial contract.
In fact, quite a few ebooks do get published by an author requesting the electronic rights back from the paper book publisher, and then self-publishing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ATDrake
Out of curiosity, how would the situation work out if a publisher bought the print rights to print an author's book, but then simply ended up not printing it for whatever reason? Would the author not have cause to obtain the rights back, even if she had to return the advance and such?
|
My understanding is that most contracts will require that the book be published in a set time after it is submitted (12-18 months). What would happen to the rights would be set out in the contract.
If the author did not include such a clause, or if the publisher inserted a clause saying "we have perpetual rights even if not published," then the author does not have a case. And that's why you hire a lawyer before you sign a contract.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ATDrake
Siegel & Shuster did recognize that the Superman copyright had value, if only sentimental, and tried to legally re-establish their interest in it
|
Of course it had value, and they weren't out for the sentiment. But the bottom line is, they voluntarily signed contracts which forked over material to NA, and dropped all future claims when they later settled for $200k. Apparently, they changed their minds about that later in life, despite not having worked on the material in ~30 years.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ATDrake
the core of the character was their creation and they had the right to try and get control of it back.
|
Sure. They and their estates have had many days in court.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ATDrake
Incidentally, the courts went and ruled that the original portion of the Superman story that S&S created somehow did not qualify as "works for hire"....
|
Right, so you knew this and brought this up as an example of the evils of work-for-hire anyway...?
A single example, even a prominent one, isn't necessarily the best way to evaluate a system. Plenty of writers who work on content like TV shows receive residuals for years because, say it with me now... they negotiated for it in the contracts.
Let's say I was a writer who worked on
The Simpsons as work-for-hire, and even developed a few minor characters. Does it make sense that five years later I should be able to put out a comic of the shows I worked on? If I wasn't smart enough to demand a residual, should I be allowed to go back and demand it retroactively? Should I be allowed to "take my characters elsewhere," or demand compensation if they choose not to exploit those characters in subsequent episodes or other mediums?
The Simpsons have well over 100 people who have written material for the show. Should each of them have control over how the material they contributed gets used?
"Work-for-hire" may not be a perfect system, but it is basically necessary for collaborative efforts, and allows publishers to take risks on producing content -- and hiring content creators. And in the same way that it's up to you as an individual to take responsibility for your actions and actually negotiate for the sale of a home, or get a good salary, or haggle for a good price on a car, it's a content creator's responsibility to negotiate for a satisfactory contract... or walk away from a bad deal.
(By the way, holding onto the copyrights is far from a guarantee that the content creator will be set for life and/or paid what we might believe they deserve. I'd be here all day if I had to list artists who were not in a work-for-hire situation, created iconic and enduring works, and did not receive large enough compensation to retire for life at 40.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ATDrake
Is it any wonder sometimes people are much more inclined to side with the creators when it comes to exercising control of copyrights than the corporations?
|
Authors are rarely in the position to abuse copyrights. In order to be published they've often transferred those rights, and are rarely in a position to exploit them anyway.
You might as well suggest that people are more likely to side with civilians instead of armies, when innocent civilians are harmed during an armed conflict. The opportunities for military forces to inadvertently harm large groups of civilians is abundant; the opportunities for civilians to inadvertently harm large groups of civilians is practically non-existent.
Also, you're not really siding with the author in this case, you're siding with Open Road over HC. Did HarperCollins lose its moral compass when Jane Friedman left and started her own company?
I see no reason to side with either party in this dispute. I'm siding with the contract, no matter what it says -- because that is what all parties ought to abide by.