Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
Just as a note, it's not true that neither has the ebooks rights. One of them does, it's just unclear which and apparently the rights aren't worth enough to spend the money on a trial.
|
Oh, the court ruled that the wacky (overbroad and vague) clause does cover ebooks as we understand them. What they're still litigating is court costs and "damages".
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/b...k-dispute.html
HC has exclusive negotiation rights, but not ebook publication rights.
Quote:
|
HarperCollins argued that its contract with George included both a standard subsidiary rights grant (paragraph 23), which taken with another clause (paragraph 20), which referenced electronic usage, gave HarperCollins the exclusive right to license e-book rights.
|
They're the only ones that can license the rights but don't own them.
And given the grief they caused the old lady it may be a long time before the family agrees to anything.
Signature quote:
Quote:
The message seems clear: rather than negotiate a higher royalty and make money on a digital edition with an author who has already sold nearly four million books, HarperCollins chose to stand on principle and spend the money to litigate.
|
"Principle" in this case meaning, "We'd rather not earn a thing and even spend money in court to keep from paying fair ebook royalties."
Pretty high minded, that.