Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
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.
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:
"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. |
Interesting article.
Some greed on both sides I think if neither refused to budge on royalties.
I have no idea what constitutes 'fair' ebook royalties? Has a standard been set?
I am not being facetious. 25% seems reasonable coming from a company that has contributed to the author's success and 50% seems reasonable for a backlist title if it is not being sold widely in other formats and costs the publisher little to distribute, but my knowledge is limited.
Harper Collins had several choices. Litigate, pay the 50%, or let Open Road publish and not litigate.
Paying the 50% or allowing the Open Road publications would have set precedents that could be potentially very expensive. It is not all about this one book IMO.
A couple of links I came across while trying to find the 'grief they caused the old lady and the signature quote.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...53142705735660
http://rogerpacker.com/blog/authors-...cklist-battle/
Seems to me that all three parties made decisions based on profit/loss and the major fault was in not trying harder to reach a compromise. Not clear cut villains victimizing one poor old lady.
Helen