Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinisajoy
Which post? You said several times that it was contract law not copyright law and that authors can easily get their rights back because it is a contract according to your lawyer sister. And about precedents.
I have read every one of your posts about copyright. You tried to tell Daryl that authors don't give up their copyright. Therefore, I want you to prove it. I gave you a real life example if you care to do it.
Does your sister specialize in Intellectual property laws?
You said she was a trial lawyer, (civil or criminal ).
So why don't you put your money where your sister's mouth is?
I have heard of a few authors getting their rights back due to fraudulent or very misleading contracts. They are very rare and that has to be proven.
Standard boiler plates aren't fraudulent.
Though darn it, now you have me curious as to what really happened to the contracts when Reiman sold out to Reader's Digest.
Off to make a call. Make that sent an email.
|
Sigh. As you well know, I did not say any such thing. I said
"Keep in mind that you are discussing contract law rather than copyright law. The author still holds the copyright on the article."
I then said
" The copyright holder can enter into a contract that gives exclusive license to someone else, but the author is still the copyright holder. Copyright law and contract law are two different legal traditions and different rules apply. "
I finally said
"I don't know, what does your contract say? You should probably check with your agent or lawyer if you are interested in getting the rights reverted back to you. Sometimes they will revert it back if it's a story they don't plan to republish. I've read more than a few authors talk about the process. "
Obviously I made the mistake of thinking you were trying to have an honest discussion rather than play some sort of point scoring internet game. I'll try not to make that mistake again.