Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinisajoy
Rights revert to who? Note: I said others profiting that means selling.
Ok. We may be having a word problem. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Here is how I read your post:
If the author/author's family doesn't want to make their out of print book as an ebook, they should either pay a fee or let others publish it and make a profit of the author's hard work because the work is more important than the one that did the original work's wishes.
Tell me this: why should you or anyone else be entitled to make money off my work while I am still alive?
What if your boss suddenly decided that you do the work but he will pay me? Would you do it?
That is how I read your post. Others should profit from the author but the author if they don't want it in print should get nothing.
Profit means make money.
|
NO...I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that if someone wants to keep control of their work in any way, then yes...why shouldn't they have to pay a very nominal fee to keep control of it. I have to pay a (not nominal) fee to keep control of my property. Nobody is "entitled" to make money off of your work--I'm not saying that in any way, shape, or form. I actually said that if you don't want to publish it, you shouldn't have to, as long as you do *something* to acknowledge that you want to keep it. I would even go so far as to say that as long as the creator is alive, no fee would be needed.
What about authors who die with no heirs? Or heirs that just don't care about their works? In that case, the work would revert back to the public domain. If the heirs wanted to keep control, they would have to pay the fee. Again...this would enable the heirs of classic works to keep control for far longer than they currently can.
I'm not saying that ANYONE but the author (or heirs) should be able to profit from the work...as long as the author (or the heirs) cares enough to keep the work.
Shari