Harper Lee's heirs kill mass market paperback of 'To Kill a Mockingbird'

[bgalbrecht]

The executor of her estate got a judge to seal the will, and they've also rescinded publication of the $8.99 mass market paperback. Apparently they're not selling enough of the trade paperback edition. It makes me wonder how many schools will drop the classic because of the near doubling of the cost of new copies?

New Republic

[Cinisajoy]

Love your thread title.
Do schools even still teach "To kill a mockingbird"?

[pwalker8]

Well, it was on my niece and nephew's reading list, so I think the answer is yes, they still teach To Kill a Mockingbird.

Heirs' traditionally have done a poor job of guarding literary estates. The Tolkien family is the exception that proves the rule. The decision to publish an early draft of To Kill a Mockingbird as a long lost novel and this are pretty good examples of why for most of the history of copyright protect up to the time of the Mouse, copyright was much more limited in time period. Under the older 28 + 28 protection that was in effect when it was published in 1960, To Kill a Mockingbird would be moving into public domain where it belongs this year (assuming my math is correct).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Heirs' traditionally have done a poor job of guarding literary estates. The Tolkien family is the exception that proves the rule. The decision to publish an early draft of To Kill a Mockingbird as a long lost novel and this are pretty good examples of why for most of the history of copyright protect up to the time of the Mouse, copyright was much more limited in time period.

The decision to publish "Go Set a Watchman" was not that of the heirs, but of the author. It would still have its full copyright term, no matter what that term was.

[fjtorres]

There is this (undocumented) narrative going around of Lee bring exploited after her stroke that blames Lee's recent odd choices on her support system (now heirs) instead of considering that Lee herself might have made those decisions of her own free will and clear mind.

All available evidence is Lee chose to put WATCHMAN out as a companion to MOCKINGBIRD. And she just might have asked that the mass market edition be removed for a variety of (purely speculative) reasons. Maybe she wants the book out of schools. Maybe the money the book is generating isn't enough: massmarket royalties are notoriously low, in the single digits. (And we don't know where it is going. A foundation? Charity? Her designated heirs?)

But people just love to jump to conclusions.

In this case, since Lee has a history of... odd... behavior with respect to the book and her writing "career" it is not impossible that she herself made the request in her will and the will was sealed to protect her image. (Her community has long been protective of her, that much is true. When the media comes calling, nobody talks.)

This is a perfect case to take note--it happened--and move on.

[JSWolf]

Or the simple truth is that the heirs are a bungs of greedy so and sos.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Or the simple truth is that the heirs are a bungs of greedy so and sos.

Are you in the habit of insulting people you don't know when you have absolutely no idea what the facts of the situation are? Would you say that to the person's face if you met them? Hiding behind a wall of anonymity on an internet discussion board and insulting people is really not a very nice thing to do.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you in the habit of insulting people you don't know when you have absolutely no idea what the facts of the situation are? Would you say that to the person's face if you met them? Hiding behind a wall of anonymity on an internet discussion board and insulting people is really not a very nice thing to do.

It's just a theory. There's a lot of times when it's money that's behind poor decisions.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

There's a lot of times when it's money that's behind poor decisions.

The question is -- why is it a bad decision?

First, the law.

Under terms of US Copyright law in place when Lee first published, I believe the copyright was set to expire on July 11, 2016 (two 28 year terms). Since then, the US Congress increased it to the end of the 95th calendar year, which will be January 1, 2056. This is well before the copyright expiration date in Life + 70 Germany*, that being January 1, 2087, and Canada**, where it expires on January 1, 2067 unless the Trans-Pacific Partnership is ratified, in which case it goes to January 1, 2087.

You seem to be suggesting that the family has some responsibility to leave money on the table. I don't see it.

The title is widely available for free in libraries. I'll bet that even third world village reading rooms commonly include this title in their tiny collections. As for the cost to US school districts, the United States is still a rich country with, by world standards, a heavily funded government. Why should the family sell books, at a sub-market price, when they mostly are bought by US governmental entities?

From a standpoint of encouraging creation of works of art, it was a questionable decision to make copyright terms longer for books already published. Whose fault is that? Note that if the family publishes the book at below-market prices, they will have less to give to legitimate charities. Why shouldn't they give the money to charities they select rather than haphazardly to US school districts rich and (by US standards) poor?

The family may be doing this based on advice from HarperCollins, whose financial interests are likely similar.

Is that so bad? HarperCollins splits revenue between multiple purposes, including buying book proposals for titles I want to read. I can't see funding new titles being less moral than selling old ones for lower prices than today's changing market will bear.


_____________________
* No rule of the shorter term because of 1892 treaty with United States.

** No rule of the shorter term due to 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement.

[barryem]

We do live in a capitalist system and people who own rights to a book are certainly entitled to make decisions concerning that book which benefit them.

The other side of the argument is that "To Kill a Mockingbird" has become a cultural icon and that might also be considered. If you own a building that has been deemed to have historical significance you're not allowed to deface it or destroy it. The same logic might apply here.

God should have made a simpler world for us to live in. We don't handle the complexities of this one very well.

Barry

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The decision to publish "Go Set a Watchman" was not that of the heirs, but of the author. It would still have its full copyright term, no matter what that term was.

There was quite a bit of speculation at the time of the announcement that Harper Lee was no longer in complete control of her facilities. Her sister, who had controlled her business decisions, had just died and all communication went through Lee's new lawyer.

My point is that To Kill a Mockingbird would be out of copyright now if the law hadn't been changed to life + 50. The new book has nothing to do with that.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The question is -- why is it a bad decision?

First, the law.

Under terms of US Copyright law in place when Lee first published, I believe the copyright was set to expire on July 11, 2016 (two 28 year terms). Since then, the US Congress increased it to the end of the 95th calendar year, which will be January 1, 2056. This is well before the copyright expiration date in Life + 70 Germany*, that being January 1, 2087, and Canada**, where it expires on January 1, 2067 unless the Trans-Pacific Partnership is ratified, in which case it goes to January 1, 2087.

You seem to be suggesting that the family has some responsibility to leave money on the table. I don't see it.

The title is widely available for free in libraries. I'll bet that even third world village reading rooms commonly include this title in their tiny collections. As for the cost to US school districts, the United States is still a rich country with, by world standards, a heavily funded government. Why should the family sell books, at a sub-market price, when they mostly are bought by US governmental entities?

From a standpoint of encouraging creation of works of art, it was a questionable decision to make copyright terms longer for books already published. Whose fault is that? Note that if the family publishes the book at below-market prices, they will have less to give to legitimate charities. Why shouldn't they give the money to charities they select rather than haphazardly to US school districts rich and (by US standards) poor?

The family may be doing this based on advice from HarperCollins, whose financial interests are likely similar.

Is that so bad? HarperCollins splits revenue between multiple purposes, including buying book proposals for titles I want to read. I can't see funding new titles being less moral than selling old ones for lower prices than today's changing market will bear.


_____________________
* No rule of the shorter term because of 1892 treaty with United States.

** No rule of the shorter term due to 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement.

I think that the real point is that copyright, as it is in the US Constitution, makes it clear that copyright is a deal between artists and the general public, giving artists a limited duration copyright in return for the benefit to the general public. The current law makes a mockery of the term limited duration. This is a point that has been debated many times here. I suspect that most would be much more generous towards artists and their heirs if the field hadn't been tilted so heavily in their direction.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The question is -- why is it a bad decision?

Because it puts this iconic book out of reach of a lot of people who want to own the pBook. It also costs families more to buy it for the kids to read in school. This is clearly about money.

If it is true that Harper Lee was not of sound mind, then this decision is not legal.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Because it puts this iconic book out of reach of a lot of people who want to own the pBook. It also costs families more to buy it for the kids to read in school. This is clearly about money.

If it is true that Harper Lee was not of sound mind, then this decision is not legal.

Unless you are suggesting that Miss Lee was not of sound mind when she wrote her will (do you have any evidence to support this?), her heirs can do whatever they wish with their inheritance. Wishing to make money is not a crime.

[barryem]

It's a complicated topic and any simple answer you posit is almost certainly wrong.

We don't really know anything about Harper Lee's state of mind. The rumors are worrisome and believable but they're only rumors and law can't deal with rumors. Only with facts.

It's certainly true that Congress has made a mockery of the "limited time" statement in the Constitution but they are Congress and they're entitled to do that. I'm very sure that a millennium down the road Disney will have lobbied them to set copyright's "limited time" to something like "forever minus one". There's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits Congress from mockery.

We don't have to like all this stuff. I certainly don't like it. But if we want to complain about it let's complain with facts and not rumors.

Barry