Sherlock Holmes ruled to be (mostly) in the public domain

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright; it's the publishing contract that the author has signed with the publisher. If they've locked themselves into an exclusive contract with no escape clause, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

It's all a matter of leverage and desperation; industry newcomers are offered contracts that barely let them control the spelling of their name, whereas established authors can conceivably retain control of ebook rights, derivative rights, and even specify hard end dates for the contract.
A lot depends on whether the author has an ip lawyer on their side or a rubber-stamp agent and whether they are willing to walk away from a bad contract.

Originally Posted by HarryT

That is perfectly true, but my point still stands, that it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with copyright law.

Why should the law allow such a situation?

I think that it has been discussed in other threads that in the case of most books the author only gets the advance because the royalties don't sum up to a value above it. So in practice in the case of most books we have the situation that was before copyright law (i.e. authors get paid once) with the possibility for publishers to have monopoly.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Why should the law allow such a situation?

The law does prevent grossly unfair contracts from being enforcible - eg the UK has a law called the Unfair Contract Terms Act, but it's mainly limited to not allowing companies to get away with disclaiming liability for things that they are responsible for.

As a responsible adult, it's your responsibility to know what it is that you're agreeing to when you sign a contract. Any author is being a little foolish if they sign a publishing contract without having it checked out by a lawyer first, and properly understanding just what it is they're agreeing to.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The law does prevent grossly unfair contracts from being enforcible - eg the UK has a law called the Unfair Contract Terms Act, but it's mainly limited to not allowing companies to get away with disclaiming liability for things that they are responsible for.

As a responsible adult, it's your responsibility to know what it is that you're agreeing to when you sign a contract. Any author is being a little foolish if they sign a publishing contract without having it checked out by a lawyer first, and properly understanding just what it is they're agreeing to.

We have a minimum wage set by law because it doesn't matter how much of a responsible adult you are, in the absence of these laws with more people looking for jobs that there are jobs available companies would pay nearly nothing.

One way to give authors a chance is to have a law saying that when the publisher stops marketing the books the author gets the right to find another publisher regardless of what is in the contract.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That is perfectly true, but my point still stands, that it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with copyright law.

Except that without copyright law, you point would be moot...

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

We have a minimum wage set by law because it doesn't matter how much of a responsible adult you are, in the absence of these laws with more people looking for jobs that there are jobs available companies would pay nearly nothing.

One way to give authors a chance is to have a law saying that when the publisher stops marketing the books the author gets the right to find another publisher regardless of what is in the contract.

I believe that right already exists - authors can sever copyright agreements after 35 years.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

I believe that right already exists - authors can sever copyright agreements after 35 years.

Under what law, and in which country?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's a worthy goal, but I think the copyright holder (who is generally not the publisher) would say that the book is their property, to publish or not to publish as they see fit. If the copyright holder wants the book to be in print, they are the ones who have the ability to do something about it.

But if it isn't the publisher who holds the copy right to a book that's say 91 yrs old (or close to it) and the author is deceased then who benefits? His heirs? If a book isn't being published and no $ is coming in from its sales I'd think an author's heirs aren't even benefiting from the book. So the author's work gather's dust on some shelf somewhere and is forgotten by the world. I'm always finding books here at MR whose authors I'd never heard of before and who would be part of that group I imagine if they weren't put up at sites like Gutenberg, (which is where I find most of the books I've uploaded) Manybooks.net, and Archive.org.

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Under what law, and in which country?

US, U.S.C.A. § 203(a)(3) (2009), if I am getting my references right.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by crich70

But if it isn't the publisher who holds the copy right to a book that's say 91 yrs old (or close to it) and the author is deceased then who benefits? His heirs? If a book isn't being published and no $ is coming in from its sales I'd think an author's heirs aren't even benefiting from the book. So the author's work gather's dust on some shelf somewhere and is forgotten by the world. I'm always finding books here at MR whose authors I'd never heard of before and who would be part of that group I imagine if they weren't put up at sites like Gutenberg, (which is where I find most of the books I've uploaded) Manybooks.net, and Archive.org.

well the $ comes in from licensing the use to others

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

well the $ comes in from licensing the use to others

But if you license the rights to use a particular book, and then don't publish it you're just throwing away your $$. I can't see any publisher of books doing that. They are in the business of making a profit when they spend $.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by crich70

But if you license the rights to use a particular book, and then don't publish it you're just throwing away your $$. I can't see any publisher of books doing that. They are in the business of making a profit when they spend $.

Low-price/free books on the market cut into the sales of new, pricier books, since people only have so much time to read/money to spend. Limiting what is offered in the market helps control the prices. The more old books still under the control of the BPHs, the less competition they face for the works they choose to market. So, even if they have no intention of publishing a book, it's good to retain control so that no one else gets a chance to publish it and cut into the market.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Low-price/free books on the market cut into the sales of new, pricier books, since people only have so much time to read/money to spend. Limiting what is offered in the market helps control the prices. The more old books still under the control of the BPHs, the less competition they face for the works they choose to market. So, even if they have no intention of publishing a book, it's good to retain control so that no one else gets a chance to publish it and cut into the market.

The BPH are probably better off keeping the old books in print because they can set the price to match their new ebooks, and generate the impression that "good ebooks' all cost the price of a new book. I know a couple of the publishers are doing that with the "classic SF" under their control.