Electronic versions of out-of-print paperbacks

[Gannett]

Thanks for your encouraging words. I had thought of that plan, I might even give it a go.

Yes, it is a bit tedious and time-consuming, but I really don't mind, it's certainly more interesting than my day-job!

My motivation is less money (I would happily give them away, but if there was a bit in it, all the better!) and more making these books available and preserving them for the future. I read alot of literary criticism and hear alot of readers raving about some old "rare" pulp story or obscure novel they've read, and you know that unless you have the time to tour the second-hand bookstores, or you are an academic with access to a university library, you'll never get the chance to read them. I heard a wonderful talk on BBC radio a few years ago about John Creasey which made me go and bite the bullet and find a stack of his novels, loved reading them, and think that others would enjoy them, not just because they're economically-written and well-plotted stories (even if the characters are a bit two-dimensional), but that they hark back to the days when a 180-page thriller had its place, before the 50-minute TV crime drama put them out of favour. See...you got me on my hobby horse!

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Well, Gannett, I suppose it may be a matter of how easy it is for you to do the work. In theory, you could go ahead and make the eBook and offer it for sale, and then wait for anyone to object. And the individual/entity who objects would have to prove that he has the rights.

At that point, you could happily withdraw the eBook from the market and begin negotiations. And if they refuse to meet your price, they would be forced to make their own eBooks.

The one issue that comes to mind with that scenario is that I suspect that popular websites like Amazon and Smashwords require proof that you have the right to publish the eBook before they will list it. But that may not be right. And even if it is, you could start your own website.

It would just depend on how much effort each eBook requires, knowing that odds are that some of them will come to naught.

You're not doing him any favors by suggesting that he just blatantly violate copyright law, lie to the vendor (if it's Amazon, Smashwords, etc.) about being the rights owner, and then wait to say, "Oh--sorry." The one thing that will certainly accomplish is to get him a reputation as a copyright pirate. Bad idea.

The only legit thing I can think of that he can do is try to track down the rights holders and offer them his services in preparing ebook versions that could then be put up for sale. (He would either be offering his services as a publisher, or as a formatter.) This could be a laborious undertaking, if the copyright owners aren't easy to find.

It must be emphasized that he has no legal standing whatsoever to put the books up on his own website or for sale through another outlet. I don't think anyone would object to his making versions for his personal use, as long as he really kept them to himself. (Though I could be wrong about that.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Well, Gannett, I suppose it may be a matter of how easy it is for you to do the work. In theory, you could go ahead and make the eBook and offer it for sale, and then wait for anyone to object. And the individual/entity who objects would have to prove that he has the rights.

Bad idea. Extremely had idea. The fact that a book is out of print is not an excuse to violate copyright law.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by MR. Pockets

But if he owns a physical copy, can't he make an electronic copy for his own use if he wants?

Depends where the OP lives. In the US, it is legal. In the UK, it is not.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Well, Gannett, I suppose it may be a matter of how easy it is for you to do the work. In theory, you could go ahead and make the eBook and offer it for sale, and then wait for anyone to object. And the individual/entity who objects would have to prove that he has the rights.

At that point, you could happily withdraw the eBook from the market and begin negotiations. And if they refuse to meet your price, they would be forced to make their own eBooks...

Very, very bad idea. If you're lucky (really lucky), all they would do is demand you withdraw the books from the market. Most likely, however, you would get sued. Even if you somehow got really, really lucky and was able to settle the suit by agreeing to withdraw the books from the market (not likely; people are just too greedy), you still would be out your legal expenses. The old theory of it's easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission just doesn't work here.

[Kali Yuga]

I don't see any legal issues with pitching your services to rights-holders. However, you may want to convert more than one book before characterizing yourself as offering a professional service. You should also be able to either provide some type of OCR'ed text (as opposed to PDF) that can be converted to MOBI and EPUB, unless you want to learn how to do those conversions yourself and offer that service.

One problem you may have is in finding the correct holder of those rights. With these types of books, the copyrights were most likely held by publishers who are now out of business and cannot be located.

Also, you do have some competition, namely Google. They've been scanning books in various libraries for a few years now, and there's a good chance the books you're converting were also caught in the Google Books dragnet.

A third is that if you plan to charge anything for this, your product will need to be nearly perfect.

A fourth is that if you offer your services cheaply -- and yes, that is exactly what you're doing, since there are commercial conversion services out there for those who are sufficiently interested in going digital -- at least some of the people who take you up on your offer will make you absolutely and utterly miserable. In many cases, the people who are willing to pay the least also turn out to be extremely demanding, and a huge PITA to deal with. Just because someone is an author, publisher, or relative thereof, does not mean they are a good person or easy to deal with.

Books that are out of print, and whose rights-holders cannot be located by reasonable efforts, are known as "orphaned works." The copyrights still hold, though. Legislative resolution of the issues won't be easy either; the UK tried to pass a law that relaxed copyright restrictions on orphaned works, and many content creators (e.g. photographers) went through the roof and insisted this would make a huge loophole for them not to get paid. In the US, currently this is part of the furore around the Google Books settlement.

Keep some of this in mind while doing your next batch of conversions, and daydreaming about wider book availability....

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Depends where the OP lives. In the US, it is legal. In the UK, it is not.

But even in the UK, as a purely practical matter, nobody's going to bother you if you make a copy for your own personal use.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by starrigger

You're not doing him any favors by suggesting that he just blatantly violate copyright law, lie to the vendor (if it's Amazon, Smashwords, etc.) about being the rights owner, and then wait to say, "Oh--sorry." The one thing that will certainly accomplish is to get him a reputation as a copyright pirate. Bad idea.

I'm not suggesting that he lie to anyone. In fact, I'm not suggesting that he do this.

I am suggesting, however, that if he wants to do this and he cannot find out who the copyright owners are, he might consider going ahead and letting them find him.

Yes, he may lose out on 100% of his revenue of a contested book, but that is part of the process of negotiation. The matter of legal fees is a part of doing business.

The premise is that these are old books that no one has an interest in. If his efforts flush out those who do have an interest in the book, so much the better.

The issue of Google's negotiations with the Authors' Guild (if that is the correct name) occurred to me, but I don't know enough about it to discuss it. The Authors' Guild reminds me of ASCAP. I remember a few years ago that ASCAP demanded payment from someone, and the response was...OK, send us a complete list of your songs, and we won't play them. ASCAP folded.

Perhaps the Authors' Guild is or will be an authoritative source of who owns the copyright. If so, excellent! That would eliminate a great deal of the hassle.

I disagree with the above comment that lots of heirs will be greedy and put a kibosh on Gannett's plans. My experience in real estate suggests that the heirs will be happy to receive fair compensation.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I'm not suggesting that he lie to anyone. In fact, I'm not suggesting that he do this.

I am suggesting, however, that if he wants to do this and he cannot find out who the copyright owners are, he might consider going ahead and letting them find him.

Yes, he may lose out on 100% of his revenue of a contested book, but that is part of the process of negotiation. The matter of legal fees is a part of doing business...

Since the OP would have violated copyright law, he may face criminal action as well as civil action. Even if only hit with a civil suit, the plaintiffs may not just settle for recovery of actual profits but also seek actual value (a value the paintiff will likely be able to set) and the resulting possible damages (depending on how good their lawyers are, anything can be trumped up) and the OP would also have legal expenses. The odds are the OP would be in the hole finanacially.

Deliberately breaking the law by not securing rights from copyright owners before publishing would be dishonest and poor business practice and ethics. Even though the task of running down the present copyright owners could be a royal pain, it would be the wisest course by far.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

...I disagree with the above comment that lots of heirs will be greedy and put a kibosh on Gannett's plans. My experience in real estate suggests that the heirs will be happy to receive fair compensation.

My experience with retail sales and people in general strongly suggests otherwise. I'm surprised your real estate experience suggests otherwise since articles I've read on pricing real estate, talking to real estate appraisers and real estate sales people I know, etc., all suggest most people have inflated opinions of the value of their property, usually due to misconceptions (market value vs. personal value) but sometimes also due to pure greed.

It's one thing when someone is inquiring about something you own and might want to sell outright or want rights to but let someone illegally encroach on someone's rights, and suddenly the perceived value skyrockets. An old clunker that was stolen suddenly becomes a classic collector's item once someone has destroyed it in an accident or it has been stolen. All too often, once someone has you over a barrel, they will try to take unfair advantage of you and, in the case of lawsuits, since you unlawfully created the situation, the plaintiffs will have the advantage.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I'm not suggesting that he lie to anyone. In fact, I'm not suggesting that he do this.

I am suggesting, however, that if he wants to do this and he cannot find out who the copyright owners are, he might consider going ahead and letting them find him.

Okay, maybe you didn't advocate. But you suggested that he could violate copyright law and then wait to get caught. And if he put it up for sale at, for example, Amazon, then he'd have to lie and say that he was the rights holder, because you have to attest that you're the rights holder to publish on Amazon.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by starrigger

Okay, maybe you didn't advocate. But you suggested that he could violate copyright law and then wait to get caught. And if he put it up for sale at, for example, Amazon, then he'd have to lie and say that he was the rights holder, because you have to attest that you're the rights holder to publish on Amazon.

Please reread my post. I said that if Amazon requires proof of ownership he could start his own website.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Since the OP would have violated copyright law, he may face criminal action as well as civil action.

LF, you're not a lawyer are you? Copyright is not a criminal matter.

Even if only hit with a civil suit, the plaintiffs may not just settle for recovery of actual profits but also seek actual value (a value the paintiff will likely be able to set)...

The plaintiffs can estimate any sum they want, but that doesn't mean the court will grant it. Proof is required, as the defense attorney says.

...and the OP would also have legal expenses. The odds are the OP would be in the hole finanacially.

Legal expenses are a part of doing business. So is the cost of incorporation. The likelihood of losing money is a business judgment for him to make.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Please reread my post. I said that if Amazon requires proof of ownership he could start his own website.

My mistake. You didn't suggest he lie outright to Amazon. But hypothetically, if Amazon didn't require a statement of rights-ownership and one could just put anything up, don't you think there would be an implicit lie in putting up a work that wasn't yours? (Even if there was explanatory fine print.)

But disregarding the "lie" question or anything about money, the fact remains that it would be a clear violation of copyright.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

LF, you're not a lawyer are you? Copyright is not a criminal matter...

No, I'm not. Are you? Note I said he may face criminal charges.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

The plaintiffs can estimate any sum they want, but that doesn't mean the court will grant it. Proof is required, as the defense attorney says...

Do you ever read the newspapers? Outlandish awards are frequently awarded.

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Legal expenses are a part of doing business. So is the cost of incorporation. The likelihood of losing money is a business judgment for him to make.

It was real nice of you to point that out when you first gave the advice. Oh...wait...you didn't...

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

No, I'm not. Are you? Note I said he may face criminal charges.

Yes. But I've made my living in business, so I don't usually present myself as a legal authority.

And I'm saying that he won't face criminal charges.

*****

Remember folks, my first suggestion was that he attempt to locate the copyright holders. This idea of going forward without consent was contingent upon being unable to find them.

I don't see how doing so is any more unethical than what Google is doing.

I of course agree that royalties should be agreed upon and paid. It seems to me that the real life issue is what to do about orphan works. I don't feel that it is unethical to make them available to the public, while keeping royalties in reserve should a copyright holder appear.