A Modest Proposal - Eternal Copyright

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

It seemed to me to be what bill_mchale suggested, strictly unspoken though it was.

No, I never said there was anything wrong with it, but I am saying that some authors (or their families, or publishing companies) won't write and or publish works (or as many works) without the ability to profit from it. Shoot, the ability to make a living from writing might be key to them being able to write more.

Once again, that appeared to me to be the suggestion.

Not no one, but for some people yes. Several clear examples have been provided of authors who either wrote for money, or didn't publish because they didn't need too to make a living. Q.E.D., money can be an important factor in inducing some authors to write and publish.

Why is it that his family would have made no money? They would likely have made less money, but less does not actually equal nothing.

If the manuscript is by Hemingway, Twain, or some other author of similar significance, it might have commercial value, even if it is out of copyright (i.e., the first company to publish will make a fair bit of money before other copies are published), but an author whose sales put them firmly in the mid-list? (and lets remember, some works we consider classics now did not sell all that well at the time they were released).

--
Bill

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Which means they would make money. Less money, but money. Which is what I said to begin with. All this palaver just to establish that simple thing.

It would also be out for some time before the copies and a competent publisher (not that I know the first thing about US publishers of the era) ought to be able to see to it that it was made available in various parts of the country on the day of release. By being first, the memoirs of a revered figure like Grant ought to sell rather well in the time window available before the appearance of copies begun to diminish sales of the bona fide article.

They would make nearly nothing, and nearly nothing is for all practical purposes the same as nothing. The publisher's exclusivity would be worth very little, as they would have that for only a few days at the most. Once a competing publisher gets ahold of it, they can put out their own copies very quickly.

And that few days of exclusivity is assuming that it isn't leaked to competitors before it hits the stores. Bribery is effective. Competitors could well have copies in stores before the version from the original publisher hits the stores. If they get the manuscript early enough and rush it to the presses, they could easily beat the original publisher to market if the original publisher is producing a higher quality book that takes a longer period of time.

The original publisher's exclusivity would be so short that it would be of little value, almost certainly not enough to lift a family out of poverty. And that's talking about the days of paper books, with e-books, they delay would be a matter of minutes at the very most.

[Belfaborac]

The question was in regards to Ulysses S. Grant, not just anyone. In regards to other, mid-list authors, they've probably written one or more works already since they're on any list at all and made money from those. In any case I doubt many people today or henceforth will think: "oh darn, it seems I'm nearing the end of my days. Time to sit down and write a whopping big best seller so my descendants will have an income in perpetuity".

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

They would make nearly nothing, and nearly nothing is for all practical purposes the same as nothing.

I would contend, confidently, that this is pure supposition on your part.

[mrscoach]

Say I write a book, but before I get it published I get hit by a bus. Now, my hubby put up with me during the writing of said book. The moodiness, the highs and lows, being woken up in the middle of the night by my frantic typing. If copyright ends at death then he has no incentive to try to get my book published.

Or if I had gotten it accepted by a publisher, but it wasn't out yet, he has no incentive to let the publisher print it. But wait, since I am dead then the publisher can go ahead and publish the book without paying my husband anything. Even if I had signed a contract with them but not gotten paid my hubby would get nothing. Why? Because he lost all rights upon my death.

Here's a twist. Texas is a community property state, so does the book belong to us jointly and is he really part owner and deserving of payment for 'our' property?

Life+10-15 or a set time (say 30-40). I haven't made up my mind what is best and for how long, but I know the length now is too long.

ETA: I'm supposing copyright ends at death. Sorry, forgot to clarify that.

[Belfaborac]

If your other half had signed a contract, why would his and his copyright's expiry annul it?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

Here's a twist. Texas is a community property state, so does the book belong to us jointly and is he really part owner and deserving of payment for 'our' property?

Another Texan here. Based on what my lawyer has told me, no, copyright isn't automatically communal property here, and I should make will provisions if I want my copyrights to transfer without fuss to my husband on my death.

At least, that was my understanding. It's been awhile since I asked her, but I remember making a mental "update will re: copyright" note.

[QuantumIguana]

The question was in regards to Ulysses S. Grant, not just anyone.

Grant was only one example, it is applicable to any author.

In regards to other, mid-list authors, they've probably written one or more works already since they're on any list at all and made money from those. In any case I doubt many people today or henceforth will think: "oh darn, it seems I'm nearing the end of my days. Time to sit down and write a whopping big best seller so my descendants will have an income in perpetuity".

So, because they made some money, that means they have made enough? Why in the world would you think that an author wouldn't continue writing to provide for their family? If their other books sold, it is reasonable that this book would sell too. And the issue isn't perpetual copyright, but the assertion that copyright should end at the author's death.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

If your other half had signed a contract, why would his and his copyright's expiry annul it?

You are the one asserting that copyright should expire at the death of the author.

[mrscoach]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

If your other half had signed a contract, why would his and his copyright's expiry annul it?

I was playing on the 'copyright ends at death' scenario.

He could theoretically send the book out under his own name and get paid. He could send it out 'over the transom' and then lose all rights when the publisher finds out I am deceased and puts my work out without compensating him. Why would he do that? Because he wouldn't know any better and would think it was my last wish.

Quite frankly, if my family gets nothing from it I would say "forget you" and have my manuscript destroyed. I do not want publishers profiting when they get nothing.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

You are the one asserting that copyright should expire at the death of the author.

So? Have I also stated that end of copyright should or must annul a valid contract?

[mrscoach]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Another Texan here. Based on what my lawyer has told me, no, copyright isn't automatically communal property here, and I should make will provisions if I want my copyrights to transfer without fuss to my husband on my death.

At least, that was my understanding. It's been awhile since I asked her, but I remember making a mental "update will re: copyright" note.

Thanks for that tidbit. I wonder if it has ever been challenged? It seems to me if someone puts up with a writer during the creation and re-creation (editing) then they would get something automatically. LOL

[mrscoach]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

So? Have I also stated that end of copyright should or must annul a valid contract?

Do you really think publishers would pay the heirs? Really? They would be like, "Sorry, it's out of copyright and public domain now. No soup for you."

(Don't ask, I just heard the soup nazi from seinfeld in my head during that)

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

I was playing on the 'copyright ends at death' scenario.

He could theoretically send the book out under his own name and get paid. He could send it out 'over the transom' and then lose all rights when the publisher finds out I am deceased and puts my work out without compensating him. Why would he do that? Because he wouldn't know any better and would think it was my last wish.

Quite frankly, if my family gets nothing from it I would say "forget you" and have my manuscript destroyed. I do not want publishers profiting when they get nothing.

I don't really understand these inferences from what I've said before.

If an author dies after signing a contract with a publisher, but before publication, then I see no reason why that contract should be null and void, nor the assumption that I would think that.

If an author dies after having completed a book, but before a contract has been signed, before a publisher has been approached, then the author's family can do as they please with the manuscript: burn it, keep it, or try to have it published. If the latter course is chosen, then the family will receive the proceeds from the sale.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

So? Have I also stated that end of copyright should or must annul a valid contract?

It makes the contract meaningless. If copyright expired at the author's death, the author may have had a contract with publisher X to pay royalties on sale of the book. But publisher Y had no such contract, and can sell the book without royalties. Therefore, publisher X has little incentive to sell the book at all, because they will have to pay royalties, they won't be able to publisher Y which does not have to pay royalties.