Torching the Modern-Day Library of Alexandria

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

This does not say that the copyright was assigned.

A copyright assignment is when the copyright holder transfers ownership of the copyright to another person or organization.

What was the duration of the contract, because your publication prohibition should only have been for that time.

It didn't give a time limit. I will reserve judgment but I quit subscribing to the magazines when I realized one particular segment of Country Woman tended to feature the women that exploited others for their own gain.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Which post? You said several times that it was contract law not copyright law and that authors can easily get their rights back because it is a contract according to your lawyer sister. And about precedents.

I have read every one of your posts about copyright. You tried to tell Daryl that authors don't give up their copyright. Therefore, I want you to prove it. I gave you a real life example if you care to do it.
Does your sister specialize in Intellectual property laws?
You said she was a trial lawyer, (civil or criminal ).
So why don't you put your money where your sister's mouth is?
I have heard of a few authors getting their rights back due to fraudulent or very misleading contracts. They are very rare and that has to be proven.
Standard boiler plates aren't fraudulent.

Though darn it, now you have me curious as to what really happened to the contracts when Reiman sold out to Reader's Digest.
Off to make a call. Make that sent an email.

Sigh. As you well know, I did not say any such thing. I said
"Keep in mind that you are discussing contract law rather than copyright law. The author still holds the copyright on the article."

I then said
" The copyright holder can enter into a contract that gives exclusive license to someone else, but the author is still the copyright holder. Copyright law and contract law are two different legal traditions and different rules apply. "

I finally said
"I don't know, what does your contract say? You should probably check with your agent or lawyer if you are interested in getting the rights reverted back to you. Sometimes they will revert it back if it's a story they don't plan to republish. I've read more than a few authors talk about the process. "

Obviously I made the mistake of thinking you were trying to have an honest discussion rather than play some sort of point scoring internet game. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

[darryl]

@pwalker8. As you say, Sigh. I find your understanding of the Doctrine of Precedent faulty and your views as to its operation lacking. You do not seem to be interested in remedying this, so it is pointless for me to discuss it further with you. For my part I agree to disagree.

[Conan46]

Someone can hack into a system and get credit info on millions of people--on top of tons of other hacks--and no one can get to these books?

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by Conan46

Someone can hack into a system and get credit info on millions of people--on top of tons of other hacks--and no one can get to these books?

From the article:

"I asked someone who used to have that job, what would it take to make the books viewable in full to everybody? I wanted to know how hard it would have been to unlock them. What’s standing between us and a digital public library of 25 million volumes?

You’d get in a lot of trouble, they said, but all you’d have to do, more or less, is write a single database query. You’d flip some access control bits from off to on. It might take a few minutes for the command to propagate."


So close and yet so far...

[Conan46]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

From the article:

"I asked someone who used to have that job, what would it take to make the books viewable in full to everybody? I wanted to know how hard it would have been to unlock them. What’s standing between us and a digital public library of 25 million volumes?

You’d get in a lot of trouble, they said, but all you’d have to do, more or less, is write a single database query. You’d flip some access control bits from off to on. It might take a few minutes for the command to propagate."


So close and yet so far...

Yes, I figure it would not be as hard as half of the hacking that goes on, but too few people read books anymore for anyone to care

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Sigh. As you well know, I did not say any such thing. I said
"Keep in mind that you are discussing contract law rather than copyright law. The author still holds the copyright on the article."

I then said
" The copyright holder can enter into a contract that gives exclusive license to someone else, but the author is still the copyright holder. Copyright law and contract law are two different legal traditions and different rules apply. "

I finally said
"I don't know, what does your contract say? You should probably check with your agent or lawyer if you are interested in getting the rights reverted back to you. Sometimes they will revert it back if it's a story they don't plan to republish. I've read more than a few authors talk about the process. "

Obviously I made the mistake of thinking you were trying to have an honest discussion rather than play some sort of point scoring internet game. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

I was trying to understand how if I gave the rights to someone else, how can I still be the copyright holder since I can't publish it anywhere else. Therefore I do not own the copyright to my own work so I am not the holder.

Yes, I acknowledge I sent in the story and therefore gave over all rights. PS: I didn't get a contract to sign.

So, you are the one showing that you don't have a clue as to how magazine copyright works.
Whoever can publish the story is the copyright holder.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Conan46

Yes, I figure it would not be as hard as half of the hacking that goes on, but too few people read books anymore for anyone to care

I hate to agree with you on this one but alas I must agree.

[Pulpmeister]

I'm unsure of US law, but unless you specifically assign or specifically transfer the copyright as part of the contract or conditions of publication, it stays your copyright. More than one author has actually sold their copyrights (Georgette Heyer sold one or two of her copyrights; The Peter Pan copyrights were assigned to the Ormond St children's hospital in London), and therefore no longer have any rights over the works. Some magazines or publishers demand assignment of copyright to them as part of the contract.

pwalker8 is right: you are dealing with two bodies of law: copyright (a statute) and contract (common law, but often codified into statue law different jurisdictions).

When I was published commercially long ago, my standard contract licensed the publisher to exclusive publication rights so long as they stayed in print. Publication rights (not copyright, which was always mine) reverted automatically to me after a fixed period, so I could find another publisher if any might be interested.

You've got to read in the fine print in the contract. If there's no written contract, and you've entered some competition or another, you've got to read the fine print in the conditions of entry. They bind you.

It's a minefield for the innocent.

As I think Dean Koontz once noted, an author is not in the business of selling copyrights, but only in licensing the use of his work to a publisher under agreed conditions.

(If you really want to get rich, become a lawyer...)

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

(If you really want to get rich, become a lawyer...)

No, that is one major flaw in the US. There is too many opportunistic lawyers making up excuses to sue for no good reason at all.

(Hey that coffee was so hot it burned my tongue. Well, doh, it is supposed to be hot. )

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

No, that is one major flaw in the US. There is too many opportunistic lawyers making up excuses to sue for no good reason at all.

(Hey that coffee was so hot it burned my tongue. Well, doh, it is supposed to be hot. )

And that example is why all paper coffee cups sold in retail outlets all have "Caution:contents may be hot." printed on them and their lids.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

And that example is why all paper coffee cups sold in retail outlets all have "Caution:contents may be hot." printed on them and their lids.

And a bottle of peanut butter had a warning "May contain peanuts". Just in case someone who was allergic to peanuts thought peanut butter was made from soybeans?

[Byrdie]

"May contain peanuts"? When I buy peanut butter it damn well better contain peanuts, or else somebody's gonna have a whole lot of explaining to do.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

@pwalker8. As you say, Sigh. I find your understanding of the Doctrine of Precedent faulty and your views as to its operation lacking. You do not seem to be interested in remedying this, so it is pointless for me to discuss it further with you. For my part I agree to disagree.

Have you read the book that I cited? Are you at all familiar with Scalia's writings? I think you will find that in real life, this is how things work in the US court system. It's kind of pointless to discuss the US court system with someone who seems to insist that it works just like the Commonwealth court system. It doesn't. The idea of results oriented judging verse texualism is one of the big battle in the legal system in the US right now.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Have you read the book that I cited? Are you at all familiar with Scalia's writings? I think you will find that in real life...

Wow. The late Scalia your hero. The fallacy you are trying to use against us is trying to make us think that Scalia's opinion on how the Constitution should be interpreted ias how it is done "in real life."

But then, of course, you should know that he didn't follow what he preaches. He did whatever was necessary to push his own agenda - whether that be in the best interest of the people or not.