eBook Rights: The Role Of Publishers Is Greater Than It May Seem

The New York Times:

News that the heirs of William Styron, the author of "Sophie's Choice," are licensing the electronic-publishing rights for some of his Random House books to Open Road Integrated Media got me to pondering: Are e-books a new frontier in publishing, a fresh version of the author's work? Or are they simply the latest editions of the books produced by publishers like Random House?

Read the whole story: The New York Times

Comments

[VegetableMan]

02:20 PM on 01/04/2010

this article is one of the dumbest things i've ever read about publishing. just because a publishing house edits, designs, markets, etc., does not give them the right (legally or morally) to claim ownership to a book forever. the same argument could be made about music, and recorded music--which has been composed, arranged, produced, marketed, etc. ever bit as much as the written word--has been re-marketed, re-issued and re-distributed for decades.

the publishing industry has a unique opportunity to learn from the music (and motion picture) industry's mistakes and monetize their properties with an equitable split for both creator and distributor/ publisher, or they'll be stuck at the station, watching the gravy train take off without them once authors go "indie" (in the sense of manufacturing and distribution) en masse. and that WILL happen.

as another poster said, nice try, though.

[markdf]

01:08 PM on 01/04/2010

As president of FSG, of course, Mr. Galassi's contention that publishers have some inherent rights in books other than licensed by the author is self-serving.

Basically, this article is a "white paper" of sorts: he's sending up a trial balloon to see what the counter-argument will be from agents and authors regarding his contention that publishers have some kind of default right to ebook rights.

The answer, Mr. Galassi, is no. You quite rightly point out all the things that a publisher does to produce and promote an author's work. These are services. Even the editing. They do not make a publisher a co-copyright holder and, by default, give it a claim to unlicensed rights. The contention that it does turns on its head decades of intellectual property law and practice.

Nice try though.

[hypnotoad72]

01:24 PM on 01/04/2010

Exactly.

You'll note that google, for any of its web-based services, readily gives itself a helping hand to all sorts of intellectual property. (the people who do the actual work don't get a d*mn penny, while google can use and sell it all they want for their own.)

Chrome OS
Google 3D Warehouse
etc

Read their Terms of Services.

"Do no evil?" Bzzt, wrong!!

Just remember, Microsoft tried pulling the same usurping of content ownership with Word, and got struck down.

There is no way a publisher has any legitimate right. And if that becomes the case, then I implore EVERY potential writer to not submit their writings. They don't need to be robbed by petty thieves.

[hypnotoad72]

01:24 PM on 01/04/2010

Exactly.

You'll note that google, for any of its web-based services, readily gives itself a helping hand to all sorts of intellectual property. (the people who do the actual work don't get a d*mn penny, while google can use and sell it all they want for their own.)

Chrome OS
Google 3D Warehouse
etc

Read their Terms of Services.

Just remember, Microsoft tried pulling the same thing with Word, and got struck down. What's changed since then...

There is no way a publisher has any legitimate right. And if that becomes the case, then I implore EVERY potential writer to not submit their writings. They don't need to be robbed by swindlers.

[hypnotoad72]

01:04 PM on 01/04/2010

Just like how record companies "select, nurture, position, and promote the band's works", no doubt.

Given the sort of works coming out of that industry, "nurture" should be thrown right out the window. What is being positioned is banal, manufactured, soulless, and (in some cases) codependent, drivel. (any number of songs promoted for violence, rape, killing, and how worthless Ms. Singer is without the boyfriend she's pining for, with backing music a preprogrammed $50 keyboard at a retail store could do better at...)

We used to believe the stories about the benefit of the publishers, record companies, and so on. They're media. They want to project defined images. "Freedom" is not in their vocabulary. "Exploitation" is.

Mind you, when Bill O'Reilly had his FOX Cable News special about the media's influence on kids, it wasn't surprising to note he never bothered to mention FOX Broadcast Network.

Publishers are necessary. But don't turn yourself into a wage-slave to appease them.