Re: droit de suite

On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Pat Sloane <patsloane[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Pat Sloane <patsloane[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 04/06/2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It would reasonably follow that the authors/creators were paid
> > > > by the publisher to sell their rights at a price that both
> > > > agreed upon.
> > >
> > > But this isn't usually what happens, though it may seem to you to
> > > "reasonably follow."
> >
> > Errrrrrrr... huh? Again, a publisher does not *create* the work
> > and therefore doesn't have initial possession of the associated
> > rights -- the creator does. Because those rights are exclusive,
> > s/he is the ONLY one with those rights, and the only way I'm aware
> > of that anyone else can obtain those rights is for the creator to
> > either share them or surrender them, whether to a publisher or any
> > other party.
> >
> > Why would a creator do that? One answer is that s/he was compensated
> > to do so. Another reason may be that such a requirement was part and
> > parcel to negotiating the deal to publish. Whatever the reason, the
> > creator has the *choice* to retain or surrender his/her rights.
> >
> > Perhaps you are struggling with the issue of the "price" or "payment".
> > Payment may be a lump sum to buy the rights. Payment might be that
> > the publisher bears the expense/risk of making the work accessible
> > in a deliverable form where it can possibly earn a profit. Payment
> > can be a percentage of gross receipts.
> >
> > In the last few days, someone (and please forgive, I've read so many
> > posts in the last few days I'm not sure who) made an analogy of
> > purchasing a house for a really favorable price, in fact lower than
> > its market value, and a discussion ensued as to whether or not the
> > purchaser, upon reselling for a really sound market price, should go
> > back and offer the initial seller who undervalued the property more
> > money.
> >
> > I think *that* is really the crux of the issue -- the perception that
> > the big nasty publishers *fleece* creators out of their rights by
> > paying them a pittance of what those rights are worth. BUT, at the
> > time of negotiation, the true value of those rights is not yet
> > established. Prior to Grisham's first hugely successful book, the
> > perceived value of his rights to a work in manuscript form certainly
> > wasn't the same that as a manuscript would be today.
> >
> > Bottom line -- it is up to the creator to make choices about the
> > value of his/her rights and what terms or payments they will accept
> > in exchange for them. It is up to them to learn about the process
> > so they don't get *taken*, the same way it is up to me to make sure
> > that I understand how to negotiate in purchasing a car so I don't
> > get soaked.
>
> I've done 4 books. The copyright is in my name, because it's my book.
> The contract with the publisher allows them to publish my book, and
> also specifies the circumstances under which the rights will revert
> to me and cease to lie with the publisher.
>
> Why on earth would I want to sell the copyright to the publisher?
> And where did you ever get the idea that this is a usual arrangement?

I never said that you would want to sell the copyright to the publisher, nor did I ever imply that doing so is a *usual* arrangement. It might be helpful for you to look at the start of this thread again, so let me provide it below.

On Tue, 04 Apr 2000, Denise Nicholson <nicholson.d[_at_]library.wits.ac.za> wrote:
>
> On 04/03/2000, Pat Sloane <patsloane[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > What I'm not understanding is why you regard it as obnoxious if
> > the money goes to the writer or his heirs, and preferable that
> > it go to anyone other than the writer or his heirs.
>
> I agree the writer or his heirs should get some compensation under
> copyright. However, in most cases, it seems that the publishers
> benefit, not the writers. This is a bone of contention amongst
> many writers today. Copyright seems to protect the publishing
> industry, not the creators or authors.

In short, Pat, I was agreeing with your initial comment that you cannot understand why it would be obnoxious for the royalty revenue to go to the heirs of a writer. Your pondering of this point prompted Denise's contention that the publishers, not writers, are the ones who are protected by and benefit from copyright law. My response was designed to disagree with Denise's contention by pointing out that because copyright law protects the creator/author, the publiishing industry cannot be the beneficiary of copyright law UNLESS they might possibly have obtained rights from the creator. Furthermore, IF by some chance, they happened to have obtained rights from the creator, it would presumably have been done within terms agreeable to both parties.

I hope this is clear now.

Marty Hayes
<9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> Received on Tue Apr 11 2000 - 21:36:19 GMT