The erroneous publisher copyright registration

Carol writes,

>> I agree, Dodi, that the registration was dumb not malicious. The
>> standard contract gives copyright to the publisher and I suspect my
>> author's contract which was red lined to keep copyright with him was
>> unusual.

Aha. I suddenly recalled, when I was posting the earlier message, the classic observation (was it Mencken's?) that (I paraphrase, because I don't know the exact wording) one shouldn't attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

>> I realized after I wrote the post that the rights to the book are
>> granted in the contract and the fact that the copyright was retained
>> and erroneously registered in the name of the publisher doesn't
>> affect that.

No, but it can certainly complicate things for the author.

>> The issues here comes down to a) fixing the incorrect registration
>> ...and b) convincing the Trustee that the book which didn't sell
>> well and that was 15 years ago isn't much of an asset and he should
>> let the rights go back to the author.
>>
>> The contract does not have a rights reversion clause, a bankruptcy
>> rights reversion clause, or an OP clause...

Oh, dear. Some agent goofed badly.

But the rights granted therein pertain, I assume, specifically to publication. Could it not be argued that someone who has no intention of reissuing the work or any part thereof should not be permitted to retain the rights (at least not for an unlimited period), since that would be in restraint of trade? And that there should similarly be a time limit on that person's efforts to sell the rights to someone who does intend to exercise them? Could not a court so order?

We authors tend to eternal optimism; it's our only means of survival. ;-)

--DS Received on Wed May 31 2006 - 23:20:31 GMT