Re: New York Times

Maurice Robinson <mrobinsn[_at_]mercury.interpath.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Martin Medeiros wrote:
> >
> > The statute of Anne was the law that passed Parliament in, I
> > believe 1710, which allowed authors to retain some rights in
> > their works. Prior to this if one wanted to publish one's works,
> > they would have to sign over the entire bundle of rights to the
> > publisher.
>
> So how much have we improved today if copyright still is generally
> signed over to the publishers for what is often a one-time fee, with
> no further hope of authorial remuneration should the work actually
> sell well?

Ack! It's not "generally" assigned (signed over)! That's the impression the publishers are actively trying to create -- I don't know enough about US legal terminology, but in the UK they're trying to change the industry standard practice, which has a judicial effect.

They never bothered when the amounts were relatively small. Industry standard practice is (as, we would hold, it must legally remain) that in the absence of an explicit contract one sells one-use (or where appropriate first-use) rights. Then if the Sydney Morning Herald re-prints the piece, or Latvian National TV re-broadcasts it, or whatever, the original rights-holders get a fair proportion (~>= 50%) of the secondary fee. Honest publishers still send out the occasional unexpected cheque to that effect.

Mike Holderness
<mch[_at_]cix.compulink.co.uk> Received on Thu Apr 11 1996 - 00:30:51 GMT