Re: copyright expiration as a spur to creativity

Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
>
> On 28, July 1998, Edward Barrow <edward[_at_]plato32.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Michael Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is my proposal:
> > >
> > > Books etc. published under copyright would have to be continuously
> > > available "in print" to stay under copyright. After two to five
> > > years (depending on your idea of practicality) of being unavailable,
> > > copyright would lapse. Delivery within 60 days maximum would
> > > constitute "in print". Failure to deliver within 60 days would be
> > > prima facia grounds for lapse.
> > >
> > > Someone suggested that copyright should lapse only during the period
> > > of unavailability, but I think this would be an enforcement nightmare.
> >
> > I'm an author. I write a book, it gets published under a normal
> > publishing contract.It goes out of print; my publisher will not reprint,
> > so the rights revert to me. Is it suggested that I should lose my
> > copyright because of a third party's (my publisher's) business decision?
>
> First of all, if a publisher is not printing and selling the book,
> no-one makes any money.
>
> If I want the book, and the publisher is no longer printing it, I must
> scrounge used books stores or pay inflated prices for the book through
> search services, if I'm lucky. The price of the used book purchased
> through a service can often exceed, by a substantial margin, the price
> of the new book, but none of that benefits the author!
>
> I want the book to be in print; if the original publisher is too stupid
> or lazy to reprint it, you (the author) should be free to take it
> elsewhere as soon as it goes out of print.
>
> You should be notified when this happens (as a matter of law!)

At least in the UK, most book publishing contracts already provide that the copyright reverts to the author when the book goes out of print. From other comments on the list in this thread, it appears that this is the case in the US as well. I understand that in Sweden it is not possible for an author to license or assign rights to a publisher for a period longer than eight years.

I am not sure however, how rights reverting to the author actually helps improve access in the absence of alternative access mechanisms. A publisher's decision not to reprint is usually based on commercial criteria - i.e. the book is not selling. It is not particularly likely that a second publisher would consider republishing an evidently not-very-successful work.

Digital technology and print-on-demand may change these economics. It would be possible, for example, for authors' societies to license an archive to produce reprints on demand in consideration of a fee including a fair royalty for the author, to be passed on by the society

In the case of serials, rights are usually assigned to the publisher in full on publication. Obviously serials go out of print the moment they are issued. Reversion to individual authors after publication or after a fixed period would make it virtually impossible to obtain clearance for reprints (try tracing the hundred joint authors of a five-year-old physics paper....). Here again, though, is a role for authors' societies, (possibly including learned societies).

-- 
Edward Barrow
edward[_at_]plato32.demon.co.uk