|
I authored a book. sold the copyright to a publisher. Later he
modifies the book without my permission. Is it a violation of
copyright? I write another book on a similar topic. and get it
published by another publisher. The first publisher sues me accusing
me of copyright violation. Can somebody point to some precedents for
such a case?
Regards
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:52:08 -0400, rastignak@indiatimes.com
(rastignak) wrote:
I authored a book. sold the copyright to a publisher. Later he
modifies the book without my permission. Is it a violation of
copyright? I write another book on a similar topic. and get it
published by another publisher. The first publisher sues me accusing
me of copyright violation. Can somebody point to some precedents for
such a case?
When you sold the copyright, you should have a written, signed
document that indicates what you did. If that written document
indicates you transferred all of your rights, or if it indicates you
transferred the right to create derivative works (what the publisher
appears to have done), then there's probably nothing you can do. You
should have the transfer document looked at by an attorney.
If there is no written document, then you gave the publisher license
(nonexclusive) to do certain things. Then, it depends on the scope of
the *oral* license as to what the publisher may do.
Take a look here about transfer:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#toc
As for your new book "on a similar topic," it depends on whether it
legally constitutes a derivative work and the answers to the other
questions above as to whether you have the right to do it. Again, you
should consult an attorney.
------------------------------
Bob Stock, California Attorney
Nothing I've said should be relied on as legal advice.
------------------------------
|
| |
| |
I authored a book. sold the copyright to a publisher. Later he
modifies the book without my permission. Is it a violation of
copyright? I write another book on a similar topic. and get it
published by another publisher. The first publisher sues me accusing
me of copyright violation. Can somebody point to some precedents for
such a case?
This depends on exactly what is in your agreement with the publisher. If you
actually assigned your copyright to the publisher, the publisher now has all
of the rights which you originally had. Including, naturally, the right to
publish a modified version of the work and the right to exclude all others
(including you) from the right to publish it in any form. If you only
assigned the right to use the work in certain ways, your position depends on
exactly what rights you assigned.
There is a concept called "moral rights" which is related to copyright law,
and sometimes encompasses protection against unauthorized modification of a
work. Many European nations have enacted one or another version of moral
rights into law, but the United States has generally been hostile to the
concept. There is a moral rights provision in the U.S. copyright law (17 USC
106A), but it applies only to visual works such as paintings and films.
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:52:08 -0400, rastignak <rastignak@indiatimes.com> wrote:
I authored a book. sold the copyright to a publisher. Later he
modifies the book without my permission. Is it a violation of
copyright? I write another book on a similar topic. and get it
If you assigned the copyright to the author, you have no basis for
suing him in the US. In some other countries there are moral rights
which allow the author to prevent the distribution of modifications
under some circumstances.
published by another publisher. The first publisher sues me accusing
me of copyright violation. Can somebody point to some precedents for
such a case?
Simply publishing a book on a similar topic would not be the basis
for a copyright suit. But you can be sued for duplicated expression
from the first book into the second book. (Again assuming that you
assigned the copyright of the first book to the publisher).
Isaac
|
| |
| |
"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in
misc.legal.moderated:
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:52:08 -0400, rastignak <rastignak@indiatimes.com> wrote:
If you assigned the copyright to the author, you have no basis for
suing him in the US. In some other countries there are moral rights
which allow the author to prevent the distribution of modifications
under some circumstances.
No basis under copyright, I agree.
But if the modified version damages the original author's
reputation, and the original author is still listed as author with
no indication he did not write the offending parts, then he may have
an action for libel. N.B. "may" -- and it wouldn't be a cheap or
easy claim to pursue.
For instance, if a textbook publisher alters a textbook in making a
new edition, and the alterations are wrong, and the original author
is still listed but had no say in correcting them, the the original
author's academic reputation might be damaged.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
But if the modified version damages the original author's
reputation, and the original author is still listed as author with
no indication he did not write the offending parts, then he may have
an action for libel.
I think it would be very difficult to sustain an action for libel in this
situation.
The first element of libel is "a false and defamatory statement concerning
another" (Restatement of Torts 2nd, 558). Publishing a modified version of
plaintiff's writing simply does not fit that mold unless the definition of
"statement" is strained beyond reason.
The plaintiff's situation would be aggravated by the fact that the type of
interest that has been violated precisely fits the concept of moral rights,
which have been widely discussed, but in America have been implemented only
in limited ways. Plaintiff could not argue that a court should stretch the
definition of libel to protect a right for which there is otherwise no
remedy; it's pretty clear that the omission is an intentional one, and no
court would override legislative policy in a situation like that.
I do not think there is a lot of case law on this. In Choe v. Fordham
University School of Law, 920 F.Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), plaintiff, a law
student, sued his law school for "mangling" a comment which he contributed
to its law journal, claiming violation of the Lanham Act (trademark rights),
violation of moral rights, and libel. The court dismissed his action, noting
that federal law does not protect moral rights in written works, and
concluding that the Lanham Act might be violated only if the comment were so
changed that it could no longer be recognized as plaintiff's work, making
the attribution to him a false designation of origin. It didn't even bother
discussing the libel claim.
In Cort v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Companies, 311 F.3rd 979 (9th
cir. 2002), plaintiff was sued by another party for painting over a mural,
an alleged violation of the Visual Artists Rights Act (the federal law which
protects certain moral rights of creators of visual works). Defendant
refused to compensate plaintiff for its legal expenses under an insurance
policy which covered actions for libel. In this action the court ruled that
defendant was not obligated to pay plaintiff's legal expenses because the
other action did not fit the definition of libel: "An essential element of
defamation [and thus of libel] is that the publication in question must
contain a false statement of fact." (The court acknowledged that distortion
of a work "might, in some circumstances, constitute a falsehood," but it
identified that principle with the concept of moral rights more than with
libel, and I think this must be considered dicta.)
A few states have moral rights laws which are broader than the federal law,
and courts have ruled that in at least some cases these laws are not
preempted by federal law. For example, Wojnarowicz v. American Family
Association, 745 F.Supp. 130 (S.D.N.Y. 1990). But these are not libel claims
in a formal sense.
|
| |
| |
"Jonathan Sachs" <llm040609@earthlink.net> wrote in
misc.legal.moderated:
I think it would be very difficult to sustain an action for libel in this
situation.
So do I, as I said in the very article from which you quoted
SELECTIVELY. Here's the VERY NEXT SENTENCE of my article, which you
omitted for reasons unclear to me since you then turned around and
said pretty much the same thing as a "new" comment:
N.B. "may" -- and it wouldn't be a cheap or easy claim to pursue.
--
If you e-mail me from a fake address, your fingers will drop off.
I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice. When you read anything
legal on the net, always verify it on your own, in light of your
particular circumstances. You may also need to consult a lawyer.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
|
| |
| |
|
