Publisher copyright

Publisher copyright

"Shrek"	11/19/2004 2:23:48 AM
If the book copyright is on the publisher's name, can the author of the book use text portions of the book for authoring a new edition without fearing the risk of copyright infringement?



"Richard"	11/19/2004 1:06:54 AM
Shrek wrote: If the book copyright is on the publisher's name, can the author of the book use text portions of the book for authoring a new edition without fearing the risk of copyright infringement? That would be determined by the agreement with the publisher and the author. Technically, the author has already copyrighted the material in his name. Licensing the publisher to print and distribute the material. I am no expert in the field nor am I an attorney. I just give opinions, not advice.



"Shrek"	11/19/2004 11:58:41 AM
The agreement says "The copyright of the Work shall be in the Publisher's name." and the book frontmatter conveys so. Can the author write a new edition of the book which builds upon and reuses portions of the old book? "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote in message news:cnk62k0g6m@news2.newsguy.com... Shrek wrote: That would be determined by the agreement with the publisher and the author. Technically, the author has already copyrighted the material in his name. Licensing the publisher to print and distribute the material. I am no expert in the field nor am I an attorney. I just give opinions, not advice.



"David Martel"	11/19/2004 1:51:21 PM
Shrek No. This violates the copyright unless the portions of text used are small which doesn't sound like your intention. You asked this question a short while ago. You gave the copyright to the publisher. Just because you were the author does not give you special rights to violate a copyright. You need to speak with a lawyer or literary agent. Also, the publisher may prevent you from publishing a new edition since he holds the name of the work. Get an agent and then speak to the publisher about putting out a new edition. If you post your question here often enough you will get the answer you seek but that won't change the law. Good luck, Dave M.



horrigan@aol.com (Horrigan)	11/19/2004 3:42:32 PM
The agreement says "The copyright of the Work shall be in the Publisher's name." and the book frontmatter conveys so. Can the author write a new edition of the book which builds upon and reuses portions of the old book? The author definitely CAN do so--- but he will probably have to cut a deal with the publisher before doing so, since the original book's copyright is owned by the publisher and not by the author. An exact answer would depend on what the original publishing contract says, and on what the content of the new book is going to be. *** Tim Horrigan <horrigan@aol.com> ***



cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green)	11/19/2004 11:15:22 AM
"Shrek" <shrek1966@discussions.com> wrote in message news:<Rdlnd.52387$V41.2711@attbi_s52>... The agreement says "The copyright of the Work shall be in the Publisher's name." and the book frontmatter conveys so. Can the author write a new edition of the book which builds upon and reuses portions of the old book? Not without the publisher's consent. The new edition would be a derivative work, and the right to create a derivative work belongs to the copyright holder. Yes, that means that when an author has signed away copyright in his work, he does not have the right to reuse his words. If it is a title that the publisher believes will be marketable in a new edition, consent is likely to be forthcoming, on the condition that the publisher gets to publish the new edition. -- Not a lawyer, Chris Green



"Shrek"	11/20/2004 1:39:44 AM
David, I apologize for posting the question twice but I was getting confusing answers. I thought that I may get an advice from a lawyer in this group to get a definitive answer. It looks odd that the author cannot use his work. Yes, the publisher does prevent me from publishing a new edition so I am just trying to find my options are. Thanks for being so patient. "David Martel" <marte005@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:tTmnd.30117$KJ6.16116@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net... Shrek No. This violates the copyright unless the portions of text used are small which doesn't sound like your intention. You asked this question a short while ago. You gave the copyright to the publisher. Just because you were the author does not give you special rights to violate a copyright. You need to speak with a lawyer or literary agent. Also, the publisher may prevent you from publishing a new edition since he holds the name of the work. Get an agent and then speak to the publisher about putting out a new edition. If you post your question here often enough you will get the answer you seek but that won't change the law. Good luck, Dave M.



Paul Robinson	11/27/2004 6:20:31 PM
Shrek wrote: David, I apologize for posting the question twice but I was getting confusing answers. I thought that I may get an advice from a lawyer in this group to get a definitive answer. It looks odd that the author cannot use his work. Yes, the publisher does prevent me from publishing a new edition so I am just trying to find my options are. It is to allow them to commit this kind of abuse on performers that record labels own the copyright to the phonorecords in most cases. Only a very tiny number of artists own the copyright to their phonorecords (Johnny Rivers, Neil Diamond and Paul Simon are the few I'm aware of), and this is why the author of a book should always be the named copyright owner. Oh well, don't worry too much. Under current law in 35 years you can get the copyright reassigned to you by exercising a right to reclaim it. Next time require the copyright to be in your name and make non-agreement with the requirement the requirement a dealbreaker.



cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher Green)	11/27/2004 4:24:47 PM
Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message news:<Pz3qd.1737$6o5.399@trnddc08>... [snip] Next time require the copyright to be in your name and make non-agreement with the requirement the requirement a dealbreaker. This may have the unintended effect of causing the publisher to refuse to publish your work. Most publishers have many more manuscripts worthy of publication than is good business for them to publish. Anything that makes you less worthy, in the publisher's sole discretion, of publication is going to harm or ruin your chances of being published at all. Refusing to agree to the publisher's copyright terms would be a good way of doing this. Unless you're J.K. Rowling or the like. -- Not a lawyer, Chris Green

Report this post for offensive content