This isn't journalism - an author of a book is not a source.
Right, I think I mentioned that. However, there are cases such as when The Washington Post published an article written by an anonymous author disclosing details about national security letters in 2007. This is a close-enough parallel to the publisher-author relationship that I thought I would ask the question as to whether such a protection existed.
What you're suggesting is like if Woodward and Bernstein tried to remain anonymous and claimed themselves as anonymous sources.
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking. I've never been flogged so much for asking a question.
You can be subpoenaed; a house or agent who deals with you can be subpoenaed to reveal your identity, whereabouts, whatever, and they'll turn it right over. They're not journalists protecting you from exposure.
Well, I found out this morning that this isn't entirely true, though I would have assumed it pretty much as you describe. A carefully-structured agreement with a publisher will spell out the terms of such a disclosure. The reason for that is simple. If a publisher rolls over to a court order on a trivial or fabricated matter, and the publisher reveals potentially harmful details (such as the author's identity), and the matter is subsequently dismissed or otherwise determined to be without sufficient foundation, the damage is already done. Two of the attorneys (who work for publishers) whom my attorney spoke to last week, described that the publisher will agree to defend the author against certain sorts of actions, and the author agrees to protect that publisher against certain sorts of actions. The devil is in the details of that.
No one said no business is conducted anonymously; you asked about publishing.
Well, there is a difference between saying a thing can't be done, and saying that it is never or rarely done that way. You, and others, said that it couldn't be done. I was simply saying that, yes, it can be done, but that doesn't mean that it is done.
Turns out, yes, it is done - not commonly, but it is.
You seem to have discounted everyone and presumed no one knew what they were on about
I don't know why you believe that.
Old Hack would know if anyone has successfully published anonymously because OH has, as OH noted, been in publishing for decades.
I was being a little tongue-in-cheek to make a point. If a person published anonymously and really pulled it off, you wouldn't know. The publisher might not even know it. It's like saying, "I can't think of one time someone has lied to me and gotten away with it." You would only know about it if, ultimately, you discovered the lie.
It happens more often than you might imagine. It happens in just about every field. I can't see how the publishing industry would be unique in that it somehow never occurs.
In any case, that's tangential, and somehow this got sidetracked.
My question was really about how this sort of thing is typically managed, and I have my answer.
By the way, for anyone interested in more information on this, this is more on what I found out from my attorney. This is mostly just the underlying legal landscape, and it doesn't necessarily represent how it is actually done:
The freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First Amendment (in the U.S.), and this has been upheld repeatedly. Now here's the kicker. A court actually can't force a publisher to reveal the identity, except in some circumstances, none of which would apply to my situation. However, that doesn't mean that the publisher won't roll over anyway because they don't want to hassle with it. (Which is why it is important to carefully structure that agreement.)
Now, the problem is more layered too. Shield laws exist in most U.S. states, but not federally. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that sources may sue journalists for unauthorized disclosure. As discussed, this journalist/source relationship is significantly different, but the difference actually works potentially in favor of the anonymous author.
In the case of journalism, the source's identity is known to the journalist and usually the editor. This is necessary for them to evaluate the credibility of the information. The question (often for courts) is whether the journalist or editor must divulge that information to the courts - and this is usually weighed against the situation on a case-by-case basis.
Whether a publisher "needs" to know the identity of the author is entirely up to publisher. There is nothing inherent to the publisher/author relationship that requires this. So, a publisher could avoid the discussion by agreeing to work through an intermediary. They could never reveal the identity because they don't know it. Problem solved.
Now, the strength of the anonymity lies in the integrity of the intermediary, and it isn't the publisher's problem.
When asked whether it is ever done this way, one attorney said that yes, occasionally it is, but the only way to navigate it practically is with a great agent. Most publishers just won't hassle with it unless someone represents the work exceptionally well and gets a publisher hooked.
Now, in my case, it was a publisher who told me that I should write the story in the first place. It was basically (and informally), "You write it, and I'll publish it." So, if that plays out, none of this will matter much. I won't have to approach a publisher cold, and at least one person there already knows who I am.
I'm sorry to ruffle your feathers, Cornflake. Thanks to everyone who has replied.
Cheers,
Fossie
