Copyright Side-Effects?

Interesting.

Having seen some of the games that publishers have played on friends ("Oh, we haven't sold a single print copy of your book in 10 years, but it's sold 304 ebooks, so it's still in print and you can't have the rights back--and we're not going to print more hard copies ever"--summary of an actual discussion, FWIW) to keep books in their control instead of their author's, I do have to wonder if it's a question of "losing their owners" or not.

That's where you get a badass agent to negotiate for situations like this. Not that you can account for everything that comes up, but you can sure try.

Too bad the survey doesn't take into account that the drop in available titles on Amazon between the 1990s and 1923/public domain also corresponds with when Amazon started up. -It's like Amazon didn't buy books before they existed...must be the fault of copyright...

ETA: The survey also only includes ISBN numbers. I checked, and Amazon uses ASIN only on e-books, so no books available in "new edition"* as e-books only are included in this study.

*Defined as books sold by Amazon as "new" only, by this study. So if Amazon is out and an independent bookstore selling through Amazon has 200 copies left after a signing with the author, (or if B&N has 1,000 copies warehoused,) the study says that book is "not available".

I felt the analysis was flawed. It failed to take into account other relevant factors, eg the death of the midlist. That happened in the UK as a direct result of the death of the NBA. It had nothing to do with copyright. Also, it failed fully to take into account the explosion of editions of public domain books, first after the founding of Wordsworth and secondly after the introduction of ebooks. Failing to exclude other factors is bad science.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

An article in the Atlantic on a study of availability of books to the public.

Finds copyright may have kept books from a certain period off the market. Books tend to resurface once they go public domain.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely correct. A few years ago I ran a website that contained hundreds of public-domain texts, ranging from the obvious (Shakespeare, Dickens, Austen, etc.) to some pretty obscure works. Many of them I hand-typed and edited into proper form. Some of those I have later donated to Gutenberg.

I quit doing the website once the Kindle and Gooooooogle caught on to the possibilities.

BUT, in doing that work, I found many many many out-of-print but still under copyright works that would be of great literary value to become available to the public. Copyright laws in the U.S. and elsewhere (EU, Canada, Australia) have evolved from being primarily to protect the author to be primarily to protect the publisher. The 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act was all about protecting Disney from losing copyright protection for Mickey Mouse.

Other big publishers were concerned about having the works of people like Faulkner, Hemingway and Steinbeck fall into public domain. These entities spent a lot on lobbying and legal action to promote this extension. One particular on-line publisher challenged it, and got his case all the way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately rejected it.

The Bono Extension lasts until 2018. Who wants to make a bet there won't be another effort on the part of major publishers and media companies to extend it further?

caw

I would love to see the researcher define, IN PRINT.

Just because a book is available in the public domain, like the Gutenburg project, does not mean people are rushing to download them. And if some publisher has picked up a novel from public domain, more than likely they have gotten a new ISBN number for it...

thothguard51 said:

I would love to see the researcher define, IN PRINT.

Click to expand...

With print-on-demand and electronic publishing, this term has effectively become meaningless. But, more pertinent to what the thread seems to me to be about:

thothguard51 said:

Just because a book is available in the public domain, like the Gutenburg project, does not mean people are rushing to download them. And if some publisher has picked up a novel from public domain, more than likely they have gotten a new ISBN number for it...

Click to expand...

It's not an issue about public domain texts. They're in public domain, and anybody can do with them what they please.

The problem is with books still under copyright protection that haven't been produced or available for decades.

caw

I'm unconvinced that publishers are sitting on books to which they have already purchased the rights because of copyright. Makes no sense.

Has anyone looked for a book they couldn't find a copy of, regardless of when it was published, or whether it is or isn't out of print? I never have.

Buffysquirrel said:

I'm unconvinced that publishers are sitting on books to which they have already purchased the rights because of copyright. Makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Again, not really the core issue. Copyright protection today, in the EU as well as the U.S., extends for many decades. In the U.S., for example, anything published since 1922 is covered by copyright protection (with a few exceptions). A vast number of older works which hasn't seen print for many many many years is unavailable on the market just because no publisher thinks money can be made now from them. Yet, as Gutenberg has shown with work that is in public domain, there is interest in many of these works, even though it may not clear the judgment standard of a commercial press.

Given the advent of electronic publication, you'd think such works would become easily available. Current copyright statutes block that.

caw

blacbird said:

Again, not really the core issue. Copyright protection today, in the EU as well as the U.S., extends for many decades. In the U.S., for example, anything published since 1922 is covered by copyright protection (with a few exceptions). A vast number of older works which hasn't seen print for many many many years is unavailable on the market just because no publisher thinks money can be made now from them. Yet, as Gutenberg has shown with work that is in public domain, there is interest in many of these works, even though it may not clear the judgment standard of a commercial press.

Given the advent of electronic publication, you'd think such works would become easily available. Current copyright statutes block that.

caw

Click to expand...

You can't force rightholders to make books available. That's kind of the core principle of copyright, that the rightsholder is free to decide how, or even if, the work is reproduced/distributed. For instance, Stephen King pulled "Rage" from sale, and he had reasons for doing so. Are you going to force that book into public domain because it's not "available"? ("Available" because you can buy it used if you want to.)

Gutenberg only shows that there is interest in these works if they are free.

blacbird said:

Given the advent of electronic publication, you'd think such works would become easily available. Current copyright statutes block that.

Click to expand...

No, they block them being made available without remuneration to the copyright holder. Fat lot of good it is to have your work 'available' if you're forced to give it away.

I wonder how many French authors of so-say orphan works are jumping up and down with glee at their books being given away whether they like it or not.

Well, there are reversion rights in most of the big boys contracts and even many of the more reputable Indie publishers. If publishers are sitting on a book, it would seem that the author can request the rights back and publish elsewhere, or even self publish, which is what a lot of authors are starting to do...

I don't think the study takes this into account. It just assumes publishers are sitting on books they hold the publishing rights for.

Arg. What was wrong with "26 years automatically, another 26 if you register". This "author's-life-plus-seventy-years, and also nothing published the year Steamboat Willie came out or later will ever become public domain"

If the 26/26 wasn't sufficient, how about "life of author OR fifty years, whichever is longer"?

(Yes, I realize this study is flawed and doesn't prove anything, but there are still major problems with how copyright is currently set up.)

LindaJeanne said:

Arg. What was wrong with "26 years automatically, another 26 if you register".

Click to expand...

In the U.S., what was wrong with this idea was the Disney Corporation. And the late, lamented and meagerly talented bubble-gum rock star turned Congressman Sonny Bono.

From the OP:

An article in the Atlantic on a study of availability of books to the public.

Finds copyright may have kept books from a certain period off the market. Books tend to resurface once they go public domain.

Click to expand...

The bolded is most pertinent. Books "resurface" in the public domain because there is interest in them. But there isn't enough interest in them from commercial publishers, looking for profit, to relinquish publication rights, and far too few copyright holders (not the same people as publishers, generally) seem willing to let them fly free in the public domain atmosphere.

Remember, there's a difference between copyright and publication rights. Publication rights depend completely on language in a contract agreement. Scribner's (I believe) holds publication rights on much of Ernest Hemingway's work, for example. They aren't about to allow any of that to lapse into public domain if they can help it. So they, and many other big publishers/media houses vigorously oppose any reduction in copyright statutes. The fallout is that lots of other work, not viable for publication at a commercial level, but still valuable, gets closeted legally.

caw

It always amazes me that I can go to a shop, buy a physical copy of a book into which I have put no work whatsoever, then pass that book* down through the subsequent generations of my family for longer than the person who wrote it can pass down the rights to earn money from that work through theirs.


* always assuming it doesn't fall apart

Liosse de Velishaf said:

An article in the Atlantic on a study of availability of books to the public.

Finds copyright may have kept books from a certain period off the market. Books tend to resurface once they go public domain.

Click to expand...

What I've seen in my own personal experience are a lot of publishers reprinting their own classics line. I even know a couple of individuals who created lovely covers and gorgeous typesetting for some of their favourite classics and released them as their own imprint.

Buffysquirrel said:

It always amazes me that I can go to a shop, buy a physical copy of a book into which I have put no work whatsoever, then pass that book* down through the subsequent generations of my family for longer than the person who wrote it can pass down the rights to earn money from that work through theirs.


* always assuming it doesn't fall apart

Click to expand...

This is what I don't understand about people who want shorter copyright. I think the losing access to art is an excuse for many, although I'm sure it's a genuine concern for some. I believe for many, it's just about wanting to make the books free. Maybe there are a few flaws in current laws but I for one am happy my copyright will remain protected after I die.

If someone sits on the publishing rights at that point, it will be up to the person responsible for the copyright owner to act so their income isn't restricted.

Just curious. Why?

....records, CD's, photographs, pictures, art, clothes, china, jewellery...surely you've put no work into anything you buy.

Buffysquirrel said:

It always amazes me that I can go to a shop, buy a physical copy of a book into which I have put no work whatsoever, then pass that book* down through the subsequent generations of my family for longer than the person who wrote it can pass down the rights to earn money from that work through theirs.


* always assuming it doesn't fall apart

Click to expand...

Liosse de Velishaf said:

Well, the other major issue of public domain is the ability to write in those worlds. For example, the Oz reboots and adaptions, as an example.

Click to expand...

Yes. If making art available for the public good is an argument in connection to copyright, that is a great example of why copyright should never expire. Writing in other people's worlds deprives us of all the original works that these people would be writing instead.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

I used to write fan-fiction. That never stopped me from working on my own original fiction, as well. How about you let people make their own decisions about what to write?

Copyright does not exist so that you can indirectly control other people's creative output. Nor should it.

Click to expand...

Copyright protects someone's work. I think copyright is a good thing, and that includes letting the creator decide who uses their creations, and in what way. And yes, that does in some ways control other people's creative output, but only in the way that it restricts what anyone can do with someone else's creation. Not everyone can write a Star Wars novel. That's the whole point of copyright.

There's Creative Commons licenses available for any creator who has made the choice of opening their world to others. If a work is not CC licensed, I take that as the creator has chosen not to open their work. I think it is a choice every creator should be allowed to make themselves, and personally I see absolutely no reason not to respect that choice.