How important is it that a book is copyright registered in my name?
November 9, 2010 8:45 AM   Subscribe

I write textbooks but my publisher wants to switch from copyright being registered in my name, to it being in their name. All over aspects of the contract have stayed the same, and I still grant them exclusive license over the content. Rights to the book still revert to me should the book go out of print. But how important is it that the copyright registration be in my name, in reality?
posted by deeper red to Law & Government (11 answers total) 3 users marked this as a favorite
 
A little more info would be useful. Does the new contract specify that it's a work for hire? Do you get paid a flat fee or royalties depending on sales? When you say "rights still revert to me" how is that spelled out — will they assign the copyright back to you if it goes out of print? How soon does the content go out of date?
posted by beagle at 8:59 AM on November 9, 2010


This is a little confusing. It sounds like they are asking you to switch to doing Work for Hire. But if you are doing work for hire, then the rights will never revert back to you, because they were never yours to begin with. Of course, it would be possible for the company to later explicitly assign some or all rights to you, but you'll want to make sure that they use that language.

If it's not work for hire, then copyright is automatically in your name (no registration necessary), though you can later transfer copyright to the publisher for a fixed or perpetual term. There are certain rights that are non-transferable (such as the right to claim authorship), but I doubt that's an issue.

As for how big of a deal it is, only you can really know. It's unlikely that a movie is going to made out of your textbook, but derivative works certainly might. Will this new contract allow them to make new versions of the textbook or to use chapters from one book in another on a related field without paying you again? Did your old contract allow that?

Without knowing more about your specific business arrangement, it's hard to know exactly which additional rights they are getting and how much they are worth. But they aren't worth nothing. A good rule of thumb is that you should always be willing to grant more rights to your work, but that you should also expect to be compensated for them. If you decide to say yes to their request, make sure it comes with a pay increase.

I am not a copyright lawyer, but I am an editor.
posted by 256 at 8:59 AM on November 9, 2010


Response by poster: Sorry, I should have been clearer. They pay me royalties, and there's no mention of working for hire. The book will go out of date very quickly, which is why this doesn't concern me hugely. I just wondered if there was something I'm missing.
posted by deeper red at 9:23 AM on November 9, 2010


They would likely only be asking you to assign copyright to them if they have identified new or potential revenue streams for your work where they need more control over your content. Unless it's a dealbreaker, as in they will not publish your work if you refuse to assign copyright, standard advice for any author would be not to assign copyright, since there is no benefit to you in so doing.

If they make it a condition of publication, and you have no other publisher lined up to publish your textbook, then you are stuck and have to make a hard choice.

Asking someone to assign copyright in this fashion assumes naivete and/or lack of options on the part of creative individuals. They want to make money and want to be able to exclude you from the fun. It's as simple as that.
posted by dalea at 9:26 AM on November 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


Sounds like they want to repurpose material at some point, or have the intellectual property for someone to rework. Do you have an agent? Go over the proposed new contract with care to see what you're giving up by doing that.

I'm confused, though. As 256 says, if they make it WFH then they own it. YOu won't get the copyright back at some point if it's WFH. Are they going to put your name on it, or might this be used for a new line of books that uses a corporate (i.e., not individual) author? I've written books under such an agreement, and it was considered WFH ghostwriting.
posted by catlet at 9:32 AM on November 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


Seconding what dalea said. In general if they get copyright then your name will not be used for credit. Does credit matter in your industry? If it does, and other publishers sometimes contact you based on the work you've done for other textbooks, then assigning copyright to the publisher will hurt you in the long run.

The other thing, and I'm not sure about this, but copyright lasts a long time. That means that it probably doesn't revert to you if the book goes out of print. Some rights revert to you, but not copyright.

Also, even though there is no mention of it being work-for-hire, that doesn't mean that it qualifies as such by industry standards.

Definitely get a lawyer to look at it - someone with experience in the industry will be able to tell you right away, even from just a cursory glance, what the contract means for you as an author.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 9:36 AM on November 9, 2010


Make sure that you get paid your royalties no matter what format or platform they publish this on. They may be looking looking at ways to publish an iPad version, for example. It's odd that they do not mention work for hire but want the copyright for themselves. Once they own it, you could be out of luck if your contract only specifies royalties on printed copies but is silent about digital publication. So make sure you get the exact same royalty whether they sell a physical copy or a digital copy.
posted by beagle at 9:42 AM on November 9, 2010 [1 favorite]


Also, even though there is no mention of it being work-for-hire, that doesn't mean that it qualifies as such by industry standards.
Actually, under the Copyright Act, to be a work for hire, unless you are an employee of the publisher (like newspaper reporters are) the contract must state that explicitly. Here's the text, which specifically lists "instructional text" among the applicable categories:
A "work made for hire" is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. (17 U.S.C. § 101)
posted by beagle at 9:47 AM on November 9, 2010 [2 favorites]


Amazon's trying to make the Kindle a major player in textbook sales. I wonder if that might be involved somehow.
posted by catlet at 9:58 AM on November 9, 2010


I love being a jailhouse lawyer as well as a copyright-drama aficionado, and I'll offer any old supporting theory to whatever support or denigration I feel the issue needs, but in a case like this where you have contract law mixed up in it I'd consult with a lawyer. Do you have one that you use for your other contracts or for your writing in general? Just to get it read by a trained set of eyes, because a thread like this can easy turn into 20(thousand) Questions.
posted by rhizome at 10:27 AM on November 9, 2010


The book will go out of date very quickly, which is why this doesn't concern me hugely. I just wondered if there was something I'm missing.

But is it the sort of thing where revised editions could be put out, with updated content, and your name plus say a new author, but no new paycheck?
posted by ennui.bz at 11:42 AM on November 9, 2010


« Older Keep Nina Simone from driving my roommate crazy!   |   Boy vs. Girl in the World Series of Love Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.