Redefining the Right and Obligations of Publishers and Authors (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Publishing Contract: A Complicated Inheritance
Book Publishing in Australia: A Living Legacy, 2019
We can trace the standard book contract and its common clauses back to the British legal system and publishing practices during the eighteenth century. These practices and the codification of copyright law have created a legacy for principal agreements between authors and publishers in Australia, which has impacted negotiations within the industry and, in turn, how the industry operates. This conference paper considers the juxtaposition of the authors’ and publishers’ understanding of what the contract represents, in a modern context, and questions current perceptions of book contracts and how they operate in the literary field. How are they negotiated in the contemporary landscape and what might they tell us about current publishing practices and values? Is there a need for further research in this area; will this research offer insight into contemporary values and systems in publishing generally?
Publishing Agreements Through a Sharper Lens How R
Publishing Research Quarterly, 2021
Classical contract theory—of will and morality, of promise or consent—translates awkwardly to contemporary publishing agreements where cultural products are not definitively valued, and publishing agreements’ industrial and aspirational ideals require an ongoing conversation, and relationship, between an author and publisher. Relational contract theory presents a framework in which parties to a contract can continue negotiations, particularly when industry developments create change or conflict. This paper applies relational contract theory to publishing contract negotiations to show how they operate incrementally, and illustrates via select qualitative interviews how contract terms are used in a post negotiation space to strengthen author–publisher relationships and support authors’ livelihoods.
Publishing Research Quarterly, 2021
Classical contract theory-of will and morality, of promise or consent-translates awkwardly to contemporary publishing agreements where cultural products are not definitively valued, and publishing agreements' industrial and aspirational ideals require an ongoing conversation, and relationship, between an author and publisher. Relational contract theory presents a framework in which parties to a contract can continue negotiations, particularly when industry developments create change or conflict. This paper applies relational contract theory to publishing contract negotiations to show how they operate incrementally, and illustrates via select qualitative interviews how contract terms are used in a post negotiation space to strengthen author-publisher relationships and support authors' livelihoods.
This paper describes the various facets of the publishing activity. The task of the publisher is to make every effort to promote the work of researchers who have submitted their article for publication. This requires the set up and maintenance of an effective management interface, timely production, delivery of quality items, a
Publisher, be damned! From price gouging to the open road
Http Dx Doi Org 10 1080 08109028 2014 891710, 2014
ABSTRACT All four authors are members of the Leicester school of critical management and have previously written together on academic publishing. David Harvie lectures in finance and is interested in ethical issues related to this and other matters. He is a member of The Free Association writing collective. Geoff Lightfoot lectures in entrepreneurship and has particular interests in the ideology of markets and critical accounting. Simon Lilley works on information aspects of organisation and is currently head of the School of Management at Leicester University. Kenneth Weir is interested in accounting practices, especially critical and social accounting.
Publish and Perish? Handling the Unreasonable Publication Agreement
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2013
such. Writers and publishers should of course obtain their own legal counsel to review their specific needs and situations. The author would be happy, however, if publishers and writers shared this article with their counsel when seeking such advice. The author would also like to thank his research assistant, Joseph Riegerix, for his helpful assistance with this article. This article explores such unreasonable restraint through a hypothetical account of one author faced with a publisher's continued use of a twenty-year-old unreasonable publication agreement. 2 As we think in stories, 3 I hope this story-telling approach will facilitate exploration of the real interests involved and the real room for compromise in such agreements. B. Opening Tale George Eliot's Edward Casaubon has at long last completed his masterful article, "The Key To All Mythologies." Mr. Casaubon takes his article to XYZ Publisher Press ("XYZ Press") which is delighted with the piece. Mr. Casaubon and XYZ Press then spend the next several months editing the piece. Just before the publication deadline, XYZ Press provides Mr. Casaubon with its "standard" publication agreement. 1 The pun is intended. In this sentence and in the next, I mean to use "suffer" in both its common senses: to experience loss and to permit or allow. 2 Although this hypothetical is just that, i.e., purely a piece of fiction, its relevance should be apparent to most who have had the pleasure of negotiating such agreements. 3 See ALISDAIR MACINTIRE, AFTER VIRTUE 201 (1981) ("I can only answer the question 'What am I to do?' if I can answer the prior question 'Of what story or stories do I find myself a part?'"). I also use the story form here because stories of drafts are in my opinion essential to a "best practices" approach to legal education. I believe that taking students on such journeys is an essential part of teaching them both legal theory as well as practice. have the right, however, after publication in the Journal, to reprint the Contribution without charge in any book of which you are the author or editor.
New Rights or New Business Models? An Inquiry into the Future of Publishing in the Digital Era
IIC - International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2017
In its Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, the European Commission included a new neighbouring right for press publishers with regard to the digital use of their publications ''to ensure quality journalism and citizens' access to information.'' (European Commission, 14 September 2016, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, Doc. COM(2016) 593 final, Art. 11(1) and Recital 31.) Undoubtedly, a free and pluralist press is one of the cornerstones of democratic societies. The question is, however, whether this goal can be achieved by adopting an additional layer of protection. From an economic perspective, it seems essential that publishers, including press publishers, develop new business models in the digital environment. To ensure the survival of quality journalism, it is of utmost importance to support the transition to new business models that has already started in the publishing sector. Hence, the question arises whether the proposal of a new neighbouring right is a legislative initiative that makes sense against this background. To answer this question, the following inquiry will first provide an economic analysis of new business models in the publishing industry. On