Category Archives: Managing Authors’ Rights

AWP Authors Inform Our Upcoming Guide to Publication Contracts

Posted March 22, 2018
Karen and Anna conducting their survey

An AWP attendee shares her contract story with Karen and Anna

Earlier this month, Authors Alliance attended the Association of Writers and Writing Programs (AWP) conference in Tampa, Florida. We presented a panel discussion on copyright basics with LeEtta Schmidt of the University of South Florida and Dave Hansen of Duke University, and staffed an information table at the conference bookfair. We were joined by UC Berkeley law students Karen Hagen and Anna Kuksenkova, who surveyed conference attendees in order to gather stories of authors’ real-world experiences with publication contracts. Some of those examples—from negotiation success stories to lessons learned the hard way—will be incorporated into our forthcoming guide to publication contracts.

Photo of Anna and Karen gathering survey dataThe survey results are still preliminary, but they revealed some key points that will be addressed in the guide. A number of authors shared successes and regrets about publication contract clauses relating to wide range of issues including pricing, cover design, royalties, audio rights, translations, and marketing. These considerations, and more, will be addressed in our forthcoming guide and will inform our tips for negotiating for author-friendly terms.

We are grateful to Karen and Anna for designing and administering the author survey and for their thoughtful engagement with authors at the conference. The final version of the contracts handbook will be even more useful and relevant thanks to their efforts!

 

Newly Updated: Fair Use FAQ

Posted February 28, 2018

Fair use has always been a key issue for Authors Alliance. When we launched in 2014, we created a Fair Use FAQ to help authors navigate this complex topic. Now, to celebrate Fair Use Week and our recently published guide to Fair Use for Nonfiction Authors, we’ve expanded and updated the FAQ to provide a comprehensive summary of key points. Read on to learn more!

  1. What is fair use anyway?
  2. What does it mean to say a use is “transformative”?
  3. What does it mean to say a use is “non-transformative”?
  4. Can I still claim fair use if I am using copyrighted material that is highly creative?
  5. Can I still claim fair use if I am using copyrighted material for commercial purposes?
  6. Can I still claim fair use if I ask the copyright owner for permission to use the material and permission is refused?
  7. Can I still claim fair use if I want to use copyrighted material that is unpublished?
  8. Are charts, graphs, and tables protected by copyright and, if so, can I rely on fair use to incorporate them into my nonfiction work?
  9. How does a work’s copyright status affect fair use?
  10. How does a work’s orphan work status affect fair use?
  11. Can contractual terms governing access to a work restrict the availability of fair use?
  12. Does the fair use analysis change when the copyrighted material I want to use is owned by a litigious estate?
  13. What can I do if my publisher asks me to obtain permission instead of allowing me to rely on fair use?
  14. Does fair use protect against claims based on legal rights other than copyright, such as privacy rights, trademark, defamation, right of publicity, and more?
  15. Is fair use really as unpredictable as some people say?
  16. What if there is no on-point best practice guide for me?
  17. Where can I learn more?

What is fair use anyway?

In U.S. copyright law, fair use is a use of a copyrighted work that does not infringe the exclusive rights that the law confers on authors and other rights holders.

Section 107 of the U.S. copyright act identifies four factors that courts should consider in determining whether a use is fair or infringing:

  1. The purpose and character of the challenged use;
  2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. The amount and substantiality of the challenged use; and
  4. The harm the challenged use is likely to cause to the market or potential market for the work.

No factor is dispositive; all must be weighed together.

Uses for criticism, commentary, news reporting, research, scholarship, and teaching are identified in the statute as examples of favored uses. Noncommercial uses are generally more likely than commercial uses to be fair. Transformative uses are also more likely than non-transformative uses to be fair.

The scope of fair use tends to be somewhat broader for fact-intensive works, especially when done for one of the favored purposes.

A good shorthand way of considering whether a use you want to make of another’s work will be fair is whether the amount you borrowed from the other’s work is reasonable in light of your purpose and unlikely to supplant demand for purchase of the original.

(Back to top)

What does it mean to say a use is “transformative”?

A use will be considered “transformative” if it:

  1. Actually transforms expression in the work, as a parody of a song might do;
  2. Is included in a new work of authorship, as quoting from the writings of a person in a biography;
  3. Is used for a different purpose than the original, causing it to have a different meaning, as when a newspaper publishes a photograph that has become controversial.

Transformative uses will not always be fair. A new arrangement of a song, for instance, may well infringe the derivative work right. But especially when done for purposes of criticism or commentary, the transformativeness of a use will tend to tip in favor of fair use.

Courts have recently been receptive to the idea that copyright owners do not have the right to control all transformative uses of their works. Transformative uses are less likely than non-transformative uses to pose a risk of supplanting market demand for a work.

(Back to top)

What does it mean to say a use is “non-transformative”?

A use will be considered “non-transformative” if it is, for example, an exact copy of a work or part of a work. Making a time-shift copy of a television program is an example of a non-transformative use that courts have deemed fair. Posting a chapter of a book on an electronic course reserve system is another example of a non-transformative use. (The Cambridge University Press v. Becker case, which is presently pending before an appellate court, is testing whether this kind of use is fair.) Scanning a photograph you like and posting it online is a third example of a non-transformative use.

Non-transformative uses may be and often are fair uses, but they are somewhat less likely to be fair uses insofar as they pose a stronger risk of harming the market for the work. If someone makes a copy of a movie or computer program, for instance, instead of buying a copy of his own, that non-transformative use is more likely to have a negative effect on the copyright owner’s market. Even though one person’s peer-to-peer file-sharing of music or a movie would seem to be relatively trivial, courts take into account that if they say this use is fair, then many others will do the same thing and the aggregation of these uses are likely to cause market harm.

(Back to top)

Can I still claim fair use if I am using copyrighted material that is highly creative?

Yes. While courts do consider whether the copyrighted material used is primarily factual or creative under the second factor, “the nature of the work,” this factor is rarely decisive on its own. Courts still must weigh all four factors, including the “purpose of the use.” Where the purpose of the use is transformative, such as when a nonfiction author comments on copyrighted material or uses copyrighted material to support a point, and the amount used is reasonable, the second factor rarely affects the final outcome of fair use cases.

(Back to top)

Can I still claim fair use if I am using copyrighted material for commercial purposes?

Yes. While “noncommercial” uses may be a plus in a fair use analysis, there are no categorical rules: Commercial uses can be fair use, and not all noncommercial uses will be fair use. In fact, some of the important court victories for fair use over the past two decades have been won by defendants whose activities were commercial, including musicians, publishers, and artists who sell their work (sometimes at substantial prices).

(Back to top)

Can I still claim fair use if I ask the copyright owner for permission to use the material and permission is refused?

Yes. You do not have to ask permission or alert the copyright holder when a use of materials is protected by fair use. But, if you choose, you may inquire about permissions and still claim fair use if your request is refused or ignored. In some cases, courts have found that asking permission and then being rejected has actually enhanced fair use claims. In fact, the Supreme Court has said that asking for permission may be a good faith effort to avoid litigation.

(Back to top)

Can I still claim fair use if I want to use copyrighted material that is unpublished?

Yes. Congress amended the Copyright Act in 1992 to explicitly allow for fair use when using unpublished works after several court decisions suggested that the use of unpublished materials would rarely be fair use. Under current copyright law, the fact that a work is unpublished “shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the [fair use] factors.”

While a court may still consider a work’s unpublished status to weigh against fair use when evaluating the “nature of the work,” this factor is rarely decisive on its own and courts still must weigh all of the fair use factors, including the purpose of the use. The purpose of the use may weigh against fair use if the unpublished material is being used in a frivolous or exploitative manner. On the other hand, the purpose of the use may weigh in favor of fair use if the unpublished material transforms the original material (by, for example, using the original material as the object of criticism or commentary) and contributes to the public’s interest in advancing knowledge.

(Back to top)

Are charts, graphs, and tables protected by copyright and, if so, can I rely on fair use to incorporate them into my nonfiction work?

Charts, graphs, and tables may be protected by copyright, but the underlying facts are not copyrightable. Creative choices in the way that facts are presented in a chart, graph, or table may be sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection. That said, where applicable, you may still be able to rely on fair use to use a chart, graph, or table that includes expressive elements.

(Back to top)

How does a work’s copyright status affect fair use?

Copying of works that are not protected by copyright is not copyright infringement, regardless of fair use. But sometimes it can be difficult to determine whether a work is protected by copyright. For example, you may not be able to determine whether a work’s copyright has expired, or you may not be sure whether a scientific chart has the requisite level of creativity to warrant copyright protection. Even where you cannot determine a work’s copyright status, you may still want to understand whether the use of the material would be permitted by fair use should the material be protected by copyright. In fact, in some cases determining whether the use would be permitted by fair use may be easier than resolving the work’s copyright status.

(Back to top)

How does a work’s orphan work status affect fair use?

Orphan works are works for which it is difficult or impossible to identify or locate the work’s copyright owner, even after a diligent search. The use of an orphan work may be permitted by fair use, just like any other work. In fact, orphan works often have characteristics that make fair use more likely. For example, orphan works are by definition not active in the market, limiting any resulting economic harm to rightsholders. In some cases, determining whether the use of an orphan work would be permitted by fair use may be significantly easier than securing permission from a rights holder that, by definition, is difficult or even impossible to track down.

(Back to top)

Can contractual terms governing access to a work restrict the availability of fair use?

Yes. For example, some archives, museums, and commercial collections that control access to works place contractual restrictions on the use of those works, even when use of the work would otherwise be permitted by fair use (and, in some cases, even when the work itself is in the public domain!). This is beginning to change, and some archives and museums have already abandoned these practices. However, if you are a party to such a contract, your ability to use materials you’ve accessed may be limited by the terms of the contract. For example, a biographer who accesses her subject’s personal papers through an archive may find that, as a condition of accessing those materials, the subject’s estate forbids quoting from the materials without the express permission of the estate. Similarly, an art critic may find that he has agreed to terms governing the use of photographs he accessed through an online archive.

At least some courts have held that such contracts may be enforced, even if the restricted use would be fair use as a matter of copyright law. In these cases, nonfiction authors cannot rely on fair use since demands for permission in this context are based on contractual claims, not copyright. As such, nonfiction authors should pay careful attention to the conditions of access to source materials and may want to consider negotiating for better terms that do not restrict their research and writing goals.

(Back to top)

Does the fair use analysis change when the copyrighted material I want to use is owned by a litigious estate?

No. Some estates are notoriously aggressive in trying to prevent the use of materials to which they own the copyrights. However, just because a copyright owner is forceful in asserting copyright claims doesn’t make fair use any more or less likely. It may, however, change your assessment of the practical risk that a copyright owner might complain or sue. Authors in this situation may be especially interested in obtaining errors and omissions coverage prior to publicizing their work.

(Back to top)

What can I do if my publisher asks me to obtain permission instead of allowing me to rely on fair use?

Some publishers may require that authors get permission to use copyrighted materials in their works instead of allowing them to rely on fair use. If you find yourself in this situation, you may find it helpful to ask your publisher to reconsider its position and to explain why you think your intended use is protected by fair use. You may also want to share with them related codes of best practices, if relevant. If fair use is important to you or essential to your project, you may want to search for a publisher that recognizes fair use before signing a publishing contract.

(Back to top)

Does fair use protect against claims based on legal rights other than copyright, such as privacy rights, trademark, defamation, right of publicity, and more?

No. Fair use is a limitation on exclusive right under copyright and does not apply to other legal claims. When using third party materials, authors should consider legal issues beyond copyright, such as contractual restrictions, privacy rights, trademark law, right of publicity, and defamation; and community norms, like rules against academic plagiarism.

(Back to top)

Is fair use really as unpredictable as some people say?

It is sometimes said that fair use is unpredictable. Larry Lessig, for instance, spoke of fair use as “the right to hire a lawyer.” For some people, this perception of unpredictability has a chilling effect (that is, they are unwilling to take the risk that the use will be held unfair).

To provide guidance, the Center for Media and Social Impact at American University has published some “best practices” guidelines to help people become more comfortable with making fair uses, including one for documentary filmmakers and one for user-generated video content (remixes and mashups). The Center for Media and Social Impact has published a template to help users in particular communities to form their own best practices guidelines.

The “best practices” approach is catching on.  In fact, Authors Alliance published a guide to Fair Use for Nonfiction Authors, which features guidance based on a meta-analysis of existing best practices guides.

(Back to top)

What if there is no on-point best practice guide for me?

Even if no best practice guidelines exist for your community, it is worth knowing that there is more predictability in the fair use caselaw than some have suggested. As noted above, a use is likely to be fair if done for a purpose such as criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, teaching and research as long as what you take from another’s work is reasonable in light of your purpose. Here are some examples:

  • Quoting small amounts of text (8% or less) from each of 25 writings in a critical biography of L. Ron Hubbard was held a fair use in New Era Publications Int’l ApS v. Carol Publishing Group in 1990.
  • Reproducing seven posters in significantly reduced sizes that had once advertised Grateful Dead concerts in a 480 page book on the cultural history of the band was held to a fair use in Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley in 2006.
  • Preparing a reference work about the characters, plot, and special features of fictional works was held to be fair use in Warner Bros. Entertainment v. RDR Books (although RDR had to change some places where there was very close paraphrasing of passages from Harry Potter novels) in 2008.
  • Scanning student papers into a database designed to detect plagiarism was held fair use in A.V. v. iParadigms in 2009.
  • Retelling the story of Gone With the Wind from the vantage point of a slave was held a fair use in Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co. (However, an unauthorized sequel to Catcher in the Rye, imagining Holden Caulfield as an old man, was held unfair in Salinger v. Colting. Sequels, in general, are likely to be considered infringing derivative works. One reason the use was fair in Suntrust was because of it was a critical commentary on the original and the Mitchell estate made clear it would never have licensed this kind of use of the famous novel.)

(Back to top)

Where can I learn more?

For further reading on fair use, we recommend:

(Back to top)

Copyright Registration Part 2:
How to Register Your Copyright

Posted February 21, 2018

Last week we outlined the benefits of registering your work with the U.S. Copyright Office. If you missed it, start here to learn why registration is an advantageous practice for authors. In the second half of this two-part series, we explain how to register your works with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Copyright registration is a claim to copyright filed with the Copyright Office which creates a public record of facts about a copyrighted work, including authorship and ownership information. Copyright registration includes three essential elements: a completed application form, a filing fee, and a “deposit” (a copy of the work submitted to the Copyright Office). Each of these steps are outlined below. Authors, their agents, and owners of an exclusive right in a work can register a copyright. Often, but not always, if you are publishing your work, your publisher will register the work for you—but it is best to check, especially if you are retaining your copyright or publishing with a smaller press. If you are self-publishing your work, it will be up to you (or your agent) register the copyright to your work.

Registration can be made at any time within the life of copyright, but some benefits of registration are contingent upon timely filing, as described in last week’s post.

Application Form

Application forms for copyright registration can be completed and submitted online or through a paper application. The Copyright Office encourages authors to register online, where possible. Advantages of registering online include lower filing fees, faster processing times, and the ability to track the application status.

Online applications for copyright registration can be accessed from the Copyright Office’s Registration Portal, paper forms are available on the Copyright Office’s Forms page, or you can request forms through the mail by calling (202) 707-3000.

Before you begin an application, you will need to select the category of work that best corresponds to the work you want to register (e.g. literary works, visual arts, motion pictures, photographs, etc.). The information collected on the form is based on the type of work you are registering, but generally includes information about the work (such as the title, completion year, and publication year, if applicable), the author, and the copyright owner. Once the application is submitted to the Copyright Office, the application is a part of the public record, meaning anyone can request to see a copy of your application.

Filing Fee

The filing fee for online applications is currently $35 (single application) or $55 (standard application). The filing fee for paper applications is currently $85. If you are submitting your application online, the Copyright Office accepts credit cards, debit cards, or electronic checks. Fees accompanying paper forms must be paid by check or money order (unless the registrant maintains a deposit account with the Copyright Office).

Deposit Copy of the Work

You normally must submit a copy or copies of your work (known as a “deposit”) to complete the application process.

Some works, such as unpublished works and works published only in an electronic format, may be submitted electronically with an online application form. If you are submitting a work electronically, make sure that you submit it in an electronic file type acceptable to the Copyright Office. The maximum size for an uploaded file is 500MB.

If you are registering a work first published in the United States after January 1, 1978, you may be subject to “best edition” and mandatory deposit requirements. In this case, you must submit two complete hard copies of your work (or, in the case of certain types of published literary works and musical compositions, a single copy). If there are multiple editions of your work, you may be required to deposit the “best edition”. The best edition is the edition published in the United States at any time before the date of deposit that the Library of Congress determines is most suitable. For example, the Copyright Office’s Best Edition Statement requires that you submit the hard cover edition of your work rather than the soft cover edition, if your work is available in both forms. If multiple versions of your work are published, review the Best Edition Statement to determine which edition to submit.

Hard deposit copies can be mailed to:
Library of Congress
U.S. Copyright Office
101 Independence Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20559

If you are mailing a hard copy of your work after submitting an online registration form, be sure to include the shipping slip that was created when you filled out the application on your computer. If you are filing for registration using a paper form, send the work, the completed application form, and the fee in one package.

Please note that some works have special rules, considerations, or exemptions from the deposit requirement. For example, if you are registering a sculptural work or a computer program, you generally should submit “identifying material” (like photographs or drawings in the case of a sculptural work or source code in the case of a computer program) instead of the work itself. To learn more, read Copyright Office Circular 7D.

Processing time

As of February 2018, the average processing time for online applications is 6-8 months and for paper applications is 8-10 months. If your registration is approved, the Copyright Office will mail a registration certificate to the address specified in your application form and the effective date of registration will be the date that the Office received all of the required elements (the application, fee, and deposit).

For more information on copyright registration, see the Copyright Office Circular 2.

Last updated February 20, 2018.

We are grateful to Allison Davenport, former Authors Alliance Research Assistant, for her help with researching and drafting this post.

Copyright Registration Part 1:
Why Register Your Copyright?

Posted February 14, 2018

Under today’s copyright laws, copyright protection for original, creative works is automatic from the moment the work is “fixed in a tangible medium” (e.g., as soon as the author puts pen to paper, paintbrush to canvas, or saves a computer file). Although authors do not need to register their works in order to enjoy the protection of copyright law, registration has several benefits which make it an advantageous practice.

In this first article in a two-part series, we outline some of the benefits of registering your copyrights. Next week, we’ll explain how to register your works with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Copyright registration is a claim to copyright filed with the Copyright Office which creates a public record of facts about a copyrighted work, including authorship and ownership information. Copyright registration includes three essential elements: a completed application form, a filing fee, and a “deposit” (a copy of the work submitted to the Copyright Office). We’ll cover those steps in more detail in next week’s post on how to register copyrights. Authors, their agents, and owners of an exclusive right in a work can register a copyright. Often, but not always, if you are publishing your work, your publisher will register the work for you—but it is best to check, especially if you are retaining your copyright or publishing with a smaller press. If you are self-publishing your work, it will be up to you (or your agent) register the copyright to your work.

Registration can be made at any time within the life of copyright, but some benefits of registration are contingent upon timely filing, as described below.

Registration Establishes a Public Record of Ownership

Registering your work—and recording subsequent transfers of ownership—creates a record of copyright ownership that allows the public to identify and locate copyright owners. This benefits both authors and the public, and it helps prevent works from becoming orphans. Ownership records enable would-be users of works to locate the copyright owner in order to ask for permission or a license to make uses that are within the copyright owner’s exclusive rights, to provide attribution to the author, or to discover when a work is in the public domain. In the absence of a public record of copyright ownership, would-be users of a work may not know whom to contact, and may abandon potential onward uses of your work. This means that you could lose revenue from licensing opportunities and miss out on the chance to grant permission for uses which you would welcome (even without payment); consequently, your work may not have the vibrant life you hoped for in years to come.

Flora Foxglove retained all of the copyrights to her book of gardening tips and registered the work with the Copyright Office. Horace Horticulture wants to copy and share the book with his community gardening class, so he searches the Copyright Office’s records to find out how to contact Flora. He sends a request to Flora’s PO Box, asking for her permission to copy and distribute her work with his students. Delighted to share gardening know-how with budding enthusiasts, Flora gives Horace her permission to reproduce the work so long as he includes her name on the copies.

Blaine Blockbuster thinks that a movie adaptation of Betsy Bestseller’s latest novel would make the next Hollywood hit. He searches the Copyright Office’s records, and finds that Percy Publisher owns all of the exclusive rights in the work. Blaine contacts Percy and negotiates for a license to make a movie adaptation of the novel.

Registration is Necessary Before Initiating an Infringement Suit

In addition to facilitating downstream uses of a work, registration gives you additional rights in the event that your work is infringed. In fact, registration is a necessary precursor to a copyright infringement lawsuit: If someone uses your work in a way that you think infringes on your copyright and you want to initiate a copyright infringement lawsuit, you must register your copyright before you can do so.

Registration Within Five Years of Publication Provides Favorable Presumptions

If a work is registered before or within five years of publication, registration brings with it the presumption that the work is copyrightable and that the facts stated in the registration certificate are true. This may include information such as the name of the author, the name of the copyright owner, the title of the work, the date the work was published, and the effective date of registration. This means that in an infringement suit, if your registration was timely, the burden of proving your copyright is invalid will fall on the defendant. If you do not register within five years of publication, you can still do so, but how much weight a court will give the facts stated in the registration is at its discretion.

Registration Within Three Months of Publication, or Prior to Infringement of the Work, Opens Up the Possibility of Statutory Damages and Attorneys’ Fees

If registration is made within three months of publication of the work, or prior to the infringement of the work, statutory damages (predetermined payments established by law) and attorneys’ fees are available to the copyright owner in the event of an infringement lawsuit. Statutory damages typically range from $750 to $30,000 per infringed work (though they can be as high as $150,000 per infringed work for willful infringement, or as low as $200 where the infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe the use was infringing.) Timely registration also allows you to request reimbursement of your attorneys’ fees and costs of filing the lawsuit. If you do not register your work prior to the infringement or within three months of publication, your remedy in an infringement action is limited to the actual damages you suffered from the infringement (and any of the infringer’s additional profits that are attributable to the infringement), as well as injunctive relief (e.g., a court order restraining the defendant from copying the work).

Last updated February 13, 2018.

We are grateful to Allison Davenport, former Authors Alliance Research Assistant, for her help with researching and drafting this post.

Rights Reversion Success Story: David G. Ullman

Posted January 31, 2018

Headshot of David UllmanDavid G. Ullman is Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering Design at Oregon State University and an expert on product design and decision-making best practices. After securing a reversion of rights, Ullman published the sixth edition of The Mechanical Design Process, a leading text used to teach mechanical engineers the processes of product design. We asked Professor Ullman to share his rights reversion success story with us.

Authors Alliance: What motivated you to request your rights back?

David Ullman: When The Mechanical Design Process was first introduced in 1992, I insisted that it be priced at less than $50. I felt this was a fair price for a university text on the topic. McGraw-Hill, the publisher, agreed and released it at $49. Over the years, McGraw-Hill steadily raised the price over my protests. By 2017 the list price was $166. University bookstores sold it for $149. I contacted McGraw-Hill, protesting the price increases. I told them that I did not understand their business model, the price was usury, and they were killing the sales of the book. Where inflation would have taken the book to $85, they had nearly doubled that. Finally, in early 2017, when the annual sales for the fifth edition (2015) had dropped from 4,000 copies per year to 1,000, I offered to buy the copyright, and they agreed, at no cost to me. Thus, in November 2017 I released a new edition of the book at a price practitioners and students can afford: $49.95. It is interesting to note that as soon as the agreement was signed, McGraw-Hill’s list price was lowered by $30.

AuAll: How and when did you first hear about rights reversion?

DU: I always knew that it was possible to buy back rights. When I decided to request the rights back, I did a lot of online reading to be sure I understood the ins and outs.

AuAll: Could you walk us through the process of requesting your rights back?

Continue reading

Model Publishing Contract Features Author-Friendly Terms for Open Access Scholarship

Posted December 14, 2017

The University of Michigan and Emory University have teamed up to create a Model Publishing Contract for Digital Scholarship designed to aid in the publication of long-form digital scholarship according to open access principles. It’s a terrific new resource for authors and publishers alike!

Developed by a team of library and university press professionals, the model contract takes into account the needs of a variety of stakeholders. The contract is shorter and easier to understand than typical publishing contracts, and it offers authors more rights in their own work, while still allowing publishers sufficient rights for commercial uses and sales. Associated documents include:

  • An introduction to the project
  • A guide to using the model documents
  • A customizable contract template in Word format
  • A sample letter for requesting permission to create and distribute digital copies of a copyright owner’s work
  • A glossary of legal terms

All of the documents are available online under a CC0 license, so they can be tailored to meet an author’s or institution’s specific needs. Even for those not currently negotiating a publishing agreement, the model contract provides useful information and sample language demonstrating author-friendly terms.

The model publishing contract is a great complement to one of our current projects here at Authors Alliance. We’re hard at work on a guide to understanding publication contracts—the fourth volume in our series of educational handbooks, due to be released in 2018. Our guide will explain various contractual terms from an authors’ rights perspective. We recommend the model contract project as an excellent example of a fair and workable document with a special emphasis on open access scholarship.

 

Demystifying Fair Use: Our New Guide, FAQs, and More!

Posted December 7, 2017

Fair use, as many of our readers know, can be a tricky concept to pin down. What exactly does fair use mean? What makes it such an important part of U.S. copyright law? What are the “four factors” that courts consider when evaluating claims of fair use? And, perhaps most importantly of all, how does fair use support authors’ research, writing, and publishing goals?

Authors who want to incorporate source materials with confidence, while also respecting copyright and the integrity of their fellow creators, may find themselves faced with more questions than answers. Fortunately, help is at hand!

Cover of the Fair Use Guide for Nonfiction AuthorsAuthors Alliance released a brand-new guide to Fair Use for Nonfiction Authors last week. Although the guide was designed around the needs of nonfiction authors, much of the information applies to authors across disciplines. After all, many questions and misconceptions about fair use overlap regardless of genre. The FAQ section of the guide addresses some common questions, such as:

  • Can I still claim fair use if I am using copyrighted material that is highly creative?
  • What if I want to use copyrighted material for commercial purposes?
  • Does fair use apply to copyrighted material that is unpublished?

Learn the answers to these and other fair use questions at our new Fair Use Resources page. While you’re there, you can also download a PDF version of the guide. A print edition is forthcoming in February 2018, and Authors Alliance members can sign up for the pre-order list by emailing us at info@authorsalliance.org.

If you’re not yet a member, we encourage you to join today! And if you value this and other Authors Alliance resources, please consider a donation to support our 2017 gift campaign.

Announcing the Authors Alliance Guide to Fair Use for Nonfiction Authors

Posted November 29, 2017

Cover of Fair Use for Nonfiction AuthorsWe are pleased to announce the release of our brand-new guide to Fair Use for Nonfiction Authors! The guide is designed to empower authors to exercise their right to use source materials to further their research and writing goals by helping them to make confident fair use decisions. This new guide is the latest addition to our growing library of resource books for authors, which includes educational guides for rights reversion and open access.

Inspired by the work of Peter Jaszi and Patricia Aufderheide at the Center for Media and Social Impact at American University, this guide focuses on best practices for nonfiction authors—from biographers to science writers, historians to literary critics, memoirists to academics, and beyond—who depend on the use of copyrighted materials in their work.

The guide will help nonfiction authors who want to do things like:

  • Include song lyrics in an academic paper discussing musical trends;
  • Quote from a novel to analyze the author’s use of metaphors in a work of literary criticism;
  • Incorporate a photograph in an article about the photographer’s use of light and shadow;
  • Use a chart in a scientific paper critiquing a researcher’s methodology and findings; or
  • Quote from unpublished letters in a memoir.

The guide addresses three common situations faced by nonfiction authors in which fair use may apply: 1) criticizing, discussing, or commenting on copyrighted material; 2) using copyrighted material to support a point made in the author’s work; and 3) using copyrighted material for non-consumptive research.  It also addresses the most frequently asked questions about fair use and clears up some common misconceptions about when it might apply.

We thank Rob Walker and the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley School of Law for their help in researching and drafting the guide, which features extensive input from nonfiction authors, copyright experts, and partner organizations. The guide has also been endorsed by the American Council of Learned Societies and the Association for Information Science and Technology.

Download the guide and learn more about fair use at our new Fair Use resource page. And, if you have any fair use questions or experiences to share with us, please get in touch at info@authorsalliance.org.

 

Grappling With The Most Notoriously Complex Provision in U.S. Copyright Law

Posted October 26, 2017

Erica Row, Julia Wu, Pam Samuelson, Mike Wolfe, Eric Malmgren, and Jack Lerner

The following guest post was written by Julia Wu and Eric Malmgren, students at the Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic at UC Irvine Law. We’re grateful to the clinic students and to their director, Jack Lerner, for all their work in reviewing the Termination of Transfer tool.

The law on termination of copyright transfers is complicated—really complicated. As members of the research team tasked with “vetting” the Authors Alliance/Creative Commons Termination of Transfer Tool, we became acutely aware of just how intricate, technical, and downright maddening this area of law can be.

In 2016, Authors Alliance approached the UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic for help launching the Termination of Transfer Tool (“ToT Tool”), an online resource to educate authors about termination of transfers and roughly estimate whether a work is eligible for a termination. They wanted to ensure that the ToT Tool correctly applied the law to estimate copyright duration and the timeframes during which a termination of transfer could be executed.

It’s a cliché, but in this case it fits perfectly: we were thrown into the deep end of the pool, and we had to learn quickly how to swim. Together with fellow clinic member Erica Row, Professor Jack Lerner, and our friends at the Samuelson-Glushko Technology Law & Policy Clinic at Colorado Law, we immersed ourselves in §§ 203 and 304 of the Copyright Act, relevant case law, and treatises such as Nimmer on Copyright.

After extensive research, our team met to map out the logical steps needed to determine whether a given work would likely be eligible for a termination of transfer.  Our goal was to create a set of binary (yes-no) questions and simple equations that would reliably predict whether a termination right likely existed and when it could be exercised. UCI law students standing next to an outline of the ToT toolSeveral of these questions were derived from the Copyright Act, such as whether the copyright was assigned through a last will and testament. If so, it cannot be terminated.  Others depended on factors found in important court decisions, such as CCNV v. Reid, which provided guidance as to whether a given work is a “work made for hire” and thus ineligible for termination. Our “map” of termination law became a flowchart the length of a large UCI Law classroom.

The most basic analysis of whether a transferred copyrighted work is eligible for termination requires four main dates: the date of the work’s creation, the date of the work’s publication (if applicable), the date of copyright registration (if applicable), and the date of the transfer or assignment. There are ninety-three years between the relevant years of 1923 and 2016. Multiplying ninety-three by itself four times (i.e., 934) results in 74,805,201 possible combinations of those four dates.  In light of the millions of possibilities, a flowchart on a whiteboard—no matter how big—would not allow us to evaluate enough scenarios to verify that the ToT Tool accurately analyzed transfer eligibility, so we developed a spreadsheet that mirrored the ToT Tool’s functionality and could be used as an independent verification method—essentially, a parallel tool. As we discovered new and sometimes minor nuances of the termination provisions, we devised ways to address them within the spreadsheet. Over time, our spreadsheet grew more and more intricate.

We found that rather than attempt to review all 75+ million date combinations, we could focus on dates that corresponded to important changes in U.S. copyright law, like January 1, 1978, the date the 1976 Copyright Act went into effect. With these significant dates in mind, we created a list of date combinations that would likely reveal whether the ToT Tool and our spreadsheet correctly addressed the nuances of the termination provisions.

Our work culminated in an afternoon in which we trained fourteen other students in the UCI IPAT Clinic on the use of the Authors Alliance/Creative Commons ToT Tool, and gave each one a list of date combinations to enter into both the Tool and our spreadsheet. Members of the IPAT Clinic processed hundreds of the highest-priority date combinations that we could identify. We gathered the results and analyzed any discrepancies to determine whether the ToT Tool or our spreadsheet accurately predicted the correct outcome. We also met and talked numerous times with Authors Alliance’s then-Executive Director Mike Wolfe, and Professor Pamela Samuelson.

Termination of copyright transfers is a complex and sometimes unsettled area of the law. For the first time ever, the Authors Alliance/Creative Commons Termination of Transfer Tool makes what has been an arcane and inscrutable area of the law accessible to everyone.  We are incredibly proud to have contributed to this effort.

Use the Termination of Transfer Tool, read the materials, and if you think you may have a work eligible for a termination of transfer, speak with an attorney who can help you get your rights back.


Eric Malmgren and Julia Wu are J.D. Candidates at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. During the 2016-2017 academic year, they were Certified Law Students in the UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic. 

Why is an Author Able to Terminate a Transfer of Copyright?

Posted October 17, 2017

We are grateful to Professor Lydia Pallas Loren of Lewis & Clark School of Law for contributing the following guest post.

Headshot of Lydia LorenThe U.S. Copyright Act is clear: Authors have a right to terminate a transfer of their copyrights 35 years after they have signed on the dotted line.* That right to terminate cannot be waived, nor is there any way to “contract around” it. It does not matter if the contract purports to assign the copyright for “the entire term of copyright” or “in perpetuity” or if the contract prohibits any attempts at termination. Why did Congress include this significant, unwaivable right in its comprehensive revision of the Copyright Act?

Some assert that the reason for the termination rights is paternalistic—it seeks to protect authors who, in general, lack business acumen. By providing authors with an ability to recapture their copyrights, the law gives authors, who need government protection, a second bite of the apple. But, if authors on a whole lack business acumen, what makes us think the author would be any better at obtaining a deal on more favorable terms 35 years later?

In fact, the evidence points in another direction to explain Congress’ decision. Congress recognized that often transfers of copyright are entered into before the authors have solid information from which to assess the value of the copyrighted work. This puts the author in what Congress called an “unequal bargaining position.” After 35 years has passed, they should have more information about the work’s value, and that would be an appropriate time to allow the author to enter into a new bargain, based on a better assessment of the value of the work. In other words, Congress viewed the termination right as a way for authors to obtain compensation at a level that more accurately reflects the true value of their works.

For the author who sold their copyright for a pittance and the work turned out to be a blockbuster, termination can play out the way Congress thought it might. But the termination right is not just about money. For an author who thinks her publisher has not done enough to market the book and that explains its lackluster sales, terminating that transfer allows the author to seek out a new publisher. For the author whose work has failed to gain a commercially viable audience, but whose work has noncommercial value, such as for research, terminating the transfer allows the author to seek out a new “home” for that copyrighted work. Once the copyright has been recaptured by the author, that new home might be with a new publisher, or it might in the public domain (through a dedication to the public), or on an open access platform.

Armed with the information gained about the appeal of the work over the 35 year period in which the copyright was owned by someone else, Congress provided the author with a way to renegotiate the deal. And that is precisely what Congress intended when it created the termination right.


* Note that the timing of the termination right can vary depending on the circumstances and the date of the contract—see the Authors Alliance/Creative Commons Termination of Transfer tool for more information.

Lydia Pallas Loren is Henry J. Casey Professor of Law at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon. Professor Loren is the author of Renegotiating the Copyright Deal in the Shadow of the ‘Inalienable’ Right to Terminate.