Category Archives: Copyright Basics

Making copyright work for authors

Posted November 3, 2014

Image adapted from a CC-BY licensed photo by David Kindler.

Authors Alliance Co-Founder Molly Van Houweling

On Oct. 10 I traveled to Columbia Law School to attend and speak at a symposium hosted by the Kernochan Center for Law, Media, and the Arts entitled “Creation is Not Its Own Reward: Making Copyright Work for Authors and Performers.” It was a fascinating day featuring perspectives from creators in a variety of fields—including drama, non-fiction authorship, photography, song-writing, graphic art, and even video game design. Video from the event has now been posted and the proceedings will be published in an upcoming issue of the Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts.

I spoke on a panel entitled “Academic Perspectives.” This topic had multiple meanings for me. I am a legal academic with a scholarly interest in the relationship between copyright law and creativity. So I have an “academic perspective” on the creative environment in general. But I also have an individual creator’s perspective as the author of academic articles on my scholarly topic (and of course as a founder of Authors Alliance). In my remarks I emphasized the legal and practical obstacles that academic authors often face when they want to ensure that their books and articles are accessible to readers even after those works have outlived what in many cases is a fleeting commercial life.

I explained that academic authors sometimes transfer their copyrights or grant exclusive licenses to publishers without much forethought. Years later they may find that they want to revive out-of-print books, write new editions, anthologize their own works, or simply post them on the Internet so they can be accessible to readers around the world. But these authors no longer have the right to do what they want with their own works without permission from their publishers. Renegotiation may be theoretically possible but practically difficult–especially for absent-minded professors who may have trouble even finding their original contracts (to say nothing of the sometimes difficult task of figuring out who owns rights that may have been transferred from the original publisher to someone else).

Academic authors are not alone in facing this type of dilemma. Over the course of the day, other creators described a wide variety of individual and industry practices regarding copyright, including many that contribute to problems for authors who want to reuse their own work. Most interesting of all, Pulitzer Prize winning playwright Douglas Wright described retaining and managing the copyrights in his stage plays but not in his movie screenplays. In one case he worked on a screenplay adaptation of a stage play he had written. When he later revived the play he did not include new-and-improved material he had developed for the screenplay, because that revision of his own work was a work-for-hire that he did not own. Wright expressed a strong preference for retaining his copyrights when possible and thus serving as “the CEO of my own imagination.”

Authors Alliance joins in letter against copyright term extensions in TPP

Posted July 9, 2014

Authors Alliance is joining 34 other organizations in telling the negotiators of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) not to extend copyright terms beyond the current international minimums. The international group signing the letter includes representatives of libraries, archives, educators, and authors; leaders such as the Association of Research Libraries, Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, the Canadian Library Association, and the Australian Library and Information Association.

The prevailing international standard already provides a copyright terms that last fifty years after an author’s death, a term that is more than adequate by any metric. Among the Authors Alliance proposals for copyright reform is “no more copyright term extensions.” As we explained there, further lengthening the copyright would not help most authors:

Term extensions do not promote the progress of science, as the Constitution directs, and often actively constrain it. Copyright terms are already very long . . . Only a very few works continue to provide economic benefit to authors for the full duration of our current terms. For the vast majority of new works, a longer term would provide no new reward at all, while it would instead starve the public domain and orphan our cultural and intellectual heritage. Without a demonstrated need or definite public benefit, we oppose any attempt to lengthen the copyright terms yet again.

Here in the United States, the copyright term has already been extended twenty years past the international standard. Our experience of longer terms has not been increased creativity or increased author wealth. The change has proven to benefit only the smallest handful of rights holders, while preventing works from entering the public domain. Documented experience as well as economic prediction weigh heavily against efforts to further lengthen the copyright term in other countries.

We encourage other organizations to join us and many others in telling the negotiators that current copyright terms are more than enough to protect authors like us by signing the letter here.

Why Does the Authors Alliance Care About Orphan Works?

Posted July 2, 2014

By Authors Alliance co-founder Pamela Samuelson.

During the Authors Alliance launch at the Internet Archive, I talked about why the problem of orphan works is one of the pressing concerns the Authors Alliance seeks to address with its Principles and Proposals for Copyright Reform. Many of us, including academics, biographers, writers of historical fiction, and documentary filmmakers, come across many documents relevant to our research projects that we want to include in our works.

Sometimes we can tell that the documents are in the public domain, and sometimes we can easily track down the owners of in-copyright works and ask for permission. But many times, especially with older documents, it is unclear who the author is, how to track him or her down, or who else might have rights in the work.

Confusion about who is the author or owner of the rights is, of course, not an excuse to ignore copyright interests. There is general consensus that a prospective reuser should have to conduct a reasonably diligent search for the copyright owner, but copyright should not unreasonably impede reuse of the work if no owner can be found.

It’s Elementary My Dear Watson*: The Public Domain Can Benefit Authors

Posted June 17, 2014

Illustration of Holmes and Watson by Sidney Paget (1860-1908) in Strand Magazine

By Authors Alliance co-founder Molly Van Houweling.

Yesterday Judge Richard Posner, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, ruled that the copyrights in stories written by Arthur Conan Doyle and published before 1923 have expired, clearing the way for the publication of an anthology of new stories featuring Doyle’s famous detective Sherlock Holmes. Leslie S. Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd. (June 16, 2014). The expiration of copyright might sound like bad news for authors. But it can be very good news, indeed, and this case illustrates some of the reasons why.

The lawsuit was brought by an author–not Arthur Conan Doyle of course (who, as Judge Posner noted in his opinion, died 84 years ago), but rather a living author and editor named Leslie Klinger. In 2011, Klinger co-edited A Study in Sherlock: Stories Inspired by the Sherlock Holmes Canon, an anthology of stories written by contemporary authors but featuring Sherlock Holmes and other characters from Doyle’s classic stories. Doyle’s estate demanded a $5000 copyright licensing fee, which Klinger’s publisher paid. But when the estate again demanded a licensing fee for the publication of Klinger’s planned sequel, In the Company of Sherlock Holmes, Klinger resisted. He asked a federal court to back him up by ruling (in what’s known as a “declaratory judgment”) that the copyright protection attached to the characters who would appear in the stories had expired and that In the Company of Sherlock Holmes could therefore be published without copyright permission or fee.

Why Does the Authors Alliance Care About Copyright Reform?

Posted June 2, 2014

By Authors Alliance co-founder Pamela Samuelson.

The time is ripe for considering how copyright policy should respond to the opportunities and challenges of the digital age. Indeed, the top U.S. copyright official, Maria Pallante, has urged Congress to get to work on “The Next Great Copyright Act.”

As we prepared for the launch of the Authors Alliance, this call for a comprehensive rethinking of copyright law inspired our co-founders (Berkeley colleagues Carla Hesse, Tom Leonard, Molly Van Houweling and me) to articulate some principles and proposals for copyright reform that would make the law operate better for authors. In our view, reforms should simultaneously advance the constitutional purpose of copyright law—to promote the “progress of science” (that is, knowledge)—and the interests of authors whose principal motivations in creating works of authorship is to promote the public good by creating works that will be widely read, viewed, and heard. When the law is working as the Founders intended, the interests of authors and of the public at large are well aligned.

Authors Alliance announces principles and proposals for copyright reform

Posted May 21, 2014

In conjunction with its public launch, the Authors Alliance has announced its Principles and Proposals for Copyright Reform. This document outlines the Authors Alliance vision for a copyright reform effort that would work for authors who write to be read.

The Principles and Proposals identify key ways in which copyright law can better serve its constitutional mission of furthering knowledge or the “Progress of Science.”

“Promoting the Progress of Science is what our members do on a daily basis,” says Authors Alliance founder Pamela Samuelson. “So we should help shape copyright law to ensure it serves this constitutional goal.”

Access to the document is provided below. All inquiries should be directed to info@authorsalliance.org.

Authors Alliance Principles and Proposals for Copyright Reform (web)
Authors Alliance Principles and Proposals for Copyright Reform (pdf)

FAQ: Authorship and Ownership in U.S. Copyright Law

Posted May 20, 2014

Last updated May 20, 2014.

What does the U.S. Constitution say about the relationship between authors and copyrights?
How has the constitutional authorization of exclusive rights for authors been exercised by Congress?
Do authors always own copyrights in the works they have created?
Under what circumstances will a work be considered a work made for hire?
Apart from works made for hire, do authors always own their copyrights?
So what do authors give up when they give up their copyrights?
What complications might arise when an author is no longer the owner of copyright in a work she created?
How can these problems be resolved?
How can authors manage their copyrights to avoid these problems in the future?
What will Authors Alliance do to help authors carefully manage their copyrights?
Where can I learn more?

What does the U.S. Constitution say about the relationship between authors and copyrights?

The importance of authorship to the spread of knowledge is recognized in the U.S. Constitution, which authorizes Congress “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” This language is the basis for both copyright and patent law in the United States. Patent law deals with inventors whose discoveries represent progress in the “useful Arts.” Copyright law deals with authors whose writings represent progress in “science,” by which the founders meant knowledge and learning.

This constitutional language recognizes the contributions that authors make to knowledge and it also specifies a particular mechanism by which those contributions may be encouraged: by securing to authors exclusive rights to their writings for limited times.

(Back to top)

How has the constitutional authorization of exclusive rights for authors been exercised by Congress?

Beginning with the Copyright Act of 1790, Congress has exercised this authority and followed these constitutional instructions by granting copyrights initially to authors. In this regard U.S. law followed the lead of England’s Statute of Anne, which in 1709 ushered in the modern copyright era by replacing a system of publishers’ rights (granted to the guild of publishers known as the Stationers’ Company) with a system of authors’ rights.

(Back to top)

Do authors always own copyrights in the works they have created?

No. The constitutional and congressional bestowal of rights on authors does not mean that all authors own copyrights to the works they have created. In fact, they often do not. Under some circumstances, the individual people one might refer to as the “authors” of copyrightable works are not considered authors as a legal matter at all. Instead, under the “work made for hire” doctrine, their employers (or sometimes a commissioning party outside of the employment context) are deemed to be the authors and therefore the initial copyright owners.

(Back to top)

Under what circumstances will a work be considered a work made for hire?

There are two circumstances in which a work is deemed a work made for hire: (1) if it was prepared by an employee in the scope of his or employment, or (2) if it was specially commissioned, subject to a signed agreement specifying that it be considered a work made for hire, and falls within one of nine types of works named in the statute as eligible for this treatment. The complete definition is provided in section 101 of the Copyright Act and discussed in a short Copyright Office circular.

(Back to top)

Apart from works made for hire, do authors always own their copyrights

No. Where the work made for hire doctrine does not apply, authors may start out as copyright owners but give or sell their copyrights to others. Indeed, the practice of authors transferring their copyrights to publishers has been commonplace since the Statute of Anne first granted copyrights to authors. Authors might sell their copyrights to publishers for a lump sum, or for royalties based on how many books the publisher sells, or a combination of the two. In today’s academic publishing environment, for example, authors frequently transfer their copyrights to journal publishers for free—realizing their rewards in terms of publication in a prestigious outlet as opposed to direct monetary gain. What publishers get in exchange is the ability to control when and how many copies are published, at what prices those copies are offered in the market, under what circumstances new editions are produced, and more.

(Back to top)

So what do authors give up when they give up their copyrights?

Although the practice of authors transferring their copyrights to publishers is longstanding, the vagaries of copyright law and the difficultly of assessing the value of copyrighted works make it difficult for authors to anticipate the implications of signing away their copyrights—implications that can be quite dramatic. Recall that the constitutional language refers to an “exclusive right.” This means that the rights that the law bestows allow copyright owners to object when anyone else does the things that the law reserves exclusively to them. Under current law, those exclusive rights include reproducing the copyrighted work, displaying it publicly, performing it publicly, distributing copies of it to the public, and preparing new works based upon it (which the Copyright Act calls “derivative works”). So if an author transfers her copyright in its entirety to a publisher (or grants the publisher an “exclusive license”) only the publisher may do or authorize others to do these things. Even the author herself may no longer do them without the publisher’s permission (unless her actions fall within one of the exceptions built into copyright law).

(Back to top)

What complications might arise when an author is no longer the owner of copyright in a work she created?

The limitations on what an author can do with her work once she is no longer the copyright owner may have seemed inconsequential to many authors in earlier eras. After all, few authors were in a position to reproduce and distribute their works themselves. But of course that is no longer the case in the digital era. And so authors are increasingly frustrated to realize that although the Internet gives them the technological ability to disseminate their works to readers around the world, their publishing contracts deny them the legal right to do so. For example, publishers including Elsevier and the American Society for Civil Engineers have objected to scholars posting copyrights of journal articles on their campus websites.

Copyright owners may even object to an author who wants to revise her own previous work. Depending upon the degree of similarity, the revision may count as preparation of a “derivative work,” which is within the copyright owner’s exclusive rights. Again, this legal layer of publisher control may not have mattered so much when authors relied on publishers to disseminate their new editions (and when copyright terms were short enough that it was possible for a publisher’s copyright to expire during the author’s lifetime). But today many authors might want to revise and distribute their own works but find themselves without the rights they need to do so (and no hope that they will outlive the copyright, which now lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years).

(Back to top)

How can these problems be resolved?

There are several ways for authors facing these dilemmas to try to resolve them (and to avoid them in the future). Some publishing agreements grant exclusive rights to publishers only for some media (hard copy but not digital, for example), and/or only for limited periods of time. Under these agreements authors retain the right to publish in other formats and/or after the period of publisher exclusivity has expired. Other publishing agreements assign ownership of the author’s copyright to a publisher but reserve to the author the right to reclaim the copyright if the work goes out of print (often referred to as a “reversion” or “out-of-print” clause). The circumstances under which this reclaiming is possible vary depending on the exact terms of the agreement. In particular, agreements differ in how they define “out of print” (whether, for example, a book that is available only as an e-book or via a print-on-demand service can be considered in print regardless of whether any copies are actually being sold). When the events that trigger the reversion of rights to the author do occur, the author typically has to take some action to exercise those rights (e.g., providing notice to the publisher of her intention to exercise her rights and then giving the publisher some time to respond).

Even when an author has transferred her copyright to a publisher in all formats and for all time, without reserving any reversion right, she may be able to reclaim her copyright under the “termination of transfer” provisions of the Copyright Act. These provisions allow certain copyright agreements made by authors during their lives to be terminated 35 years later. (For agreements made prior to 1978, agreements made by authors’ specified heirs are also subject to termination.) Although this statutory termination right exists regardless of whether it is mentioned in the transfer agreement (and, indeed, notwithstanding any contractual language that purports to negate it), it is subject to important exceptions and many complications. The key exceptions are for works made for hire, mentioned above, and for agreements authorizing the preparation of derivative works (which can be terminated so as to revoke the right to prepare new derivative works, but not to limit the use of derivative works already prepared under the terms of the original agreement). The complications have to do with timing, eligibility, and notice. The termination of transfer right can only take effect during a narrow five-year window of time (starting in most cases 35 years after the initial agreement or publication). It can only be exercised by the author or, if the author has died, by the author’s surviving widow/widower and children, and/or (if some or all of this class of heirs has died) by grandchildren or other survivors specified in the statute. To trigger the right, a majority of those eligible to exercise it must give notice at least two (but no more than ten) years in advance of the termination date. The Copyright Office has promulgated rules specifying the exact information that must be included in a termination notice.

By exercising contractual reversion rights or statutory termination of transfer rights, some authors who have transferred away their copyrights can regain control over their existing works and decide how to disseminate those works in the digital age. But many publishing contracts do not include reversion rights, and the statutory termination of transfer rights may come decades too late for authors who would like to use their own work in new ways today. It may yet be possible for such authors to renegotiate with copyright owners in order to regain control over their works. They may also be able to rely on the multi-factored fair use exception to copyright if what they want to do is use limited portions of their previous work for teaching purposes or to revisit the same ideas in a new work.

(Back to top)

How can authors manage their copyrights to avoid these problems in the future?

For authors writing books and articles today, a wide variety of publishing models are emerging that do not follow the pattern of outright assignment of copyright to publishers. Instead, authors are increasingly retaining their copyrights and managing them in innovative ways. For example, many authors who publish in academic journals retain their copyrights and grant the journals rights that are entirely non-exclusive, rights that are exclusive only for a limited period of time (e.g., 6 months), or exclusive rights that pertain only to the publisher’s final formatted version and not to the author’s “pre-print” version. By choosing not to transfer all exclusive rights for all time, authors retain some rights to reproduce, distribute, and revise their own works. They also retain rights to allow other people to do these things. So, for example, many faculty members authorize their universities to distribute their journal articles to the public digitally via institutional repositories. At several universities (including Harvard, M.I.T., Duke, Princeton, the University of Kansas, and the University of California), the faculties have committed to permit this type of open distribution of journal articles by default. Some of these university repositories—and many individual authors—use Creative Commons copyright licenses to invite anyone to reproduce and distribute articles so long as proper attribution is included. This is one way for authors who want foremost be read and known by readers to use copyright to expand instead of limiting their audiences. In order to retain the rights necessary to distribute their work in these ways, many authors attach addenda that modify the standard agreements offered by journal publishers.
Authors of books are also retaining their copyrights and managing them in new ways. Some are allowing publishers to print and sell hard copy books that are also available for free download under Creative Commons licenses. Examples include recent books published by W.W. Norton, Yale University Press, Doubleday, Random House, Basic Books, Penguin, Tor Books, O’Reilly Media, the University of Michigan Press, and MIT Press.

(Back to top)

What will Authors Alliance do to help authors carefully manage their copyrights?

The Authors Alliance is dedicated to promoting authorship for the public good by supporting authors who write to be read. One way we aim to do that is by helping authors understand and manage the legal rights necessary to make their works publicly available and reusable. To that end, this introduction to issues of authorship and ownership will be followed by additional analyses of the options available to authors who want to be read and practical tools to help authors regain, retain, and manage their rights to disseminate their writings to the public. We will also add to the collection of resources referenced below.

(Back to top)

Where can I learn more?

General information about copyright ownership for authors

Works made for hire