Thank you for explaining! I do apologize for bringing up the topic as I am new to this group.
T. > On Jun 6, 2015, at 18:37, Raymond Feist <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jun 6, 2015, at 3:24 PM, Richard Williamson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Note: I have an MBA, I am not a lawyer. I'm looking at this from the >> business aspects, not the legal. They look similar, though :) This is just >> a general discussion, I don't know anything specific about the situation. >> >> Probably you won't get an answer from Ray, because if it is under dispute, >> there's probably lawyers involved. >> >> The thing about contracts before a certain era (ie, before people were >> talking about electronic versions of books), those contracts probably didn't >> have anything in them that dealt with the rights to an electronic version. >> "Electronic versions" are never mentioned, because there was no such thing. >> >> Time passes, and now, o look, electronic versions are a thing. >> >> In this case, the contract Party A (the author) will argue that "it wasn't >> mentioned, ergo you didn't buy those rights", while the contract Party B >> (the publisher) will argue that "it wasn't specifically mentioned as a >> separate right, ergo it is covered by the general rights we purchased". >> >> Now, consider a case where the rights have reverted, because a book didn't >> sell, or it was specifically called out in the contract... then it isn't a >> problem. The author can get a new contract with whomever, for both print >> and electronic, or just electronic versions. >> >> In the case where a book has been in continual print for over 30 years, and >> there are no time clauses, then the rights might not revert to the author. >> This is/was the general behavior of contract clauses on rights, that the >> rights revert after the book is no longer in print. >> >> Publishers are leery of just saying "ok, yeah, e-versions are yours", >> because that could be used as precedent, and make it more difficult for them >> in any other similar case. >> >> rip > > I’m not being coy, just sort of tired of explaining it. rip is correct, it’s > rights that pre-dated ebooks. Our contention is and always has and always > will stem from one line that every one of my contracts has it it, what I > think of as my “specificity clause.” It states, “All rights not expressly > granted here within reside with Author.” Random House thinks otherwise. As > we are a legacy from them buying Bantam-Doubleday-Dell, we and many other > authors are trying to get this resolved without litigation. > > Best, R.E.F. > > >
