Author release waiver

[AstonZagato]

I have written a research piece that a publisher wants to pick up for a semi-academic publication that will contain a collection of articles for people in my industry (all on roughly the same topic). I have already "published" a longer version of the article I will write as my firm distributed it to our clients (that is how I came to the attention of the publisher). I am happy to have it published in the book but I now have to sign a release form that seems to give the publisher rather extreme rights (given that I will not be paid):

Waiver said:

2. To hereby grant to the Publisher the sole, unlimited right in perpetuity to: (i) publish and/or reproduce the Work; (ii) make the Work available to the public; and (iii) permit others to publish, reproduce or make available to the public the Work (in each case in respect of works whether existing now or developed in the future), in any media and in any country across the world.

I will have a lawyer check the agreement but it is more the general scope of it. Is this extreme, or completely boilerplate and normal?

[GoneAnon]

As a layman, that seems to give your work to them for free to do whatever they like with, and prevent you doing anything with it yourself.

Unless you are desparate to see your name in print, I think you should have them remove the clause or find themselves another author!

[davepoth]

I'd be wary too. I'm not even entirely certain that such a clause even works as regards to copyright, but you'll need someone who isn't just pretending to know about the law for that.

[rog007]

This is not too unusual. My immediate thought was how this may interact with the organisation that has already published it? Or did I misread your post?
The work is yours, but by consenting to having it published (which is what we all need to do if our work is to be shared (and ultimately referenced by others)), you have to relinquish some (usually minor) control. Each organisation will have its T&Cs, so do as you are and make sure you're comfortable with theirs. Good luck!

[otherman]

Full rights licensing would allow them to publish under their name and not yours, so if you're looking to keep the kudos you should make sure they don't obtain this.

[anonymous-user]

The author of a copyright work can assert the right to be identified as author, and the right to object to derogatory usage of the work. These are the so called "moral rights", although they are in fact legal rights. You should assert those rights. The extent to which they apply in other jurisdictions depends on local laws and international conventions.

This type of clause is not unusual, and would be enforceable in the UK.

[davepoth]

Breadvan72 said:

The author of a copyright work can assert the right to be identified as author, and the right to object to derogatory usage of the work. These are the so called "moral rights", although they are in fact legal rights. You should assert those rights. The extent to which they apply in other jurisdictions depends on local laws and international conventions.

This type of clause is not unusual, and would be enforceable in the UK.

Out of interest, how does the "in perpetuity" bit operate once the work enters the public domain? I only just barely grazed the surface of this bit of law after a period of being in a very bad rock band. Nothing worth copyrighting.

[anonymous-user]

Control of copyright in a work confers an exclusive right for a period which is usually determined as the life of the author plus a certain time thereafter. Once that exclusivity is lost, anyone can exploit the work, but the clause simply makes it plain that the publisher can publish the work for as long as it likes.

[davepoth]

Breadvan72 said:

Control of copyright in a work confers an exclusive right for a period which is usually determined as the life of the author plus a certain time thereafter. Once that exclusivity is lost, anyone can exploit the work, but the clause simply makes it plain that the publisher can publish the work for as long as it likes.

And that's why you get to wear the gown and wig.

[anonymous-user]

I should add that an attempt to claim a perpetual exclusive right would be ineffective. Great Ormond Street Hospital has, in effect, a perpetual right in respect of the play "Peter Pan" (or at least a perpetual right to royalties therefrom), but that's a special statutory arrangement. It would be a pleasant idea for Parliament to do the same in respect of, say, Paddington Bear and St Mary's Hospital, if Michael Bond wished this, but this hasn't happened yet. Pooh Bear was sold for (relative) peanuts to Disney long ago.

[AstonZagato]

Thanks for the feedback.

The release form does say that the work will always be attributed to me. There is something about moral rights but that is on my work computer so I might post that tomorrow.

I have published before by sending it to our clients and the organisation that did so is one of which I am a senior partner. Therefore I am not worried about how the original "publisher" would view it (my partners are fine with it). A preliminary conversation with my contact suggests that if I reference my original work as the source material in this new (and shorter) article, then I have full rights to the original text.

[StevieBee]

AstonZagato said:

my firm distributed it to our clients (that is how I came to the attention of the publisher)

If you wrote the article(s) as part of your employment then it is your employer that holds the rights to the article, not you, unless expressly agreed otherwise.

If the firm is your company - as in, you own it - it is still the firm that holds the rights and not you personally.

[AstonZagato]

StevieBee said:

AstonZagato said:

my firm distributed it to our clients (that is how I came to the attention of the publisher)

If you wrote the article(s) as part of your employment then it is your employer that holds the rights to the article, not you, unless expressly agreed otherwise.

If the firm is your company - as in, you own it - it is still the firm that holds the rights and not you personally.

I am a partner (one of 5) so I am a part owner. The firm (i.e. other partners) knows that the article will be published and our counsel is looking at the agreement.