About two years ago I sold a number of short articles to a web-based publishing service. I sold full rights, and part of what I recall as the implied contract was that my name was going to be associated with the articles as a byline, as long as they were in evidence on the web.
Now, the publisher, or owner of the property, has moved the articles (those that survive) to a section of Wikipedia. No problem there. And I know that one of the benefits of Wiki is the ability to correct articles, change things to reflect new knowledge, and its fluid nature.
However, I am pissed that my work (still recognizable as such) is now up on the web, without my byline. Especially since I’ve been using links to those articles to showcase my writing ability, and expertise in several topics.
Does an author in such a case have any recourse to insist that his or her byline go back to the article in question?
I don’t mean to try to get free legal advice here. What I want to know is whether I should look into getting real legal advice. Or just suck it up. If the mods decide this isn’t appropriate, I apologise and ask the thread be closed. I just figured with all the clever Dopers out there, there would likely be someone with some ideas about my rights in this situation.
You mention an “implied contract,” which I assume means you don’t have a written contract. IANAL, but unless you can document your claim that the copyright owner agreed to the byline condition, you may be out of luck as far as legally requiring compliance.
But no doubt a real lawyer will be along shortly to explain why I’m full of shit.
In the meantime, I have a few non-lawyerly questions:
Have you simply asked the copyright holder to give you credit in the Wikipedia article?
You say the publisher has moved the articles to Wikipedia? Meaning he’s no longer hosting them on his own site in their original form? This is why you can’t link to them anymore?
Have you asked the copyright holder for permission to host the original versions of the articles yourself for your own promotional purposes? (I’m a publisher, and my contracts explicitly allow contributors this ability, as long as the proper copyright statement is included.)
Failing all this, why not go into the Wikipedia articles and add your credit yourself?
What commasense wrote is full of good, um, common sense.
But the one thing not mentioned is your statement that you sold “full rights.” I’m not sure what you meant by that - the exact wording may be important - but if you really meant that you gave up all claim on the documents, then no “implied contract” is going to do much for you. Once you’ve sold somebody a product it’s theirs, unless you have documentation that some caveats apply.
It’s the fine details of the wording, the sale, and any “implied” or “oral” contracts surrounding them that give lawyers their living. But you also have to ask yourself, how much am I willing to pay a lawyer to do to get no monetary compensation in return? What is your byline worth in this particular case? You’re going to have to put a dollar value on it.
And next time, maybe you should negotiate to give a non-exclusive license for your work, rather than selling “full rights.” It’ll make all the difference in the world.
commasense, Thanks for your excellent suggestions and questions.
I’m well aware I may well be SOL. (One reason I’m starting by asking questions here, not with a real lawyer. It’s not something I’m prepared to spend much money on, for obvious reasons.)
In answer to your questions:
I have asked the copyright owner, and have yet to recieve a response. I’ll try contacting their office this coming week, during regular business hours. I just want to get my duck in a row, first.
I can link to the articles fine. I simply no longer have the byline attached to the article. Which, to some degree, minimizes the self-promotional aspects of linking to the articles in question.
I’ll have to ask them about this. Seems a reasonable compromise.
Well, I’m reluctant to do that. First off, it seems a bit too much like defacing someone else’s property to me. That may be silly of me, but I want to try communicating, first.
Exapno Mapcase, thanks for your comments too. As I recall the reading I did on the various print rights for intellectual properties, there are basically three or four different types of sales for written products: One-time publication rights (This can be complicated by being first rights for publication, or not, and geographical restrictions can apply, too - North America, Europe, specific countries, etc.); Then the author can sell magazine rights, with the reservation that the author keeps the right to control putting the property into books as the author chooses; and finally full rights, where the purchaser gets all rights for publication of the property, in perpetuity. However, none of my reading in places like Writer’s Market ever mentions full rights including removing the byline. It’s usually something that would be addressed specifically at the time of purchase, not by wording stating that the byline would be protected, but that if the byline were to be changed (say writing as a “house author”) it would have to be mentioned in a contract. I may well be very wrong in my memory about these categories. And internet copyrights are… changing the way that copyright is interpreted with legal concensus still a bit unsettled.
As for negotiating non-exclusive rights… that’s usually something that is reserved for known authors.
Mind you, I’m not complaining that I’m being treated unfairly by these people. It’s a gripe that I’d like to correct, but the world won’t end if I don’t get it fixed. I am sure I had better knowledge of what I was selling that 90% of the people writing for them. And I still chose to do it.
There is no such thing as “internet copyrights.” A copyright is a copyright. The new internet interpretation is that anybody can rip off anybody and who the hell cares. There’s wholesale violation of copyrights by people who should know better, but just don’t give a damn.
I think selling full rights pretty much places you completely out of the picture. You SOLD YOUR COPYRIGHT.
Non-exclusive rights are not just usually reserved for known authors. For articles, it’s quite common for publishers to buy first rights, maybe rights to a reprint in an anthology, or on the internet for posting the article for a specific length of time. Then use reverts to the author.
When you sell “full rights” that’s everything, reprint rights, television and movie rights, foreign rights, setting it to music. . .anything at all forever.
The difference between the other rights you mention (which are expressed incorrectly - your memory is apparently a little faulty) and full rights, are that the former are licenses of rights. You license a limited use of your property - carefully spelled out - for a fee.
A sale of full rights is legally an entirely different transaction.
Again, full rights mean full rights. The new owner can do anything with the property, including removing the byline. Nobody would mention that separately because it’s part of the concept of “full.”
As VernWinterbottom says, non-exclusive rights are - or should be - the default, not something that needs to be reserved for known authors. Anybody who starts with full rights is trying to take you. And internet copyrights are indeed identical to any other form of copyright. People want you to think they’re different so that they can rip you off more easily.
Electronic documents should be sold exactly the way print articles are. Exclusive rights to post for a limited period of time, followed by non-exclusive posting or return to the author, along with compilation (anthology) rights. Nothing more.
Of course publishers will try to get more. Sleazy print publishers have been doing this since the dawn of copyright. Today sleazy Internet publishers are similarly trying to take advantage of writers. The only way to stop them is to show that you know your rights, and want to be paid fairly for your work, which you keep ultimate control over.
All rights sales (that’s the term I’m more familiar with than full rights) leave you with no recourse, and there is a long body of law to sustain publishers in this.
Talk first, though. It’s remarkable what that can accomplish.