I’m looking for information about copyrights and novels, but search engines aren’t helping me much.
First, suppose a novelist makes plot related editorial changes that his agent serving in the role of editor suggested. Does the agent then become part owner of the new work since the ideas for the revised plot were his?
Second, suppose a novelist has a copyright on file (or one pending approval) for his work and makes changes to the end of his work. Does the new ending affect the full benefits he would’ve received from the initial copyright that he filed? In other words, say Character A lives in the ending of the copyrighted work but dies in the new ending of a revised manuscript. Does the new ending involving the death of Character A constitute a change significant enough to make the revised manuscript a different/derivative work and, subsequently, require a new copyright claim to be filed?
Third, how similar can the plot of one novel be to that of another novel’s without there being a copyright violation? For instance, suppose Novel One’s plot is that an infertile high school music teacher kidnaps a young girl and forces her to learn piano because the former has always dreamed of having a child proficient in playing. Can Novel Two’s plot be identical, but with different characters and a different location, without violating the copyright of Novel One? Further, what if Novel Two’s plot is similar but not identical (like, say, an infertile high school music teacher kidnaps a young boy and forces him to learn trumpet for the same reason) is there a copyright violation then?
Thank you for the correction. It’s clearly not an absolute, but there’s a point where if you rip off too much it’s copyright infringement. Where that point is is the fun question.
First, the author retains all copyright even for changes introduced during the process. Exceptions are so rare that I can’t even think of one. Agents, BTW, almost never do any rewriting. (Again, there may be exceptions but they are quite rare.) Editors do. You can build a ski resort on top of the stories of editors putting new titles on, rewriting, adding to, slashing to bits, or completely starting from scratch. That makes no more difference than the changes copywriters or proofreaders introduce.
Second, copyright law works a little differently than you think. Everything you write - including your post and mine and everything else on the Web - is copyrighted in your name the moment you set it in permanent form. What you’re probably thinking of is registering that copyright. Registering does fix a certain form in place; it accrues from the moment that the form is received. A significant change would require a separate registration.
Third, copyright infringement is whatever a court says it is. Nowhere in the law do you find specifics that indicate how much difference is legal or how much sameness you can get away with. In layman’s terms, you look at the two and make a reasonable decision about whether infringement has taken place. Few cases ever get to court because they are so expensive, so it’s hard to say just where the lines are drawn. Like a lot of other things, it probably depends on how good your lawyer is. The page you linked to is a good summary and a good example of “I know it when I see” law.
There is a legal concept of scenes a faire that establishes that you can’t copyright basic plots. Although it was argued in a copyright infringement case against a movie producer that “both the book and the film begin with the murder of a black and a white policeman with a handgun at close range; both depict cockfights, drunks, stripped cars, prostitutes and rats; both feature as central characters third- or fourth-generation Irish policemen who live in Queens and frequently drink; both show disgruntled, demoralized police officers and unsuccessful foot chases of fleeing criminals.”, that wasn’t enough to establish a copyright violation, since these are integral to such a police story.
Thanks for the response. I’m confused though. I did a word search for “editor” and “editing” in the link you provided and didn’t see any basis for thinking that editing is work for hire. I hope I didn’t skip over a relevant passage that says as much in different terms.
You’re right: that’s what I had in mind. On a related note, my understanding of the law is that a registered copyright allows me to recoup legal expenses if I demonstrate infringement. Is my understanding correct? If so, then why would it be the case that it would be expensive for a novelist to bring a suit against someone that he believes has stolen his work? Most attorneys don’t get paid unless their client wins, so I don’t see how it would be expensive for the novelist filing suit, especially if he wins and has a registered copyright.
A top lawyer is not going to accept a case on contingency if he sees that the other side is going to drag it out for years and bury him in work unless the possibility of a large payout is significant. If it’s a 50/50 crap shoot and it looks like the maximum payout is going to be a few thousand dollars, he might offer you the option of paying his hourly rate (win or lose) or just pass on the case altogether.
Of course, any dispute can be avoided by having anyone to whom you give your manuscript sign the appropriate agreement first. An ounce of prevention and all.
First question: No, your agent makes changes that makes the work more salable, and then takes a commission when the work is sold. (And that is the only time you should pay an agent. Most will also deduct things like copies and mailing charges but these will be itemized, and most will not deduct them until they have sold your work.)
If you hire an editor and the editor suggests changes and you make them–same thing. It’s still your work.
Second question: You hold copyright on your work as soon as you have finished it. Or any version of it. When you do the thing where you send the work off to the LOC it should pretty much be finished, but a few editorial change aren’t going to nullify your copyright.
Third question: You can’t copyright ideas. There are tons of books out there whose plots are very similar to other books. If you didn’t steal the exact wording and the exact characters you should be fine.
Can you elaborate on this agreement? Are you saying that if I write a novel about insect ninjas who are all left-handed that I can (or should) ask any agent reviewing my manuscript to sign a form to the effect that s/he won’t write or represent another work of fiction about left-handed insect ninjas?
Your reference to “a few editorial changes” is the point of contention, the criteria for which I don’t begin to understand. I agree with Exapno Mapcase when s/he said:
Would you (or anyone else) consider the death of a character in a revised manuscript (who didn’t die in the registered manuscript) significant enough to warrant a new registration? If I understand Exapno Mapcase, it sounds like s/he would.
If you are a nobody, you should be grateful to get anybody to read your work and you should try to annoy them as little as possible. If you are JK Rowling, your legal staff will work with the agent’s legal staff to arrive at a mutually satisfactory agreement. If you fall somewhere in between, you should consult with a qualified intellectual property attorney.
You write something, you own copyright.
You revise it and republish it with a better ending, that new version is also copyright.
If your agent or editor suggested changes, well I hope you give them a nice commission, because unless the new words are theirs, and substantial, I doubt they have a case.
If your agent had not written his own story with substantially the same plot etc. as he suggested, before yours, he’s outta luck.
(So many SF authors complain - guy comes up to them with an idea, says “you write my idea, we split the profits.” No, if it’s so good, you write the book. If you can’t write a good book around an idea, then you have learned an important detail about authorship. )
Of course, copyright expiry is irrelevant for your versions of the book, because they all expire the same time depending on when you die.
The exception might be the Star Wars revisions that George Lucas made, or similar. Technically these are corporate works (?) and the clock starts ticking when they are “published” (released?) as a work. Thus Star Wars would expire in 70+ years, but SW-IV-ANH with the added computer effects is a new work and copyright from when he modified/destroyed the original. In 2048 you can publish your own special public-domain version which contains scenes from the original only.
Theoretically Steamboat Willie will be pubic domain if Congress does not do as it is (handsomely) paid by lobbyists to do, soon, and extend the PD deadline even further. They you will be able to issue copies of it, or use stills to advertise your copy, but you cannot otherwise use Mickey thanks to both copyright and trademark restrictions.
The characters and plotlines from the other Star Wars movies continue to be copyright until they expire. But again, if the characters are continuing products they are covered.
The thing is, if your product is too close a copy of an existing copyright work, then you are essentially copying it - building on the success of an existing franchise. How close you have to come, depends on the level of parallel detail and the quality of the lawyers.
Star Wars and Harry Potter have a lot of parallel details (“special” orphan, fighting basic evil, “magical” powers, etc.) but are different enough that they can both exist. Star Wars tried to sue the original Battlestar Galaxative when it first came out (tiny fighter spaceships, big motherships, maverick pilot guy, etc. but that case got tossed - too different. Nobody either has a lock on teen vampire romances, wizard child boarding schools, etc.
There was even some question whether David “Trouble WIth Tribbles” Gerrold had ripped off a Heinlein novel. In this case, the author declined to make a federal case out of it. Note the one concept is the same (plain furballs that breed out of control) but the overall plots are wildly different.
Yes, registration allows for attorney’s fees and for statutory damages, which can be as high as $150,000 per work.
It is absolutely not true that most attorneys don’t get paid unless their client wins. You’re seeing too many movies, in which an indigent client is eligible for a payoff in the millions if the attorney wins. That seldom happens in real life. In most class actions suits, for example, the attorneys take one-third of the money with the remaining money spread out over millions of clients.
And this will never, ever happen in a copyright suit. You’re going to want a top-notch intellectual property attorney who will charge hundreds of dollars an hour. Expect the case to last years, though many delays and levels of court, totaling thousands of billable hours. All out of your pocket.
Actually, I just heard a lecture on copyright over the weekend by a copyright lawyer who said that most of their cases were taken on a contingency basis. This was a specific subcategory of copyright law – copyright of paintings and photos – but evidently the amount they can make in contingency cases is enough for them to waive their $525/hour fees.
He told of a case where he asked an infringer to pay a standard $5k licensing fee to avoid litigation; the infringer refused and ended up losing and paying over $100k in damages and lawyer’s fees.
Making changes probably won’t affect the status of a registered copyright; it might come into play if only the changed portion was copied, but I would think the courts would say, “close enough” and nail the infringer. If the work had a proper copyright notice and registration, pointing out the changes is not going to carry much weight.
Still, changes in The Lord of the Rings allowed Tolkien to regain American copyright over the work after it accidentally went into the public domain.