[Coco] Republishing Magazines

[Dennis Bathory-Kitsz]

At 08:48 PM 12/26/03 -1000, Alex wrote:
>Lets get into a fuzzier area.  Let us say an issue of a magazine that 
>you had written an article for had sold so well that the publisher 
>decided that it wished to make another print run.  Would this 
>constitute republication, or more of the first publication.  If that 
>was still the first publication, how much later could this second print 
>run be made and still be considered the first publication.

Contracts almost always cover print runs, and frequently detail the exact
change in payment for second, third, fourth (etc.) runs. It would only
become fuzzy if the contract omitted this, and I've never seen one that
forgets this key clause. It's important to both author and publisher that
this be detailed carefully.

>I would figure that if the publisher has the right of republication in 
>the first place, unless the contract restricted the media that it could 
>be republished in, then the media that they use for republication is 
>immaterial, whether it be microfiche, CD-ROM, engraving on the head of 
>a pin or whatnot.

You've re-presented the original problem. The publishers want that
unrestricted right to republish, but contracts have traditionally spelled
out the media in which the material can be re-used.

Remember this important point: This is not work in which copyright is
*transferred*. It is work that the author owns, and has granted (through a
contract) specific terms by which the publisher may use that work.

Failure to specify the media does not give a publisher the right to publish
in any medium. But they are trying to bend the law to make such contracts
possible -- in other words, to usurp the author's right to license the
material pre-emptively.

>Personally, as far as how things should be, I feel that should an 
>author transfer his rights on a work (i.e. works for hire), the 
>duration of the copyright should only last as long as they would upon 
>the death of the author (involuntary transferral of rights), and that 
>copyrights should revert to the public domain after a relatively short 
>period after the authors death, but long enough for the owner to get 
>the primary remuneration for the work, say 10-20 years.

See my note to Gene on this.

Dennis