|
Contracts with publishers -
Fundamentals As authors of
papers and monographs and editors of collective volumes, we are required to
sign contracts with publishers. Such contracts are necessary not only to set
out the precise duties and rights of all parties to the agreement, but also
to protect them. Actually, since academic books in TS have a limited market
and royalties never amount to huge sums, such protection is not essential for
authors/editors. It can be much more important for the publishers, who could
be taken to court by other publishers for violating copyrights and have to
pay large sums. Out of honesty and out of respect for publishers who often
take financial risks when publishing our work, copyright clauses should be
taken seriously and observed. On the other
hand, there is no reason why scholars should grant exclusive copyrights
forever to the publisher. Depending on the book or the paper, the publisher
may make virtually all of the sales within 5 years from the date of
publication and lose very little if the product is distributed for free
afterwards. For the scholar’s career, it may be important to be able to
distribute his/her article for a far longer time. Why not change the terms of
the contract proposed by the publisher, for instance by introducing the
possibility for the author to put her/his paper online on her/his personal
website, either from the time of publication or a few years after the date of
publication of the hard copy? A contract is
not the law. It is a commitment by two or more parties, and can be and should
be negotiated until its terms meet the interests of all parties. Publishers
find it convenient to propose a standard contract, with standard clauses,
drafted by lawyers who have in mind the interests of their client (the
publisher), not the interests of individual scholars. Some provisions in
standard contracts (provided by one party) are unjustified and entail
unacceptable risks to the other party. Examples will be given in another
contribution on this site. Many people disregard them, saying that it is
unlikely that they will be implemented. Just as unlikely as an accident in
which you might injure someone and have to pay huge amounts in damages. Do
you conclude from that that you can drive your car without taking out an
insurance policy? Insurance costs money – negotiating changes in a
contract before it is signed does not. There is no reason why scholars should
accept standard contracts as they are. They can and should read them
carefully, and negotiate changes in provisions which they do not like. In my
experience, publishers have often been reasonable about it. |
|
|