Origami Unicorn

Julie of the Wolves Litigation

The dispute between HarperCollins and Open Road moves to a new stage, with one side arguing for lots of damges, and the other for little to none. Publishers Weekly explains.

Ebook Publishing Rights

In a case that may set precedents for cases where ebooks rights were not specificialy granted to the print publishers, Open Road has appealed the judgement against it. Publishers Weekly has details and speculation.

Open Road attorneys argued, noting that despite its win in court, Harper does not have the right to sell Julie of the Wolves e-books without the author's consent, "which it has never obtained" owing to "a fundamental disagreement as to a fair e-book royalty."

Which would mean that no on holds the rights, although the author tried to grant them to Open Road before her death.

At its heart, however, as Open Road's brief suggests, the case is more about e-book royalties. HarperCollins signed George’s Julie of the Wolves in 1971, for a $2000 advance and has since sold over 3.8 million copies in print. But according to court filings, Harper has refused to budge from a 25% net royalty on e-book sales, which George, before her death in May 2012, deemed fundamentally unfair. Open Road paid George a 50% e-book royalty.

Related articles

Open Road and HarperCollins battle over ebook rights to Julie of the Wolves

Authors Guild Statement on the Hathi Trust Ruling

"We received yesterday’s Second Circuit decision in Authors Guild v. HathiTrust with mixed feelings. The decision was not a total victory for either side. While the Court, over our objections, allowed HathiTrust to maintain its database of digitized books in light of the present security protections, the Court was clear that any breach of that security leaves HathiTrust at risk of future litigation—"

Publishers Weekly reviews the case and reprints the statement in full.

Related articles

QuickWire: Authors Guild Responds to HathiTrust Ruling

Hathi Trust Verdict Upheld

Judge Baer rejected those arguments, writing that he could not imagine “a definition of fair use” that would compel him to shut down what he called an “invaluable contribution to the progress of science and cultivation of the arts.”

Publishers Weekly has the details. Also, the Authors Guild cannot bring infringment suits on behalf of its members and the (discontinued) Orphan Works Project was not to be adjudicated yet.

Related articles

Court of Appeals Sides With HathiTrust in Fair Use Case

Fair Use: Appeals Court Rules in Favor of HathiTrust in Authors Guild Case

Reselling Copyrighted Goods

At a rare New York-based Congressional hearing, Wiley president and CEO Stephen Smith told members of the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, that Congress should address the fallout from a key 2013 Supreme Court decision that has hurt the company's international business.

Publishers Weekly covers the field hearing, but the implications extend to reselling ebooks and music tracks.

Related articles

Kirtsaeng and Copyright: First sale means first sale

'You can't resell that' - A guide to today's Supreme Court copyright case

Laches and Copyright

Forbes reports that a whole basket of snakes has stirred to life with a Supreme Court decision:

[T]he Supreme Court announced its decision in Petrella v. MGM, a copyright case centering on whether laches—an unreasonable delay in bringing suit, causing prejudice to the defendant—bars suits where an act specifies a statute of limitations.

And it then cites some well known issues and adds:

The more typical post-Petrella cases will involve people who thought for decades that their works were stolen, but had decided not to sue, and after time, could not find a lawyer to take the case.

Related articles

Breaking news: SCOTUS casts shadow on Led Zep defence to Taurus claim

Supreme Court Ensures Copyright Suit against MGM "Rages" On

What To Do About Fan Fiction?

Publishers Weekly explores the world of fan fiction and how it could be made legitimate.

Bankruptcy, Ebook Rights, and MacAdam Cage

Despite complaints from former MacAdam Cage authors that they have not received e-book royalties or regular statements for years, Mark Pearce, publisher of MP Publishing, the publisher and e-book distributor that controls their e-book rights, claims all royalties have been paid and all statements are up to date. Pearce blames the legacy of problems at MacAdam Cage on its late publisher, David Poindexter, although he is urging former MacAdam Cage authors to contact him to resolve disputes over post-bankrutpcy e-book rights to their titles.

Publishers Weekly discusses the matter in some detail; the discussion is of interest to any author faced with a publisher's bankruptcy.

Related articles

Source of Lit - MacAdam/Cage!!!

Audrey Neffenegger

The Authors Guild Appeals

The Authors Guild has appealed the decision in the Google scanning case. Publishers Weekly has the story.

The language in the AG's latest appeal seeks to counter Judge Chin’s view that the Google Books project “provides significant public benefits," while maintaining "respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders,” as Chin wrote in his November, 2013 decision.

Related articles

Authors Guild asks US court to rule against Google

Copyright, Cafe Press, and DMCA

Plagarism Today talks about:

[A lawsuit that] centers around the popular printing site CafePress and, specifically, whether or not the service qualifies as an online service provider that should receive protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

In short, although Cafe Press avoided major damages because the content owner only registered copyright after the material was uploaded to Cafe Press, the damages could have gone into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. More notewrothy, Cafe Press did not qualify for safe harbor protections.