I have been published without my permission!

[Santino]

Quite. I think tho OP's been a bit daft and precious and has cut their nose off to spite their own face here

Precious, moi?

 

[rutabowa]

And how would a licence to use the work exist, absent either payment or written agreement that there be none?

noone is saying that s/he shouldn't be paid, where d'you get that from?

 

[untethered]

And how would a licence to use the work exist, absent either payment or written agreement that there be none?

A licence doesn't have to be written or explicit.

u75 is publishing your words here and I doubt there is a written, explicit licence in place saying that they can do so.

Would you be entitled to sue u75 for breach of copyright?

I'm curious to know why you want to dress this open-and-shut case of a publisher forgetting to send out a written contract as something that needs to be pursued under copyright law when it seems perfectly clear to me that the publisher is willing to compensate accordingly and the author is happy for the work to remain in print.

 

[laptop]

noone is saying that s/he shouldn't be paid, where d'you get that from?

I'm not and I didn't.

untethered is attempting to argue something which is, as I understand it, contrary to court practice and to law.

He should be paid.

If he isn't paid, there is no licence to publish his work (unless he's actually agreed in writing that there is one...)

 

[laptop]

u75 is publishing your words here and I doubt there is a written, explicit licence in place saying that they can do so.

But you shouldn't just "doubt", you should learn: http://www.urban75.org/info/copyright.html

 

[untethered]

If he isn't paid, there is no licence to publish his work (unless he's actually agreed in writing that there is one...)

That's not true.

If the OP wants to explicitly argue that he didn't want his work to be published, he should do so.

Otherwise, he should simply demand that the publisher fulfils their part of the bargain, which is to pay him in return for the licence to publish, which is contingent on the contract and will only evaporate if it is deemed that the contract is in breach.

What you seem to be saying is that publishing someone's work without having completed payment according to the publishing contract at the time of publication is a breach of copyright. That's nonsense. It's more the rule rather than the exception in most forms of publishing.

Now how about letting us in on your opinion of whether u75 has a licence to publish your work here or whether you would be entitled to sue for breach of copyright?

 

[Lowrider]

I love the way he ladles on the flattery towards the end.

To be honest, I'm with the publishers on this one. You should have a contract, it's absolutely true. But if you are interested in pursuing freelance writing work (and I don't know how much experience you have in this), in my experience it's worth being flexible.

While you have a perfectly valid point, from the publisher's point of view, you simply never supplied the entries they thought you would, so they had to write them. They will take your response to mean you are thinking of trying to get the run pulped, so they will see you as obstructive and difficult after they offered to pay you.

I realise this comes over as very critical but I genuinely don't see what you want to get out of this or where you expect to go?

Take the money! Run!

LR

PS: Is this another solid gold post whoever was kind enough to say that? Now I've broken my one-a-year rule. Damn. see you in 09!

 

[rutabowa]

untethered is attempting to argue something which is, as I understand it, contrary to court practice and to law.

He should be paid.

If he isn't paid, there is no licence to publish his work (unless he's actually agreed in writing that there is one...)

as i understand it he is just saying it is in everyone's best interests not to make a big deal out of it, when it's just a simple mistake. but if the OP doesn't care about getting any more work in the field and want to really piss off the publisher then i am sure your legal advice is correct, it just seems a bit pointless and counterproductive and a waste of energy to do that, do you not agree?

 

[untethered]

But you shouldn't just "doubt", you should learn: http://www.urban75.org/info/copyright.html

Fine, that's the situation in this case.

How about a situation where an online bulletin board is operating without a written statement on copyright and licensing?

Would you encourage someone to sue for breach of copyright where they had voluntarily submitted work with the clear understanding that it would be published?

More's the point, would there in fact be a licence, or not?

 

[coccinelle]

IMO there would be an implicit free licence for the site but for nothing else.

Submitting material for consideration implies no licence to publish. Sending stuff for publication obviously does imply a licence but this would be provisional on a fee being paid.

 

[Spion]

To be honest, I'm with the publishers on this one. You should have a contract, it's absolutely true. But if you are interested in pursuing freelance writing work (and I don't know how much experience you have in this), in my experience it's worth being flexible.

While you have a perfectly valid point, from the publisher's point of view, you simply never supplied the entries they thought you would, so they had to write them. They will take your response to mean you are thinking of trying to get the run pulped, so they will see you as obstructive and difficult after they offered to pay you.

I realise this comes over as very critical but I genuinely don't see what you want to get out of this or where you expect to go?

Take the money! Run!

LR

PS: Is this another solid gold post whoever was kind enough to say that? Now I've broken my one-a-year rule. Damn. see you in 09!

Yep, seems about the shape of things

 

[London_Calling]

I have to say, I didn't have this much trouble when trying to get my seminal masterwork 'Snatches of Penge' published.

'kin Prima Donnas

 

[laptop]

if the OP doesn't care about getting any more work in the field and want to really piss off the publisher then i am sure your legal advice is correct

My actual advice to the OP, if you look back, was to invoice for twice what they'd have paid if they'd negotiated a licence nicely.

Not to sue.

In fact the clear implication of my warning that, since the end of last year, Small Claims Courts in England and Wales will not hear such cases, is a warning not to sue.

All the rest of my posts were responses to people arguing that they should have the right to make up the law and the practice rules of the civil courts

 

[rutabowa]

All the rest of my posts were responses to people arguing that they should have the right to make up the law and the practice rules of the civil courts

um i think you misunderstood their posts if you think that to be honest

 

[untethered]

In fact the clear implication of my warning that, since the end of last year, Small Claims Courts in England and Wales will not hear such cases, is a warning not to sue.

I don't imagine any court will entertain a claim for breach of copyright when there is no dispute over the licence and the complainant hasn't actually requested payment from the defendant in pursuit of the contract.

But hey, I'll defer to your expertise if you like.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

So what happened in the end?

 

[Idris2002]

Interesting thread.

Whenever I submit something to a publisher I put a little copyright notice at the bottom of every page.

© Idris2002 2008

 

[Jonti]

But you don't need to, not any more. You have copyright on your own words by default.

Just being pedantic; it may well be worth being clear that you are not assigning any copyrights in any way, for the avoidance of misunderstand.

 

[LJo]

Would I be correct in thinking that just putting a copyright sign at the end of your work means bugger-all in law? Sorry, just interested...

 

[Jonti]

Not exactly, it just doesn't give the any rights that you don't have anyway -- but it may avoid confusion.

 

[untethered]

Would I be correct in thinking that just putting a copyright sign at the end of your work means b-all in law? Sorry, just interested...

It's worth pointing out who owns the copyright so that people that might want to licence it know who to ask.

 

[laptop]

Would I be correct in thinking that just putting a copyright sign at the end of your work means bugger-all in law? Sorry, just interested...

Yes, it has no legal effect but some practical effect.

Bizarrely, if you want to enforce your rights to be named as the author of your work and to object to distortion of your work, you have to put something like "moral rights asserted".

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So what happened in the end?

The plane took off.

 

[Santino]

I've been offered £50 and three copies of the book.

 

[baldrick]

what did you say?

is that pretty much standard payment?

 

[Maurice Picarda]

I've been offered £50 and three copies of the book.

Fight for £45 but only two copies.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

inovice them for an amount plus the cost of infringment of copyright to settle and then also demand that all remaining copies are pulped....

 

[kabbes]

I've been offered £50 and three copies of the book.

One of which is mine, remember.

 

[selamlar]

I've been offered £50 and three copies of the book.

That doesn't sound very much?

 

[5t3IIa]

Fight for £45 but only two copies.

You make me lol