The literary blogosphere erupted last week after HarperCollins announced that it is creating a new publishing start-up venture with a strategy to minimize some of the business risks trade publishers now face. Specifically, the plan envisions a new publishing model in which authors would receive little or no advances and booksellers would no longer be able to return unsold books as has long been the practice. In place of advances, authors would receive 50 percent of the royalties earned.

Not surprisingly, some authors viewed the plan as heretical. Others, however, noted that in view of the challenges facing the trade publishing industry, fresh thinking is long overdue.

By nearly eliminating author advances, HarperCollins’ new publishing unit aims to attract authors who might otherwise be considered too risky. Those include new authors who are yet unproven and successful authors interested in writing different kinds of a books than what they’re known for. The publisher plans to release about 25 books a year in multiple formats.

It is unclear how retailers ultimately will react to the prospect of getting stuck with unsold books. These aren’t good times for most booksellers, as was evidenced by reports that the second largest book retailer, Borders, is strapped for cash and may sell the business. Conceivably booksellers might demand a larger cut of the sale if they can no longer send returns back to the publisher.

Share This

After three years of hearings, studies and deliberation, the Section 108 Study Group has posted its final report on how to bring the special provision of the U.S. Copyright Act regarding libraries and archives into the digital age. The results reflect the difficulty of balancing the interests of copyright holders, libraries and archives.

The Study Group recommended a number of legislative changes to Section 108 to facilitate preservation and archiving of published and unpublished material, unrestricted online content and television news programs. The report also reviewed many issues on which the members—often divided between the interests of rights holders and librarians—could not reach full agreement.

There were no major bombshells in the report. Interestingly, the Study Group identified, but refrained from proposing recommendations on, a number of significant copyright issues worthy of further study and consideration. These included the use of movies and other non-text-based materials in the library context, technology circumvention and e-reserves.

Nineteen copyright experts served on the Section 108 Study Group, which was co-chaired by UNC School of Law Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Laura Gasaway and Richard Rudick, retired Senior Vice President and General Counsel of John Wiley and Sons (and Vice Chairman of Copyright Clearance Center’s Board of Directors). The Study Group’s report may be used by the Copyright Office to draft legislative recommendations to Congress.

The group’s years of effort and the resulting report illustrate just how challenging it is to find consensus on copyright issues and, ultimately, how daunting the task of writing copyright legislation can be. Yet the pace of technological and social change around the topic has led to calls in some quarters to consider a revising of the 1976 Act for a new generation (just as the 1976 Act replaced the 1909 Act). Whether it will come to that in the near term is doubtful, but the pressures being created in the digital environment are equally hard to ignore.

Share This