Copyright

 

There has been an on-going thread on Twitter about book copyright, how long it should last, why authors should get copyright protection in the first place.  Some pundits say that copyright protection should last 5 years or 30 years, but no longer!

It has taken me a while to consider this argument.  I have heard authors of 'popular' fiction, authors of more scholarly books on the one hand, heard people saying that no one deserves to make money off their work indefinitely.  Authors explain that the 'long tail' income from previously published books is what allows them to live from their creative work instead of needing to take another kind of job to pay the bills.

People sometimes ask me how I feel about people selling on my books and honestly?  I do wish I could have charged more for the original Magic because that book was expensive to create.  Someone asked me how much profit I made off it.  Honestly?  I have no idea.  I don't know how much it cost to produce - I stopped counting the expense when I used up the two loans I took out.  I didn't count my own labour.  I didn't count how much I paid my then studio assistant to prep, weave, inspect/repair, wet finish/press the samples.  I didn't count the hours upon hours it took to cut the samples up - the unfinished ones taped on all four sides to keep them from falling apart, or the hours upon hours it took to staple the samples to the pages.  And then the cost of the storage of the books, pre-assembly, then post assembly, until the last of them was finally sold.  

In the end, I suppose I am 'in' profit now, but that is for the digital version for which I photographed all the samples and paid someone to float them into the text, then create the PDF.  Then the person who converted it to upload to blurb as a 'test' before I committed to publishing The Intentional Weaver there, too.

When I tell people how much financing I had for the book, then continued to fund the production of it out of my income, they are staggered.  

So frankly?  If either of these publications are still desired after 5 or 30 years, why shouldn't I profit from them?  They are my work, after all.  For those people who sell them on?  I'm glad they aren't just dumping them into the garbage.  I'm glad the knowledge will continue.  But those original buyers paid me my price, and we're square.

My beef is with those people who say that authors should not continue to profit from the creativity, and yes, labour, that they poured into their creations.

I took control of my books myself, from start to finish, hiring professionals for the jobs I could not do on my own.   Self publishing means no one else controls my copyright but me.

My editor wants me to set up a literary executrix, and I know I should do that, but I'm having trouble making that decision.  Do I want my books to continue after I'm gone?  I do.  Do I want to put that responsibility onto someone else?  Not really.

On the other hand, books by M. P. Davison continue to be published by her family and we continue to use her books now, many years after initial publication.  Other authors who published like Margaret Atwater, Harriet Tidball, Mary Black, continue to have their books used and referred to even now. 

Peter Collingwood assigned his books to the Arizona Archive as well as Paul O'Conner (I believe).  I suppose that is an option.

But to say that once a creative person has had 5 or even 30 years on income from their creation and now it's free to anyone else to take and make money from?  People like Disney might have something to say about creative works and how long copyright needs to last...

(All of these issues apply to visual artists, musicians, any person making things out of their own creativity and labour.)