Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="silentspace" data-source="post: 1386534" data-attributes="member: 14316">Just so I understand (and please correct me if I don't)...1 - Publishers (such as NYT and Paizo) were not allowed to create and sell print copies of freelancer's work (such as compilations of past articles) without some sort of further renumeration to the freelancers?2 - In order to get around this limitation, the publishers sold electronic copies of the work, since the copyright laws were less clear on this issue?  This way they can collect profits without having to deal with the inconvenience of paying the producers of the work.3 - The Supreme Court ruled in the Tasinin case that the copyright protections that freelancers have for their creative work also applies to electronic, not just print copies.4 - Since the Tasini case, freelance contracts now include the rights of publisher to re-issue work in electronic form?  Does that also include print copies?5 - Since the Tasini case, a new case with National Geographic has set a new precedent, whereby publishers are now allowed to release compilations of previously submitted work without further paying the creators?Is this right?The general feeling here on the boards seems to be that publishers should be allowed to sell electronic copies of freelancer's work without paying freelancers.  Just out of curiousity, why does everyone feel that way?  Is it really because the freelancers will refuse to allow republication because they think the rights are worth "millions"?  Is that what people here really think?  It seems more likely that they would ask for some sort of nominal fee (as opposed to nothing), with maybe some tiny fraction of royalties if the thing sells really well.Or is it because you only want the folks at Paizo to get your money, and don't like the idea of them giving a part of it to the creators of the work? Or is it because you feel that any work, once created, should be in the public domain?  (In which case the compilation should really be free) Please help me understand this.  I don't really understand copyright issues.  Thanks.</blockquote>

Verification