On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Tavis Allison wrote: > > Is there a reason why a simple work-for-hire agreement wouldn't meet > > all of the author's needs in this instance? > > The right to be credited as the author of the work is an important one that > the OGL handles poorly but that work-for-hire negates altogether.
The OGL doesn't deal at all with this concept; it's not meant to. That's a matter between the author and the publisher, not the author and some third-party licensor. As for work-for-hire negating the concept, that's a common misconception based on the way many companies craft their work-for-hire agreements. There's nothing in the concept that makes it mandatory that a company not give the author credit while buying the work as work-for-hire; heck, it's been years since I signed a work-for-hire contracts that didn't have author credit stipulations in it. > One could > write a guarantee that the author will be credited for the writing they do > into a work-for-hire contract, but as a publisher I wouldn't feel > comfortable offering such a guarantee since I might be held in breach if I > release that work as OGC, allowing another publisher to reprint it with > another author's name on the title page (relegating my author's name to a > Section 15 mention alone). Well then, the publisher should include a clause in his work-for-hire contract that says something like "Author will be credited as originator of the Work in any future publications by Publisher that make use of original text from the Work." That way the publisher is promising you that your name will forever be attached to the work, and at the same time disclaiming what other publishers might do with it. (The publisher might, though, want to change that to "make substantial use," so that he won't have to give you cover credit if he borrows a single sentence from a single feat that he then modifies heavily.) You and the publisher can then negotiate over the form the credit will take: do you get your name on the front cover, on the back cover, on the credits page, or in Section 15? And if you're still worried (as a publisher) about the possible breach of contract caused by the release of the content as OGC, then include a clause in the contract stating that "Author understands that certain parts of the Work will be released as Open Game Content under the strictures of the Open Game License v.1.0a" and then the publisher and the author, either separately or as part of the main contract, negotiate the details of exactly what parts of the Work will be Open, what will be Closed, and what will be PI. Plus, if the publisher includes the author's name in the Section 15 notice (which a lot of them do, in the form Book copyright 2005, Publisher; Author's name), then your name is guaranteed to follow your OGC throughout time so long as the other publishers in the chain follow the OGL rules. Heck, in this way your name is going to be spread far and wide in Section 15s that don't even necessarily have any of your OGC in them, due to the nature of Section 15 duplication. If, on the other hand, having your name follow your work only in the Section 15s of other publishers isn't sufficient for you, then the answer is not to publish your work under the OGL. (Or to write a lot of Closed Content to wrap around your OGC; the OGL controls how the Open Content will be dealt with, but you and the publisher can make the decisions regarding the Closed Content.) > I'm interested in the licensing possibility you raise; how would that work? Understanding that I've never been directly involved in one of these, basically what you do is instead of selling your work to the publisher, you license the work to him. The two of you write up a contract that establishes payment (which can be lump sum or royalties, or a combination of the two; just like with a work-for-hire contract), how the book will be credited, what the Section 15 will look like, and who'll have what rights to sell, reprint, excerpt, promote, extend, etc. the work. The license can be limited in duration or it can be permanent (with a provision that it reverts one way or the other with the death of the writer or the company). The advantage to the licensing scheme is that you get more control over what happens with your work. Depending on what you feel is important to you, you can demand approval over the cover graphics, the ability to refuse editorial suggestions; whatever you and the publisher can agree to. The disadvantage to the licensing scheme is that you're asking the publisher to make concessions to you, so you're going to have to make concessions to the publisher, most of which will come in the form of money: the more control you want (i.e., the more rights you want to retain for yourself), the smaller the amount of money you can expect the publisher to want to give you (since he's paying for fewer rights that he otherwise would be). Some publishers would likely refuse a licensing deal over content that they would normally buy outright, because it requires extra work on their part, so be warned. Spike Y Jones _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
