One of the things that Steve Jobs promised us with the iPad was an age of all-singing, all-dancing ebooks. No longer would we be constrained by the limitations of pure text. Characters would speak to us, soothing music would guide us through the descriptive packages, and video would replace our imaginations (now assumed to be atrophied through too many years of TV and movie special effects). It’s doubtful if one person is capable of of producing all the material needed for such a multimedia package. How many movie producers do you know, for example, who are great musicians and who can write books and take and edit pro-quality photographs?
Well, quite apart from the hassle of producing such a publication (and actually, a simple text-only ebook is not altogether simple), there’s another objection why this just ain’t gonna happen. Tony Woodlief in the Wall Street Journal points out that the issues of obtaining permission and copyright for such multimedia “quotes” can end up being more trouble than they’re worth. He cites his own experience:
When I asked to use a single line by songwriter Joe Henry, for example, his record label’s parent company demanded $150 for every 7,500 copies of my book. Assuming I sell enough books to earn back my modest advance, this amounts to roughly 1.5% of my earnings, all for quoting eight words from one of Mr. Henry’s songs.
I love Joe Henry, but the price was too high. I replaced him with Shakespeare, whose work (depending on which edition you use) is in the public domain. Mr. Henry’s record label may differ, but it’s not clear that his interests —or theirs—are being served here.
And this is only for quotations using words. If you start adding music, images or video to your “vook” (video book) is going to really make the lawyers happy. Here’s another look at the process:
“Though an enhanced e-book would appear to be a digital product, in fact most of the processes necessary to produce it rely on the traditional and extremely tedious tasks of clearing rights and permissions, something publishers and agents have been doing for a century. For nothing more than a single image you will have to track down the credit line for the photographer or artist to give proper attribution; then you need to ascertain the source – where was it originally published? Then you must examine the contract to learn the terms by which the image was acquired. One time use only? Or did the purchaser buy rights in perpetuity? If the latter, you need to locate the purchaser to negotiate permission. If you’re using the image worldwide you need to clear permission with copyright owners in each territory (North American, UK, foreign language publishers, etc.
“And that’s for one image. If you use dozens, plus copyrighted texts, plus YouTube videos, plus movie clips, music and other protected works, the clearance process can be so daunting as to be not worth it.”
As this article points out, payments would have to be divided among “movie companies, music composers, photographers, videographers, and garden variety authors”. An “author” takes on a new role as a divider of royalties. Almost impossible for the independent self-publisher to consider.
So, the copyright holders have their stranglehold on the creative side of the business with their often obscene and ridiculous lawsuits, and already, print publishers are ducking their responsibilities as regards legal matters – the last few book contracts I’ve dealt with have placed the onus squarely on me to ensure the copyright and libel-proof nature of what I produce (what do publishers’ lawyers do all day except sit on their fat arses and collect large salaries?). It seems that the large media combines want to stifle creativity, keeping only with the safe and the proven artists that have already proved their marketability. And when these die off (either they actually die, or their creative juices drry up), what happens then? Well, the combines can keep milking their cash cows for the copyright period. And then? They die off. Just like the dinosaurs. Dead from their own greed and short-sightedness.
Recent comments