|
Post by ronmiller on Aug 21, 2020 14:16:51 GMT
In what way are you not the publisher? All that Lulu does is manufacture and distribute the physical copies of your book. That is no different than Simon & Schuster contracting with a printer and distributor. Ron, if you get a free Lulu ISBN number and you ask for global distribution, then the publisher shows as Lulu. All my books on Amazon have free Lulu ISBN numbers and show Lulu as the publisher. Stolen ----Elizabeth Keimach
Paperback: 208 pages Publisher: lulu.com (5 Nov. 2014) Language: English ISBN-10: 1326070037 ISBN-13: 978-1326070038 Product Dimensions: 14.8 x 1.2 x 21 cmThis is true, though it really is a kind of on-paper-only technicality.
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Aug 21, 2020 23:19:23 GMT
Ron, if you get a free Lulu ISBN number and you ask for global distribution, then the publisher shows as Lulu. All my books on Amazon have free Lulu ISBN numbers and show Lulu as the publisher. Stolen ----Elizabeth Keimach
Paperback: 208 pages Publisher: lulu.com (5 Nov. 2014) Language: English ISBN-10: 1326070037 ISBN-13: 978-1326070038 Product Dimensions: 14.8 x 1.2 x 21 cmThis is true, though it really is a kind of on-paper-only technicality. It's a technicality that means we do not appear as being the actual publisher. There's still a stigma attached to self-publishing, and there our books are marked Published by Lulu, a self-publishing company. One has to hope few people know that. There must be some way of masking that the ISBNs are actually Lulu's. Previously I have had a couple of web addresses registered to myself via official places that sell such things. One was kevinlomas.net, and using that in a search engine would find my site, but, the actual address was kevinlomas/homestead.com (my host) but somehow that was masked behind my own address, only I knew that.
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Aug 22, 2020 15:09:43 GMT
You do make a very good point: as soon as someone sees "Lulu" appearing anywhere regarding a book there are conclusions drawn, and often unfortunate ones. You can eliminate the name from appearing anywhere on or in the book, of course...but when it comes to ordering a copy, well, there "Lulu" is.
|
|
|
Post by benziger on Aug 23, 2020 8:23:47 GMT
This sounds good...but the ISBN itself still identifies Lulu as the actual publisher...at least on paper. There are various contracts between authors and publishers. For example, a publisher can buy a work. Then the creator's right remains with the author, but the publishing house owns the copyright. Maybe the publisher buys it for a certain period of time or for one language. In that case, the imprint will read (c) by x publisher. But sometimes the author only gives the publisher a right to publish. The copyright remains with the author, the publisher uses it with the author's consent. Then in the imprint it says (c) by author. At least that is how it is handled in the German-speaking world. It may be different in the English-speaking world. The "copyright", which I translated as "creator's right", is indicated in the dictionary as "Copyright". In German we distinguish between the two. The first is the inalienable right to be the creator and to watch over the integrity of the text, the second is the alienable right to make money with the text, to make contracts for translations, film adaptations, etc. Poor authors thus sell their works in order to make money immediately. If the coypright remains with the author, it expires 70 years after his death, if a publisher has bought it and if it is actively used, it can last longer.
Please note: Copyrights are regulated nationally. What applies in your country may differ from this one. It is also not exactly the same in all German speaking countries.
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Aug 23, 2020 11:29:04 GMT
This sounds good...but the ISBN itself still identifies Lulu as the actual publisher...at least on paper. There are various contracts between authors and publishers. For example, a publisher can buy a work. Then the creator's right remains with the author, but the publishing house owns the copyright. Maybe the publisher buys it for a certain period of time or for one language. In that case, the imprint will read (c) by x publisher. This is a very rare thing to have happen, in the US least, and occurs most often when a publisher commissions a writer to create a specific book. But sometimes the author only gives the publisher a right to publish. The copyright remains with the author, the publisher uses it with the author's consent. Then in the imprint it says (c) by author. This is the normal practice with publishers in the US.At least that is how it is handled in the German-speaking world. It may be different in the English-speaking world. The "copyright", which I translated as "creator's right", is indicated in the dictionary as "Copyright". In German we distinguish between the two. The first is the inalienable right to be the creator and to watch over the integrity of the text, the second is the alienable right to make money with the text, to make contracts for translations, film adaptations, etc. Sounds like a not very useful distinction since the "right to be the creator" doesn't really gain the author anything.Poor authors thus sell their works in order to make money immediately. If the coypright remains with the author, it expires 70 years after his death, if a publisher has bought it and if it is actively used, it can last longer.
In the US at least, the standard publishing contract is to let the author retain the copyright to their work (the publisher takes care of registering the work in the author's name). What the contract will do is allow the publisher exclusive rights to publication for a specific period of time. This is perfectly reasonable since the publisher is underwriting all of the expenses entailed in publishing the book---from editing and advertising to marketing and distribution---and this is the only way they can recoup those expenses. It is also fair since otherwise the author could sell the same book to a dozen different competing publishers. The author also benefits from things that would be either difficult or expensive for them to pursue on their own: for instance, book club sales, translations and foreign editions, etc., all of which generate more royalties for the author. The period of time is spelled out explicitly after which either all rights revert to the author or a new contract is drawn. The latter has occurred to me a couple of times, in which case the publishers not only negotiated a new contract but paid another advance.
Please note: Copyrights are regulated nationally. What applies in your country may differ from this one. It is also not exactly the same in all German speaking countries.
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Aug 23, 2020 23:46:08 GMT
"Sounds like a not very useful distinction since the "right to be the creator" doesn't really gain the author anything." That term is a puzzle to me too. It makes it sound as if it's a pre-copyright, protecting something that does not as yet exist! Copyright is an old word going back to when pages of words were actually copied by hand with a writing implement to duplicate them, such as early bibles. It is basically a warning not to copy it without permission, or lose your head.
|
|