John Kay’s FT column: “In order to get their work published, many academics sign one-sided contracts with publishers who demand the full copyright to their intellectual property.”Among the comments about this that were received on one discussion list:
“In my experience publishers’ contracts are drafted by very experienced
lawyers who seek to deprive the author of all possible rights. The only
route available to the author is to say “no” to the unacceptable clauses,
employ a good negotiator to ensure these are excluded (serious oil industry
professionals, even non-lawyeers, who have experience in negotiating
contracts with difficult governments are the best on this; the only fee
required would be a good dinner), and stick to your rights. Never, ever
give in.” – from an author – journalist – writer
Humorous addenda: In 1991-92 I was in the LL.M. program at University of London. I was auditing some class taught by this Indian international law chick, trying to decide whether to take it. I’ve always been the type (big surprise) to have no fear of raising my hand to ask the stupid question everyone in class wants to ask but is afraid of asking for fear of looking dumb.
So this chick keeps saying, if you take this class you may want to read the FT. I had an idea she meant the Financial Times, but was annoyed by her presumption, especially since the class comprised lawyers and law students from all over the world–Europe, Africa, Asia, whay have you, and I figured a goodly number of them would not know what FT means but would be too meek to ask. So I raised my hand, and in a loud Southern accented voice, said, “Excuse me, Ma’am, but whut is the FT”? Laughter, but she told me.
An American attorney from Wisconsin, Matt, whom I later became friends with, said he shrank in his seat, rolling his eyes at his fellow American.
11:06 am on October 6, 2004
