| Judge Overturns Ruling on Rights to Steinbeck's Titles |
Wed, August 27, 2008 |
|
|
Ever wonder who owns the rights to works of deceased authors? In a recent case, a federal appeals court overturned a 2006 ruling that had awarded John Steinbeck’s son and granddaughter the rights to 10 of his earlier works. As the AP reports, the new ruling reversed the decision and returned the rights to Penguin Group Inc. (Steinbeck’s publisher) and the heirs of his widow, Elaine, who died in 2003.
Ready for a tale as long and layered as Steinbeck's East of Eden? In 2004, Steinbeck’s son and granddaughter informed Penguin they were terminating its rights from the contracts signed in the 1930s. According to the AP, they cited federal law that aims to prevent publishers from taking advantage of authors who sign copyright agreements early in their careers, before they have enough success to demand better terms. In turn, Penguin sued; a judge ruled that the son and granddaughter should be able to renegotiate a publishing contract Steinbeck signed in 1938.
However, in the most recent case, a judge overturned this ruling and returned the rights back to Penguin and Elaine’s heirs. In 1994, Steinbeck’s now-deceased third wife, Elaine, renegotiated his original contract with the publishing house, adding some earlier works. When Elaine died, she left her copyright interests to her children and grandchildren from a previous marriage, excluding Steinbeck’s two sons and their heirs. Per the 1994 agreement and the successful appeal, Penguin will now return to publishing the titles, which includes The Red Pony; Tortilla Flat; Of Mice and Men (both the novella and play); and The Grapes of Wrath.
Do you agree with the most recent ruling? Let us know who you think should hold the rights to works of deceased writers by leaving your opinion in the Feedback section.
Tags: Copyrights, Steinbeck
|
 |
Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Comments |
Sat, September 27, 2008
Did Steinbeck leave a will? How did Elaine gain control and have the right to sign contracts on Steinbeck's behalf. Also according to copyright law all works before 1923 are in the public domain at the same time the law says works are protected for 75 years Steinbeck is now deceased for more than 75 years.
Philippine Lawyer
Dave - Manila
|
Sun, September 28, 2008
Why didn't the widow leave some of her estate to Steinbeck's two kids? Unless there's something I don't know, that seems remarkably ungrateful and callous. These are Steinbeck's kids too, after all.
Kevin - Los Angeles, CA
|
Mon, September 29, 2008
Steinbeck is one of the best writers of our time, this is a great book. Articles about Steinbeck
Dominic - Colorado
|
Thu, October 16, 2008
This issue is a common one with second marriages and applies to all property owned by the deceased person regardless of whether it is copyright, contracts, money, real estate or anything. When one marries another, then all of his property and rights will transfer pursuant to his will. One of the most common problems is that children from older marriages get disinherited if not mentioned in the will. I personally think children of older marriages lose out but this is the way the inheritance and wills laws work. One planning method is to transfer property and contract rights like Steinbeck's contract to a and give children passive ownership of the LLC. This would have had to occur during Stenbeck's life so it would not apply to him because the LLC is a newer legal entity under the law. . . but this is a planning method recent authors can use with their copyrights and contract rights.
Amy - Richmond
|
Thu, November 20, 2008
That is some kind of federal ruling; that publishers can't take advantage of writer's before knowing whether or not the book will be a success. Hard to say whether it is right for the heirs to be able to renegotiate or get some rights back. On the one hand, the publishers are taking a risk in the beginning. On the other hand, the author and heirs have the potential of "selling out" for pennies on the dollar their future fortunes. Just hard to say.
-David G.
David - Portland
|
Sun, December 07, 2008
Wow, that is a twisted story! I would say the rights should belong to Steinbeck's family. He wrote it, and even though the publishing company had a major hand in the release, the pre-1930s ruling tells me thats where it should go.
Jeff - Springfield
|
Wed, December 10, 2008
I think the rights should stay within the family and not go to the publisher. I don't think a company or corporation should have control over something as creative as this - it should remain with the family. What's next, are they going to try to allocate Steinbeck's to Penguin? I don't think so!
John - Lincoln
|
Wed, December 10, 2008
Forgot to mention a great resource for real estate auctions:
[url]http://www.myaffordablerealestate.com/Real-Estate/Commercial[/url]
http://www.myaffordablerealestate.com/Real-Estate/Commercial
John - Lincoln
|
Mon, March 30, 2009
I would be curious to know if he left a will and if so what was in it. Hard to believe the family lost.
Tanya
Tanya - Example: Florida
|
Mon, July 13, 2009
Eventually the works will enter the public domain anyway. I think a contract is a contract, and what's important is that his wonderful books get distributed as freely as possible. The book rights cannot just be passed down as part of his estate, considering Penguin paid in the first place. That would leave many publishers vulnerable. New laws should take care of this, I hope.
Michael - Montreal, Quebec
|
Wed, September 02, 2009
Steinbecks' Will should be the sole document that reflects the decission that the judge should consider. The answer would be within this paper. The new wife's document should be disallowed. She is not the author. If there was no will then the courts should consider all parties and relatives.
Anne - Phila
|
Sun, September 13, 2009
There are so many things that we don't know about this issue. What did the will say? What was in the contract? What was the relationship between the people involved? And the list goes on, but I do have to say, eventhough the court goes one way or the other, doesn't mean that the court is always right, but quite possibly it appears so at the time, depending on the circumstances.
Larry - Grayson
|
|
);)
