Who Owns Your Words?
Working as an office assistant to a renowned scholar like Howard Gardner sometimes means taking on a daunting challenge. Howard recently asked us to help secure permission to re-publish some of his papers into a collection of his work. You might assume this would be a straightforward matter—after all, he is the author, and this is a scholarly work to be issued by a non-profit publisher (Teachers College Press). Instead, it has taken both of us the better part of three months—and the saga is still not over. We present these reflections to anyone interested in scholarship, publishing, or intellectual property.
The issue of copyright and authors’ ownership of their own words reveals a complex system which seems to us to create obstacles rather than to disseminate knowledge. To be sure, we found that some publishers were accommodating and granted the rights to re-publish without imposing significant restrictions. We found this particularly to be the case in the UK.
However, others demanded exorbitant fees reaching thousands of dollars. This made it impossible for those works to be included in Howard’s new volumes. Such demands for substantial fees are prohibitively expensive for many authors, especially those in the early stages of their careers or from less affluent institutions. And they seem especially inappropriate for publications directed primarily to scholars.
We found that permissions came most easily from small publishers or journals when we could write directly to the editor. In fact, having the name of a person to address our inquiry significantly smoothed the process in most cases; responses came quickly with permission granted and our request form promptly signed and returned. But in too many cases, having the name of a person to address our request proved of no advantage at all. Emails, phone calls, and follow-ups went ignored.
Most often, it seemed to be that the larger the publishing house, the more difficult it was to obtain permission. As Robert Darnton cites in his article for The New York Review, some large publishing houses have become so dominant, they are able to abuse their power. For example, Elsevier, Wiley, and Springer alone produce 42 percent of all scientific journals published in English, posing significant copyright issues for the academic institutions that subscribe to them, “ratcheting up the prices so mercilessly that they cripple acquisitions budgets,” (Darnton). In our own way, we experienced the results of the tight hold these publishing superpowers have on the industry, particularly when dealing with Elsevier. It was sometimes impossible for us even to locate a person who would respond to our requests. Even when we did receive a response from a publisher and could begin the permission process, it often involved a back and forth of many emails answering questions on minutiae such as formats. Sometimes their questions had to be referred to Teachers College Press which took up further time. Other questions required a crystal ball to answer! As Howard’s editor wryly commented, “It's funny that any publisher would want to know the lifetime print run in advance of a single day's sales.”
In the US, many publishers contract permission requests to an automated service known as the Copyright Clearance Center, or RightsLink. After filling in various fields such as the estimated price per volume, regions of publication, etc., the algorithm will churn out the dollar amount that must be paid. As far as we could tell, no person looked at our requests or took into account the scholarly nature of this project, or the fact that Teachers College Press is a not-for-profit publisher. There were no fields to request reducing or waiving the fee, and no email address to which appeals could be sent.
The barriers imposed on authors who wish to re-publish their own work raise obvious concerns. Restrictive copyright policies may deter authors from revisiting their own work or engaging in creative endeavors that involve building upon their earlier research. Authors should have the right to update their work to ensure its accuracy and relevance. This limitation stifles innovation and the advancement of knowledge.
It also raises the question of whether it is fair for a publisher to retain the rights to an author's work at all. People often assume that under intellectual property rights, original work is protected under copyright law that allows authors to control and manage how their own work is used. This is not the case. It is common practice for publishers to insist writers sign over these rights, presumably to offset the risk and costs involved in editing, designing, printing, distribution, and promotion of a professionally finished product. To a certain extent this is reasonable. But when publication prevents authors from making reasonable use of their own work, this practice cannot be justified.
One way for academics to advocate for their rights and push for fairer publishing practices is through scholarly organizations and author associations which may be able to negotiate on behalf of their members. Unfortunately, though we believe it would have been a great help to have the support of these large organizations, we ran into similar difficulties trying to contact them. A meaningful example of this would be our attempts to seek assistance from the Authors Guild, which is an organization whose mission is to support and advocate for working writers. In many ways, the Authors Guild does advocate for writers’ rights – they are currently representing more than a dozen authors in a lawsuit against Open AI for infringing their copyrights in the training of their chatbot, ChatGPT. Howard has been a member of Authors Guild for several decades, pays his dues, and has never made any request of the Guild. But when he wrote and tried to phone key officials, he sadly received no response.
Unless publishers adopt more flexible policies, authors who wish to avoid traditional publishing agreements may choose to self-publish or pursue open access alternatives. In the future, authors who want greater control over their work and to retain copyright, including the ability to re-publish their work without restrictions, may decide that the prestige of an established publishing house is not worth it.
But let us end on a positive note. We have almost secured enough permissions for Howard to be able to publish his new collection. Please look forward to The Essential Howard Gardner on Education and The Essential Howard Gardner on Mind in the spring and fall of 2024. We are privileged to have played our very small part in making them possible.
References
Darnton, R. (2023, December). The dream of a universal library: Robert Darnton. The New York Review of Books.