Copyright law, trademark registrations, searches and contracts.

Monographs - Old Contract Forms May Not Cover Ebooks Rights

July 2001 - Random House, Inc. v. Rosetta Books LLC

Authors who had granted exclusive rights to "print, publish and sell [their works] in book form" to Random House later granted exclusive ebook rights in the same works to Rosetta Books. Referring to the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, the court found "book" defined as "a written or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers." It also found "form" defined as "external appearance of a clearly defined area, as distinguished from color or material; the shape of a thing or person." The court distinguished paper books from ebooks stating: "Ebooks take advantage of the digital medium's ability to manipulate data by allowing ebook users to electronically search the text for specific words and phrases, change the font size and style, type notes into the text and electronically organize them, highlight and bookmark, hyperlink to specific parts of the text, and, in the future, to other sites on related topics as well, and access a dictionary that pronounces words in the ebook aloud." Because ebook rights had not been expressly granted to Random House, the court determined that the authors had retained their ebook rights and were entitled to grant them to Rosetta Books.

Although now most publishers have updated their book contract forms to cover ebook rights, the Rosetta Books case demonstrates that publishers may be at risk of losing ebook rights to upstart ebook publishers where it could hurt them most - in their older works written by successful authors who signed old form contracts pre-dating the ebook phenomenon. Publishers should seriously consider auditing their older form contracts with key authors to prevent the loss of ebook rights in successful works.

Caution:

This abstract summarizes the cited case only. The legal effect of a particular case can change for various reasons including the outcome of an appeal, a later court decision, or new legislation. This abstract is provided as an illustration of a specific outcome under the specific conditions and laws in effect at the time of the decision. You should not rely on this abstract or this case as representing current law without conducting further research. To request further information about this case or a related issue, contact us at 301.332.4850 or click here to send us an email.

Can't find what you're looking for?
Try the Site Map.