Advice needed: Lulu as NEW publisher

My novel was published by a small literary press in 2013. I've just received the rights to the book and plan to publish it with Lulu. Would anyone know what I should include on the copyright page to specify (1) that it's a reprint, (2) that it was originally published by someone else, or (3) anything else I might not be thinking of?

 

Any advice greatly welcome! (Would love to hear about other examples of books originally pub'd elsewhere, if anyone knows of any.)

 

Thanks so much.

 

Scott

Comments

  • The basics plus what you just menioned above. More than enough.

     


    Copyright © Scott ___  2016

    ISBN

    No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without written permission of the publisher.

     

    (and, if applicable: )

     

    This book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places and incidents are products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental.

     

     


  • jonah018 wrote:

    My novel was published by a small literary press in 2013. I've just received the rights to the book and plan to publish it with Lulu. Would anyone know what I should include on the copyright page to specify (1) that it's a reprint, (2) that it was originally published by someone else, or (3) anything else I might not be thinking of?

     

    Any advice greatly welcome! (Would love to hear about other examples of books originally pub'd elsewhere, if anyone knows of any.)

     

    Thanks so much.

     

    Scott


    The only thing the US Copyright Office requires is a notice in this form

     

    Copyright © 2016 Ralph Q. Writer

     

    You can add anything else---or not---at your own discretion. 

  • Many thanks, Professor! Two quick follow-ups:

     

    • You mentioned "The basics plus what you just menioned above." Just want to make sure I understand. Would you think I'd need to specify that it's a reprint, or would a line such as this would suffice? "Originally published by [original pub] in 2013." Any suggestions on wording welcome!

     

    • OK to list copyright as 2016, though it was originally pub'd in 2013?

     

    Best,

    Scott

     

     


  • jonah018 wrote:

    Many thanks, Professor! Two quick follow-ups:

     

    • You mentioned "The basics plus what you just menioned above." Just want to make sure I understand. Would you think I'd need to specify that it's a reprint, or would a line such as this would suffice? "Originally published by [original pub] in 2013." Any suggestions on wording welcome!

     

    • OK to list copyright as 2016, though it was originally pub'd in 2013?

     

    Best,

    Scott

     

     


    Since this is a new edition I would use this year's date.

     

    You could also say "Copyright © 2013 and 2016 by Scott Q. Author" if you wish.

     

    Anything beyond the basic copyright notice is entirely optional. If you want to mention that the book is a reprint, go ahead, but it would really just be for your reader's information. 

  • Thanks for the tips!
  • As Ron says, you only need the example he gives, but seeing that many people have no clue what a copyright is, most copyright pages explain it in full detail, even down to Sale Or Return rules (do not buy/sell a book with the front cover ripped off, etc etc.) Some even say that the book should not be sold secondhand at all, or swapped, or even loaned out!

     

    Just look at the copyright pages of many books for examples.


  • kevinlomas wrote:

    As Ron says, you only need the example he gives, but seeing that many people have no clue what a copyright is, most copyright pages explain it in full detail, even down to Sale Or Return rules (do not buy/sell a book with the front cover ripped off, etc etc.) Some even say that the book should not be sold secondhand at all, or swapped, or even loaned out!

     

    Just look at the copyright pages of many books for examples.


    I've seen just those very things occasionally. The admonition about the sale of coverless books is a legitimate concern that is of interest solely to commercial publishers and relates to how books are sold to dealers (instead of returning books for credit a bookstore needs to only send in the covers. The coverless books are then supposed to be destroyed. The reason is that if these books get into circulation, neither the publisher nor the author gets paid for them).

     

    Anything anyone says about not selling or trading legitimate secondhand books or even loaning books they are welcome to include...but copyright law doesn't support them.

  • I've seen just those very things occasionally.

     

    They are on the Copyright pages of almost every book I own. I suppose they are covering all bases.

     

    The admonition about the sale of coverless books is a legitimate concern that is of interest solely to commercial publishers and relates to how books are sold to dealers (instead of returning books for credit a bookstore needs to only send in the covers. The coverless books are then supposed to be destroyed.

     

    I am not sure if it's true now. Granted Sale or Return still exists, but in my small village (as just one example) there are four charity shops (not the same as the USA Thrift Shops) and very often one can see batches of the exact same book in unread condition in each of the four shops. It's as if they are donated by the publishers or some nationwide book retailer. May be they are print runs that did not all sell.

     

    The reason is that if these books get into circulation, neither the publisher nor the author gets paid for them).

     

    That can be said about the sale of all used-goods. The manufacturer does not benefit from the sale of them on the used market. I can think of many places around here that sell used books (and CDs and DVDs) not even including the above ones. No action is taken against them. But some one has to buy them new or they would not exist to sell on the used market, or to even just give away.

     

    Anything anyone says about not selling or trading legitimate secondhand books or even loaning books they are welcome to include...but copyright law doesn't support them.

     

    Indeed. It's just lawyer bluff. Although I would suspect they would get very upset if someone made a book in to a film without permission.


  • kevinlomas wrote:

    I've seen just those very things occasionally.

     

    They are on the Copyright pages of almost every book I own. I suppose they are covering all bases.

     

    The warning about selling coverless books applies only to paperbacks.

     

    The admonition about the sale of coverless books is a legitimate concern that is of interest solely to commercial publishers and relates to how books are sold to dealers (instead of returning books for credit a bookstore needs to only send in the covers. The coverless books are then supposed to be destroyed.

     

    I am not sure if it's true now. Granted Sale or Return still exists, but in my small village (as just one example) there are four charity shops (not the same as the USA Thrift Shops) and very often one can see batches of the exact same book in unread condition in each of the four shops. It's as if they are donated by the publishers or some nationwide book retailer. May be they are print runs that did not all sell.

     

    That is probably true...and I know of many cases where either publishers or bookdealers have donated unsold books. But that is not the same as a bookdealer getting credit for an unsold book by returning the cover and then someone later selling the same book. It is in effect very much like selling stolen goods. The person selling the coverless paperback never paid for it in the first place...unlike the person who has purchased a DVD or automobile and wants to resell it.

     

    The reason is that if these books get into circulation, neither the publisher nor the author gets paid for them).

     

    That can be said about the sale of all used-goods. The manufacturer does not benefit from the sale of them on the used market. I can think of many places around here that sell used books (and CDs and DVDs) not even including the above ones. No action is taken against them. But some one has to buy them new or they would not exist to sell on the used market, or to even just give away.

     

    No...they were paid in the original sale. If a CD, DVD, washing machine or car is sold second-hand, it was paid for in the first place. That's the difference. A coverless paperback that is later sold by a third party was never paid for and never earned the publisher or author anything.

     

    Anything anyone says about not selling or trading legitimate secondhand books or even loaning books they are welcome to include...but copyright law doesn't support them.

     

    Indeed. It's just lawyer bluff. Although I would suspect they would get very upset if someone made a book in to a film without permission.

     

    Well, indeed they should! Smiley Wink


     


  • Ron Miller wrote:

    kevinlomas wrote:

    I've seen just those very things occasionally.

     

    They are on the Copyright pages of almost every book I own. I suppose they are covering all bases.

     

    The warning about selling coverless books applies only to paperbacks.

     

    Indeed, but you did not say we are only on about paperbacks, which we were not, just Copyrights.

     

    The admonition about the sale of coverless books is a legitimate concern that is of interest solely to commercial publishers and relates to how books are sold to dealers (instead of returning books for credit a bookstore needs to only send in the covers. The coverless books are then supposed to be destroyed.

     

    I am not sure if it's true now. Granted Sale or Return still exists, but in my small village (as just one example) there are four charity shops (not the same as the USA Thrift Shops) and very often one can see batches of the exact same book in unread condition in each of the four shops. It's as if they are donated by the publishers or some nationwide book retailer. May be they are print runs that did not all sell.

     

    That is probably true...and I know of many cases where either publishers or bookdealers have donated unsold books. But that is not the same as a bookdealer getting credit for an unsold book by returning the cover and then someone later selling the same book. It is in effect very much like selling stolen goods. The person selling the coverless paperback never paid for it in the first place...unlike the person who has purchased a DVD or automobile and wants to resell it.

     

    I can say without contradiction that I have never seen a book on sale, or been given one, with the front cover ripped off. Well my CD/DVD example was because they have the same copyright and resale warnings on them as books do, it is not easy to rip the front cover off them, though. But I feel sure that such media is the only media that disallows the selling of them used. When shops that rented out films existed they had to buy 'special' For Hire Only copies for often 20 times the retail value.

     

    The reason is that if these books get into circulation, neither the publisher nor the author gets paid for them).

     

    That can be said about the sale of all used-goods. The manufacturer does not benefit from the sale of them on the used market. I can think of many places around here that sell used books (and CDs and DVDs) not even including the above ones. No action is taken against them. But some one has to buy them new or they would not exist to sell on the used market, or to even just give away.

     

    No...they were paid in the original sale. If a CD, DVD, washing machine or car is sold second-hand, it was paid for in the first place. That's the difference.

     

    Where's the difference? Surely if a book is ordered from a publisher then royalties are paid? Even if the retailer does not sell it? SoR is an agreement between the publisher and the retailer, not the copyright holder. *

     

    A coverless paperback that is later sold by a third party was never paid for and never earned the publisher or author anything.

     

    A court of law could have a field day with that and the above * ! Not that I have ever seen one with no front cover, have you? But I wonder how long a retailer hangs on to them before they rip the cover off? Or even if they still do? I am sure some now sell them to the discount stores such as The Works.

     

    Anything anyone says about not selling or trading legitimate secondhand books or even loaning books they are welcome to include...but copyright law doesn't support them.

     

    Indeed. It's just lawyer bluff. Although I would suspect they would get very upset if someone made a book in to a film without permission.

     

    Well, indeed they should! Smiley Wink

     

    Then again, films are often so different from the book it could be argued it's not the same thing.


     


     

  •  

    I can say without contradiction that I have never seen a book on sale, or been given one, with the front cover ripped off. Well my CD/DVD example was because they have the same copyright and resale warnings on them as books do, it is not easy to rip the front cover off them, though. But I feel sure that such media is the only media that disallows the selling of them used. When shops that rented out films existed they had to buy 'special' For Hire Only copies for often 20 times the retail value.

     

    You can run across coverless paperback pretty often in the States. It's not terribly wide-spread, though, since most bookstores are responsible and destroy the books once the covers are removed and sent back to the publisher for reimbursement or credit.

      

    Where's the difference? Surely if a book is ordered from a publisher then royalties are paid? Even if the retailer does not sell it? SoR is an agreement between the publisher and the retailer, not the copyright holder. *

     

    This has nothing to do with copyrights but rather with contracts between book dealers and publishers. An author may or may not receive a royalty depending upon a number of circumstances. The bottom line, though, is that someone who would rightly receive income from the legitimate sale of a book loses out and it is always the publisher since they will have had to not only reimburse or credit the bookstore for unsold copies of a book but will also have paid the author a royalty on them.

     

    A coverless paperback that is later sold by a third party was never paid for and never earned the publisher or author anything.

     

    A court of law could have a field day with that and the above * !

     

    Maybe so, maybe not. If it could be shown that a bookdealer sold coverless books after being reimbursed or credited for them they would be in breach of their contract with the publisher.

     

    Not that I have ever seen one with no front cover, have you?

     

    Many times.

     

    But I wonder how long a retailer hangs on to them before they rip the cover off?

     

    Much more often than you might think. A bookdealer simply doesn't have the room to have new stock constantly arriving while hundreds of unsold books still sit on the shelves for months.

     

    Or even if they still do?

     

    Yes.

    In this country it is one of the only businesses to still do anything like this: allowing the return of product for credit or reimbursement. It's really due more to tradition than common sense...but it's part of the sales contracts of virtually every publisher and bookseller in the US.

     

    I am sure some now sell them to the discount stores such as The Works.

     

    They can if they wish. What they cannot do is be reimbursed by the publisher for unsold books which are then later resold.

     

    Anything anyone says about not selling or trading legitimate secondhand books or even loaning books they are welcome to include...but copyright law doesn't support them.

     

    Indeed. It's just lawyer bluff. Although I would suspect they would get very upset if someone made a book in to a film without permission.

     

    Well, indeed they should! Smiley Wink

     

    Then again, films are often so different from the book it could be argued it's not the same thing.

     

    People have tried to do that...usually without much luck. (They run afoul of the "derivative works" part of copyright law).


     


     


     

  • Here is a good explanation of how it works:

     

    A defining characteristic of the book trade is that most books are sold on consignment. In other words, wholesalers and bookstores, as well as most other retail outlets, are generally allowed to return unsold copies of books to the publisher for credit. The result is significant risk for publishers. A big chain's advance orders can lead to a larger print-run; but if the title sells badly and is returned in large numbers, the publisher is left holding the bag.

     

    This is why there is often a warning about coverless copies of a book. The cover was returned to the publisher by a book dealer in return for credit. The cover really just represents the entire book since it would be too costly to return entire cartons of books. What it specifically represents is a destroyed book. If the book instead goes into circulation---whether sold or even given away---the publisher never got paid for it. In some cases this might impact on an author's royalties (it all depends on their contract). Even if it didn't impact directly on the author, it would still create a loss against their name and make it harder for them to sell another book to the same publisher. Selling or distributing a coverless book would be very much like breaking into the warehouse of a DVD publisher and making off with a stack of unpackaged disks. Whatever might be done with them, they never generate any income for the publisher, who not only is denied the income from their sale but is stuck with the cost of manufacturing them.


  • jonah018 wrote:

    My novel was published by a small literary press in 2013. I've just received the rights to the book and plan to publish it with Lulu. Would anyone know what I should include on the copyright page to specify (1) that it's a reprint, (2) that it was originally published by someone else, or (3) anything else I might not be thinking of?

     

    Any advice greatly welcome! (Would love to hear about other examples of books originally pub'd elsewhere, if anyone knows of any.)

     

    Thanks so much.

     

    Scott


    Another two cents on this:

     

    I've seen books, from time to time, that include statements on the copyright page such as, "Originally published under the title blahblahblah by xyz publishers in 1985" or something similar. I suspect that the motive (or part of it) is so that the readers don't see a "new" book by their favorite author, buy it, and discover that it's a re-packaging of an old story that's already on the bookshelf. This seems to mainly be used when the title of a book has changed, or when the book was originally published in magazines (anthologies of an authors magazine stories, for example, may have this sort of thing on the copyright page).

     

    My assumption (and I may be dreadfully naive) is that the writer is trying to either fulfill the stipulations of some prior publication contract (i.e. "Any future edition must mention ...") or is trying to play fair with the reader by saying, "Hey, this is not new; If you're a long term reader of my stories, you may have already read this."

     

    So if there is no contractual requirement, and if it is your own work, then the only real reason to mention prior publication is to make sure you're being fair to your readers. A mon avis, on comprende.

     

    I hope that helps.

  • Kevin...

     

    In case you're still foggy on the consignment process:

     

    Publisher P sells 1 case of books (144 Ct, let's say) to Bookseller B on Consignment. Bookseller B sells 100 books to John Does 1-100. 

     

    Publisher P sends an invoice for 144 books. Bookseller B sends payment for 100 books, plus 44 cut covers. Publisher P absorbs a loss of 44 books.

     

    Author A is paid a percentage of the 100 sales, NOT the 144 cut covers.

     

    Bookseller B is supposed to destroy the 44 cut books, but might decide to sell them to his cousin Frankie, who has a used bookstore down the street. He let's Frankie have the books at 1/4 of face value. Frankie sells them to customers at 2/3 face value. Frankie makes money, and the bookseller makes money, both illegally.

     

    These books, for all ways means and purposes, are stolen merchandise (that is, they were never paid for by Bookseller B, so Publisher P and Author A both got cheated). Publisher P is the owner of the books, even though Publisher P gave explicit instructions to destroy them.

     

    That is the reason for the prohibition on sales of cut books -- for a consumer to buy them is the same as buying a stolen TV. It is the receipt of stolen merchandis, though on a very small scale.

     

    I am not a lawyer; this is not advice.

  • Is that not what's already been said?

  • thanks alot bro

  • I'm not sure... I didn't wade through the technicolor stripes.

  • There you go then. It's best to digest it all before commenting. Smiley Wink

Sign In or Register to comment.