Illustrators, Photographers, Comic Books and Graphic Novels Revisited

UPDATE: Regarding the updates in red below: it appears that what I wrote originally in my previous post was on more or less the right lines. If this matter is of concern to you, read the latest post on this subject.

For those who were interested in my last post, The Google Book Settlement: Illustrators, Photographers, Comic Books and Graphic Novels, I have revised it a bit, having decided that some of it couldn't be right: specifically this point:

It transpires that [the situation where an illustrator counts as an author] applies not only where the illustrator/photographer is also the author of the text of the book, or is named as co-author on the cover, but also in cases where the illustrator/photographer owns the rights to the illustrations and is or was paid on a royalty basis. UPDATE: I am no longer sure this is true.

This point has been brought to my attention by the UK author I mentioned above. She writes the text of her books and the artist who illustrates them receives a share of the royalties. She consulted the Authors Guild lawyers on the phone and they have apparently told her that her illustrator is an 'author' within the terms of the settlement agreement, and that therefore Google can make use of the illustrations as well as the text.

…

There is nothing in the settlement that rules out illustrations by an illustrator who *does* have an 'interest' in the 'principal work'. Therefore such illustrators are members of the settlement class.

UPDATE: However, the author has got back to me to point out that the definition of a 'principal work is 'a Book’s principal *written* work’ (1.113).

So that argues that the illustrator would also have to have a share of the copyright in the main text.

So it is apparently not just a question of being paid a royalty.

If all this is a matter of concern to you, I suggest rereading the post. Updates in bright red: you can't miss them.

Illustrators, Photographers, Comic Books and Graphic Novels Revisited

UPDATE: It appears that what I wrote originally in my previous post was on more or less the right lines. If this matter is of concern to you, read the latest post on this subject.

For those who were interested in my last post, The Google Book Settlement: Illustrators, Photographers, Comic Books and Graphic Novels, I have revised it a bit, having decided that some of it couldn't be right: specifically this point:

It transpires that [the situation where an illustrator counts as an author] applies not only where the illustrator/photographer is also the author of the text of the book, or is named as co-author on the cover, but also in cases where the illustrator/photographer owns the rights to the illustrations and is or was paid on a royalty basis. UPDATE: I am no longer sure this is true.

This point has been brought to my attention by the UK author I mentioned above. She writes the text of her books and the artist who illustrates them receives a share of the royalties. She consulted the Authors Guild lawyers on the phone and they have apparently told her that her illustrator is an 'author' within the terms of the settlement agreement, and that therefore Google can make use of the illustrations as well as the text.

…

There is nothing in the settlement that rules out illustrations by an illustrator who *does* have an 'interest' in the 'principal work'. Therefore such illustrators are members of the settlement class.

UPDATE: However, the author has got back to me to point out that the definition of a 'principal work is 'a Book’s principal *written* work’ (1.113).

So that argues that the illustrator would also have to have a share of the copyright in the main text.

So it is apparently not just a question of being paid a royalty.

If all this is a matter of concern to you, I suggest rereading the post. Updates in bright red: you can't miss them.