I’ve been in publishing a long time, and I’ve generally been a fan of copyright restrictions. Those encyclopedia or history books? A lot of hard work goes into making those facts accurate, accessible and compelling. But a couple of recent(ish) happenings are giving me cause to rethink how we are applying copyright laws.
“Ambulance chasing” has become big business for some copyright lawyers. They file (or threaten to file) suits against publishing houses, in the hopes that a few of the nuisance suits pay off. And the publishing houses are scrambling to avoid exposure. The outcome: incredible outrageous costs and hard-to-clear copyright restrictions that require crazy publishing decisions. A book on contemporary politics, with no pictures of politicians? Think that is unlikely?
Consider the recent controversy over the required textbook on art history published by Pearson. It had (not kidding!) no art — just blank holes with references to where the student could go to find the image. And it still cost $180. (Rumor has it that clearing perms would have bumped the price to the thousands.)
The controversy brought up the question, once again, of what we are protecting — and what would happen if we didn’t. Here’s an interesting perspective using the largely unprotected fashion industry as the model. What would a publishing industry without copyright protection look like?