It looks like her publishers are not interested in blaming Alloy, from the article anyway. But if the publisher's contract is solely with the packager, and the packager has the contract with the author, I'm not sure that her publisher would in fact be able to go directly after authorette, if they were to take legal action (which seems unlikely given the article). If they were to sue, and she is not a party to the contract, I'm thinking that their only recourse would be against Alloy. (To sue for breach of contract, you have to have "privity"--meaning you can only sue whomever you contracted with). There are exceptions, but it seems that Alloy itself would have to sue authorette. It seems odd though, that she would not be a party to the publishing contract—but I don’t know much about the publishing industry that’s what the article says.
I still think that the original author and her publishers can probably sue everyone—authorette’s publisher, her packager and authorette. ("The first rule of torts," one of my professors used to say, "is sue everyone!") It helps to think that the actual claim is copyright infringement--the publisher, by publishing the work, infringed the original author's copyright, regardless of who actually is to blame for submitting the material to them. I would think the packager would be liable as well, since they're profiting off of the copyright infringement.
As someone with a sucky memory, I can tell you that I do sometimes pick up phrases and usages from places and not even realize it, but, come on, so many times? Once, even three or four times, I could perhaps buy as an accident, but if she knew the book well enough to make that many lifts, then she should have known it well enough to pick up what she was doing--photographic memory or no. (And you really remember all that? That's neat (and a little scary)--I can't remember what was on the page before the one I'm reading).
Good point about filters--I didn't even think about that. : ) And why wouldn't you think that everyone would want to read about knights gone wild? I don't really understand that. ; )
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 08:41 pm (UTC)I still think that the original author and her publishers can probably sue everyone—authorette’s publisher, her packager and authorette. ("The first rule of torts," one of my professors used to say, "is sue everyone!") It helps to think that the actual claim is copyright infringement--the publisher, by publishing the work, infringed the original author's copyright, regardless of who actually is to blame for submitting the material to them. I would think the packager would be liable as well, since they're profiting off of the copyright infringement.
As someone with a sucky memory, I can tell you that I do sometimes pick up phrases and usages from places and not even realize it, but, come on, so many times? Once, even three or four times, I could perhaps buy as an accident, but if she knew the book well enough to make that many lifts, then she should have known it well enough to pick up what she was doing--photographic memory or no. (And you really remember all that? That's neat (and a little scary)--I can't remember what was on the page before the one I'm reading).
Good point about filters--I didn't even think about that. : ) And why wouldn't you think that everyone would want to read about knights gone wild? I don't really understand that. ; )