I wrote a book that was published in 2009. Since I am a staff member and not a faculty member, the university informed me that if I use work time to write the book, then they get the copyright. There was no way I could write it on my own time (nights and weekends), so I took this deal. It also meant I split the royalties with the university. That wasn’t a big deal given the limited print run, but the copyright bugged me.

Had I been a faculty member, however, there would have been no question: I would have the copyright and all the royalties. My academic training is in a traditional PhD program, and the work I do is certainly scholarly, but my HR status mattered more than that.

His argument implies that FSG heavily invests (collaborates?) in the creation of a *text*, not the *book.* The format is incidental, the text is the thing. Thus why shouldn’t the original publisher have a stake in all future distribution formats?

Well, depends upon the contract language doesn’t it? A contract is much more than any of the “support staff” can hope to have with any “collaborators.” But of course, if you control the means of production you can mitigate the violence in the system.

(also the water babies, do-as-you-would-be-done-by, not be-done-by-as-you-did)