In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • The Pocket Copyright Guide for Publishers by Laura N. Gasaway
  • Peter Froehlich (bio)
Laura N. Gasaway, edited by Iris L. Hanney. The Pocket Copyright Guide for Publishers.
Cape Coral, FL: Unlimited Priorities LLC, 2014. Pp. 140. Ebook isbn: 9780615969800, $14.95; eBook/print edition bundle $24.95.

The year 2014 saw the publication of several works on copyright. Invitation to review Unlimited Priorities’s The Pocket Copyright Guide for Publishers by Laura N. Gasaway afforded a fine opportunity to catch up on new editions to related texts. Expecting Gasaway’s text to have current information, I was sure to read the sixth edition of William S. Strong’s The Copyright Book (MIT Press, 2014)1 and the twelfth edition of Stephen Fishman’s The Copyright Handbook (NOLO, 2014)2 to see what others have added for 2014. Knowing Gasaway’s to be a précis approach, I also reread one or two circulars from the US Copyright Office to see what can be had at the Spartan end of the spectrum. Last, I surveyed current market offerings by length, audience, price, and ‘version release’ (edition) to provide myself with a sense of where and how Gasaway’s project might fit in. Findings follow.

structure and style

Gasaway’s project is terrifically slender and broken out into eminently readable ‘scan-able and snack-able’ sections. Gasaway’s succinct prose will allow readers of varying backgrounds to grasp complicated ideas quickly and retain much of what they read as foundation for further learning and discussion. Why is this important? Lawyers are lovers of language, and copyright professionals swim most comfortably in seas of ambiguity, beginning nearly every remark with: ‘It depends.’ As a result, no one knows for sure what we are talking about, and folks will often walk away from their lawyers thinking: ‘That was very well said,’ while not being entirely confident that they can repeat it. Similarly, many of [End Page 394] the ‘go to’ texts on copyright are a delight to read, for lovers of language and for those who have time for nuance, context, and ambiguity, but they may not be quite as ‘handy’ for, and accessible to, all audiences. So here Gasaway’s project wins points on accessibility as a text that might bring more people quickly into the copyright fold and confidently up to speed on the current discussion.

strengths

Clearly, the greatest strengths of the work are its brevity and concision. Most entry texts on copyright are 500 pages in length; Gasaway frames the basics in just 140 pages. This will be welcome news to new editors and publishers in small houses who are wearing many hats — a good overview can be had quickly. Further, Gasaway provides a lawyer’s context to key issues in copyright and also provides a lawyer’s précis of salient recent and ongoing litigation — for example, involving Georgia State University (GSU), Google, and HathiTrust, and she does all of this from a publisher’s perspective. Many texts on copyright are written from the author’s or creator’s perspective, so again this approach can ‘cut to the chase’ for busy publishers in small offices. Therefore, the work is strongest when seen as an introduction to the moving parts of copyright, for busy professionals approaching from a standstill and jumping into publishing and copyright in medias res.

weaknesses

The work has minor weaknesses that we would expect to be addressed in later editions. For example, for a slender text that can be read in a single sitting, the chapter-by-chapter endnotes are disruptive. Their value is in the frequent links to helpful resources and additional information. The notes could be relocated to the end of the volume, and links to resources could be gathered into the text as a feature.3 Further, as others note, the required formal steps for takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) are awkwardly absent.4 The DMCA takedowns are a regular part of a publisher’s work in the new century and should be covered in any introduction to the protection of copyrighted material. However, the text discusses, instead, cease and desist letters, which are frankly less common...

pdf

Share