USCF Rule Book

[Max_Sewell]

@nolan

If the USCF endorses it as their official rulebook for USCF rated tournaments, then it could be considered the successor to the current rulebook and thus a derivative work even if the entire thing was written from scratch by someone not involved in any previous version.

The whole point to derivative rights is that the publisher is the one who made a capital investment to print and market the book, so the publisher should get an opportunity to profit from things that generate sales based on the existence of that book, like new editions of the book.

The logical thing to do is for the USCF to contact McKay/Random House and say: It’s time for us to start preparing a new edition of the rulebook, let’s talk about having an electronic version. (Random House is very aware of electronic books, according to the Wall Street Journal they’ve been contacting the authors of many of their titles reminding them that Random House contractually controls the rights to all formats, including electronic ones.)

Maybe they won’t want to do another edition at all. In most book contracts from that era, if the publisher lets the book go OP, all rights revert to the copyright holder, ie the USCF.

But the thing to do is TALK to them, not start planning things that might only antagonize the relationship.

I hear everything you’re saying, and while I respect the capital investment made by Random House, that investment was made decades ago. I’m guessing they got their return, even on something so potentially marginal as a game rulebook. If they lost their shirt on the fifth edition and aren’t interested in publishing a sixth paper edition, I say “terrific”. Let the USCF publish a vanity press edition for those who want the paper and offer it in other forms for free.

Random House may also be interested in electronic versions, but I’d be surprised if there weren’t some kind of profit attached. Members are still better served with free rules if that can be achieved and Random House is the only real (potential) obstacle to that. Talking is the best route, but if Random House isn’t interested in allowing free distribution (e.g., HTML and/or PDF), then I can’t say it serves USCF members very well. One can only hope that the new reality in publishing will bring about a change in contracts that really are outdated.

[EricHammond]

@nolan

…
The logical thing to do is for the USCF to contact McKay/Random House and say: It’s time for us to start preparing a new edition of the rulebook, let’s talk about having an electronic version.
…
Maybe they won’t want to do another edition at all. In most book contracts from that era, if the publisher lets the book go OP, all rights revert to the copyright holder, ie the USCF.

But the thing to do is TALK to them, not start planning things that might only antagonize the relationship.

I agree. Would it be the ED or the board that decides to have that discussion?

[nolan]

I hear everything you’re saying, and while I respect the capital investment made by Random House, that investment was made decades ago.

Each new edition involves up front editorial costs and each printing of that edition involves up front costs for paper, ink, press time, binding, etc. There are also ongoing costs to maintain an edition in print, such as storing the copies that have been printed and are in the warehouse ready to be shipped to book wholesalers or retailers.