April 9, 1998
American Writer
National Writers Union

To the Editor:

The article by Jack Forbes in the spring '98 issue, "Academic journals join the e-rights rush," would be pathetic if it weren't so infuriating.

Forbes details two instances in which he signed over his copyright and subsidiary rights to university-press journals, retaining only the right to reuse the work himself if he so chooses. Then he issues a stirring call to action to "professional organizations, scholarly organizations, teachers' unions and so on" to help prevent such situations in the future.

What hypocritical bullshit. What we need, first and foremost, are individual writers willing to stand up and say NO! in thunder to such thievery. Forbes is, according to his biography, "a professor and former chair of Native American Studies at the University of California at Davis," a much-published author who "won the Before Columbus Foundation's American Book Award for Lifetime Achievement for 1997." In short, a person of substantial reputation and clout in his field, who hardly needed another two lines on his vitae to meet the "publish or perish" rule. His public refusal to sign such contracts -- announced to his peers at a conference, or in an open letter -- would be newsworthy within that field, and influential; it could sway other of his colleagues to take the same stand, and could help embarrass the institutions in question into reconsidering and perhaps revising their policies.

Instead, for no money -- simply for the academic prestige of those credits on his resumé -- he gave in and signed. Now he comes whining to us, and to the other professional organizations in the academic world.

I don't buy it. In my book, Forbes is the real disgrace here; I'm ashamed to have him in my union, and will hoist a glass of cognac if and when he leaves. And don't tell me anything about walking a mile in his shoes, because I have. As it happens, in 1993 I took part in a conference on photography of Native Americans, and my paper, as part of the conference proceedings, was eventually submitted to and accepted for publication by one of the same journals to which I assume he refers, the American Indian Culture and Research Journal, published by the American Indian Studies Center of UCLA and edited by the improbably named Duane Champagne.

We corresponded over editorial matters from mid-April of '96 through the summer. Since I'd made my terms of publication clear to the conference organizer years earlier, I assumed those had been passed along to the journal and accepted. Then, in mid-August of '96, the page proofs arrived with an "Assignment of Copyright" agreement and a cover letter demanding that I sign over all rights to the article.

I too could have used the academic credential of publication in this prestigious journal -- probably more than Forbes needed his, since I have far fewer such credits on my resumé that he does -- and would have loved to reach that journal's readership with my ideas. I corresponded at some length with the journal's editors, seeking an alternative -- but to no avail. So I pulled the piece, telling them exactly why I refused to allow this attempted hijacking of my rights. As I wrote (in part) to Judith St. George, the managing editor, when it became clear that they wouldn't budge an inch:

"In effect, and by obvious intent, [this agreement's] first paragraph defines my essay -- for which you have paid not one cent, nor provided any other form of subsidy for production, such as a faculty salary -- as work for hire, to be owned outright by the university in perpetuity.

"As a working writer, I consider that demand to be unconscionable, constituting nothing less than a deliberate and calculated attempt to steal my intellectual property. Every professional writers' organization to which I belong -- PEN American Center, The Authors Guild, the National Writers Union, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and AICA-USA, the international art critics' association -- stands absolutely opposed to such surrender of rights, which -- as the Supreme Court indicated in 1989 -- is in clear violation of the spirit and purpose of the amended copyright law of the United States. I would be betraying my colleagues, and my profession as such, if I acceded to such an inappropriate request. So I must refuse.

"We have been corresponding in regard to this paper since April '96. Springing such a clearly unfavorable contract on me at the last minute -- with a rush request for instant return of corrected page proofs, and a warning that 'Late return of this agreement could result in a delay in the publication of your work' -- is patent evidence, if more were needed, of purposeful skulduggery. It's also extremely unprofessional. Maybe such flim-flam works with the amateur writers -- career academics and such -- who provide most of your essays. I'd strongly advise you against trying it on professionals like myself. Certainly my biography should have alerted you to my experience and position in the field."

I took that stand in my own self-interest, of course -- no one gets to own my writing but me -- but also to further the interests of all who write professionally. I take the idea of union, and of standing up as labor against the depradations of management, with great seriousness; and I'm always prepared to demonstrate that my positions are matter of principle, not just posturing and attitude, by paying the price for them, as I've done in this situation and others.

People like Jack Forbes are the bane of our profession -- unprincipled, unprofessional, complicitous scab labor who'll sign anything and then come running to the union, complaining about working conditions. Our union's rules are loose enough that we can't prevent spineless jerks like this from joining, but surely we don't have to listen to them snivel.

In solidarity --
/s/ A. D. Coleman
NY Local

A shortened and edited version of this letter appeared as "Each writer must fight for copyright" in the National Writers Union newsletter American Writer, Vol. 17, no. 2 (Summer 1998), pp. 2, 20.