Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Publishing Agreements Through a Sharper Lens: How Relational Contract Theory Informs Author–Publisher Negotiations

  • Published:
Publishing Research Quarterly Aims and scope

Abstract

Classical contract theory—of will and morality, of promise or consent—translates awkwardly to contemporary publishing agreements where cultural products are not definitively valued, and publishing agreements’ industrial and aspirational ideals require an ongoing conversation, and relationship, between an author and publisher. Relational contract theory presents a framework in which parties to a contract can continue negotiations, particularly when industry developments create change or conflict. This paper applies relational contract theory to publishing contract negotiations to show how they operate incrementally, and illustrates via select qualitative interviews how contract terms are used in a post negotiation space to strengthen author–publisher relationships and support authors’ livelihoods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. John Locke claimed that ‘Though the Earth, and all inferior Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property.’

References

  • Akerlof G. The market for lemons: qualitative uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ. 1970;84(3):488–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander I. Copyright and the public interest in the Nineteenth Century. Oregon: Hart Publishing; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett R. Contract is not promise; contract is consent. Georgetown: Georgetown University Law Center; 2011. p. 211–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black O. Agreements: a philosophical and legal study. London: Cambridge University Press; 2012.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu P. The rules of art. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler D, et al. Entertainment law. Annandale: Federation Press; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter D. In: Mannion A et al. (editors) The Return of Print. Monash University Publishing: Melbourne; 2016.

  • Deazley R. On the origin of the right to copy: charting the movement of copyright law in the Eighteenth Century (1695–1775). Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman R. Writer-publisher relationships. In: Cope B, Freeman R, editors. Digital rights management and content development. Altona: Common Ground; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried C. Contract as promise. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • German Copyright Act

  • Glover s. ‘Getting on the Same Page’, Overland, Winter Edition (accessed September 2019) 2016.

  • Greco AN. The book publishing industry. 2nd ed. London: Routledge; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA. The concept of law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimel D. The choice of paradigm for theory of contract: reflections on the relational model. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2007;27(2):233–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leib EJ, Braucher J et al. Revisiting the contracts scholarship of stewart macaulay: on the empirical and the lyrical. London: Hart Publishing; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macneil IR. ‘Relational Contract: What we do and do not know’ Wisconsin Law Review. 1985;4:483–526.

  • Matulionyte R. Empowering authors via fairer copyright contract law. UNSW Law J. 2019;42(2):150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouzas S, Furmston M. From contract to umbrella agreement. California Law J. 2008;67:37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson JM, et al. Principles of contract law. 3rd ed. Rozelle: Thomson Reuters; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remuneration of Authors Report

  • Ruddock A. Understanding audiences: theory and method. Sage; 2001.

  • Thompson JB. Merchants of culture. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Throsby D, et al. Commerce or culture? Australian book industry policy in the Twenty-First century’. In: Mannion A, et al., editors. Publishing means business. Melbourne: Monash University Publishing; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuvaraj J, Giblin R. Are contracts enough? an empirical study of author rights in australian publishing agreements. Melbourne Univ Law Rev. 2020;44(1):1–30.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Culture and Communication/Faculty of Arts, The University of Melbourne, John Medley Building East - Room E167, Victoria, 3010, Australia

    Katherine Day

Authors
  1. Katherine Day
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine Day.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Day, K. Publishing Agreements Through a Sharper Lens: How Relational Contract Theory Informs Author–Publisher Negotiations. Pub Res Q 37, 152–167 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09806-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-021-09806-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation