Discogs has writer credits such as "Lennon/McCartney" for shared credits. Is it allowed to create such a credit in Bookogs. I'm specifically thinking of Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee who have collaborated on several books. Is an author credit of "Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee" or some variation acceptable?
Another example is Niven/Pournelle who have also authored several books together.

Might need some input from some avid book readers than me. I'm stuck actually trying to think of famous book partnerships in the same mold as Lennon-McCartney. So at the moment I don't see the need for it unless there is the same level of 'dual' authorship as Goffin/King in the book world.

Lennon-McCartney was just an example. I was wondering if there was any rule against combining authors. So unless I hear from staff, I will combine.
I ran into another issue. © John and Mary Gribbin was listed as copyright holder. I'm not a lawyer, but I would have to guess that © John and Mary Gribbin is not legally the same as © John Gribbin / © Mary Gribbin. Asking for more guidance.

westpier wrote:

Might need some input from some avid book readers than me. I'm stuck actually trying to think of famous book partnerships in the same mold as Lennon-McCartney. So at the moment I don't see the need for it unless there is the same level of 'dual' authorship as Goffin/King in the book world.

Preston & Child is a pretty famous partnership.

Thought of one: Fred & Judy Vermorel.

Obsure to some but well known in my mind, now I get it!

Not sure if it's the rule or not but as it is we add the authors of joint works separately in the credit field.

There are some famous partnerships in the database, one that came to mind was the Strugatskys:
https://www.bookogs.com/credit/64114-arkady-and-boris-strugatsky

Discogs policy is to avoid using collaborative artist credits except in specific instances. https://support.discogs.com/hc/en-us/articles/360005054753-Database-Guidelines-2-Artist 2.6.1 to 2.6.4.
On that basis, I don't think there would be a case for creating an entry such as Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee. But there is a stronger case for Preston & Child which is clearly a 'brand name' for the partnership https://www.prestonchild.com/books/chronology/.

I think if two authors are best know as a single unit I am in favour of having them as one credit but in cases like Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee where in this case just 5 books in a series but are authors in their own right should be added in separate credit fields.

sonnyboythethird wrote:

I don't think there would be a case for creating an entry such as Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee. But there is a stronger case for Preston & Child which is clearly a 'brand name' for the partnership https://www.prestonchild.com/books/chronology/.

Agreed. But...

sonnyboythethird wrote:

Discogs policy is to avoid using collaborative artist credits except in specific instances.

In too specific instances, IMVHO. The Discogs guidelines have been used to split valid group names and well-known songwriting partnerships, causing huge arguments in the forums. Management has had to push some of the splits through because users have not agreed with them.

That said, I still think that the starting point should be not to create a page for the collaborative artists. There should be a good reason to create the partnership page.

The legal aspect (including branding) mentioned in the Discogs guidelines can be one criteria, but as books have been around for a long time, it can become a nuisance when dealing with older collaborations.

If we can find a golden middle way where we also put more emphasis (than Discogs) on how the possible partnership is generally viewed, then I think that would be better.

Supernaut1970 wrote:

I think if two authors are best know as a single unit I am in favour of having them as one credit but in cases like Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee where in this case just 5 books in a series but are authors in their own right should be added in separate credit fields.

Trouble is that the copyright for 'Cradle' is listed as "© 1988 Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee". I'm not a lawyer, but to me it would seem that legally that does not allow for two copyright credits, i.e. 'Copyright Holder' "Arthur C. Clarke" and 'copyright holder' "Gentry Lee". I would think the the legal entity would be "Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee"

I know this discussion has been inactive for a couple of weeks, but I will add my thoughts.

If the collaboration is regular then by all means the two authors should be credited as a team (there are a number of collaborative author credits already in the database).

I don't see the need to create a collaborative author credit for Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee as they only wrote several books together. It just fragments the database, and the Work credits for these particular books credit the two authors separately.

However, the copyright credit probably requires a joint credit as it could be a legal entity. It would be helpful to list this detail in the profile, so that other users don't assume it is a collaborative author credit.

I should have looked beforehand, but the total number of books that Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee wrote together was four. I wouldn't classify it as a prodigious collaboration.

If they were indeed a legal entity, then I would combine them also as authors, no matter how many books they have written.

But, is there any other proof of them being a legal entity than the copyright credit, or do we consider that sufficient?

I used the words "probably" and "could" because I really don't know if they are a legal entity. I don't have the time or the inclination to research this information.

If the Discogs policy regarding collaborative artists is relevant on Bookogs in respect of authors, then a four book collaboration hardly meets the criteria given that Arthur C. Clarke wrote numerous novels, short stories, and non-fiction works without the assistance of Gentry Lee. Gentry Lee has written at least 3 novels by himself in addition to the 4 novels with Arthur C. Clarke. You would hardly describe them as the Lennon/McCartney or Jagger/Richards of the book world.

With regards to a copyright legal entity I was thinking of: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/34767-terry-and-lyn-pratchett

I am sure there are many other examples.

thethrowback wrote:

With regards to a copyright legal entity I was thinking of: https://www.bookogs.com/credit/34767-terry-and-lyn-pratchett

I am sure there are many other examples.

Yeah, I saw that one too. My logic is that if the dual credit is already there as a dual copyright, why not also use it for authors.

You would hardly describe them as the Lennon/McCartney or Jagger/Richards of the book world.

They don't need to be, not even according to Discogs guidelines. It's enough that they are a legal entity, or can be otherwise proven to be a group. The guidelines are not reserved only for well-known and prolific artists. Often it's just easier to find the proof for them as there is a lot of information available.

My logic is that if the dual credit is already there as a dual copyright, why not also use it for authors.

Also, if users see the dual credit, they will assume that it should be used for everything. Maintaining a practice that requires you to enter the same credits in two different ways on one submission is not the easiest.

If we consider the copyright credit to be sufficient proof of them being a legal entity, then I'd say combine them all, no matter the credit. If not, split them all, including the copyright credits.

It's enough that they are a legal entity, or can be otherwise proven to be a group

I haven't seen any evidence proffered that Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee were a legal entity and I maintain that a four book partnership hardly makes them a "group".

I iterate that I believe creating a combined credit in this example fragments the database, the four books are effectively removed from the repective author credits and I feel this just complicates the search process.

I fully concur that if a group of two or more writers frequently collaborate/d then they require a combined credit, for example:

Arkady and Boris Strugatsky
Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore
The Brothers Grimm

A good example of an author who frequently collaborates with other writers is James Patterson. IMO it would be ridiculous to create combined author credits for all of his collaborative books, as this would make searching his bibliography extremely complicated.

On the matter of the copyright credit, it really does come down to interpretation. It could be that the copyright attribution is simply for each individual. Without a reliable source to prove otherwise, maybe the best solution is to credit the two names separately. It is a bit different with a copyright credit such as "Terry and Lyn Pratchett" as this is clearly a single entity. It wouldn't be so straightforward if the credit was listed as "Terry Pratchett and Lyn Pratchett".

thethrowback wrote:

It's enough that they are a legal entity, or can be otherwise proven to be a group

I haven't seen any evidence proffered that Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee were a legal entity and I maintain that a four book partnership hardly makes them a "group".

I iterate that I believe creating a combined credit in this example fragments the database, the four books are effectively removed from the repective author credits and I feel this just complicates the search process.

I fully concur that if a group of two or more writers frequently collaborate/d then they require a combined credit, for example:

Arkady and Boris Strugatsky
Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore
The Brothers Grimm

A good example of an author who frequently collaborates with other writers is James Patterson. IMO it would be ridiculous to create combined author credits for all of his collaborative books, as this would make searching his bibliography extremely complicated.

On the matter of the copyright credit, it really does come down to interpretation. It could be that the copyright attribution is simply for each individual. Without a reliable source to prove otherwise, maybe the best solution is to credit the two names separately. It is a bit different with a copyright credit such as "Terry and Lyn Pratchett" as this is clearly a single entity. It wouldn't be so straightforward if the credit was listed as "Terry Pratchett and Lyn Pratchett".

"Who owns the copyright in a joint work?

When two or more authors prepare a work with the intent to combine their contributions into inseparable or interdependent parts, the work is considered joint work and the authors are considered joint copyright owners. The most common example of a joint work is when a book or article has two or more authors. However, if a book is written primarily by one author, but another author contributes a specific chapter to the book and is given credit for that chapter, then this probably wouldn’t be a joint work because the contributions aren’t inseparable or interdependent.

The U.S. Copyright Office considers joint copyright owners to have an equal right to register and enforce the copyright. Unless the joint owners make a written agreement to the contrary, each copyright owner has the right to commercially exploit the copyright, provided that the other copyright owners get an equal share of the proceeds."
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/faqs/copyright-ownership/

DarkStar1951 that is impressive research as I have learnt something about joint copyright. I checked and this also applies in the UK, and no doubt in other countries where copyright is observed.

I still maintain that in the example of the four novels co-authored by Arthur C. Clarke and Gentry Lee, the author credits should be listed individually.

P.S. Can someone tell me what the red dot signifies when I copied and pasted DarkStar1951's username into my reply? That is a new one on me.

Just to note that most official sources talk about a 'collaboration', including the Arthur C. Clarke website and Clarke himself.

As 'collaboration' is a very generic term and does not really help us, I thought it was important to determine whether the copyright credit is sufficient to establish them as a legal entity.

I took a look at some one-off collaborations (for example Good Omens), and the ones I have all have a copyright credit of "Author A and Author B". This is an indication to me that such copyright credit alone is not enough to justify a joint credit, further proof should be required.

From the excellent article that DarkStar1951 provided it is clear that for the purposes of copyright, a collaborative credit should be treated as a single entity.

However, I don't think the treatment of copyright holders is grounds for creating a combined author credit for every collaborative book listed on Bookogs. The database would be flooded with combined author credits and this would make searching a particular author's bibliography unwieldy.

The policy has always been to only create a combined author credit where the collaboration is well established and frequent. The problem is this rule is nebulous at best.

Login or Register to post a reply to this topic.