I have the permission of the authors to create an audio version of a book published in 2015. The audio version would be licensed under a Creative Commons license.

The book is published by Routledge under the following conditions:

© 2015 selection and editorial material, Giacomo D’Alisa, Federico Demaria and Giorgos Kallis; individual chapters, the contributors. The Introduction, Epilogue and chapters 14 and 36 are subject to copyleft licensing.


3 Copyright 3.1 The copyright in the Editor’s part in and to the Work and any Contribution written by the Editor for inclusion therein will remain the property of the Editor but nothing in Clause 3.1 (this clause) shall affect any rights separately granted by Contributors to the Publishers. The copyright notice to be printed in the Work will be in the name of Giacomo D’Alisa, Federico Demaria and Giorgos Kallis for selection and editorial material and in the case of Contributions, the name of the copyright owner of the particular contribution with year of first publication.

(a) In consideration of the payment to the Editor of the fee and/or applicable royalty percentages of the Publishers’ receipts set out in Clause 9, the Editor grants to the Publishers the sole and exclusive right and license to adapt, produce and publish, and to license others to adapt, produce and publish, the whole or any part of the Editor’s part in and to the Work and any Contribution written for inclusion therein or any abridgement, adaptation or translation of the Editor’s part in and to the Work, in all forms and media, in the English language only throughout the world for the full term of copyright, (including all renewals and extensions of that term). …


The parts that you bolded do clearly indicate that only Routledge has the right to adapt, produce and publish, or to let others do same, in any form – in English. So editor's permission is irrelevant, though perhaps Routledge would take note if someone wanted to publish an audio book version over the objections of the editors.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thank you for your answer. I very appreciate it! Mind explaining the last sentence which is unclear to me: "So editor's permission is moot, though perhaps Routledge would take not if someone wanted to publish an audio book version over the objections of the editors." – orschiro Mar 1 '16 at 16:38
  • 1
    It means that it does not matter if you ask the editors for permission to construct the audio book, because per the terms of the license agreement, only Routledge can / needs to give permission. However, as a business matter, publishers usually take into consideration the reasoning of the authors (editors) in deciding whether to grant permission. Some publishers actually include "author veto power" in their agreements. However, Routledge might already have plans for an audio version, in which case they might decline to scrap that plan, or let you create a competing product. – user6726 Mar 1 '16 at 17:40
  • Thank you! It is clear to me now. We contacted Routledge directly on this matter. – orschiro Mar 2 '16 at 17:16

There seems to be a distinction here between "the editor" and "the authors". If that is the case, then Routledge claims they have the exclusive rights to the work of the editor (who probably combined pieces by individual authors into a book), which may or may not be true. You having permission of the authors wouldn't give you permission to use the text as created by the editor.

You could (unless there are other contracts in the way) take the works of the authors, do the job of the editor and create the audio book from the unedited texts. However, if the authors gave you permission, and also gave Routledge exclusive rights, then this will end up messy for everyone.

| improve this answer | |
  • Finally, we received permissions by Routledge! :-) – orschiro Oct 21 '16 at 5:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.