My archive the book CORRESPONDENCE is made from is the publicly accessed John Cairns Archive of which I’m archivist, copyright going to the archive (although I’m told by another publisher of mine, it will go to the author, me, John Cairns). In the archive and book is a late letter from the other correspondent, covering therefore all her letters, saying she couldn’t use them herself and not asking for my letters she’d previously returned back, the implication of which is I should use all of them as I have done with the authoring of this book. It is patently of importance the publisher should acknowledge the archive from which her own right to publish derives. This she wouldn’t do. She persistently attributed copyright to another archive, if it even exists, stating I was its archivist, which I’m not. She did mean my archive but was ascribing it prejudicially to somebody else. What’s in a name?
I suspected an agenda behind this and anticipated I’d have to deal with it either, for the sake of being published accepting the imposition of having my archive illegitimately renamed by her, as the publisher would think I would, or not. I decided I’d decide what to do in the event. Meanwhile I extracted concessions because the publisher thought she’d get what she wanted in the end.
I corrected the misattribution several times, explaining why it should not be persisted in, and each time it was reaffirmed. When it came to a print-copy, there it was again. The publisher grumbled the text was intact ie the front page of publisher’s data, a mess I’d cleared up, was not my concern. I’d wanted to avoid taking any drastic step but in the event had little choice and as archivist of the John Cairns Archive withdrew permission to publish. My calculation was the publisher had invested too much in the book not then to alter the misattribution as required and as I believe necessary in her own interests too, that she not herself cast doubt on her right to publish the book and on my right to let her.