In the early 1980s it seemed a simple matter, and in many cases it still is. I just wrote a one-page letter requesting permission to use something from someone else's work. The letter included a form at the bottom for the permission-giver to sign, and sent two copies of it (one for him or her to keep) along with a stamped, self-addressed envelope to return one copy to me.

Many of the people I asked were happy to have an excerpt from their work quoted in mine, and some asked nothing more than a copy of the finished book for themselves. Others asked a modest fee of $25 or $50 for a newspaper column or a quotation of 300 to 500 words. That's fair. No problem.

Now, however, negotiating permission fees with some publishers is as bad as negotiating a contract, perhaps worse. I have before me a three-page legalistic document that specifies permission for one edition only (I have to contact them again and pay again with each revision). I must specify how many copies of my book will be printed, whether it is paperback, and what the anticipated retail price will be. Permission fees for this publisher are calculated on a formula based on the number of words quoted as a proportion of the pages in my book, and assuring this publisher its cut of the profits if my book should be selected by a book club (fat chance for a textbook, but there it is, in writing!)

I had thought the permission for the second edition would be a simple matter, since I had already received permission once. But the delays have been maddening, and the permission fees have been stretched to whatever the market will bear. It seems that we have to pay for the lawyers the publishers have hired to persecute us. The only good news is that the fees are negotiable. The bad news is that you must start early, be persistent, and be prepared for frustration.

When I received a quotation from one publisher that was double what I had paid for the first edition, I made a counter offer of exactly what I had paid the first time. I reminded the publisher that these fees come out of my own pocket, that I only get 10 percent of the profits anyway, that I am in effect promoting its book by quoting it in mine, and that the success of my book is in no way dependent upon having that quotation in it. These arguments were successful in getting the fee reduced from $240 to $100. And I have resolved not to pay more than $100 for any excerpt unless I do something like an anthology with complete short stories or novels in it.

When even $100 seems excessive for what I'm asking to use, I have told publishers what I've been charged by other writers, usually not more than $30 to $50 for a syndicated newspaper column, for example. Often we have compromised, but I have never had a publisher flatly refuse to negotiate.

I think textbook authors are vulnerable on this issue and need to establish some kind of uniform standards. I can understand a certain modest charge to cover the clerical expenses in granting permissions and protecting copyrights. But I see no reason why we should have to get permission with every new edition. That just increases costs for everybody.

Moreover, it seems particularly insulting for a publisher to set a 120-day deadline on the payment of permission fees, after that same publisher had failed to forward my permissions requests to the company that it had subcontracted its permissions to, and after I had spent three months, three letters, and three long-distance phone calls in contacting the publisher. Long delays are so common in the permissions field that setting a deadline for payment of fees seems a bit hypocritical.

It would be in the best interest of both publishers and authors to come to some reasonable agreements on permissions. After all, most textbook authors are also teachers who have many interests in common with publishers. Until such standards can be established, however, all we can do is sharpen our bargaining skills as individuals.