When Does Post-Production Editing of e-Books Cross the Line?

A recent article on The New York Times has ignited a debate over the morality of post-production changes made to e-books without the knowledge or consent of the author. E-book post-production changes, also known as “post-publication modifications”, are edits, tweaks and adjustments made to the content of an e-book without the author’s knowledge or consent. Often times, these stealthy post-production changes can significantly alter the author’s original work, leading some to question the morality of such changes being made without the author’s knowledge or consent.

Typically, these post-production changes or stealth corrections, have been used to make alterations to e-books after they have been released for grammatical or typographical errors. While these changes may seem harmless on the surface, they can raise serious ethical questions around the unannounced changes and whether the reader is receiving the same product as was originally intended from the author of the book. While some argue that the author should have control over the content of their work, and that post-production changes should only be made with the author’s knowledge and consent, others take a more pragmatic approach, arguing that such changes may be necessary in order to ensure that e-books are of the highest quality with sensitivity readers being commonplace in most publishers’ editorial teams nowadays.

Further Reading: Why Hire a Sensitivity Reader?

Those in favour of post-publication modifications argue that they can be beneficial in helping to clean up any errors that may have slipped through the editing process, helping to create a better product for book consumers. They also argue that post-publication changes can help to make e-books more appealing and attractive to a wider range of readers, as the changes may make them more accurate and facilitate a better reading experience while being inclusive to minority groups.

However, those opposed to post-publication modifications argue that such changes should only be made with the author’s explicit knowledge and consent, as the content of their work should remain in their control. Furthermore, opponents of post-publication changes argue that making changes to an author’s original work may be seen as altering history or tampering with facts, as it would erase any evidence of the original work or change words that may be deemed offensive. Additionally, opponents contend that such changes could be deemed unethical, removing the author’s rights over their own work and infringing upon their right to artistic expression.

A case could be made that this practice goes against the trust that readers place in authors and publishers to provide them with an unadulterated reading experience. Readers may unknowingly discover discrepancies between what they’ve read and discussions they have with others or online reviews. Worse, other changes could be made, and the reader would never know, opening the possibility for authors and publishers to change their content, perhaps for ideological purposes or to appear ‘politically correct.’

In a follow-up article on Good eReader; a Kindle user recently pointed out, it wouldn’t have been much of an issue if the revisions made were limited to fixing grammatical errors and such but any attempt to change the story-line altogether is surely objectionable. Wheeler referred to the manner a particular title, Stine’s Welcome to Dead House on his Kindle device was altered last year without him ever having an inkling of what happened. Among the changes made was bringing forward the story timeline by several years, something that can make the entire story seem different than the original or the print version.

Amazon, for their part have justified its actions by claiming users always have an option to turn off automatic updates in their Amazon preferences. A spokesperson also noted that publishers have control over the copyright for the books they publish and therefore control the content and updating of their Kindle books. Conversely, Google Play automatically updates e-books without providing an option to opt out. A representative for Google declined to comment on this issue.

The morality of post-publication changes made to e-books is a contentious issue, and one that will likely continue to be debated. Proponents may view post-publication modifications as necessary in order to ensure e-books meet certain standards, while opponents may see such changes as unethical and a form of tampering with the artistic and intellectual rights of authors. Whatever the opinion may be, post-publication changes are an ongoing part of the e-book industry, and one that will continue to be a source of debate for some time.

While stealth corrections may be acceptable in fixing errors in e-books, publishers must understand that these changes can undermine the integrity of the book and the relationship between the author and reader. More so, in an age of privacy and accountability, demanding transparency and honesty has set a precedent to prevent such changes – with some readers and consumer rights groups advocating governmental regulations over amoral practices.

It seems that transparency is the only real solution to this problem. Publishers should inform readers about any changes made to the e-book, along with a detailed explanation of why the changes were made. If the changes were made for grammatical or typographical for a smoother reading experience reasons that’s one thing, but it is essential to give the reader the option to update their version or opt out if substantive changes are made which could dramatically alter characters or plot.