Letter to Irena Krońska written in 22.08.1963
Prof. Roman Ingarden v v Krakow, 8/22/1963
v Dear Ms. Irena,
v v I am surprised at your comments regarding my letter to the Director of the PWN regarding the payment of royalties for the sixth volume of Philosophical Works. My reasons are as follows:
v 1.The funds should have been transferred within the period stipulated in the contract without the author being forced to make demands. If they are forced to do it, it means that they are not treated properly by the institution that forces him to do so.
v 2. I wrote about the royalties to the Editorial Office of Philosophy /the LCP/ first, but I received neither answer nor money. It was only after the lack of reply that I turned to the next authority, so I kept your prestige.
v 3. The letter to the General Director was not – as you write – “quite violent”. I have a copy of it. It asked for a payment order and indicated when, according to the contract, it should have been given. I had to write about the page header, because I had not been paid for it before, although I created it myself /in Kant’s case/.
v 4. The new idea of taking out Ms. Turowicz’s remuneration from my royalties baffled me. I seeked advie from an associate professor of law from the Jagiellonian University specializing in copyright. He informed me that neither the letter of the contract nor the general provisions of the Act and Regulations constitute a legal basis for this kind of deduction of translation costs for which there is a separate contract with the translator from my royalties. – Had the Philosophical Editorial Office or anybody from the PWN Publishers officially asked me to change the terms of the contract before starting the production of this volume, I would have considered the matter and decided one way or the other. At this point, when the volume is ready and there is a separate contract /with regards to the translation/ nothing can be done. I will not accept any decision detrimental to my interests in this matter and I will seek legal protection if forced to do so.
v 5. Neither the financial matters nor compliance with contractual conditions in general was always quite proper in the past. With the translation of Kant I had to write three letters to explain how many author’s sheets the text actually accounted for and I should be paid for. With the second volume of Studies in Aesthetics, the Financial Office made a mistake of several thousand to my disadvantage and I had to make claims, write letters etc. again, and it was only as a after those that the Financial Office agreed to pay me the due remuneration.
v Delaying payment for months results in a loss for the author who could either spend the amount due to them in the meantime or put it into a PKO savings booklet
v A yet another matter is the failure to comply with the terms of contract regarding the intended amount of copies. Each of these six volume was published in fewer copies than stated in the contract. I was never apologized to for that, although it is also to the detriment of the author, especially since a second edition is out of the question, despite my books quickly selling out. When I turned to the Head Office with a proposal for the second edition of Studies in Aesthetics after the release of the Russian translation, I was refused – because of the lack of paper…
v In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that there was nothing in the form or content of my letter that could offend you, Ms. Irena, or the Head Office.
v I would also appreciate it if in the future you could refrain from lecturing me in our private letters on the tone of my letters to the PWN regarding official matters.