I spent some of yesterday at Sir Paul Getty's cricket ground at Wormsley.

This panorama doesn't really do justice to the beauty of the place on an early English Summer's day.

The cricket was incidental to the fun and hospitality of the Wisden criicket day for advertisers, sponsors and contributors. I didn't play (saving myself for a needle match on Sunday) but did manage to suffer silly sunburn.

A controversy waiting to happen has just surfaced in the USA. It relates to an author's right to have the rights in her/his book revert if the publisher fails to keep the book in print. Simon & Schuster have eliminated this reversion clause from their boiler-plate contract. I can see their point. The existing clause refers to a simpler world where the definition of in print or out of print was clear. Today, publishing is global. If there is a copy in, say, an Australian warehouse, is the book still in print? If a book is immediately available by print on demand, is it in print? If a book is available digitally or by chapter, is it in print? However, I can understand an author's legitimate desire to ensure that a publisher does not simply 'sit on' the rights to a book. We need a new approach to rights reversion which recognises the new world in which we operate but which also recognises the decencies and fairness (in both directions) of the old. Some of the complexities are elaborated by Peter Brantley. This one will run and run.