OK, this looks dire

[rolanni]

The Authors Guild is reporting what looks like a monumental and unprecedented perpetual rights grab on the part of Simon & Schuster.

NEW YORK-- Simon & Schuster, one of the largest book publishers in the U.S., has altered its standard contract with authors in an effort to retain control of books even after they have gone out of print. Until now, Simon & Schuster, like all other major trade publishers, has followed the traditional practice in which rights to a work revert to the author if the book falls out of print or if its sales are low.

The rest of the story's here

...and some discussion here, in which Simon & Schuster spokespeople are shocked! shocked! by the AG's "overreaction" to a simple business deal.

Remind me again why I decided not to be a brain surgeon?

Comments

[robotech-master.livejournal.com]

While this does, at first glance, look somewhat iffy on the part of Simon & Schuster, the thing that makes me a bit hesitant to take sides is that none of the articles includes the actual language from the contract, they just say what it does. So there's the Authors' Guild saying, "They want to keep your books forever and ever!" and the S&S representative saying, "We just wanted to be able to take advantage of print-on-demand publishing to make books available after they go out of traditional print."

When you've got two different viewpoints that far apart, but they're both secondary sources, it's not easy to make an informed decision.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

So there's the Authors' Guild saying, "They want to keep your books forever and ever!" and the S&S representative saying, "We just wanted to be able to take advantage of print-on-demand publishing to make books available after they go out of traditional print."

These two things are not at all incompatible. Writers expect to make money from their work, same like everybody, and to have some reasonable control over that work. A publisher who wishes to keep an author's work "in inventory" always, in the hope that Sally Smedly of Woonsocket, Rhode Island will one day order a copy POD, is indeed taking "advantage of print-on-demand publishing to make books available after they go out of traditional print." It's *perfectly reasonable* that the publisher would wish to keep to itself the benefits of such potential microsales over a vast inventory in-house.

This, however, may not be in the very best interest of the writers. Publishing houses are not in the business of husbanding the best interests of authors; they're all about making gobs of money for the house. It's up to the writer to husband their backlist and to make sure that their material is out there and earning.

And it behooves writers to talk about these potential/reported rights grabs when they arise, and to keep ourselves informed and aware, and to remind ourselves (like we need this) that the business of publishers and writers intersects, but it is not the same.

[alwaysstillme.livejournal.com]

I agree it's important to see the actual before & after contracts in question before deciding whether AG overreacted or if S&S is trying to pull a fast one as the interpretation of the full contract may support one argument more than the other. However, based on the response from S&S, I'm inclined to side with AG on this one... what is apparently not in dispute is that S&S has taken out the previous language that defines "out of print" and that "out of print" is tied to the author's right of reversion. S&S has said that their new contract reflects current technological advances but the fact that they do not seem to have said anything about new provisions or amendments to their old boilerplate language that specifically includes POD (or any other "new advances in technology") in the definition of "out-of-print" makes me think the "we're keeping up with technology" argument is just S&S blowing smoke because they were caught trying to get away with holding on to more than they should. I was also not comforted by the Adam Rothberg (S&S spokeman) quote in the AP article re AG's "overreaction." He said, "They're talking about the worst possible result" which means that the current change could feasibly lead to the contention that "Your book will live and die with this particular conglomerate." Wouldn't it have been better to support S&S' argument by pointing out ways in which the new version of the contract would NOT lead to this "worst possible result"? This leads me to believe that in "updating" this contract, S&S was either lazy ("oh, let's just take that out since it's kind of irrelevant nowadays and no one will care if we don't add anything back in to make up for it") or money-hungry ("hey, it now costs us a pittance to keep a book stored in a database as opposed to the old method of having hardcopies on hand, so why don't we hold on to all the titles in order to get every penny possible out of them!"). The latter, of course, is that argument that AG is making and the former means someone at AG needs to remember the author because these are bilateral contracts. Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind if Rothberg/S&S just needs to brush up on their debating skills and the new standard contract does specifically speak to POD and how it effects a writer's reversion rights! Disclaimer: I am not an author but (unfortunately?) in a previous life, I was a fairly jaded attorney so do take all of this with a gallon of salt...

[victorthecook.livejournal.com]

As for the brain surgeon choice: gooey bits and bone dust all over your nice work clothes.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Hey, at least they haven't defaulted on royalties on the books they didn't print...

Writers are masochists. That was proven long ago.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

Hey, at least they haven't defaulted on royalties on the books they didn't print...

There are enough sins to go around...

[lagilman]

I am waiting to see agent and Big Name reaction before I start wailing, myself. Publishers are always trying to take an inch, and sometimes they get it, and sometimes enough people say 'bugger off' that they pretend the idea never came into their heads.

I have also noticed that - for all that this is a greedy, penny-abusing idea that should be slapped soundly -- too many writers seem to forget that the publisher-entity* isn't Uncle Daddy, but the devil dressed as a business partner, and the occasional attempted screw-overs are part and parcel of the deal. I've been tempted to give the Creative Business is Still A Business 101 lecture to certain of our fellow writers, recently...

/crankiness

Also: brain surgery? Requires years and years of study and mountain ranges of student loan debt. Debt first, debt later, you choose. I prefer the one that involves virtual gore, myself.


* as opposed to the individual editor or even the indivisual publisher, who may be a lovely and sympathetic and sympatico individual

[mbarker.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I am naive, but isn't that in part what the agent is supposed to help with? Avoiding signing the standard contract, and tailoring the bits and pieces that need it to provide you with a contract you can live with? So now there's another chunk that needs to be rewritten before signing - that's part of the negotiation dance, no? Just as I believe boilerplate contracts used to try to claim all rights, including electronic ones, although savvy authors insisted on less extravagant terms.

I agree that S&S making such a blatant term a part of the standard contract, and then saying, "oh, we'll hold good faith negotiations when needed," seems less than reasonable. If you intend to provide good faith terms, you usually start with them instead of saying you'll get them in the sweet by-and-by (sp?).

Brain surgery? Messy, very messy. And the legal suits and insurance there are staggering.

Forensic linguistics, now, there's a job with prospects. Or should that be inspectors?

[drammar.livejournal.com]

The only writing I do is very technical, and completely to spec -- and what I write I never own again. But, in the case of creative work (truly creative, as opposed to making sure that the instructions for the lasted gizmo actually make sense!) I imagine that the S&S contract must seem a lot like handing over a beautifully polished gem to a entity that promises to display it prominently for all to enjoy -- and then will never give it back even though they hide it in a old dusty back room. (shivers)

And I think the big problem is not that S&S alone is doing this -- but that they are such a major house that others might follow suit. To borrow a phrase that I generally avoid because it's over used by people of another political persuasion, it's a slippery slope.

[sambear.livejournal.com]

Oh my. The Evil Empire finally gets the theory of the Long Tail. Maybe we shouldn't have told them?

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

As someone who is concerned that books in my series may be declared OOP before the last book comes out, I'm torn about some aspects of this. Because I like the idea of the being-in-print bar being lowered and all the books being available all the time. But yes, the rights-grab aspect bugs me, too. Some sort of compromise that guarantees that all the books reamin in print until some time after the last book in the series is released, with different benchmarks after all the books are out, is something I'd consider.

[ravenmcsidhe.livejournal.com]

I doubt that I am telling you anything that you don't already know but the publishing business is murder and runs constantly on a shoestring and prayer... Publishers do everything that they can to keep afloat and if that means screwing the authors, they will. Not that I am a published author, I just work for a publishing division of a major company, so I see it from the inside everyday. We do educational and training books, not fiction, so I can only imagine how much more cut-throat it is on that side of the business.