Slog
News & ArtsFriday, March 8, 2013
Books A Deal with the Devil
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 3:05 PM
If you're at all interested in the business side of the book business, you should read this post, in which sci-fi author John Scalzi tears a Random House imprint's author contract to shreds. The most unbelievable aspects of the contract involve the fact that there is no advance and the author only gets a single copy of the book. Scalzi sums up:
THIS IS A HORRIBLE AWFUL TERRIBLE APPALLING DISGUSTING CONTRACT WHICH IS BAD AND NO WRITER SHOULD SIGN IT EVER. Yes, I’m aware I’ve already said this. It bears repeating. It doesn’t matter whether it’s from Alibi, Hydra or anyone. Run away from it, as fast as you can, arms flailing like a Muppet’s. It’s the only rational response.
With deals like this, is it any wonder that so many people are turning to self-publishing?
4
The truly scariest part is that the contract appears to give the publisher the right to apply the same contract to your next book, too, unless they're not interested - and so they can basically decide they own you, applying the same awful contract to each additional book you write.
5
Between Redshirts and this article, John Scalzi is rapidly flying up the rankings of my favorite authors.
7
@4,
Unless I misread Scalzi's summary, you'd supposedly retain the right to sell the next book to another publisher if the deal is as good as or better than Hydra's/Alibi's. And it's hard to imagine a worse deal than what they're offering.
What I find most egregious is the author essentially bearing the cost of publishing the damn thing. You might as well self-publish and cut out the useless middleman. And anyone who works in publishing or entertainment knows that a cut of "net" proceeds is a fantasy. The publisher will always manage to screw you out of net profits, which is why you should never settle for less than gross.
Unless I misread Scalzi's summary, you'd supposedly retain the right to sell the next book to another publisher if the deal is as good as or better than Hydra's/Alibi's. And it's hard to imagine a worse deal than what they're offering.
What I find most egregious is the author essentially bearing the cost of publishing the damn thing. You might as well self-publish and cut out the useless middleman. And anyone who works in publishing or entertainment knows that a cut of "net" proceeds is a fantasy. The publisher will always manage to screw you out of net profits, which is why you should never settle for less than gross.
8
@#7
I haven't read the contract, and am not a lawyer (nor is Scalzi), but Scalzi's summary was:
And if Alibi does take the next book on the same terms, presumably that includes the terms extending the contract to the next book in sequence, etcetera, ad infinitum.
I haven't read the contract, and am not a lawyer (nor is Scalzi), but Scalzi's summary was:
Oh, and the next thing you write? Alibi gets to option to take that, too, for the same terms as this contract (i.e., nothing up front, charging you for all sorts of crap on the back end). If Alibi doesn’t want it, you can shop it elsewhere but cannot accept an offer that’s equal or less than Alibi’s offer.I may be misreading Scalzi, and Scalzi may be misreading the contract, but it appears to me that Alibi has the right to impose this same contract on the next book you write - not to match a competing bid for the next book you write. The bidding only enters into it if Alibi rejects your next book (which makes no sense to me, but there you are).
And if Alibi does take the next book on the same terms, presumably that includes the terms extending the contract to the next book in sequence, etcetera, ad infinitum.
9
@8,
I guess I did misread it. I suppose the only way out of it is to intentionally write a pile of shit so Alibi doesn't pick it up.
I guess I did misread it. I suppose the only way out of it is to intentionally write a pile of shit so Alibi doesn't pick it up.
10
Is the actual contract posted? I went three links deep and didn't see it.
I deal with entertainment contracts all day, but I don't do any literary publishing work. With that caveat I'll point out that rights of first refusal, copyright ownership (WFH language followed by an assignment), recoupable costs, etc. are standard fare in the entertainment industry. Of course, these points can and should be negotiated, and no one should just sign an agreement like this.
Also, the grant of rights can be terminated by the author or the author's heirs 35 years after the grant notwithstanding anything the agreement says.
I deal with entertainment contracts all day, but I don't do any literary publishing work. With that caveat I'll point out that rights of first refusal, copyright ownership (WFH language followed by an assignment), recoupable costs, etc. are standard fare in the entertainment industry. Of course, these points can and should be negotiated, and no one should just sign an agreement like this.
Also, the grant of rights can be terminated by the author or the author's heirs 35 years after the grant notwithstanding anything the agreement says.
13
What a great post. Really, everything I want to say about this contract is in the following sentence towards the end, when Scalzi talks about a softly wounded letter Random House sent him accusing him of rashly overracting:
"I am speaking for myself and only for myself when I say that I looked at the letter that the folks at Random House sent me and wondered just how incredibly stupid they must think I am to believe that just because they sent a letter that read as all reasonable and nice sounding, that would somehow change the fact that the business model of their new eBook imprints is predicated on preying on writers — and preying on the writers most at risk for being preyed upon, the new and the desperate."
Think of all the aspiring writers out there toiling for their dreams. They need to see this.
"I am speaking for myself and only for myself when I say that I looked at the letter that the folks at Random House sent me and wondered just how incredibly stupid they must think I am to believe that just because they sent a letter that read as all reasonable and nice sounding, that would somehow change the fact that the business model of their new eBook imprints is predicated on preying on writers — and preying on the writers most at risk for being preyed upon, the new and the desperate."
Think of all the aspiring writers out there toiling for their dreams. They need to see this.
14
@10: In the blog post before this one, he comments that the contract is actually very similar to the ones the record labels have historically used with musicians. Then he says, people hate the RIAA and feel no guilt pirating for that reason, so probably not the best model for the book industry to follow.
15
@14, interesting. I'd argue that the public at large hates the labels not because of recording contracts, of which I believe most consumers are ignorant, but because of the labels' hyper-aggressive and clumsy response to digital exploitation (suing Napster, Grokster, single mothers, etc.).
His next point about the life of copyright is simply incorrect. Small consolation in the short term, I realize, but the right of authors to terminate a grant of rights after 35 years is a real and meaningful right. The first round of these termination notices started going out this year. This is a major thing that's happening right now, and each year a whole new batch of grants (assignments and licenses) can be undone and taken back by artists.
None of this is a defense of labels or their awful recording agreements (or those of literary publishers)--I represent artists, so I'm not on the labels' side.
His next point about the life of copyright is simply incorrect. Small consolation in the short term, I realize, but the right of authors to terminate a grant of rights after 35 years is a real and meaningful right. The first round of these termination notices started going out this year. This is a major thing that's happening right now, and each year a whole new batch of grants (assignments and licenses) can be undone and taken back by artists.
None of this is a defense of labels or their awful recording agreements (or those of literary publishers)--I represent artists, so I'm not on the labels' side.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Listen Up, Gays: They're Coming to Recruit You by Cienna Madrid
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (15) RSS