It is a general rule of life that the party who drafts a contract is the party who benefits the most. Sure, it’s not a law or anything. Think of it as more of a guideline. Thus, when Simon & Schuster announced (in a quiet, not designed to stir the waters way) that it was [...]
new posts in all blogs
Blog: Booksquare (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags: The Business of Publishing, Our Continuing Fascination With Copyright, Add a tag
By: Kassia Krozser,
on 5/19/2007
Blog: Booksquare (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags: The Future of Publishing, Our Continuing Fascination With Copyright, Add a tag
By: Kassia Krozser,
on 3/7/2007
Blog: Booksquare (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags: Our Continuing Fascination With Copyright, Add a tag
By: Kassia Krozser,
on 2/20/2007
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: Our Continuing Fascination With Copyright, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Blog: Booksquare (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags: The Business of Publishing, Our Continuing Fascination With Copyright, Add a tag
15 Comments on Simon & Schuster Changes The Rules: Goodbye Reversion of Rights!, last added: 5/21/2007
Display Comments
Add a Comment
Blog: Booksquare (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags: The Future of Publishing, Our Continuing Fascination With Copyright, Add a tag
We realize that many of you think that Booksquare is a well-oiled, well-planned, and well-considered machine. Some of you may even be under the impression that we plan our posts in advance. That is untrue. Most days we wake with a vague notion of maybe writing something brilliant. Most days, we end up erring on [...]
1 Comments on Live Book Search versus Book Search: The Differences Are…, last added: 3/11/2007
Display Comments
Add a Comment
Blog: Booksquare (Login to Add to MyJacketFlap)
JacketFlap tags: Our Continuing Fascination With Copyright, Add a tag
As many of you are aware, we strongly advocate a little thing called “knowing what you’re doing”. This does not contradict our position when it comes to Making Stuff Up. Quite the contrary. We believe, among other things, that people who sign contracts should know what the contracts say. We also believe that people who [...]
5 Comments on A Brief Overview of Creative Commons, last added: 3/2/2007
Display Comments
Add a Comment
I find this whole issue totally fascinating, and wonder how many grateful newbie lambs will fall prey to S&S’s evil machinations…
Also, how many established authors will re-contract on this basis.
S&S is more overt than many other trade publishers, but everyone is thinking about the value of backlist content - who should be able to monetize, and how, content that is increasingly available in fashions other than traditional paper editions. I’ve written about a coming wrinkle on this (shameless promotion) … see http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/shimenawa.php/2007/05/10/re_contracting_author_rights
This is a major issue and is both an arrogant approach to contracts and relationships. Will the publisher market and actively sell the long tail or just put it on the pod bookshelf and deprive the author of republishing it with someone who cares about it and is williong to invest in it. Publishers make mistakes, not all books make it first time round and some need a second opportunity. This is like locking up the art works in the vaults for the sake of owning them.
I am curious: how do you think self-publishing factors into this, if at all? I am thinking both of traditional self-publishing–where the author fronts the money and efforts for all book creation, marketing, and distribution–and POD publishing like Booksurge and AuthorHouse. If this becomes an industry-wide practice, will more authors elect to self-publish?
Well, if it does become an industry norm, and they don’t find themselves facing federal charges or class action lawsuits over it, then it may be a motivator for many authors to look more seriously at self-publishing. Personally, rights should be sold for individual printings, or for back-to-back printings that are made to meet existing consumer demands because a book is hot. If the book sells out and the publisher chooses not to print more, or even if they have extra stock and choose not to print more, they shouldn’t be able to sit on an author’s work - as they aren’t doing anything with it. I think author’s who are really serious may become their own publishing houses, or form publishing cooperatives to do an end-run around the system.
Martyn — your thoughts are like mine. It is one thing to own rights, it is an entirely different animal to exploit them. There will be much in the way of back catalog that simply sits for want of exploitation. Maybe the author or another entity could do a better job, maybe not.
Janet (and David) — I think there will be some push toward more self-publishing, but I also think the dream of being published by a big house is alive and well and very important to many authors. Right now, the fact that other houses haven’t made this move gives everyone negotiating leverage. As agreements change, you will see increased moves toward authors reviewing their options. Depending on the book — and this is a key consideration — there may better ways to publish.
I do get why S&S is making this move; I simply think it’s very bad for authors.
Thank you for clarifying the whole bit about the rights being owned for the length of the copyright. When I’d asked for clarification about that on another blog, I didn’t get a particularly enlightening response.
Either way, I agree that unless you have an infallible crystal ball, it’s not a smart move.
[…] Simon & Schuster Changes The Rules: Goodbye Reversion of Rights! | Booksquare “It is a general rule of life that the party who drafts a contract is the party who benefits the most.” (tags: publishing copyright ip contracts legal media ebooks) […]
Of course, the really lovely thing about on-demand publishing is the middle man isn’t needed as much any more.
Hard lessons the MPAA and RIAA have been beaten over the head with for years.
Most authors don’t make a whole lot of money in the first place, and unlike, say, an action film, the barriers to entry are typically very low.
So if so many authors don’t make a whole lot of money from their book, how strong, pray tell, is the motivation to sell your kidney to S&S in that, as yet not completely predictable, date in the future when the electronic book reading experience is widely considered as positive or better than reading printed matter?
Thank goodness I have a terrific agent.
Kate — I’m hoping you’re being facetious. Or that your agent represents a list of authors who have sufficient clout to withhold work until this clause is changed. It would take a lot of these authors to impact the publisher’s bottom line before they reconsidered this position.
It is not the norm for a certain level of author to be in a position to seriously negotiate terms of the standard contracts. There are, always, negotiable aspects of the deal, but publishers will only “give” so much and on certain points. A good agent knows how, when, and where to push; any time the standard language is altered, it is precedent-setting.
Kassia — A good agent will walk away from the table or even not submit to S&S if they prove to be immovable on this issue.
I was struck by Kathleen’s comment that a good agent would walk away from S&S over this issue.
A few agents went on record objecting to this change, Brian DeFiore and, I think, Simon Lipskar from Writers House, but I don’t know how negotiations might play out for the vast majority of authors if faced with the choice between S&S and nothing.
Last August I sold the electronic rights to the California Oak Foundation to publish my self-published book, Acorns And Eat’em. They added the phrase “5 years” which I thought was great. That means that they will re-negotiate with me in 5 years. They aren’t your typical publishers nor did I receive big bucks but there are caring business people out there.
As David noted, a good agent *might* walk away. As for will walk away? What if all the other publishers make the same moves? What if it’s the choice of this clause or no contract — and nobody else is biting? There are so many variables in a negotiation. It’s going to take more than one agent walking away from the table. The potential for loss on the part of S&S needs to be significant enough that they would reconsider this “standard” language.