Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware
Last September, the US Justice Department urged the courts to reject the Google Book Settlement, citing concerns about class action, copyright, and anti-trust laws. The DOJ's brief put the Settlement's approval process on hold, and forced the parties back to the negotiating table--resulting, in November, in the filing of an Amended Settlement. New deadlines were set for authors and for the filing of objections, and the Fairness Hearing (to determine if the Settlement will stand) was postponed to February 18, 2010.
On Thursday, in a statement of interest filed with U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin in New York, the DOJ indicated that, while it continues to believe that the Settlement could provide a major public good, and acknowledges that the Amended Settlement Agreement includes "substantial" changes, it's still not satisfied. (The filing can be seen here.)
The DOJ's strongly-stated concerns fall into the same areas it highlighted in its previous filing.
- Copyright. Not to put too fine a point on it, the ASA violates current copyright law, by requiring rights holders to opt out rather than to opt in.
"In its current form," the DOJ writes, "the ASA is inconsistent with the policy of the Copyright Act, as established by Congress, making the argument that the ASA furthers the purposes of the Act a difficult one. The ASA seeks to carve out an exception from the Act’s normal rules and presumptions, which require a rightsholder to affirmatively grant permission for the kinds of uses contemplated by the ASA. The parties claim that creating an opt-out exception would better serve the purposes of the Constitution’s Copyright Clause by promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. That, however, is a judgment better suited for legislative consideration, rather than one for courts to make in the context of approving a settlement."
- Anti-trust law. The DOJ feels that the legal rights granted by the ASA "confer significant and possibly anticompetitive advantages on a single entity – Google. Under the ASA as proposed, Google would remain the only competitor in the digital marketplace with the rights to distribute and otherwise exploit a vast array of works in multiple formats. Google also would have the exclusive ability to exploit unclaimed works (including so-called 'orphan works') without risk of liability."
In other words, although the ASA leaves Google competitors theoretically free to build a digital library by the same methods Google has used, it's highly unlikely that any entity would be willing to open itself to the infringement lawsuits that would surely follow. Google thus gains what amounts to a monopoly. "Nothing in the ASA," the DOJ writes, "addresses this concern."
- Class action issues. "Although the United States believes the parties have approached this effort in good faith and the ASA is more circumscribed in its sweep than the original Proposed Settlement, the ASA suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement: it is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the Court in this litigation."
In other words, while the original lawsuit was intended only to address Google's unauthorized scanning of in-copyright works, the ASA empowers Google to go far beyond simply scanning, enabling it also to become a dominant publisher and retailer of digital books.
The DOJ is concerned that the class representatives don't have the right under existing laws to grant Google these sweeping rights. It also questions whether the class adequately represents absent members (foreign rightsholders and authors of orphan works), and whether class members received sufficient notice of the ASA and its terms.
If the anti-trust concerns are resolved, and the Court decides that the class will stand, the DOJ recommends that a number of additional safeguards be incorporated into the ASA, including:
- An "opt-in regime," or, if the Court approves an opt-out regime, a substantial waiting period before Google can exploit in-copyright works without permission from the rightsholders.
- A delay in the acceptance of the ASA, to give the Book Rights Registry a chance to "set standards designed to further reduce the volume of unclaimed works after expiration of the waiting period"--i.e., to reduce the number of orphan works--and, to the same end, a "reasonably diligent search" for rightsholders of unclaimed works after the waiting period has expired.
- Limiting Google's license to commercially exploit unclaimed works to a defined term, say five or ten years, with the option to renew.
In conclusion, the DOJ reiterates the shortcomings of the ASA, but leaves the door open for continued negotiation:
Despite the commendable efforts of the parties to improve upon the initial Proposed Settlement, many of the problems previously identified with respect to the original settlement remain in the ASA. The United States remains committed to working with the parties on the settlement’s scope and content.
Will the parties return to the negotiating table, postponing the Fairness Hearing yet again? Stay tuned.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Are You a Published Author? Now You Can Tell the World!
Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware
Hey, Published Authors: Feeling artistically discouraged? Critically devalued? Culturally marginalized? Alternatively, are you just so full of self-admiration and self-confidence that you could absolutely pop?
A Customized Author Plaque from ZLS Publishing ("The Authorpreneurial Publisher") might be just the thing.
That's right, writers. You can get your book cover laminated onto a wooden plaque, along with "engraving options" such as "Bestselling Author – 5,000+ Books Sold + your name," or "Author Extrordinnaire [sic] -100+ Books Sold + your name." (Talk about faint praise!) The plaques come in a range of colors (white, black, blue, etc.) and a variety of sizes, from dainty to hefty.
Just imagine the many uses to which you could put your plaque! If you can't, ZLS suggests:
1) To be used and shown during your book signings.
2) Picture of your plaque to be placed on your website.
3) To give as Holiday gifts to authors or family members you know.
4) To be used and shown during your speaking engagements.
5) Use as part of your overall book marketing package.
And the cost? A mere $125 for the dainty size, and a somewhat heftier $325 for the hefty size, plus a few dollars extra for engraving.
(ZLS also sells Customized Author Shopping Tote Bags, Customized Author Pencils, and Customized Book Signing Author Balloons. And if the demise of Poetry.com has you missing those offers to put your poem on a plaque, ZLS can help.)
So if the vanity shelf in your office with all your titles ranged upon it isn't quite enough to sustain your self-confidence, or if your self-promotional arsenal is lacking that certain je ne sais quoi, or if you just want to say it loud, you're a Published Author and you're proud...you can now go plaque yourself.
Hey, Published Authors: Feeling artistically discouraged? Critically devalued? Culturally marginalized? Alternatively, are you just so full of self-admiration and self-confidence that you could absolutely pop?
A Customized Author Plaque from ZLS Publishing ("The Authorpreneurial Publisher") might be just the thing.
That's right, writers. You can get your book cover laminated onto a wooden plaque, along with "engraving options" such as "Bestselling Author – 5,000+ Books Sold + your name," or "Author Extrordinnaire [sic] -100+ Books Sold + your name." (Talk about faint praise!) The plaques come in a range of colors (white, black, blue, etc.) and a variety of sizes, from dainty to hefty.
Just imagine the many uses to which you could put your plaque! If you can't, ZLS suggests:
1) To be used and shown during your book signings.
2) Picture of your plaque to be placed on your website.
3) To give as Holiday gifts to authors or family members you know.
4) To be used and shown during your speaking engagements.
5) Use as part of your overall book marketing package.
And the cost? A mere $125 for the dainty size, and a somewhat heftier $325 for the hefty size, plus a few dollars extra for engraving.
(ZLS also sells Customized Author Shopping Tote Bags, Customized Author Pencils, and Customized Book Signing Author Balloons. And if the demise of Poetry.com has you missing those offers to put your poem on a plaque, ZLS can help.)
So if the vanity shelf in your office with all your titles ranged upon it isn't quite enough to sustain your self-confidence, or if your self-promotional arsenal is lacking that certain je ne sais quoi, or if you just want to say it loud, you're a Published Author and you're proud...you can now go plaque yourself.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Dispatches from the Ebook Wars: Macmillan vs. Amazon
For some time, publishers and others have been concerned about Amazon's policy of pricing ebooks at $9.99, regardless of the price tag publishers put on them. Many feel that Amazon's discounted ebook pricing is an attempt to control and monopolize the ebook market by forcing a pricing standard. Some in the publishing industry have even called the practice predatory. (Readers, of course, are more likely to applaud cheaper ebooks, but many publishers, which have fixed costs to earn back whether a book is ink on paper or pixels on a screen, regard the $9.99 price point as a major threat to revenue.)
Over the weekend, a publisher finally went head-to-head with Amazon on this issue.
Earlier last week, John Sargent, CEO of "big six" publisher Macmillan, presented new terms of sale to Amazon for Macmillan ebooks. Under the so-called "agency" distribution model (which means that Amazon could not discount the books--see below for an explanation), digital editions of Macmillan trade titles would be priced from $5.99 to $14.99, and digital editions of first-release hardcovers would be priced from 12.99 to $14.99. Amazon found this unacceptable, and on Friday, it yanked the buy buttons from all of Macmillan's titles, both digital and print--a move that forced Sargent to issue an emergency explanation to Macmillan authors/illustrators via industry newsletter Publishers Lunch.
You may remember that Amazon employed this very same power play back in 2008, when it decided that it would sell no print-on-demand titles that weren't produced by its own POD subsidiary, BookSurge (now CreateSpace), and disabled the buy buttons of some POD-based publishers that refused to deal. That decision spawned a lawsuit (recently settled), but ultimately, Amazon prevailed.
This time was different. On Sunday, in a message posted to its Kindle forum, Amazon gave in, if not entirely graciously. Despite "strong disagreement" with Macmillan, Amazon "will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books." (An interesting use of the word "monopoly," given that Amazon's own pricing policies have been subject to the same accusations.) Amazon goes on to say that "customers will decide for themselves," and that "we know for sure that many independent presses and self-published authors will see this as an opportunity to provide attractively priced e-books as an alternative." (Take that, bad big publishers.)
So what's behind the dispute? Basically, competing distribution models for ebooks. Under the familiar wholesale model that is the norm for print books, and till now has been the norm for ebook sales from major publishers, publishers sell to intermediaries--such as bookstores or distributors--at a fixed discount, and the intermediaries then re-sell to the consumer at whatever price they choose. What Macmillan proposed is known as the agency model: Publishers sell directly to consumers via "agents"--such as Amazon or Apple's iBooks store--which get a commission on those sales. In the wholesale model, consumer prices are controlled by the intermediary, whereas in the agency model, they are controlled by the publisher. You can see why Amazon, with its aggressively competitive discounting policies, would not be enthusiastic about the agency model (even though, as agent Nathan Bransford points out, $9.99 ebooks are a loss leader for Amazon).
While this might seem to be a two-way tug of war--Amazon vs. publishers--there's actually a third player involved: Apple, whose brand-new iPad is perceived by many as a possible Kindle-killer, and which has adopted the agency model for ebooks sold through its iBooks store. There may have been an Apple in Amazon's eye when it blinked on Sunday. Other hints that Amazon is concerned about Apple competition emerged in the weeks leading up to the iPad's launch: Amazon increased royalties to 70% for authors and publishers using Kindle's self-publishing system (developers of apps for Apple products receive 70% of revenues), and opened up the Kindle to outside developers to stimulate the creation of Kindle apps.
As of this writing, the buy buttons for Macmillan books are still MIA at Amazon.
For a fuller analysis of the wholesale/agency issue, see this post from Mike Shatzkin's Idea Logical blog.
There's good analysis also from Macmillan author Charles Stross.
More analysis from agents Ashley Grayson and Rachelle Gardner.
A roundup of stories on the dispute.
Most people seem to think that Amazon is the loser here, but James McQuivey of Forrester Research offers an interesting opposing view.
Over the weekend, a publisher finally went head-to-head with Amazon on this issue.
Earlier last week, John Sargent, CEO of "big six" publisher Macmillan, presented new terms of sale to Amazon for Macmillan ebooks. Under the so-called "agency" distribution model (which means that Amazon could not discount the books--see below for an explanation), digital editions of Macmillan trade titles would be priced from $5.99 to $14.99, and digital editions of first-release hardcovers would be priced from 12.99 to $14.99. Amazon found this unacceptable, and on Friday, it yanked the buy buttons from all of Macmillan's titles, both digital and print--a move that forced Sargent to issue an emergency explanation to Macmillan authors/illustrators via industry newsletter Publishers Lunch.
You may remember that Amazon employed this very same power play back in 2008, when it decided that it would sell no print-on-demand titles that weren't produced by its own POD subsidiary, BookSurge (now CreateSpace), and disabled the buy buttons of some POD-based publishers that refused to deal. That decision spawned a lawsuit (recently settled), but ultimately, Amazon prevailed.
This time was different. On Sunday, in a message posted to its Kindle forum, Amazon gave in, if not entirely graciously. Despite "strong disagreement" with Macmillan, Amazon "will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms because Macmillan has a monopoly over their own titles, and we will want to offer them to you even at prices we believe are needlessly high for e-books." (An interesting use of the word "monopoly," given that Amazon's own pricing policies have been subject to the same accusations.) Amazon goes on to say that "customers will decide for themselves," and that "we know for sure that many independent presses and self-published authors will see this as an opportunity to provide attractively priced e-books as an alternative." (Take that, bad big publishers.)
So what's behind the dispute? Basically, competing distribution models for ebooks. Under the familiar wholesale model that is the norm for print books, and till now has been the norm for ebook sales from major publishers, publishers sell to intermediaries--such as bookstores or distributors--at a fixed discount, and the intermediaries then re-sell to the consumer at whatever price they choose. What Macmillan proposed is known as the agency model: Publishers sell directly to consumers via "agents"--such as Amazon or Apple's iBooks store--which get a commission on those sales. In the wholesale model, consumer prices are controlled by the intermediary, whereas in the agency model, they are controlled by the publisher. You can see why Amazon, with its aggressively competitive discounting policies, would not be enthusiastic about the agency model (even though, as agent Nathan Bransford points out, $9.99 ebooks are a loss leader for Amazon).
While this might seem to be a two-way tug of war--Amazon vs. publishers--there's actually a third player involved: Apple, whose brand-new iPad is perceived by many as a possible Kindle-killer, and which has adopted the agency model for ebooks sold through its iBooks store. There may have been an Apple in Amazon's eye when it blinked on Sunday. Other hints that Amazon is concerned about Apple competition emerged in the weeks leading up to the iPad's launch: Amazon increased royalties to 70% for authors and publishers using Kindle's self-publishing system (developers of apps for Apple products receive 70% of revenues), and opened up the Kindle to outside developers to stimulate the creation of Kindle apps.
As of this writing, the buy buttons for Macmillan books are still MIA at Amazon.
For a fuller analysis of the wholesale/agency issue, see this post from Mike Shatzkin's Idea Logical blog.
There's good analysis also from Macmillan author Charles Stross.
More analysis from agents Ashley Grayson and Rachelle Gardner.
A roundup of stories on the dispute.
Most people seem to think that Amazon is the loser here, but James McQuivey of Forrester Research offers an interesting opposing view.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Cris Robins and The Robins Agency: She's Ba-aaack!
Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware
Once upon a time, there was a self-styled literary agent named Cris Robins who ran a purported literary agency called The Robins Agency. For more than ten years, Robins charged editing fees, levied various upfront fees, and, as far as Writer Beware can determine, never made a single verifiable commercial book sale. Complaints about her were among the first Writer Beware collected when we began operation in 1998. Due to the volume of these complaints and the length of time over which they were received, we placed her on our Thumbs Down Agency List in 2006.
That same year, shortly after an unhappy recipient of her editing services won an $8,000 judgment against her for breach of contract, fraudulent business practice, and consumer protection violations, Robins closed her agency's doors. For a time, she continued to solicit her services to writers--in 2007, I got a number of reports from authors who received emails with offers of editing services and the "packaging" of manuscripts for submission to publishers. By 2008, however, Robins had gone silent. Writer Beware dared to hope that The Robins Agency was out of business for good.
But being a fee-charging agent is so easy and so lucrative that many of those who practice it find it difficult to give up. This week, I learned that Robins is once again soliciting writers with offers of fee-based representation.
Robins' email begins:
So why would you want to pay a track recordless "literary agent" $4,600 for representation and epublishing, when reputable agents charge no fees at all and you can epublish for free on the Kindle? BECAUSE YOU CAN MAKE SO MUCH MONEY, STUPID!
There you have it. And, writers, you'd better hurry--'cause Cris Robins only has room for fifteen lucky new clients, and prices go up on February 1.
Once upon a time, there was a self-styled literary agent named Cris Robins who ran a purported literary agency called The Robins Agency. For more than ten years, Robins charged editing fees, levied various upfront fees, and, as far as Writer Beware can determine, never made a single verifiable commercial book sale. Complaints about her were among the first Writer Beware collected when we began operation in 1998. Due to the volume of these complaints and the length of time over which they were received, we placed her on our Thumbs Down Agency List in 2006.
That same year, shortly after an unhappy recipient of her editing services won an $8,000 judgment against her for breach of contract, fraudulent business practice, and consumer protection violations, Robins closed her agency's doors. For a time, she continued to solicit her services to writers--in 2007, I got a number of reports from authors who received emails with offers of editing services and the "packaging" of manuscripts for submission to publishers. By 2008, however, Robins had gone silent. Writer Beware dared to hope that The Robins Agency was out of business for good.
But being a fee-charging agent is so easy and so lucrative that many of those who practice it find it difficult to give up. This week, I learned that Robins is once again soliciting writers with offers of fee-based representation.
Robins' email begins:
After a three-year hiatus, The Robins Agency is now accepting new clients. Oh, sure, we still offer a full editorial staff and exceptional literary agents to present your work to publishers and movie producers here and abroad, but this year we’re kicking off a brand new service that sells your books … when buyers want to buy them – like right now.A bit of hyperbole here--Robins was prolific in her editorial referrals and her retainer, at $3,200 was astronomical, but her agency was far from the only one that followed such practices. Still, you've got to admire the spin.
Our agency shook up the industry when we offered our clients an editorial service, rocked it even more when we charged a retainer for our services; and now, well, now watch out because this is going to be revolutionary!!
Who ever heard of a literary agency that also published books?? Sure, you can find the under-the-table deals; but The Robins Agency is talking about above-board, in-your-face, quality work that lists on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble, complete with cover designs, ISBN numbers, copyrights AND royalties to the writer.Who ever heard of a literary agency that also published books? Well, actually, anyone who has ever seen Writer Beware's Alert on Writers' Literary Agency, a.k.a. AEG Publishing Group, a.k.a. Strategic Book Group--currently being sued by the Florida Attorney General's office for unfair and deceptive business practices.
Let’s talk about investment. How much are you willing to spend to get your work from where it is, to being sold? We understand that money’s tight right now; because we are looking for a few good works, we’re willing to cut our prices to find the best work out there.Um, that's not the way reputable literary agencies work, either. But never mind, we're spinning like a top here in our effort to make our predatory business practices look appealing.
Remember I told you we shook up the industry? Here’s how. Instead of sending you bills to cover expenses at the end of each month when you are under the impression that the agency works on commission, we charge a flat rate. We don’t call on Thursdays and tell you that if you want us to represent you on our trip the next day that it’s going to cost you $500. That’s not the way we work.
Our base rate, a one year retainer was $3,250; for this promotion only we are dropping it to $2,500.Gosh golly, what a deal!
IF your work needs editing, our standard rate WAS $6 per 250-word page for a limited time, we’re dropping it to $4.50 per 250-word page.
If you want to take advantage of our e-book publishing offer, it will be going up to $950 on Feb. 1; but for this mailing, we’re charging only $750. Remember this includes cover art, inside layout, ISBN, copyright, and submitted to Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble, and possibly a few others to seize every available opportunity for your work.
I’ve thrown around a lot of numbers, let’s put them all together. Let’s say you have a 300 page manuscript (that’s 75,000 words); what do the numbers look like?
Editing services: $1,350 (a savings of: $450)
Agency retainer: $2,500 (a savings of $750) – it’s like getting the publishing FREE!!
E-book publishing: $ 750 (a savings of $200)
Grand total: $4,600 (a total savings of: $1,400!!)
So why would you want to pay a track recordless "literary agent" $4,600 for representation and epublishing, when reputable agents charge no fees at all and you can epublish for free on the Kindle? BECAUSE YOU CAN MAKE SO MUCH MONEY, STUPID!
Now, I understand that you may be sitting there thinking that there’s no that you’re going to spend $4,600 to take a chance on your book. So, let me ask you, how hard would it be to sell 1,000 books?? According to the news reports over 12 MILLION e-books were sold last year. Hmm. What if your book only sold 2,000 copies?? At roughly $4.95 per book, you just DOUBLED your investment.Depends on how you define "bad."
Doesn’t look quite so scary now does it? And that’s ONLY if all we sold were the e-book copies. What would happen if while your e-book was selling, and other publishers were considering buying it for print? Would THAT be a bad thing? We didn’t think so either.
There you have it. And, writers, you'd better hurry--'cause Cris Robins only has room for fifteen lucky new clients, and prices go up on February 1.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Author Solutions CEO Wants to Talk to Writers' "Guilds"
Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware
In a video posted to YouTube on Friday, and in an accompanying press release, the CEO of Author Solutions, Kevin Weiss, invited the Romance Writers of America, the Mystery Writers of America, and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (which he incorrectly dubbed the "Science Fiction Writers' Association"--though I can't fault him for this, as PW regularly gets it wrong as well) to sit down with him and other AS representatives to discuss the recent debate over AS's "partnerships" with Harlequin and Thomas Nelson. (Weiss didn't mention another professional writers' group, NINC, which issued a strongly-worded statement in response to the debate.)
(To recap, if you have been living in a cave for the past six months: This fall, Harlequin and Nelson--both major commercial publishers--launched "self-publishing" divisions, whereby aspiring authors could pay a fee and have their books formatted, printed, and distributed online. Both divisions were run by AS. A storm of public criticism ensued, prompting RWA, MWA, and SFWA to issue public statements and to de-list Harlequin, Nelson, or both.)
From the press release:
"I'm inviting the three writers guilds who've expressed the greatest objections with the partnerships we've established with traditional publishing to sit down with us and discuss how we can improve the opportunity for their writers and the choice for readers," Weiss said in the statement.
In response to ASI's announcements of partnerships with traditional publishers, the three writer's guilds led a campaign to discredit the publishers involved in creating these groundbreaking opportunities, even going so far as to de-list one as a qualified publisher. Weiss believes the guilds may not fully understand the role self-publishing can play in expanding options for writers and consumers while at the same time providing benefits to traditional publishers who are in the midst of tremendous upheaval.
"Not only do I want to discuss the differences they have with our business, as well as the partnership models that we're engaging with traditional publishing, but I also want to discuss the things that we are doing and plan to do to advance the cause of their members on a daily basis," Weiss said.
In the video, Weiss claims that "choice is under attack," citing concerns that cheap ebooks and book retailers' price wars will undercut publishers' revenues, resulting in fewer chances for new authors and fewer choices for readers. The implication is that AS addresses that problem by making publishing services available to all (though I would find this more convincing if so many of AS's services weren't predatory and overpriced--there's a good analysis at Shiloh Walker's blog--and if, by Mr. Weiss's own admission, the average sales for an AS title didn't top out at 150).
Weiss also gets a couple of things wrong. I've already mentioned SFWA's name; also, RWA, MWA, and SFWA didn't de-list just one publisher, but both--MWA and SFWA by implication, since Thomas Nelson doesn't really publish in their genres, RWA explicitly, by removing Nelson as well as Harlequin from its conference-eligible publisher list. Plus, the press release's claim that RWA, MWA, and SFWA "led a campaign to discredit the publishers involved" is hyperbolic. The writers' groups made strong responses, but most of the outcry came from individual writers (and involved Harlequin; Nelson more or less got a free pass), and it was largely the outcry that spurred the statements, not the other way around.
I'd also love to know exactly what it is that AS does to "advance the cause" of RWA, MWA, and SFWA members "on a daily basis"--especially given that authors cannot qualify for membership in MWA and SFWA on the basis of self-published books--but I guess Weiss is saving that for the sit-down.
Will a sit-down, if it happens, be productive? Good question. Part of the objection to the AS/Harlequin/Nelson "partnerships" was the misleading way in which they were presented--seriously overstating the benefits of self-publishing for many if not most authors, using the carrot of possible transition to commercial publishing as a hook to draw in customers--as well as, in Nelson's case, a promise of referral fees for agents who steered authors its way, plus a truly exorbitant cost. Given that high costs and less-than-transparent presentation are at the core of AS's services, I don't think that's likely to change. Also, can there ever be a meeting of the minds between professional commercial writers' groups and a company that wants to present fee-based publishing as an "indie revolution?" Part of the problem, I think, is that Weiss is speaking a different language.
I don't want to be unduly negative. There are certainly ways in which AS could benefit RWA, MWA, and SWFA members--by providing a reasonable, efficient way for members to bring their out-of-print works back into circulation, for instance. And, simply as a matter of pragmatism, I do think that we will have to get used to at least some degree of cohabitation between commercial publishing and fee-based publishing--since commercial publishers need revenue and fee-based publishing is (for now) extremely lucrative. If, in these difficult times of economic pain and technological transition, launching a fee-based publishing division could help a commercial publisher maintain its core publishing operation--and if the fee-based division were straightforward, reasonably-priced, and transparent (i.e., no bogus farm-team promises, or referral fees, or exaggerated portrayals of the potential for success)--I might be able to make peace with that.
Is AS the right company to provide those services, though? Do publishers even need to hire an outside company to set fee-based publishing divisions up for them? Those are whole other questions.
In a video posted to YouTube on Friday, and in an accompanying press release, the CEO of Author Solutions, Kevin Weiss, invited the Romance Writers of America, the Mystery Writers of America, and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (which he incorrectly dubbed the "Science Fiction Writers' Association"--though I can't fault him for this, as PW regularly gets it wrong as well) to sit down with him and other AS representatives to discuss the recent debate over AS's "partnerships" with Harlequin and Thomas Nelson. (Weiss didn't mention another professional writers' group, NINC, which issued a strongly-worded statement in response to the debate.)
(To recap, if you have been living in a cave for the past six months: This fall, Harlequin and Nelson--both major commercial publishers--launched "self-publishing" divisions, whereby aspiring authors could pay a fee and have their books formatted, printed, and distributed online. Both divisions were run by AS. A storm of public criticism ensued, prompting RWA, MWA, and SFWA to issue public statements and to de-list Harlequin, Nelson, or both.)
From the press release:
"I'm inviting the three writers guilds who've expressed the greatest objections with the partnerships we've established with traditional publishing to sit down with us and discuss how we can improve the opportunity for their writers and the choice for readers," Weiss said in the statement.
In response to ASI's announcements of partnerships with traditional publishers, the three writer's guilds led a campaign to discredit the publishers involved in creating these groundbreaking opportunities, even going so far as to de-list one as a qualified publisher. Weiss believes the guilds may not fully understand the role self-publishing can play in expanding options for writers and consumers while at the same time providing benefits to traditional publishers who are in the midst of tremendous upheaval.
"Not only do I want to discuss the differences they have with our business, as well as the partnership models that we're engaging with traditional publishing, but I also want to discuss the things that we are doing and plan to do to advance the cause of their members on a daily basis," Weiss said.
In the video, Weiss claims that "choice is under attack," citing concerns that cheap ebooks and book retailers' price wars will undercut publishers' revenues, resulting in fewer chances for new authors and fewer choices for readers. The implication is that AS addresses that problem by making publishing services available to all (though I would find this more convincing if so many of AS's services weren't predatory and overpriced--there's a good analysis at Shiloh Walker's blog--and if, by Mr. Weiss's own admission, the average sales for an AS title didn't top out at 150).
Weiss also gets a couple of things wrong. I've already mentioned SFWA's name; also, RWA, MWA, and SFWA didn't de-list just one publisher, but both--MWA and SFWA by implication, since Thomas Nelson doesn't really publish in their genres, RWA explicitly, by removing Nelson as well as Harlequin from its conference-eligible publisher list. Plus, the press release's claim that RWA, MWA, and SFWA "led a campaign to discredit the publishers involved" is hyperbolic. The writers' groups made strong responses, but most of the outcry came from individual writers (and involved Harlequin; Nelson more or less got a free pass), and it was largely the outcry that spurred the statements, not the other way around.
I'd also love to know exactly what it is that AS does to "advance the cause" of RWA, MWA, and SFWA members "on a daily basis"--especially given that authors cannot qualify for membership in MWA and SFWA on the basis of self-published books--but I guess Weiss is saving that for the sit-down.
Will a sit-down, if it happens, be productive? Good question. Part of the objection to the AS/Harlequin/Nelson "partnerships" was the misleading way in which they were presented--seriously overstating the benefits of self-publishing for many if not most authors, using the carrot of possible transition to commercial publishing as a hook to draw in customers--as well as, in Nelson's case, a promise of referral fees for agents who steered authors its way, plus a truly exorbitant cost. Given that high costs and less-than-transparent presentation are at the core of AS's services, I don't think that's likely to change. Also, can there ever be a meeting of the minds between professional commercial writers' groups and a company that wants to present fee-based publishing as an "indie revolution?" Part of the problem, I think, is that Weiss is speaking a different language.
I don't want to be unduly negative. There are certainly ways in which AS could benefit RWA, MWA, and SWFA members--by providing a reasonable, efficient way for members to bring their out-of-print works back into circulation, for instance. And, simply as a matter of pragmatism, I do think that we will have to get used to at least some degree of cohabitation between commercial publishing and fee-based publishing--since commercial publishers need revenue and fee-based publishing is (for now) extremely lucrative. If, in these difficult times of economic pain and technological transition, launching a fee-based publishing division could help a commercial publisher maintain its core publishing operation--and if the fee-based division were straightforward, reasonably-priced, and transparent (i.e., no bogus farm-team promises, or referral fees, or exaggerated portrayals of the potential for success)--I might be able to make peace with that.
Is AS the right company to provide those services, though? Do publishers even need to hire an outside company to set fee-based publishing divisions up for them? Those are whole other questions.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Another Google Book Search Settlement Deadline
Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware
Writers: Another Google Book Settlement deadline is fast approaching. Per the amended Settlement agreement, January 28, 2010 is the last date you can opt out of the Settlement, or opt back in if you previously opted out and have since changed your mind.
(Note: The Settlement covers only US copyright holders published on or before January 5, 2009, and only books or inserts published in the US, Canada, UK, and Australia.)
Here's the deal:
- If you want to opt out of the amended Settlement, you can fill out this online form. Opting out means you will not be included in the Settlement and will receive none of its benefits (including cash payment for any books or inserts of yours that Google may have digitized without permission), but will retain your right to sue Google for copyright infringement and other claims related to the Settlement. Google is currently "voluntarily" promising to remove the works of opt-outers from its database, though there's nothing in the Settlement language to hold it to that.
- If you opted out before the Settlement was amended, and have changed your mind, you can now opt back in. Again, there's an online form you can fill out. Opting back in means your books and inserts will be included in the Settlement, that you'll receive a small cash payment for books and inserts that Google digitized without permission, and that you'll receive a portion of the revenue Google realizes from the commercial uses it makes of your work. You'll also be able to control how and whether your books and inserts are displayed, and how Google will be able to offer them for sale (with some limitations). However, you give up your right to sue Google for any claims related to the Settlement.
As an alternative to the online claim forms, you can contact the Settlement Administrator directly:
Settlement Administrator
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 9364
Minneapolis, MN 55440-9364
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BookSettlement@RustConsulting.com
- What if you do nothing? If you've already opted out or in, and are happy with your decision, there's nothing you need to do. If you haven't yet done anything, and take no action by January 28, you will automatically be part of the Settlement. US copyright holders are automatically opted in to the Settlement, even if they do nothing (a major objection among Settlement opponents, since this reverses a long-standing principle of copyright law).
- Whatever decision you make, regard it as permanent. It's possible that, at the Fairness Hearing on February 18, the Settlement will be amended again, or even thrown out (though I think that's unlikely). If so, you may have to decide to opt in or out again. However, if the Settlement is approved, you will not get the chance to change your mind. Be prepared, therefore, to live with the decision you make now.
- What next? If you opt out, you're done. If you opt in, however, you must establish how and whether Google will be able to display and sell your books and inserts. To do this, you must "claim" your works. Once again, there's an online form, but there's also the option of a simplified method, which involves emailing your bibliography to the Settlement administrator.
Opt-inners can claim their works at any time. However, if you want to direct Google to remove or exclude your works from its database, you must claim your works on or before April 5, 2011. (For why you might want to do this, see the next-to-last paragraph.) If you ask Google to remove or exclude your works, you may be able to change your mind later--but there are no guarantees. And if you want to receive a cash payment for works that Google digitized without permission, you must claim your works on or before March 31, 2011.
For writers who support the Settlement, it's a simple matter of opting in and claiming your writings. For writers who oppose it and don't want Google to display or sell their writings, things are more complicated. Is it better to opt in, giving up your right to sue but asserting control over your works? Or is it better to opt out and preserve your right to sue, with no guarantee that Google won't someday decide to change its "voluntary" policy of removing opt-outers' works from its database? If you're a pragmatist, the former may make most sense, since it assures you of control (at least, as much as is possible in a hugely open-ended Settlement whose long-term implications are not even remotely clear). For those who stand on principle, however--whatever that principle may be--opting out, even with the uncertainties involved, may be the best choice.
I opted out of the original Settlement, and I will remain opted out of the amended Settlement. Although the amendments do improve the Settlement's terms, and although I am sympathetic to the idea of a digital world library, for me the principle of copyright trumps all other considerations. By assuming permission, rather than seeking it, Google is turning copyright law on its head, and setting dangerous precedents for the future. I don't deny that copyright law could use some changes--but this should be accomplished through legislation, not as the default result of a lawsuit.
Links for further reading:
- Google's Settlement FAQ
- The Laboratorium is the blog of law professor James Grimmelman. He is an informed, relatively neutral observer of the Settlement, and (in my opinion) has provided some of the most intelligent and reasoned commentary on it. His article, "How to Fix the Google Book Search Settlement," precedes the amendments, but provides a good overview of the history and issues. "The Google Settlement: Why It Matters," written post-amendment, discusses why the changes don't render the Settlement less problematic.
- The Public Index provides general information and links to many documents.
- Transcript of a SFWA panel discussion on the Settlement.
Writers: Another Google Book Settlement deadline is fast approaching. Per the amended Settlement agreement, January 28, 2010 is the last date you can opt out of the Settlement, or opt back in if you previously opted out and have since changed your mind.
(Note: The Settlement covers only US copyright holders published on or before January 5, 2009, and only books or inserts published in the US, Canada, UK, and Australia.)
Here's the deal:
- If you want to opt out of the amended Settlement, you can fill out this online form. Opting out means you will not be included in the Settlement and will receive none of its benefits (including cash payment for any books or inserts of yours that Google may have digitized without permission), but will retain your right to sue Google for copyright infringement and other claims related to the Settlement. Google is currently "voluntarily" promising to remove the works of opt-outers from its database, though there's nothing in the Settlement language to hold it to that.
- If you opted out before the Settlement was amended, and have changed your mind, you can now opt back in. Again, there's an online form you can fill out. Opting back in means your books and inserts will be included in the Settlement, that you'll receive a small cash payment for books and inserts that Google digitized without permission, and that you'll receive a portion of the revenue Google realizes from the commercial uses it makes of your work. You'll also be able to control how and whether your books and inserts are displayed, and how Google will be able to offer them for sale (with some limitations). However, you give up your right to sue Google for any claims related to the Settlement.
As an alternative to the online claim forms, you can contact the Settlement Administrator directly:
Settlement Administrator
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 9364
Minneapolis, MN 55440-9364
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BookSettlement@RustConsulting.com
- What if you do nothing? If you've already opted out or in, and are happy with your decision, there's nothing you need to do. If you haven't yet done anything, and take no action by January 28, you will automatically be part of the Settlement. US copyright holders are automatically opted in to the Settlement, even if they do nothing (a major objection among Settlement opponents, since this reverses a long-standing principle of copyright law).
- Whatever decision you make, regard it as permanent. It's possible that, at the Fairness Hearing on February 18, the Settlement will be amended again, or even thrown out (though I think that's unlikely). If so, you may have to decide to opt in or out again. However, if the Settlement is approved, you will not get the chance to change your mind. Be prepared, therefore, to live with the decision you make now.
- What next? If you opt out, you're done. If you opt in, however, you must establish how and whether Google will be able to display and sell your books and inserts. To do this, you must "claim" your works. Once again, there's an online form, but there's also the option of a simplified method, which involves emailing your bibliography to the Settlement administrator.
Opt-inners can claim their works at any time. However, if you want to direct Google to remove or exclude your works from its database, you must claim your works on or before April 5, 2011. (For why you might want to do this, see the next-to-last paragraph.) If you ask Google to remove or exclude your works, you may be able to change your mind later--but there are no guarantees. And if you want to receive a cash payment for works that Google digitized without permission, you must claim your works on or before March 31, 2011.
For writers who support the Settlement, it's a simple matter of opting in and claiming your writings. For writers who oppose it and don't want Google to display or sell their writings, things are more complicated. Is it better to opt in, giving up your right to sue but asserting control over your works? Or is it better to opt out and preserve your right to sue, with no guarantee that Google won't someday decide to change its "voluntary" policy of removing opt-outers' works from its database? If you're a pragmatist, the former may make most sense, since it assures you of control (at least, as much as is possible in a hugely open-ended Settlement whose long-term implications are not even remotely clear). For those who stand on principle, however--whatever that principle may be--opting out, even with the uncertainties involved, may be the best choice.
I opted out of the original Settlement, and I will remain opted out of the amended Settlement. Although the amendments do improve the Settlement's terms, and although I am sympathetic to the idea of a digital world library, for me the principle of copyright trumps all other considerations. By assuming permission, rather than seeking it, Google is turning copyright law on its head, and setting dangerous precedents for the future. I don't deny that copyright law could use some changes--but this should be accomplished through legislation, not as the default result of a lawsuit.
Links for further reading:
- Google's Settlement FAQ
- The Laboratorium is the blog of law professor James Grimmelman. He is an informed, relatively neutral observer of the Settlement, and (in my opinion) has provided some of the most intelligent and reasoned commentary on it. His article, "How to Fix the Google Book Search Settlement," precedes the amendments, but provides a good overview of the history and issues. "The Google Settlement: Why It Matters," written post-amendment, discusses why the changes don't render the Settlement less problematic.
- The Public Index provides general information and links to many documents.
- Transcript of a SFWA panel discussion on the Settlement.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Open Letter from a Writer to New Publishers
Posted by Richard White for Writer Beware
Dear New Publisher:
You may have noticed people discussing your company on various web sites. Normally, this would be a good thing, I mean, free publicity, right? But, when you go to these sites, they may be discussing your company in unflattering terms and asking all kinds of questions about your ability to get books into bookstores.
"But, wait. They can't say that about my baby."
Actually, yes they can. See, just as every writer does not "deserve" to be published, not every person who dreams of being a publisher deserves to hang out a shingle and call themselves such.
Publishing is a unique critter. Even so, one thing it has in common with other businesses is you need experience. Period. This cannot be overstated. If you have no experience in the industry (and being an unpublished or even a published author does not equate to publishing experience), what are you offering your authors?
Sorry, good intentions are not enough.
And if you've never worked in the industry, you don't know what you don't know.
Any publisher thinking about starting up must be able to answer the following questions:
If you’re not ready to answer these questions, not only are you going to lose a lot of money and time, but you're going to cost your authors a lot of money, time and possibly cost your authors their book. You’re also going to pop up on writing web sites, but it’ll be because people are trying to figure out who you are, why they should trust you with their work, and what you’re offering that they couldn’t do on their own.
New publishers should be ready to PROVE they're ready to go from the moment they make themselves available for any author to submit to them. They should be able to stand up to any scrutiny and have answers for questions that are going to be asked.
And I say these things not only as a member of Writer Beware, but simply as a writer. Writers want publishers to succeed. We don't want them to fail because it's not fun to watch something come crashing down around the creator's ears. It's also not fun to watch what happens to authors who, time and again, get caught in a start-up that wasn't really ready to take that first step and wind up losing their book in the carnage.
What we want is for all new publishers to be certain they're ready to go.
BUT, my primary concern is always for the authors. New publishers don't have the right to experiment with other author's books. I've seen too many new publishers crash and burn and authors lose their books because contracts couldn't or wouldn't be released before the company just disappeared.
None of these publishers set out to do this. But by reading the lists of failed publishers on the Absolute Write Bewares and Background Check forum, there is a unifying theme to them all. Inexperience. Sure, you could be THE one. Or, you could be one of the other 99 who disappear in less than a year.
So, yes, new publishers MUST earn our trust.
Do your homework. Be ready before you ever ask for the first book. Do not learn as you go.
Period.
Dear New Publisher:
You may have noticed people discussing your company on various web sites. Normally, this would be a good thing, I mean, free publicity, right? But, when you go to these sites, they may be discussing your company in unflattering terms and asking all kinds of questions about your ability to get books into bookstores.
"But, wait. They can't say that about my baby."
Actually, yes they can. See, just as every writer does not "deserve" to be published, not every person who dreams of being a publisher deserves to hang out a shingle and call themselves such.
Publishing is a unique critter. Even so, one thing it has in common with other businesses is you need experience. Period. This cannot be overstated. If you have no experience in the industry (and being an unpublished or even a published author does not equate to publishing experience), what are you offering your authors?
Sorry, good intentions are not enough.
And if you've never worked in the industry, you don't know what you don't know.
Any publisher thinking about starting up must be able to answer the following questions:
- What's your experience in publishing?
- If you don’t have any experience, do you have partners who have publishing experience, people who can guide you over the shoals of a start-up publishing business?
- Have you ever run a company before in any capacity?
- What's your business plan?
- Have you secured sufficient funding to get this business off the ground
- Do you have realistic goals (starting small, focusing on your strengths, adding new lines only after you get established, not taking on too many authors)
- What's your target market? Bookstores? E-books only?
- What's your plan for getting books into bookstores?
- Do you have your distributors lined up before you open up for submissions?
- Do you know the difference between a distributor and a wholesaler?
- Who're your editors?
- How much experience do they have editing novels or non-fiction?
- How many authors do you expect to publish a year?
- Who's handling publicity for your company?
- Have you established a realistic time line to release ARCs to readers/reviewers/etc. before the book is ready to sell?
- What reviewers will you be sending preview copies of the book to?
- Do you have a web site oriented to attracting readers and selling books and not just there to lure in new authors?
- Who're your sales reps? How many do you have?
- Do you intend to use your authors as an unpaid sales force?
- Who're the artists you have lined up to do covers?
- Are you paying advances?
- How are royalties calculated? Cover price? Net?
- Can people see a copy of the contract to compare it against other standard publishing contracts?
- Is your contract author-friendly, or at least author-neutral?
If you’re not ready to answer these questions, not only are you going to lose a lot of money and time, but you're going to cost your authors a lot of money, time and possibly cost your authors their book. You’re also going to pop up on writing web sites, but it’ll be because people are trying to figure out who you are, why they should trust you with their work, and what you’re offering that they couldn’t do on their own.
New publishers should be ready to PROVE they're ready to go from the moment they make themselves available for any author to submit to them. They should be able to stand up to any scrutiny and have answers for questions that are going to be asked.
And I say these things not only as a member of Writer Beware, but simply as a writer. Writers want publishers to succeed. We don't want them to fail because it's not fun to watch something come crashing down around the creator's ears. It's also not fun to watch what happens to authors who, time and again, get caught in a start-up that wasn't really ready to take that first step and wind up losing their book in the carnage.
What we want is for all new publishers to be certain they're ready to go.
BUT, my primary concern is always for the authors. New publishers don't have the right to experiment with other author's books. I've seen too many new publishers crash and burn and authors lose their books because contracts couldn't or wouldn't be released before the company just disappeared.
None of these publishers set out to do this. But by reading the lists of failed publishers on the Absolute Write Bewares and Background Check forum, there is a unifying theme to them all. Inexperience. Sure, you could be THE one. Or, you could be one of the other 99 who disappear in less than a year.
So, yes, new publishers MUST earn our trust.
Do your homework. Be ready before you ever ask for the first book. Do not learn as you go.
Period.
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Law Finally Catches Up With Faux Literary Agent/Film Producer Robin Price
Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware
An article in the North Devon Journal reports the court appearance last week of UK literary agent/film producer Robin Price, who is accused of stealing more than half a million pounds from clients.
Price is alleged to have "encouraged authors to pay exaggerated literary fees and invest in non-existent film deals," and has been charged with six counts of theft, most committed over the course of several years:
● £293,603 from Cecil Humphery-Smith OBE between 2001 and 2007.
● £99,335 from Judith Day between 2001 and 2008.
● £120,000 from Dr Bryan Walton between 1999 and 2006.
● £14,250 from Chris Bailey between 2001 and 2004.
● £4,200 from Michael William Hawkes between 2004 and 2006.
● £646 from Evelyn Joyce Jolley in 2005.
Price has pleaded not guilty to all charges. A date for his trial will be set in February.
I first heard of Robin Price in 2001, when I began receiving questions about a literary agency called Avalon Associates, which was asking writers for £150 upfront "to cover initial costs of representation." The fees were an obvious red flag, as was the fact that the agency had no discoverable sales, either of books or scripts. Price, who made big promises to his clients and touted his industry connections, also owned a production company, Avalon Films, whose website boasted a huge roster of film and television projects planned or in production, many with well-known writers, actors, and/or directors attached.
There was just one problem: It was all a fabrication. The deals and the connections did not exist. Price never sent out the screenplays and manuscripts he claimed to be submitting on his clients' behalf, and the meetings and phone calls he claimed to be receiving from film industry movers and shakers were all invented. Here's one example, from Writer Beware's files: a client was told by Price that the managing director of a major film studio was seeking funding for the client's screenplay. When nothing came of it, the client herself contacted the individual, only to discover that he'd left the studio some time earlier. He'd never heard of the client's screenplay--but he had heard of Price. "I have known about Price's activities for some years," he wrote in an email to the client, "through my former work at [the studio]. We had continual stories from him of financial, creative, and production involvements which turned out to be entirely fictitious."
By all accounts, Price was extremely persuasive, at least initially. Several successful writers were caught up in his schemes (Price returned their trust by using their names to boost his credibility and ensnare more clients). But in 2001, after one writer spoke out about his experiences with Price, complaints began to surface, and Avalon Associates' listing was removed from the The Writers' Handbook, one of the major UK writers' guides.
With word getting round, Price did what dodgy agents often do: he changed the company's name. In 2002, Avalon vanished and Media Arts International took its place. The M.O. was basically the same: upfront representation fees for writers; a production website with suspiciously enormous numbers of projects, none of which, somehow, ever came to fruition; false claims of contacts, meetings, etc. This time, though, Price did send round a few manuscripts, and even managed to place several books with a publisher called First Century (here's a news story about one of them). Again, though, not everything was as it seemed. As I later found out from one sadder-but-wiser ex-Price client, First Century was a vanity publisher. (It now appears to be out of business.)
More ominously, I began receiving reports that Price was soaking writers for large amounts of cash--persuading them to invest in the production of their own screenplays, or to pay thousands of pounds in setup or legal fees to release production funds. Similar complaints appeared online. Not surprisingly, the productions never got off the ground, and the funds never materialized.
In 2007, still trying to stay ahead of his poor reputation, Price changed the company's name yet again, to Prospero Films. But by this time the police were on his trail. In late 2007, search warrants were served on Price and an associate, and computers, manuscripts, and other documentation were seized. Price was effectively out of business. Amazingly, however, some of his clients continued to give him money for a time, even after being interviewed by the police. As a friend of one of these clients told me, "thus was the incredible hold he had over people."
So why the long delay--more than two years--between the seizure and the court appearance? I don't know the answer to this. Possibly it took that much time to track down far-flung victims, disentangle Price's fictions, and assemble evidence. Possibly the case got put on hold for a while (as happened after the FBI raided the premises of fraudulent literary agent/vanity publisher Martha Ivery). What's important is that Price did eventually find himself in court, and will now be prosecuted.
I'll provide updates as I receive them.
An article in the North Devon Journal reports the court appearance last week of UK literary agent/film producer Robin Price, who is accused of stealing more than half a million pounds from clients.
Price is alleged to have "encouraged authors to pay exaggerated literary fees and invest in non-existent film deals," and has been charged with six counts of theft, most committed over the course of several years:
● £293,603 from Cecil Humphery-Smith OBE between 2001 and 2007.
● £99,335 from Judith Day between 2001 and 2008.
● £120,000 from Dr Bryan Walton between 1999 and 2006.
● £14,250 from Chris Bailey between 2001 and 2004.
● £4,200 from Michael William Hawkes between 2004 and 2006.
● £646 from Evelyn Joyce Jolley in 2005.
Price has pleaded not guilty to all charges. A date for his trial will be set in February.
I first heard of Robin Price in 2001, when I began receiving questions about a literary agency called Avalon Associates, which was asking writers for £150 upfront "to cover initial costs of representation." The fees were an obvious red flag, as was the fact that the agency had no discoverable sales, either of books or scripts. Price, who made big promises to his clients and touted his industry connections, also owned a production company, Avalon Films, whose website boasted a huge roster of film and television projects planned or in production, many with well-known writers, actors, and/or directors attached.
There was just one problem: It was all a fabrication. The deals and the connections did not exist. Price never sent out the screenplays and manuscripts he claimed to be submitting on his clients' behalf, and the meetings and phone calls he claimed to be receiving from film industry movers and shakers were all invented. Here's one example, from Writer Beware's files: a client was told by Price that the managing director of a major film studio was seeking funding for the client's screenplay. When nothing came of it, the client herself contacted the individual, only to discover that he'd left the studio some time earlier. He'd never heard of the client's screenplay--but he had heard of Price. "I have known about Price's activities for some years," he wrote in an email to the client, "through my former work at [the studio]. We had continual stories from him of financial, creative, and production involvements which turned out to be entirely fictitious."
By all accounts, Price was extremely persuasive, at least initially. Several successful writers were caught up in his schemes (Price returned their trust by using their names to boost his credibility and ensnare more clients). But in 2001, after one writer spoke out about his experiences with Price, complaints began to surface, and Avalon Associates' listing was removed from the The Writers' Handbook, one of the major UK writers' guides.
With word getting round, Price did what dodgy agents often do: he changed the company's name. In 2002, Avalon vanished and Media Arts International took its place. The M.O. was basically the same: upfront representation fees for writers; a production website with suspiciously enormous numbers of projects, none of which, somehow, ever came to fruition; false claims of contacts, meetings, etc. This time, though, Price did send round a few manuscripts, and even managed to place several books with a publisher called First Century (here's a news story about one of them). Again, though, not everything was as it seemed. As I later found out from one sadder-but-wiser ex-Price client, First Century was a vanity publisher. (It now appears to be out of business.)
More ominously, I began receiving reports that Price was soaking writers for large amounts of cash--persuading them to invest in the production of their own screenplays, or to pay thousands of pounds in setup or legal fees to release production funds. Similar complaints appeared online. Not surprisingly, the productions never got off the ground, and the funds never materialized.
In 2007, still trying to stay ahead of his poor reputation, Price changed the company's name yet again, to Prospero Films. But by this time the police were on his trail. In late 2007, search warrants were served on Price and an associate, and computers, manuscripts, and other documentation were seized. Price was effectively out of business. Amazingly, however, some of his clients continued to give him money for a time, even after being interviewed by the police. As a friend of one of these clients told me, "thus was the incredible hold he had over people."
So why the long delay--more than two years--between the seizure and the court appearance? I don't know the answer to this. Possibly it took that much time to track down far-flung victims, disentangle Price's fictions, and assemble evidence. Possibly the case got put on hold for a while (as happened after the FBI raided the premises of fraudulent literary agent/vanity publisher Martha Ivery). What's important is that Price did eventually find himself in court, and will now be prosecuted.
I'll provide updates as I receive them.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
From the Authors Guild: Simplified Method for Claiming Works for Google Book Search Settlement
Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware
The following message was sent to Authors Guild members this week. If you've chosen not to opt out of the Settlement and haven't yet claimed your works on the Settlement website, this should make things a bit easier.
----------------------------
Claiming a lengthy list of your books, short stories, essays, poems and articles for Google settlement benefits just got much easier. You can now start the process by simply submitting your bibliography to the claims administrator. You need only e-mail -- or send by regular mail -- a list of your books and shorter literary works (poems, short stories, articles) that may appear in books covered by the settlement. When in doubt, we suggest you submit everything.
Although the author's name and the title of the work is enough to get the ball rolling, it's helpful to include this additional information you can find in or on your books: ISBN, publisher, place and year of publication.
E-mail your bibliography to BookSettlement@RustConsulting.com. Feel free to send it as an attachment or paste it into the body of the e-mail itself.
If you prefer to submit your bibliography by regular mail, send it to:
Settlement Administrator
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 9364
Minneapolis, MN 55440-9364
USA
You may still file your claim through the regular claiming process, which our members with short lists of works have generally found easy to use. To do so, or to learn more about this simplified procedure, go to www.googlebooksettlement.com.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The Settlement Administrator will contact you to complete your claim, but it may be several months before that happens. You will be contacted before any of your works are displayed pursuant to the settlement, and you will have ample opportunity to instruct Google regarding which of your works you'd like displayed. (Remember that this is really about out-of-print books. None of your in-print books will be displayed under the settlement without your approval.)
The following message was sent to Authors Guild members this week. If you've chosen not to opt out of the Settlement and haven't yet claimed your works on the Settlement website, this should make things a bit easier.
----------------------------
Claiming a lengthy list of your books, short stories, essays, poems and articles for Google settlement benefits just got much easier. You can now start the process by simply submitting your bibliography to the claims administrator. You need only e-mail -- or send by regular mail -- a list of your books and shorter literary works (poems, short stories, articles) that may appear in books covered by the settlement. When in doubt, we suggest you submit everything.
Although the author's name and the title of the work is enough to get the ball rolling, it's helpful to include this additional information you can find in or on your books: ISBN, publisher, place and year of publication.
E-mail your bibliography to BookSettlement@RustConsulting.com. Feel free to send it as an attachment or paste it into the body of the e-mail itself.
If you prefer to submit your bibliography by regular mail, send it to:
Settlement Administrator
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 9364
Minneapolis, MN 55440-9364
USA
You may still file your claim through the regular claiming process, which our members with short lists of works have generally found easy to use. To do so, or to learn more about this simplified procedure, go to www.googlebooksettlement.com.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The Settlement Administrator will contact you to complete your claim, but it may be several months before that happens. You will be contacted before any of your works are displayed pursuant to the settlement, and you will have ample opportunity to instruct Google regarding which of your works you'd like displayed. (Remember that this is really about out-of-print books. None of your in-print books will be displayed under the settlement without your approval.)
Monday, January 11, 2010
Apparently I'm a Boring Wrinkled Self-Published Lesbian
Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware
No way, you say? Well, fee-charging literary agent Eddie Kritzer begs to differ.
Since Writer Beware's founding, I've been getting questions and advisories about Mr. Kritzer and his company, EKP Productions. In 1998 and 1999, most involved Kritzer's referrals to Edit Ink, a fraudulent editing service that paid kickbacks to agents who sent clients its way. More recently, I've begun hearing that Mr. Kritzer is asking for a $500-600 "advance on commission." (I have documentation of these fees, but you don't have to take my word for it--a number of writers have blogged or posted about their encounters with Kritzer, and there's a whole thread on him at Absolute Write.)
Mr. Kritzer's bio and credits drop some well-known showbiz names--Art Linkletter, Bill Cosby, Burt Reynolds, Christina Aguilera, Phylicia Rashad--and cite a number of TV and radio production credits. Though most of these do check out, many prove on investigation to be rather elderly. For instance, the Rashad TV movie, False Witness, aired in 1989, and the Burt Reynolds TV special, Shattered, premiered in 1986. Animals Are People Too, featuring Alan Thicke, was broadcast in 1999, and How Do They Do That?, a radio show with Ed McMahon, in 1991. Aguilera, who Kritzer's bio claims to have "just" secured for New Dana Perfume, signed with New Dana in 2000, and parted ways with the company in 2002.
Kritzer also cites a number of books sold to publishers. Some of the publishers are reputable, but again, there's a certain lack of recency. Art Linkletter's Kids Say the Darndest Things, published by Ten Speed Press, has a hardcover pub date of 1985, with a softcover re-issue in 2005. Bill Cosby's book of the same title, from Bantam, was released in 1998. And Saving Money With the Tightwad Twins, from HCI Books, came out in 2003.
Other "sales" are, well, not really sales at all. Barry Broad's Eve of Destruction (2008), Dr. Tom Yi's The Practical Patient (2004), and Dominic Spinale's G-Men and Gangsters (2004) have all been placed with Seven Locks Press, which offers contracts charging thousands of dollars to publish (Writer Beware has received documented reports of these fees), and has been sued by at least one of its authors for nonperformance (other complaints can be seen here). Craig A. Miller's The Making of a Surgeon in the 21st Century (2008) was placed with Blue Dolphin Publishing, which asks authors to find "investors" to fund the multi-thousand dollar cost of publication (again, Writer Beware has received documented complaints, similar to the one that can be seen here).
So what does all this have to do with wrinkles and lesbianism? Well, this past Sunday, Kritzer emailed me to let me know about his latest book sale. If you're wondering why he'd bother, he's unhappy with me because of what I've posted about him on Absolute Write (he's been emailing me for some time to let me know), and I guess he thought maybe the following would make me change my mind, or prove me wrong, or something. You be the judge:
Hi Victoria,
I know your not really in the Publishing business, since you "books" were self published, and you probably dont read much, since your books were a giant flop. Your to busy being a busy body "old decrepit lady with all wrinkly skin; IM sure your husband (if you still have one) which I doubt; because all you do is complain, you are the negative Nelly of the Internet, your so fucken boring, and bored.
Of course I wish you the best of luck and I have nominated you to the "Complainaclochs Hall of Fame; because all you do is bitch and moan and groan [except when you have sex; then you just lay there like a lump of coal, which is what your personality is.
I just wish your "husband" or more likely "Girlfriend" could look at this. actually
All the best during this festive holiday season, and of course a Happy New Year;
read this and fucken weep ?
FLASH/BULLETIN
Eddie Kritzer announces the sale of Psychiatrist Dr Jerry Bruns & Dr Rick Richards The Tiger Woods Syndrome to HCI Books, the publishers of The Chicken Soup for The Soul Series, the best selling book series in the history of Publishing
The sale doesn't seem to have been officially announced anywhere (an Internet search turns up only the fact that "Tiger Woods Syndrome" is a popular phrase with a variety of definitions), but HCI is a real publisher, and I'm content to take Kritzer's word for it, especially given the delightful professionalism on display above.
Congratulations on the sale, Eddie. I'm wishing you a happy New Year too, and also a supply of apostrophes.
(P.S. I'm not the only one getting love notes from Kritzer. Check out this series of blog posts from another writer who displeased him.)
No way, you say? Well, fee-charging literary agent Eddie Kritzer begs to differ.
Since Writer Beware's founding, I've been getting questions and advisories about Mr. Kritzer and his company, EKP Productions. In 1998 and 1999, most involved Kritzer's referrals to Edit Ink, a fraudulent editing service that paid kickbacks to agents who sent clients its way. More recently, I've begun hearing that Mr. Kritzer is asking for a $500-600 "advance on commission." (I have documentation of these fees, but you don't have to take my word for it--a number of writers have blogged or posted about their encounters with Kritzer, and there's a whole thread on him at Absolute Write.)
Mr. Kritzer's bio and credits drop some well-known showbiz names--Art Linkletter, Bill Cosby, Burt Reynolds, Christina Aguilera, Phylicia Rashad--and cite a number of TV and radio production credits. Though most of these do check out, many prove on investigation to be rather elderly. For instance, the Rashad TV movie, False Witness, aired in 1989, and the Burt Reynolds TV special, Shattered, premiered in 1986. Animals Are People Too, featuring Alan Thicke, was broadcast in 1999, and How Do They Do That?, a radio show with Ed McMahon, in 1991. Aguilera, who Kritzer's bio claims to have "just" secured for New Dana Perfume, signed with New Dana in 2000, and parted ways with the company in 2002.
Kritzer also cites a number of books sold to publishers. Some of the publishers are reputable, but again, there's a certain lack of recency. Art Linkletter's Kids Say the Darndest Things, published by Ten Speed Press, has a hardcover pub date of 1985, with a softcover re-issue in 2005. Bill Cosby's book of the same title, from Bantam, was released in 1998. And Saving Money With the Tightwad Twins, from HCI Books, came out in 2003.
Other "sales" are, well, not really sales at all. Barry Broad's Eve of Destruction (2008), Dr. Tom Yi's The Practical Patient (2004), and Dominic Spinale's G-Men and Gangsters (2004) have all been placed with Seven Locks Press, which offers contracts charging thousands of dollars to publish (Writer Beware has received documented reports of these fees), and has been sued by at least one of its authors for nonperformance (other complaints can be seen here). Craig A. Miller's The Making of a Surgeon in the 21st Century (2008) was placed with Blue Dolphin Publishing, which asks authors to find "investors" to fund the multi-thousand dollar cost of publication (again, Writer Beware has received documented complaints, similar to the one that can be seen here).
So what does all this have to do with wrinkles and lesbianism? Well, this past Sunday, Kritzer emailed me to let me know about his latest book sale. If you're wondering why he'd bother, he's unhappy with me because of what I've posted about him on Absolute Write (he's been emailing me for some time to let me know), and I guess he thought maybe the following would make me change my mind, or prove me wrong, or something. You be the judge:
Hi Victoria,
I know your not really in the Publishing business, since you "books" were self published, and you probably dont read much, since your books were a giant flop. Your to busy being a busy body "old decrepit lady with all wrinkly skin; IM sure your husband (if you still have one) which I doubt; because all you do is complain, you are the negative Nelly of the Internet, your so fucken boring, and bored.
Of course I wish you the best of luck and I have nominated you to the "Complainaclochs Hall of Fame; because all you do is bitch and moan and groan [except when you have sex; then you just lay there like a lump of coal, which is what your personality is.
I just wish your "husband" or more likely "Girlfriend" could look at this. actually
All the best during this festive holiday season, and of course a Happy New Year;
read this and fucken weep ?
FLASH/BULLETIN
Eddie Kritzer announces the sale of Psychiatrist Dr Jerry Bruns & Dr Rick Richards The Tiger Woods Syndrome to HCI Books, the publishers of The Chicken Soup for The Soul Series, the best selling book series in the history of Publishing
The sale doesn't seem to have been officially announced anywhere (an Internet search turns up only the fact that "Tiger Woods Syndrome" is a popular phrase with a variety of definitions), but HCI is a real publisher, and I'm content to take Kritzer's word for it, especially given the delightful professionalism on display above.
Congratulations on the sale, Eddie. I'm wishing you a happy New Year too, and also a supply of apostrophes.
(P.S. I'm not the only one getting love notes from Kritzer. Check out this series of blog posts from another writer who displeased him.)
Thursday, January 07, 2010
SFWA, NWU, and ASJA on Google Books Settlement
Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware
The National Writers Union, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America have written to their author peers in Congress, seeking their support in encouraging the Department of Justice to continue its opposition to the Google Books Settlement.
The text of the letter is embedded below. The Los Angeles Times reports that Google has declined to address the letter's concerns, and the Authors Guild did not respond to a request for comment.
Writers to Congressional Authors
The National Writers Union, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America have written to their author peers in Congress, seeking their support in encouraging the Department of Justice to continue its opposition to the Google Books Settlement.
The text of the letter is embedded below. The Los Angeles Times reports that Google has declined to address the letter's concerns, and the Authors Guild did not respond to a request for comment.
Writers to Congressional Authors
Monday, January 04, 2010
Guest Blog Post: Distributor vs. Wholesaler--Getting Your Book on the Shelf
Happy New Year, everyone!
To kick things off for 2010, we have a great guest blog post from multi-published author Cathy Clamp.
The distinction between a wholesaler and a distributor is an important one, especially for writers who want to get their books onto physical bookstore shelves. Too often, however, writers and startup publishers aren't aware of the difference, and don't realize that a wholesaler like Ingram is only half the distribution picture. Below, Cathy describes what distributors and wholesalers do, and the implications of each for writers (and publishers).
-------------------------------------
On nearly every thread in all the rooms of nearly every writer site I visit, the issue of the difference between Distributors and Wholesalers comes up. It seems to me like it's time to discuss the distinction when it comes to getting your books on the shelf.
And I mean all books, because ultimately, it doesn't matter whether your book is self-published, or with a major New York publisher, a small indie press, or even PublishAmerica. It's all the same at this level of the game.
Let's start with major NY publishers. They have a sales force. The sales department is charged with doing nothing but selling books for the publisher. Sales reps meet regularly with the buyers for the major chains and secondary markets. You might have one salesperson who handles Borders and B&N, another who meets with Target and WalMart, a third who handles Booksamillion and Costco, etc. They take the books of the publisher directly to the buyers who handle them.
Every book needs a salesperson to get it into the store. Yes, book buyers are looking for new books--but there is only so much space in each bookstore. So they have to be selective.
But even if every book needs, and deserves, a salesperson--let's face it, a small press or self-publisher often can't afford to have a full time salesperson, much less a sales "force," to go out to meet with every book buyer for every chain. Too, it's unlikely (if not impossible) that the buyer would be willing to meet with every single small press out there. There are just too many of them.
So, a lot of small publishers hire "Distributors." A distributor takes the place of a sales force by doing the exact same thing a dedicated, salaried salesperson would do. And for the same reason. They're salaried.
Distributors cost money. A lot of money. Plan on about a third of your retail price to pay the distributor. It's a monthly/quarterly contract for the privilege of putting your books in front of the market, selling them to the buyers at the stores and increasing orders for the books. Is it worth the money? Hard to say. If you're an indie press with thirty niche books that might struggle to interest a bookstore without a marketing pitch, then sure. Absolutely. But for a single, stand-alone novel? Doubtful. In fact, it's doubtful a distributor would have a self-pubbed author or small press. It has to be worth the distributor's while, too. Generally speaking, if a press has fewer than ten titles, a distributor won't accept it as a client.
Now, if a publisher (again, whether small press or self-pub) chooses not to spend the money for a distributor, they go with the wholesalers. To make the difference simple, look at it like this:
- A distributor is the equivalent of a pack-n-ship store.
- A wholesaler is the equivalent of your local postal office.
What's the difference?
Well, if you walk in the door of a pack-n-ship store with a glass lamp to send somewhere, you hand them the lamp and they bubble wrap it, put it in a box, fill the box with those styrofoam peanuts or the equivalent, tape it up, calculate the shipping cost, print out the label, put the label on the box and place it with the other boxes for delivery. They will also accept the box back if anything goes wrong in shipping, and many of them will arrange to file your claim if the box is damaged.
The postal office? Will they wrap it? No. Put it in the box? No. Fill the box? No. Print out the label? No. Tape it? Maybe, depending on the office. Calculate the shipping cost? Sure. Put it with the other boxes? Sure.
In other words--a distributor is a "full-service" shipping company. You can pay them to sell the book, take the orders, fill the orders, handle the returns, manage any disputes with the bookstores, etc. They're proactive--taking on the role of the salesperson as though they were a paid employee.
A wholesaler is the post office. They'll keep the book on their list and send it out if it's ordered. They're reactive--taking on no role other than as a pass-through.
Now, one of the tricky things in this industry is that one of the major players, Ingram, is both a distributor and wholesaler. They have separate arms to handle each. But, per the descriptions above, there's a vast difference on what they do if you pay them to be your distributor, versus merely having a listing with them in their wholesale catalog.
Unfortunately, a lot of small presses and POD self-publishing companies try to make you believe they have the distributor relationship when, in fact, they have the wholesale relationship. Since Ingram won't reveal its client list, it's hard to know which is which. However, I believe that right now, Ingram requires that a publisher that's a distribution client must have about $20K+ of income from Ingram in order to qualify. If you think logically, would even PublishAmerica, the powerhouse of POD presses, qualify? Probably not. PA has the titles, but not the sales. PA, and hundreds of other POD-based presses with far fewer titles than PA, would never be accepted as a distribution client. Simply wouldn't happen. They are with the wholesale arm--i.e., they're listed in the Ingram catalog.
But what does that actually mean? Have you ever seen a Columbia House catalog in the mail? It's pages and pages long with titles of movies, and they rotate the titles by season or when a major star has a new movie out. Now, imagine the Columbia House list if they only listed the titles of the movies--with no description of the movie. You might have heard of some, but what about the others? How would you know which to order? Word of mouth? Sure. That always works. Or someone in your family specifically requesting it by name.
That's what the Ingram catalog is. Hundreds and hundreds of pages of titles with ISBN/ISBN-13, author and that's about it. Is it impossible for your book to get onto a shelf that way? No. It's not like winning the mega-lottery--it's closer to winning a small prize in the Pick-Three lottery game, or a prize on a scratch ticket. It happens. But it's not the same as if you had someone going from door to door, talking your book up and pressuring stores to stock and sell it.
Here's a couple of good links to help you understand the process. Read them. Learn them. If you plan to go with a small press or a POD self-publishing company, you'll need to know both the terminology and your path forward.
Understanding the Book Distribution Channels, by Jacqueline C. Simonds
An Analysis and Comparison of Book Distribution Agreements, by Ivan Hoffman
Should You Deal With a Book Distributor or Wholesaler? by Hal Licino
--------------------------------
Cathy Clamp is half of the USA Today bestselling author team of C.T. Adams and Cathy Clamp. They are winners of the 2008 Career Achievement Award in paranormal romance by RT BOOKreviews Magazine and are moving to the urban fantasy shelves as Cat Adams in June with Blood Song, the first in The Blood Singer series. Cathy has long supported SFWA's goals of protecting aspiring and published writers, and is a member of the Grievance Committee's Special Hasbro Task Force.
Cathy's/C.T.'s current releases and sample chapters of all of their books and anthologies are available at www.catadams.net
To kick things off for 2010, we have a great guest blog post from multi-published author Cathy Clamp.
The distinction between a wholesaler and a distributor is an important one, especially for writers who want to get their books onto physical bookstore shelves. Too often, however, writers and startup publishers aren't aware of the difference, and don't realize that a wholesaler like Ingram is only half the distribution picture. Below, Cathy describes what distributors and wholesalers do, and the implications of each for writers (and publishers).
-------------------------------------
On nearly every thread in all the rooms of nearly every writer site I visit, the issue of the difference between Distributors and Wholesalers comes up. It seems to me like it's time to discuss the distinction when it comes to getting your books on the shelf.
And I mean all books, because ultimately, it doesn't matter whether your book is self-published, or with a major New York publisher, a small indie press, or even PublishAmerica. It's all the same at this level of the game.
Let's start with major NY publishers. They have a sales force. The sales department is charged with doing nothing but selling books for the publisher. Sales reps meet regularly with the buyers for the major chains and secondary markets. You might have one salesperson who handles Borders and B&N, another who meets with Target and WalMart, a third who handles Booksamillion and Costco, etc. They take the books of the publisher directly to the buyers who handle them.
Every book needs a salesperson to get it into the store. Yes, book buyers are looking for new books--but there is only so much space in each bookstore. So they have to be selective.
But even if every book needs, and deserves, a salesperson--let's face it, a small press or self-publisher often can't afford to have a full time salesperson, much less a sales "force," to go out to meet with every book buyer for every chain. Too, it's unlikely (if not impossible) that the buyer would be willing to meet with every single small press out there. There are just too many of them.
So, a lot of small publishers hire "Distributors." A distributor takes the place of a sales force by doing the exact same thing a dedicated, salaried salesperson would do. And for the same reason. They're salaried.
Distributors cost money. A lot of money. Plan on about a third of your retail price to pay the distributor. It's a monthly/quarterly contract for the privilege of putting your books in front of the market, selling them to the buyers at the stores and increasing orders for the books. Is it worth the money? Hard to say. If you're an indie press with thirty niche books that might struggle to interest a bookstore without a marketing pitch, then sure. Absolutely. But for a single, stand-alone novel? Doubtful. In fact, it's doubtful a distributor would have a self-pubbed author or small press. It has to be worth the distributor's while, too. Generally speaking, if a press has fewer than ten titles, a distributor won't accept it as a client.
Now, if a publisher (again, whether small press or self-pub) chooses not to spend the money for a distributor, they go with the wholesalers. To make the difference simple, look at it like this:
- A distributor is the equivalent of a pack-n-ship store.
- A wholesaler is the equivalent of your local postal office.
What's the difference?
Well, if you walk in the door of a pack-n-ship store with a glass lamp to send somewhere, you hand them the lamp and they bubble wrap it, put it in a box, fill the box with those styrofoam peanuts or the equivalent, tape it up, calculate the shipping cost, print out the label, put the label on the box and place it with the other boxes for delivery. They will also accept the box back if anything goes wrong in shipping, and many of them will arrange to file your claim if the box is damaged.
The postal office? Will they wrap it? No. Put it in the box? No. Fill the box? No. Print out the label? No. Tape it? Maybe, depending on the office. Calculate the shipping cost? Sure. Put it with the other boxes? Sure.
In other words--a distributor is a "full-service" shipping company. You can pay them to sell the book, take the orders, fill the orders, handle the returns, manage any disputes with the bookstores, etc. They're proactive--taking on the role of the salesperson as though they were a paid employee.
A wholesaler is the post office. They'll keep the book on their list and send it out if it's ordered. They're reactive--taking on no role other than as a pass-through.
Now, one of the tricky things in this industry is that one of the major players, Ingram, is both a distributor and wholesaler. They have separate arms to handle each. But, per the descriptions above, there's a vast difference on what they do if you pay them to be your distributor, versus merely having a listing with them in their wholesale catalog.
Unfortunately, a lot of small presses and POD self-publishing companies try to make you believe they have the distributor relationship when, in fact, they have the wholesale relationship. Since Ingram won't reveal its client list, it's hard to know which is which. However, I believe that right now, Ingram requires that a publisher that's a distribution client must have about $20K+ of income from Ingram in order to qualify. If you think logically, would even PublishAmerica, the powerhouse of POD presses, qualify? Probably not. PA has the titles, but not the sales. PA, and hundreds of other POD-based presses with far fewer titles than PA, would never be accepted as a distribution client. Simply wouldn't happen. They are with the wholesale arm--i.e., they're listed in the Ingram catalog.
But what does that actually mean? Have you ever seen a Columbia House catalog in the mail? It's pages and pages long with titles of movies, and they rotate the titles by season or when a major star has a new movie out. Now, imagine the Columbia House list if they only listed the titles of the movies--with no description of the movie. You might have heard of some, but what about the others? How would you know which to order? Word of mouth? Sure. That always works. Or someone in your family specifically requesting it by name.
That's what the Ingram catalog is. Hundreds and hundreds of pages of titles with ISBN/ISBN-13, author and that's about it. Is it impossible for your book to get onto a shelf that way? No. It's not like winning the mega-lottery--it's closer to winning a small prize in the Pick-Three lottery game, or a prize on a scratch ticket. It happens. But it's not the same as if you had someone going from door to door, talking your book up and pressuring stores to stock and sell it.
Here's a couple of good links to help you understand the process. Read them. Learn them. If you plan to go with a small press or a POD self-publishing company, you'll need to know both the terminology and your path forward.
Understanding the Book Distribution Channels, by Jacqueline C. Simonds
An Analysis and Comparison of Book Distribution Agreements, by Ivan Hoffman
Should You Deal With a Book Distributor or Wholesaler? by Hal Licino
--------------------------------
Cathy Clamp is half of the USA Today bestselling author team of C.T. Adams and Cathy Clamp. They are winners of the 2008 Career Achievement Award in paranormal romance by RT BOOKreviews Magazine and are moving to the urban fantasy shelves as Cat Adams in June with Blood Song, the first in The Blood Singer series. Cathy has long supported SFWA's goals of protecting aspiring and published writers, and is a member of the Grievance Committee's Special Hasbro Task Force.
Cathy's/C.T.'s current releases and sample chapters of all of their books and anthologies are available at www.catadams.net
Monday, December 21, 2009
Drewlie & Julia: Or, The Case of the Alias'd Literary Agent
Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware
Last August, I received several emails from writers who’d had a very strange experience.
They’d submitted to a literary agent in Boston called Sara Levine, only to be informed by Levine's assistant, a few weeks later, that Levine had died suddenly of a heart attack. The regretful assistant suggested they contact Levine’s colleague, Julia Levin of the Florida-based Julia Levin Literary Agency, who was taking over Levine's business. Other writers who'd submitted to Sara Levine were approached by Julia Levin herself, with much the same story.
No one had ever heard of Julia Levin before. Her profiles on MySpace, LinkedIn, and Facebook (the only info that could be found on her, online or off) indicated that she'd been in business since 2005, both on her own and as a co-agent with Sara Levine. In emails to prospective clients, as well as in a September Open House on Facebook, through which she hoped to add to her agency roster, she reported a number of recent book sales to major publishers.
However, there were some discrepancies. According to Sara Levine's LinkedIn profile, Sara had been an agent only since March 2009--which made Julia's claim that the two of them had been co-agents since 2005 a bit puzzling. On investigation, none of Julia’s listed clients turned out to be published. Her sales claims didn't check out either--not just because no trace of either book titles or authors could be found, but because she reported selling to imprints that didn't exist, or that didn't accept the kind of book she said she'd sold. And the physical address she gave for her agency turned out to be bogus.
Writers began to smell a rat, and to say so in public. Complaints appeared on LinkedIn. One fed-up writer posted on her blog about her experience with Sara and then with Julia. Questions erupted on Julia's Facebook forum. Why the inconsistencies in Julia's professional info? Why the fake address? The weirdness of Sara dropping dead and Julia emerging out of thin air began to look even weirder--could Sara and Julia, with only an “e” of difference between their last names, possibly be the same person?
Apparently it all got to be too much for poor Julia. By mid-September, she'd deleted all her profiles, and vanished from the Internet.
Then, toward the end of September, I started getting questions about another Florida-based agent called Drew Montgomery, of Drew Montgomery Literary Associates. I'd never heard of Drew before, but a bit of Googling turned up profiles on MySpace, LinkedIn, and Facebook. According to the info there, Drew had been in business since 2000, had trained at the Glen Cravits Agency, and had recently made a number of sales to major publishing houses.
Ah, but those pesky inconsistencies. Drew didn’t provide authors or titles, so her sales claims couldn't be verified--plus, some of the publishers' names were mis-spelled or not quite correct, something you'd think an experienced literary agent would not get wrong. There was no trace of publication for any of Drew's named clients. Attempting to research the Glen Cravits Agency produced no evidence that it had ever existed. Drew's West Palm Beach snail mail address turned out to be a Barnes & Noble store elsewhere in Florida. And, oh yes--Drew had just announced an Open House event on Facebook, in order to recruit new clients.
This all seemed eerily familiar, and within a few days, I found out why. The owner of an agent tracking website emailed me to say that he'd been recently contacted by the now-vanished Julia Levin about a listing, which he refused because she couldn't prove she'd made any sales. About a week later, Drew Montgomery approached him with the same request. Since she couldn't prove any sales either (in contradiction to her various profiles, she claimed to be a brand-new agent), he gave her the same response. He happened to notice something odd, however: Drew's IP address was identical to Julia's.
So it seemed that Julia was attempting to rise again, under an (another?) assumed name.
Through October, I got a trickle of email inquiries about Drew, to which I responded with the info above (in condensed form). Then in November, I posted a warning to an Absolute Write discussion thread about Drew and her agency. A few days later, someone claiming to be one of Drew's clients showed up to defend her wonderful, terrific, fabulous agent against AW's cowardly attacks.
Now, this isn't an uncommon occurrence on AW, where discussion of marginal agents and publishers often spurs the emergence of sockpuppets, who not infrequently turn out to be the agents or publishers themselves, posting under aliases. But this sockpuppet event was especially amusing, because not only was the sockpuppet posting from Drew’s IP address, she was using Drew’s previous name. That's right: To defend herself against criticism, fake agent Drew Montgomery chose to present herself as fake client Julia Levin--despite the fact that, six posts up, I'd provided a complete account of her exploits under that name.
Called on this inept bit of attempted subterfuge, Drew/Julia did not back down (the caps are all hers).
I have no idea what is going on here. I have never been, nor have I ever claimed to be a literary agent. I AM NOT A LITERARY AGENT AND WOULD NEVER IN MY LIFE SAY THAT I AM A LITERARY AGENT. I AM A WRITER. I WRITE BOOKS AND THAT'S ALL I DO AND DREW MONTGOMERY IS MY LITERARY AGENT. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY OUR IP ADDRESSES MATCH OR WHY PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK DREW IS ME OR THAT DREW IS THIS OTHER JULIA. IT'S A MYSTERY TO ME. ALL I KNOW IS THAT DREW IS AN HONEST, HARD WORKING, DEDICATED, AND PROFESSIONAL AGENT WHO IS TRYING TO DO HER JOB DESPITE ALL THIS IDIOCY ABOUT HER NOT BEING WHO SHE SAYS SHE IS. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. DREW MONTGOMERY IS A GOOD AGENT AND I AM HAPPY TO BE HER CLIENT. PEOPLE SHOULD CARE MORE ABOUT FINDING THE REAL SCAMMERS AND LEAVE GOOD AGENTS LIKE DREW TO THEIR JOB.
JULIA LEVIN
You can imagine what happened next. Julia-Levin-the-client vanished in a puff of smoke, just like Julia-Levin-the-agent. Within a few days, Drew Montgomery was gone as well, all her social media profiles deleted.
Since then, I've been keeping my eye out for recurrences. There’ve been none so far...or have there? Doing research for this post today, I discovered something ominous: a LinkedIn listing for Drew Montgomery at The Montgomery Literary Agency. A sensible person might think it wise not to use that name again (even though she has changed the name of the agency)--but Drew, or whoever she is, has not proven herself to be very sensible. Or perhaps she’s just thrifty with her aliases.
What is it that cops say? It's a good thing so many criminals are so dumb.
Last August, I received several emails from writers who’d had a very strange experience.
They’d submitted to a literary agent in Boston called Sara Levine, only to be informed by Levine's assistant, a few weeks later, that Levine had died suddenly of a heart attack. The regretful assistant suggested they contact Levine’s colleague, Julia Levin of the Florida-based Julia Levin Literary Agency, who was taking over Levine's business. Other writers who'd submitted to Sara Levine were approached by Julia Levin herself, with much the same story.
No one had ever heard of Julia Levin before. Her profiles on MySpace, LinkedIn, and Facebook (the only info that could be found on her, online or off) indicated that she'd been in business since 2005, both on her own and as a co-agent with Sara Levine. In emails to prospective clients, as well as in a September Open House on Facebook, through which she hoped to add to her agency roster, she reported a number of recent book sales to major publishers.
However, there were some discrepancies. According to Sara Levine's LinkedIn profile, Sara had been an agent only since March 2009--which made Julia's claim that the two of them had been co-agents since 2005 a bit puzzling. On investigation, none of Julia’s listed clients turned out to be published. Her sales claims didn't check out either--not just because no trace of either book titles or authors could be found, but because she reported selling to imprints that didn't exist, or that didn't accept the kind of book she said she'd sold. And the physical address she gave for her agency turned out to be bogus.
Writers began to smell a rat, and to say so in public. Complaints appeared on LinkedIn. One fed-up writer posted on her blog about her experience with Sara and then with Julia. Questions erupted on Julia's Facebook forum. Why the inconsistencies in Julia's professional info? Why the fake address? The weirdness of Sara dropping dead and Julia emerging out of thin air began to look even weirder--could Sara and Julia, with only an “e” of difference between their last names, possibly be the same person?
Apparently it all got to be too much for poor Julia. By mid-September, she'd deleted all her profiles, and vanished from the Internet.
Then, toward the end of September, I started getting questions about another Florida-based agent called Drew Montgomery, of Drew Montgomery Literary Associates. I'd never heard of Drew before, but a bit of Googling turned up profiles on MySpace, LinkedIn, and Facebook. According to the info there, Drew had been in business since 2000, had trained at the Glen Cravits Agency, and had recently made a number of sales to major publishing houses.
Ah, but those pesky inconsistencies. Drew didn’t provide authors or titles, so her sales claims couldn't be verified--plus, some of the publishers' names were mis-spelled or not quite correct, something you'd think an experienced literary agent would not get wrong. There was no trace of publication for any of Drew's named clients. Attempting to research the Glen Cravits Agency produced no evidence that it had ever existed. Drew's West Palm Beach snail mail address turned out to be a Barnes & Noble store elsewhere in Florida. And, oh yes--Drew had just announced an Open House event on Facebook, in order to recruit new clients.
This all seemed eerily familiar, and within a few days, I found out why. The owner of an agent tracking website emailed me to say that he'd been recently contacted by the now-vanished Julia Levin about a listing, which he refused because she couldn't prove she'd made any sales. About a week later, Drew Montgomery approached him with the same request. Since she couldn't prove any sales either (in contradiction to her various profiles, she claimed to be a brand-new agent), he gave her the same response. He happened to notice something odd, however: Drew's IP address was identical to Julia's.
So it seemed that Julia was attempting to rise again, under an (another?) assumed name.
Through October, I got a trickle of email inquiries about Drew, to which I responded with the info above (in condensed form). Then in November, I posted a warning to an Absolute Write discussion thread about Drew and her agency. A few days later, someone claiming to be one of Drew's clients showed up to defend her wonderful, terrific, fabulous agent against AW's cowardly attacks.
Now, this isn't an uncommon occurrence on AW, where discussion of marginal agents and publishers often spurs the emergence of sockpuppets, who not infrequently turn out to be the agents or publishers themselves, posting under aliases. But this sockpuppet event was especially amusing, because not only was the sockpuppet posting from Drew’s IP address, she was using Drew’s previous name. That's right: To defend herself against criticism, fake agent Drew Montgomery chose to present herself as fake client Julia Levin--despite the fact that, six posts up, I'd provided a complete account of her exploits under that name.
Called on this inept bit of attempted subterfuge, Drew/Julia did not back down (the caps are all hers).
I have no idea what is going on here. I have never been, nor have I ever claimed to be a literary agent. I AM NOT A LITERARY AGENT AND WOULD NEVER IN MY LIFE SAY THAT I AM A LITERARY AGENT. I AM A WRITER. I WRITE BOOKS AND THAT'S ALL I DO AND DREW MONTGOMERY IS MY LITERARY AGENT. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY OUR IP ADDRESSES MATCH OR WHY PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK DREW IS ME OR THAT DREW IS THIS OTHER JULIA. IT'S A MYSTERY TO ME. ALL I KNOW IS THAT DREW IS AN HONEST, HARD WORKING, DEDICATED, AND PROFESSIONAL AGENT WHO IS TRYING TO DO HER JOB DESPITE ALL THIS IDIOCY ABOUT HER NOT BEING WHO SHE SAYS SHE IS. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. DREW MONTGOMERY IS A GOOD AGENT AND I AM HAPPY TO BE HER CLIENT. PEOPLE SHOULD CARE MORE ABOUT FINDING THE REAL SCAMMERS AND LEAVE GOOD AGENTS LIKE DREW TO THEIR JOB.
JULIA LEVIN
You can imagine what happened next. Julia-Levin-the-client vanished in a puff of smoke, just like Julia-Levin-the-agent. Within a few days, Drew Montgomery was gone as well, all her social media profiles deleted.
Since then, I've been keeping my eye out for recurrences. There’ve been none so far...or have there? Doing research for this post today, I discovered something ominous: a LinkedIn listing for Drew Montgomery at The Montgomery Literary Agency. A sensible person might think it wise not to use that name again (even though she has changed the name of the agency)--but Drew, or whoever she is, has not proven herself to be very sensible. Or perhaps she’s just thrifty with her aliases.
What is it that cops say? It's a good thing so many criminals are so dumb.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The UK's Society of Authors Issues Guidance on Ebooks
Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware
Given Random House's recent claim on electronic rights in older contracts, Macmillan's recent announcement that it will be issuing "enhanced ebooks" simultaneously with some of its hardcover releases (and charging even more than for the hardcovers), and the thorny rights and payment issues raised by the rapid expansion of the ebook market, this seems an especially relevant piece of news: the UK's Society of Authors has issued guidelines on ebook licensing and royalties for authors and agents.
The full text of the statement (which I found via the excellent TeleRead blog) can be seen here. The guidelines are below, and seem to me to make a great deal of sense.
1. Consider granting publishers a licence for 10 or 20 years, rather than for the full duration of copyright;
2. Limit any grant of ebook rights to the verbatim text. Wider electronic rights (e.g. for enhanced ebooks) should be negotiated separately and only if there is a definite intention to exploit the rights.
3. Royalties on ebooks should be much higher than they are. Until the economics and scale of the market become clearer, we consider that publishers should share ebook income equally with their authors. In any event we particularly encourage authors to try to negotiate steep increases to their royalties at agreed sales thresholds (as publishers recoup their set up costs). When a book has become well-established, it may be reasonable for the author's share to rise to as much as 75%. On other forms of electronic access – e.g. rental and pay-per-view - authors should receive at least 50%, preferably nearer 85%, of the publisher's receipts.
In suggesting these royalties we have taken into account that:
(a) publishers need to cover their overheads and make a profit; but
(b) the direct costs of originating, producing and keeping an ebook ‘in print’ are low (e.g. no printing costs); and
(c) the cost of making an ebook available through a third party distributor such as Amazon is minimal. Publishers’ warehousing and distribution costs are eliminated, as are losses from dealing with returns and unsold stock.
4. Authors should have the right to initiate a review of ebook royalty rates every 2 years and have the right to insist that royalties be increased to match those then prevailing in the trade.
5. When enhanced ebooks are developed, authors should have the right to approve - and be involved in - adaptations, abridgements, and dramatizations, as well as decisions on musical, interactive or other embellishments.
6. Contracts must allow authors to regain rights, if they so choose, once sales have all but ceased. When the work is POD and / or ebook only authors should be able to terminate their publishing contract on one month’s notice if sales in the home market in traditional and/or electronic form fall below an agreed level (or if the author’s income falls below an agreed amount) over 12 months, once the advance has been earned or more than, say, three years have passed since publication, whichever is the sooner.
Given Random House's recent claim on electronic rights in older contracts, Macmillan's recent announcement that it will be issuing "enhanced ebooks" simultaneously with some of its hardcover releases (and charging even more than for the hardcovers), and the thorny rights and payment issues raised by the rapid expansion of the ebook market, this seems an especially relevant piece of news: the UK's Society of Authors has issued guidelines on ebook licensing and royalties for authors and agents.
The full text of the statement (which I found via the excellent TeleRead blog) can be seen here. The guidelines are below, and seem to me to make a great deal of sense.
1. Consider granting publishers a licence for 10 or 20 years, rather than for the full duration of copyright;
2. Limit any grant of ebook rights to the verbatim text. Wider electronic rights (e.g. for enhanced ebooks) should be negotiated separately and only if there is a definite intention to exploit the rights.
3. Royalties on ebooks should be much higher than they are. Until the economics and scale of the market become clearer, we consider that publishers should share ebook income equally with their authors. In any event we particularly encourage authors to try to negotiate steep increases to their royalties at agreed sales thresholds (as publishers recoup their set up costs). When a book has become well-established, it may be reasonable for the author's share to rise to as much as 75%. On other forms of electronic access – e.g. rental and pay-per-view - authors should receive at least 50%, preferably nearer 85%, of the publisher's receipts.
In suggesting these royalties we have taken into account that:
(a) publishers need to cover their overheads and make a profit; but
(b) the direct costs of originating, producing and keeping an ebook ‘in print’ are low (e.g. no printing costs); and
(c) the cost of making an ebook available through a third party distributor such as Amazon is minimal. Publishers’ warehousing and distribution costs are eliminated, as are losses from dealing with returns and unsold stock.
4. Authors should have the right to initiate a review of ebook royalty rates every 2 years and have the right to insist that royalties be increased to match those then prevailing in the trade.
5. When enhanced ebooks are developed, authors should have the right to approve - and be involved in - adaptations, abridgements, and dramatizations, as well as decisions on musical, interactive or other embellishments.
6. Contracts must allow authors to regain rights, if they so choose, once sales have all but ceased. When the work is POD and / or ebook only authors should be able to terminate their publishing contract on one month’s notice if sales in the home market in traditional and/or electronic form fall below an agreed level (or if the author’s income falls below an agreed amount) over 12 months, once the advance has been earned or more than, say, three years have passed since publication, whichever is the sooner.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Authors Guild Statement on Random House's Rights Grab
Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware
I received the statement below this morning from the Authors Guild. I'm not happy with the Authors Guild these days, because of the debacle of the Google Book Search Settlement. But I agree with their position on Random House's recent attempt to claim electronic rights on backlist titles whose contracts do not include a grant of those rights.
---------------------------
On Friday, Random House CEO Markus Dohle sent a two-page letter to many literary agents regarding e-books. Much of the letter is devoted to Random House's efforts and investments to market traditional and electronic books.
On the second page, Mr. Dohle gets to the point. After noting that most of Random House's backlist titles grant the publisher electronic book rights (we agree, since most backlist titles are from the past ten years, a period in which authors have generally licensed electronic rights in tandem with their print rights), he writes that "there have been some misunderstandings concerning ebook rights in older backlist titles." He then proceeds to argue that older contracts granting rights to publish "in book form" or "in all editions" grant electronic rights to Random House.
The misunderstandings reside entirely with Random House. Random House quite famously changed its standard contract to include e-book rights in 1994. (We remember it well -- Random House tried to secure these rights for royalties of 5% of net proceeds, a pittance. We called it a "Land Grab on the Electronic Frontier" in our press release headline.) Random House felt the need to change its contract, quite plainly, because its authors did not grant those rights to it under Random House's standard contracts prior to 1994.
A fundamental principle of book contracts is that the grant of rights is limited. Publishers acquire only the rights that they bargain for; authors retain rights they have not expressly granted to publishers. E-book rights, under older book contracts, were retained by the authors.
There's no need to take our word for this, however. A federal court in 2001 examined this precise matter in Random House v. Rosetta Books. Judge Stein of the Southern District of New York was unequivocal in his 10-page decision: authors did not grant publishers the e-book rights in the old book contracts at issue. Judge Stein specifically dismissed notions, raised by Mr. Dohle in his letter to agents, that the non-compete clauses of these old contracts in some manner acted to grant Random House electronic rights to the works, saying that this "reasoning turns the analysis on its head." The court pointed out that the license of rights comes solely from the contract's grant language, not from the non-compete clause, and that non-competition clauses, to be enforceable, have to be narrowly construed. Using the non-compete clause to secure future rights is unsustainable. An appellate court affirmed Judge Stein's decision.
We are sympathetic with the difficult position the publishing industry is in at the moment. The recession has been tough on book publishing, as it has been on many industries. And everyone with knowledge of the dynamics of the industry properly fears that Amazon's dominance of the online markets for traditional and especially e-books will give it a chokehold on industry profits. Difficult times, however, do not justify this attempt at a retroactive rights grab.
It's regrettable and unhelpful that Random House has chosen to try to intimidate authors and agents over these old book contracts. With such a weak legal hand, it would be well advised to stick to its strength -- the advantages that its marketing muscle can provide owners of e-book rights. It should also start offering a fair royalty for those rights. Authors and publishers have traditionally split the proceeds from book sales. Most sublicenses, for example, provide for a 50/50 split of proceeds, and the standard trade book royalty of 15% of the hardcover retail price, back in the days that industry standard was established, represented about 50% of the net proceeds of the sale of the book. We're confident that the current practice of paying 25% of net on e-books will not, in the long run, prevail. Savvy agents are well aware of this. The only reason e-book royalty rates are so low right now is that so little attention has been paid to them: sales were simply too low to scrap over. That's beginning to change.
If you have an old book contract in which you haven't granted e-book rights, patience is likely to pay off. The e-book industry is still young -- there's no need to jump in. And we strongly suspect e-royalty rates are at a low-water mark.
I received the statement below this morning from the Authors Guild. I'm not happy with the Authors Guild these days, because of the debacle of the Google Book Search Settlement. But I agree with their position on Random House's recent attempt to claim electronic rights on backlist titles whose contracts do not include a grant of those rights.
---------------------------
On Friday, Random House CEO Markus Dohle sent a two-page letter to many literary agents regarding e-books. Much of the letter is devoted to Random House's efforts and investments to market traditional and electronic books.
On the second page, Mr. Dohle gets to the point. After noting that most of Random House's backlist titles grant the publisher electronic book rights (we agree, since most backlist titles are from the past ten years, a period in which authors have generally licensed electronic rights in tandem with their print rights), he writes that "there have been some misunderstandings concerning ebook rights in older backlist titles." He then proceeds to argue that older contracts granting rights to publish "in book form" or "in all editions" grant electronic rights to Random House.
The misunderstandings reside entirely with Random House. Random House quite famously changed its standard contract to include e-book rights in 1994. (We remember it well -- Random House tried to secure these rights for royalties of 5% of net proceeds, a pittance. We called it a "Land Grab on the Electronic Frontier" in our press release headline.) Random House felt the need to change its contract, quite plainly, because its authors did not grant those rights to it under Random House's standard contracts prior to 1994.
A fundamental principle of book contracts is that the grant of rights is limited. Publishers acquire only the rights that they bargain for; authors retain rights they have not expressly granted to publishers. E-book rights, under older book contracts, were retained by the authors.
There's no need to take our word for this, however. A federal court in 2001 examined this precise matter in Random House v. Rosetta Books. Judge Stein of the Southern District of New York was unequivocal in his 10-page decision: authors did not grant publishers the e-book rights in the old book contracts at issue. Judge Stein specifically dismissed notions, raised by Mr. Dohle in his letter to agents, that the non-compete clauses of these old contracts in some manner acted to grant Random House electronic rights to the works, saying that this "reasoning turns the analysis on its head." The court pointed out that the license of rights comes solely from the contract's grant language, not from the non-compete clause, and that non-competition clauses, to be enforceable, have to be narrowly construed. Using the non-compete clause to secure future rights is unsustainable. An appellate court affirmed Judge Stein's decision.
We are sympathetic with the difficult position the publishing industry is in at the moment. The recession has been tough on book publishing, as it has been on many industries. And everyone with knowledge of the dynamics of the industry properly fears that Amazon's dominance of the online markets for traditional and especially e-books will give it a chokehold on industry profits. Difficult times, however, do not justify this attempt at a retroactive rights grab.
It's regrettable and unhelpful that Random House has chosen to try to intimidate authors and agents over these old book contracts. With such a weak legal hand, it would be well advised to stick to its strength -- the advantages that its marketing muscle can provide owners of e-book rights. It should also start offering a fair royalty for those rights. Authors and publishers have traditionally split the proceeds from book sales. Most sublicenses, for example, provide for a 50/50 split of proceeds, and the standard trade book royalty of 15% of the hardcover retail price, back in the days that industry standard was established, represented about 50% of the net proceeds of the sale of the book. We're confident that the current practice of paying 25% of net on e-books will not, in the long run, prevail. Savvy agents are well aware of this. The only reason e-book royalty rates are so low right now is that so little attention has been paid to them: sales were simply too low to scrap over. That's beginning to change.
If you have an old book contract in which you haven't granted e-book rights, patience is likely to pay off. The e-book industry is still young -- there's no need to jump in. And we strongly suspect e-royalty rates are at a low-water mark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
