- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 15,599
- Reaction score
- 2,471
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA
- Website
- www.annazabo.com
I'm sorry, but I don't see anything for the good of an author in this set up. A lot of writers are prolific, one of the main reasons they publish with more than one house, is so that they have regular releases. Why should an author wait for one publisher to fit them into their release schedule, sometimes many many months ahead, when they can spread the load?
So you're okay with upsetting/ driving away authors?I totally get all your points. We are not going to make a bunch of authors happy.
But we ARE also making a bunch of authors happy and we are confident we will continue to make our authors happy and engage new ones.
I totally get all your points. We are not going to make a bunch of authors happy. But we ARE also making a bunch of authors happy and we are confident we will continue to make our authors happy and engage new ones.
It's good there are so many publishers out there, huh? Lots of freedom of choice. And I love this board for all that it discusses all the options--good, bad and indifferent.
Thanks,
We are in discussions with other digitial houses and authors will likely see similar clauses in those contracts.
If an author release 5 vampire romances in a year, how do readers with limited book budgets pick them ALL up? They can't so a book's sales and author's royalties are going to suffer. That's not fair to the house or the author.
I totally get all your points. We are not going to make a bunch of authors happy. But we ARE also making a bunch of authors happy and we are confident we will continue to make our authors happy and engage new ones.
It's good there are so many publishers out there, huh? Lots of freedom of choice. And I love this board for all that it discusses all the options--good, bad and indifferent.
Thanks,
Nor can I convince people to negotiate if they don't feel like they should have to. I don't get that--given my background in contract law--but if they don't feel they should have to negotiate, I can say nothing to convince anyone.
Absolutely not okay with that but there is no way I'm going to convince a lot of authors on here that they are not giving up their rights, that this isn't restricting them their right to publish what they want (yes, to some extent where) or that we've seen what I spoke about--dilution of author brand and sales.
Nor can I convince people to negotiate if they don't feel like they should have to. I don't get that--given my background in contract law--but if they don't feel they should have to negotiate, I can say nothing to convince anyone.
PS I'm not Queen
(bolding mind) That's because as the clause is currently worded, we have no reason to believe that ISN'T the case. It's far too vague and leaves room for far too many questions, as evidenced by numerous posts.
So what happens if an author contracted with you for an m/m paranormal romance and they had an m/m fantasy romance? Is that 'substantially similar'? What if it's a fantasy with some m/m content but no romance? What if it's a m/f paranormal romance? What if it's a contemporary romance? What if it's an urban fantasy with no romance?Champagne has added a clause that, essentially, says that authors need to bring their 'substantially similar' work to us. For example, if an author writes a vampire romance, we want to see the next vampire romance. If they write a YA instead, they can do what they want with it.
So what happens if an author contracted with you for an m/m paranormal romance and they had an m/m fantasy romance? Is that 'substantially similar'? What if it's a fantasy with some m/m content but no romance? What if it's a m/f paranormal romance? What if it's a contemporary romance? What if it's an urban fantasy with no romance?
See, 'substantially similar' could mean all of those and an author would then be contractually bound to publish those books with you or not at all (for the length of the contract they did sign).
An author's brand resides with the author, not with the publisher. Even Harlequin doesn't own the pen names any more.
I read carefully back through this thread searching for the response to me. Good to know I didn't miss anything.
Further, what happens if CP rejects the book?
Trunk it?
Because the current wording says they can't publish it elsewhere during the term of any agreement with CP. They can't even self-pub it.
Yes, the original one did. But subsequent ones were different and yes, they can and not only can they, they are free to reject a contract. Authors still have the power. I don't understand why that's not, well, understood.
I read carefully back through this thread searching for the response to me. Good to know I didn't miss anything.
No one is suggesting publishers tell you how many books to write and publish.
Mr Flibble said, "the original email sent to authors states that they should not expect to be able to negotiate this clause out."All we are trying to do is address the author writing the same substanitally similar material for several houses.
Oh and as to who decides? The author and publisher.
Lori, what's the question? Maybe my other responses addressed?
If someone sells you a steampunk vampire romance, does "substantially similar" mean all steampunk vampire romance, all steampunk, all vampires, all romance, all books of the same length?
Further, is it a right of first refusal, or can an author ONLY publish that content with you? i.e., if I (hypothetical I) sell you a steampunk vampire romance, and then submit another one to you, but you reject it or I decline the contract, does that affect my options for publishing that manuscript with other houses or on my own?
If I find that my steampunk vampire romances aren't selling to my satisfaction via your company, but I see that that genre is doing well elsewhere, am I still bound to send them to you? If you reject my book, and I sell it elsewhere, then what are my options with a third book, especially if the new house has a ROFR?
When a publisher is putting forth a clause like that, and defending it, but quickly adds "...but you can negotiate it out," it doesn't inspire much faith in that new clause. Obviously authors should scrutinize their contracts and negotiate as needed, but if a publisher is outright SAYING "Well, you can negotiate this contract out," then why leave it there in the first place?
What do you do if a publisher rejects your books now? Don't you take it someplace else? The clause doesn't change that.
Because the current wording says they can't publish it elsewhere during the term of any agreement with CP. They can't even self-pub it.
As well as the issues everyone else has raised, I don't get the impression that Champagne has all its ducks in a row.The idea that it can't be negotiated out was addressed--they can. Again, totally fair on the not recommending. I'll come back in a few months and tell you all how it's going.
Mr. Flibble, I don't want to mislead you. The clause hasn't been changed--just some clarification.
I'm fine with a publisher stepping back from such obviously unfavorable clauses, but the publisher should not have had those obviously unfavorable clauses in the first place.
That is absolutely not what the clause currently states.And no, they aren't contractually bound to PUBLISH those books with us--they are contractually bound to let us see them first. Again, authors can always say no.