I look forward to one day putting recommended beside that listing. In the meantime, this is the kind of responsible management that makes it possible to actually put together a good company. Good luck to you all.
-
Guest please check The Index before starting a thread.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,704
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- Far from the madding crowd
- Website
- www.victoriastrauss.com
I've now seen several copies of the "new" BPP contract, and while some of the bad clauses are gone (such as BPP holding on to royalties till a book's production cost was recouped), there are still substantial problems, in my opinion.
- According to Clause 1, BPP takes exclusive English-language print publishing rights for 3 years after the publication date. At the end of the three year term, it relinquishes exclusivity--but not the publishing rights, which it retains on a nonexclusive basis. Since there is no rights reversion clause in the contract, BPP presumably will retain its non-exclusive right to publish for the duration of copyright, or as long as it is in business--whichever is shorter. However, all publishers want exclusivity. So it's unlikely that an author will be able to re-sell a BPP-published book to someone else, as long as BPP has a non-exclusive claim on it.
In effect, this is a perpetual grant of rights to BPP.
- Royalties are 7.5% of cover price for the first 150 books sold, and 15% thereafter. What this says to me is that the publisher doesn't expect to sell a lot of books.
- BPP leaves most subrights with the author, but claims the right to act as the author's agent, for a 20% commission. It's a serious conflict of interest for a publisher to act as its authors' agent. Since the publisher has a contractual and financial interest in the book, it can't be an impartial representative. Why not just retain subsidiary rights and give the author a cut?
- The contract appears to give the publisher the right to edit (as distinct from copy editing) without the author's approval.
- BPP's bankruptcy clause states that the contract will NOT terminate in the event of bankruptcy, which is the exact opposite of the bankruptcy clauses in standard publishing contracts. It's true that bankruptcy clauses are often unenforceable, but in agreeing to return rights to authors in the event of bankruptcy, the publisher is acknowledging a duty of performance. In retaining rights, BPP is doing the opposite.
There are other problems, but these are the main ones. In my opinion, this is a confused, badly written, poorly constructed contract that ignores important issues (such as rights reversion) while focusing on silly ones (for instance, the author has to hold BPP harmless for negative reviews). Also, the contract has a number of typos and grammatical mistakes. This doesn't improve the publisher's image.
Even if this post, or the similar criticisms I've sent to authors, motivates BPP to fix these problems, the fact that it cannot seem to come up with a decent contract on its own--despite the fact that there are plenty of publishing contract templates out there, in books, posted for free online, or available for purchase--speaks poorly of its professionalism.
Beyond the contract issues, there's still no sign that BPP is effectively marketing or distributing its books.
- Victoria
- According to Clause 1, BPP takes exclusive English-language print publishing rights for 3 years after the publication date. At the end of the three year term, it relinquishes exclusivity--but not the publishing rights, which it retains on a nonexclusive basis. Since there is no rights reversion clause in the contract, BPP presumably will retain its non-exclusive right to publish for the duration of copyright, or as long as it is in business--whichever is shorter. However, all publishers want exclusivity. So it's unlikely that an author will be able to re-sell a BPP-published book to someone else, as long as BPP has a non-exclusive claim on it.
In effect, this is a perpetual grant of rights to BPP.
- Royalties are 7.5% of cover price for the first 150 books sold, and 15% thereafter. What this says to me is that the publisher doesn't expect to sell a lot of books.
- BPP leaves most subrights with the author, but claims the right to act as the author's agent, for a 20% commission. It's a serious conflict of interest for a publisher to act as its authors' agent. Since the publisher has a contractual and financial interest in the book, it can't be an impartial representative. Why not just retain subsidiary rights and give the author a cut?
- The contract appears to give the publisher the right to edit (as distinct from copy editing) without the author's approval.
- BPP's bankruptcy clause states that the contract will NOT terminate in the event of bankruptcy, which is the exact opposite of the bankruptcy clauses in standard publishing contracts. It's true that bankruptcy clauses are often unenforceable, but in agreeing to return rights to authors in the event of bankruptcy, the publisher is acknowledging a duty of performance. In retaining rights, BPP is doing the opposite.
There are other problems, but these are the main ones. In my opinion, this is a confused, badly written, poorly constructed contract that ignores important issues (such as rights reversion) while focusing on silly ones (for instance, the author has to hold BPP harmless for negative reviews). Also, the contract has a number of typos and grammatical mistakes. This doesn't improve the publisher's image.
Even if this post, or the similar criticisms I've sent to authors, motivates BPP to fix these problems, the fact that it cannot seem to come up with a decent contract on its own--despite the fact that there are plenty of publishing contract templates out there, in books, posted for free online, or available for purchase--speaks poorly of its professionalism.
Beyond the contract issues, there's still no sign that BPP is effectively marketing or distributing its books.
- Victoria
To be fair:
To be fair, that is similar in design to what Richard Curtis says in How to be your own literary agent, though Curtis's example uses 5000 as the mark instead of 150. (10% on first 5000, 12.5% on next 5000, and 15% thereafter being his mark of a good deal.)
I wouldn't expect a large publisher to have expectations of less than 5000 in sales (or less than 10000 for that matter), so I don't think its fair to assume BP has expectations of less than 150 in sales.
Now, I don't have the experience needed to know how accurate Curtis's examples are and if contracts from large publishers create a similar dynamic in royalty payouts (though I think the book has high recommendations as good reading to understand the publishing business), but it does seem to me that BP is basing their royalty payout on a similar scheme, and it is a very fair payout to the author.
I don't think they should be faulted for the number they use, and I don't think that number should be used as their sales expectations. Obviously, a publisher of this size isn't going to be selling books in the 10's of thousands, and any writer should submit with the knowledge that if their book sells more than a thousand copies they are probably doing very good for that publisher.
Everything else you mention is spot on, with the most important being marketing and distribution, but I think we should be fair and say that's a good royalty payout for a publisher of BP's size and not use it as an example that they don't expect to sell many books. After all, there are more evident factors showing they probably won't sell many books.
To be fair, that is similar in design to what Richard Curtis says in How to be your own literary agent, though Curtis's example uses 5000 as the mark instead of 150. (10% on first 5000, 12.5% on next 5000, and 15% thereafter being his mark of a good deal.)
I wouldn't expect a large publisher to have expectations of less than 5000 in sales (or less than 10000 for that matter), so I don't think its fair to assume BP has expectations of less than 150 in sales.
Now, I don't have the experience needed to know how accurate Curtis's examples are and if contracts from large publishers create a similar dynamic in royalty payouts (though I think the book has high recommendations as good reading to understand the publishing business), but it does seem to me that BP is basing their royalty payout on a similar scheme, and it is a very fair payout to the author.
I don't think they should be faulted for the number they use, and I don't think that number should be used as their sales expectations. Obviously, a publisher of this size isn't going to be selling books in the 10's of thousands, and any writer should submit with the knowledge that if their book sells more than a thousand copies they are probably doing very good for that publisher.
Everything else you mention is spot on, with the most important being marketing and distribution, but I think we should be fair and say that's a good royalty payout for a publisher of BP's size and not use it as an example that they don't expect to sell many books. After all, there are more evident factors showing they probably won't sell many books.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,704
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- Far from the madding crowd
- Website
- www.victoriastrauss.com
Well, yes. Such as their lack of distribution. But to me, that 150 figure says something about how the publisher is thinking about sales.
Generally when you have royalty increases in a contract, the increases are set at reasonable sales points from the publisher's point of view, and are there to reward the author for sales success. Because they show the point at which the publisher feels the author deserves a pay raise, these figures can be quite revealing about a publisher's sales expectations.
The 5,000 figure used by Richard Curtis is for hardcover from larger commercial publishers. Smaller publishers may use smaller increase points (if they use them at all), depending on their average sales. Paperback formats often have higher royalty increase points--in my last contract, for instance, the increase point for mass market paperback was 100,000.
150 copies is about what the typical book from POD self-publishing services sells.
- Victoria
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,461
- Reaction score
- 163
The point for the raise here is more determined by at what sales the publisher can look forward to greater earnings. The raise is also more significant than than the 2.5% raise in the example contract from Richard Curtis. He'd have to jump to 20% to match the increase.
Yes, distribution is a demon at this point, but it is a demon which has been summoned to the circle and is soon to be chastened to obedience.
15% after 150 copies is meant to reward the author for foregoing an advance, and I think it is more than a gesture on the publisher's part.
I agree a an advance and 10% would be better in the long run for the author who is looking at a small press, but many such publishers offer 8% and more major houses are making much more blatant rights grabs these days than BluPhier postulates.
It was not long ago that publishers insisted on "halfsies" on mass market and film deals, some still try to do so.
All in all the contract is a huuuuge improvement and is on the edge of fair enough.
Regards,
Scott
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,461
- Reaction score
- 163
Working to create a deal with one of three distributors.
Nothing definite as yet.
Regards,
Scott
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,704
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- Far from the madding crowd
- Website
- www.victoriastrauss.com
I'm sorry, but saying that this contract is an improvement over the old one is like saying that cutting off your hand is an improvement over cutting off your arm. It's still a lousy contract.
THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR RIGHTS REVERSION IN THIS CONTRACT, PEOPLE. If you sign it, you are giving your rights to BPP for the duration of copyright (your life plus 70 years) or for as long as BPP feels like keeping them, whichever is shorter.
- Victoria
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,461
- Reaction score
- 163
A. It needs an "out of print" print definition and a declaration of reversion under the "out of print" definition.
B. No rights are granted other than hardcover and trade paperback. Other rights are not tied up at all.
C. I'm working on that too.
Regards,
Scott
priceless1
Banned
This is a huge loophole. The large houses, for instance, keep books for many years even though they're no longer selling them. The contract invariably states that they have the rights for as long as they keep printing the title. It says nothing about "selling" them. Keeping a title "in print" normally consists of printing as few as a couple hundred, which they turn around and destroy.
I know of a lady whose book has been tied up with one of the big houses for over fourteen years even though it hasn't been sold for twelve years. She's repeatedly asked to be released so she can take it elsewhere, and they've refused. Reason being is that her particular book may come back into vogue and at that time they'll pull it out of mothballs and give it new life.
I'm not suggesting that BP is doing this, because it obviously takes a big budget to print and destroy books just for the pleasure of possibly re-releasing it at a later date. But what I am saying is that anyone signing a contract needs to be certain of the terms in which they can get their book back.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,104
- Reaction score
- 182
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,104
- Reaction score
- 182
You're correct, he's not. He was the original editor of my book, but he left either at the beginning or in the middle and pushed my book back a few months.
Jimmy, however should have his book in his hand sometime around.......NOW.
Okay...it's next year. Blu Phi'er is not perfect. They've had some problems the last few months which, hopefully, they have finally gotten over. My book was released a couple of weeks ago, but I haven't received my author's copies yet. Out of curiosity, I called up a local B&N to try to set up a book signing just to see what would happen. So far now...I have two dates set up. July 19th here in Memphis and one on August 16th in Jonesboro, Ark. The books are listed as returnable and have a 55% discount, so setting up a book signing is no problem. Now...to just wait and see how things go from here. I hope your book will be out soon, Chris.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,104
- Reaction score
- 182
Just to be fair, I'll share my experience as well (b/c I signed like 2 days after Jimmy)
Initial release date of March.
March comes...nothing
April comes...get told about an editor that is no longer there.
May comes...nothing...until the end, then I get a great editor and he knocks it out fast. I held firm on a few things, but Adam was great.
June...its officially done and being sent off to the printer....from here, we'll see what happens.
Initial release date of March.
March comes...nothing
April comes...get told about an editor that is no longer there.
May comes...nothing...until the end, then I get a great editor and he knocks it out fast. I held firm on a few things, but Adam was great.
June...its officially done and being sent off to the printer....from here, we'll see what happens.
It looks like some people have been having trouble with Blue Ph'ier Publishing.
For the full message, see http://shocklinesforum.yuku.com/topic/5470
For the full message, see http://lincolncrisler.com/?p=125
More info:
http://authorsociety.proboards103.com/?board=pubs&action=display&thread=1435&page=1
http://therustynail.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/warning-blu-phier/
For the full message, see http://shocklinesforum.yuku.com/topic/5470
For the full message, see http://lincolncrisler.com/?p=125
More info:
http://authorsociety.proboards103.com/?board=pubs&action=display&thread=1435&page=1
http://therustynail.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/warning-blu-phier/
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 725
- Reaction score
- 100
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,170
- Reaction score
- 976
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2005
- Messages
- 725
- Reaction score
- 100
I do not know all the details yet. But the current contract was never returned to authors signed by BPP, so they can change it at will.
big warning
Blu Phi'er are causing serious havoc with some authors.
link here: http://lincolncrisler.com/?p=125
The guy even has the copy of his contract, yet they refuse to honor their agreement to him or the other authors involved.
I'd steer clear of these guys.
Blu Phi'er are causing serious havoc with some authors.
link here: http://lincolncrisler.com/?p=125
The guy even has the copy of his contract, yet they refuse to honor their agreement to him or the other authors involved.
I'd steer clear of these guys.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 3,170
- Reaction score
- 976
No they can't, because the authors have (or should have) their copies of the contract. If BBP is trying to change terms and conditions after the authors have signed and returned their contracts, they are not enforceable terms and conditions unless:
1. The authors agree in writing to the changes.
2. There is a clause contained in the original document that allows them to unilaterally change the contract. If there is that kind of clause, no one should have signed a BBP contract in the first place.
I've been curious about how this company would work out. Perhaps Jimmy can update us on his experience which has seemed to be (thankfully) positive.
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2007
- Messages
- 6,449
- Reaction score
- 1,321
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,704
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- Far from the madding crowd
- Website
- www.victoriastrauss.com
I am not in any way surprised. I'm sad for the authors, but...not surprised. Not even a little bit.
- Victoria
- Victoria
I did receive my author's copies. When it comes to the two anthologies being dropped, I found out about it the same way that the others in them did. It had something to do with two people leaving the company I think.
Last edited: