What would an agent regard as a good rate for e-rights?

Siddharta

Lazy Kid, be gentle
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
50
Reaction score
6
Hi,

Does anyone know what a writer should expect his/her agent to look for in a publishing contract regarding electronic rights? The ballpark industry standards regarding a writers cut for hardpack and paperback are easy enough to find, but the digital rights part seems confused to say the least.
Would be grateful for any guidance,
Thanks.

[Not fully sure if this belongs here or in E-Publishing]
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2005
Messages
47,985
Reaction score
13,245
Are you talking about a traditional publisher who also publishes e-books, or an epub? If it's the latter, why would you need an agent?
 

Siddharta

Lazy Kid, be gentle
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
50
Reaction score
6
I'm talking about a contract from a regular traditional publisher. I understand these contracts generally contain a clause about future electronic rights.
 

Ryan_Sullivan

Agented YA Writer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
829
Reaction score
86
Location
CA
I believe the current standard is just 25%, but not positive. E-rights are new and constantly changing--publishers, agents and writers are all dealing with it, so there's probably some room there, and it probably will change.
 

Deleted member 42

It depends quite a lot on the publisher, and the work; digital rights for some non-fiction markets are quite often substantially higher than those for fiction, for instance.
 

Siddharta

Lazy Kid, be gentle
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
50
Reaction score
6
Thanks for the info. I worry that any who lock themselves into these percentages now will lose out if there is a major overhaul of them later on.

We really need agents to be on the ball about it, but as you say, its a changing landscape so very hard to define. E-book sales via Amazon or the, about to be launched, "Google Editions" will accelerate dramatically over the coming years.

Thanks again.