PDA

View Full Version : JK Rowling Leaves Christopher Little



gothicangel
07-04-2011, 10:54 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jul/04/harry-potter-jk-rowling-agent



On Sunday night, Rowling's PR spokesperson confirmed that she had left Little to be managed by Neil Blair, a lawyer and former partner at Little's agency, adding it was a "painful decision".

A statement issued by StonehillSalt PR said: "We can confirm that JK Rowling has terminated her association with the Christopher Little literary agency.

"This was a painful decision, especially as Ms Rowling had actively sought a different outcome for some weeks. However, it was not taken without good reason and it finally became unavoidable," the statement read.

A previous statement earlier in the week (http://www.thebookseller.com/news/rowling-leaves-christopher-little-agency.html) acknowledged her association with Blair. "She will be represented forthwith by Neil Blair, who has left the Christopher Little Literary Agency and set up The Blair Partnership," it said.

gothicangel
07-04-2011, 02:14 PM
Hmm, interesting twist. It looks now that Christopher Little may take legal action against Neil Blair.

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/little-hits-back-rowling-and-blair-over-disappointing-split.html

Plot Device
07-04-2011, 02:42 PM
Hmm, interesting twist. It looks now that Christopher Little may take legal action against Neil Blair.

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/little-hits-back-rowling-and-blair-over-disappointing-split.html


Let me get this straight ....

This Neil Blair guy worked fot the Christher Little Literary Agency, and Neil Blair was JK Rowling's agent there. But then Neil Blair pulled a Jerry McGuire and walked out of the Christopher Little agency, and took his book of clients with him ... including Cuba Gooding Jr. JK Rowling.

Right??

dgaughran
07-04-2011, 03:05 PM
I wonder what is meant by "Ms Rowling had actively sought a different outcome for some weeks."

???

areteus
07-04-2011, 03:52 PM
Hang on... surely if an author leaves an agency, who one assumes she had a contract with (as opposed to the individual she worked with within that agency, who is now her new agent), then that agency still retains the rights over the works they negotiated for - i.e. they still get their 10% (or whatever) of all Harry Potter sales - they just don't get any new rights over her later works.

So, either I am misreading this and her contract was with Blair personally (therefore he is walking away with 10% of however many millions HP earns) or she does plan to release new books (for which this guy will get the 10% instead of his old agency). Because otherwise I cannot see the point of this move...

Cyia
07-04-2011, 04:08 PM
This is odd, considering Pottermore is registered to Chris Little with Blair as the Admin.

gothicangel
07-04-2011, 07:53 PM
It is very odd. I believe the deal is going to make Neil Blair a multi-millionaire.

BenPanced
07-04-2011, 08:04 PM
I wonder what is meant by "Ms Rowling had actively sought a different outcome for some weeks."

???
I have a feeling it might be connected to this:

This is odd, considering Pottermore is registered to Chris Little with Blair as the Admin.

shadowwalker
07-04-2011, 08:08 PM
Hang on... surely if an author leaves an agency, who one assumes she had a contract with (as opposed to the individual she worked with within that agency, who is now her new agent), then that agency still retains the rights over the works they negotiated for - i.e. they still get their 10% (or whatever) of all Harry Potter sales - they just don't get any new rights over her later works.

So, either I am misreading this and her contract was with Blair personally (therefore he is walking away with 10% of however many millions HP earns) or she does plan to release new books (for which this guy will get the 10% instead of his old agency). Because otherwise I cannot see the point of this move...

Is a contract typically with the agency versus the individual agent? If so, then Blair would be starting from scratch with Rowling, other than his contractural share of the previous works via Little, correct? And earnings on future works would be dependent on the previous contract's language on those future works, yes?

Strange indeed.