Amazon's Indie publishers?

If you own the rights to your work and you self-pub through Amazon KDP, you retain your rights.

Amazon's publishing imprints, such as Montlake Romance, are completely different from KDP. Montlake can negotiate rights with authors.

Hth

Silverrosess said:

Hello there
but I found out something about Amazon being able to sign away the rights to your book perchance some publisher, or some movie producer wanted it. I'm not saying anyone's going to want to make my book into a movie, I'm only thinking theoritical and whatever's the safest possible way for me to publish without getting screwed by anyone.

Click to expand...

I'm curious where you got that information. Mind sharing?

Do Amazon publishers - the small ones - sigh the same contract as self-pubbed authors? Or is it different, they keep the rights to the book themselves?

Click to expand...

If you decide to self-publish through Kindle Direct Publishing, it has nothing to do with with any of the imprints Amazon publishes under.

The entire Terms of Service you'll be agreeing to are clearly spelled out on the website: kdp.amazon.com.

Go and read it all, and set your mind at ease.

What they said. Just read Amazon's TOS.

Silver, you're a bit mixed up here, I think.

Silverrosess said:

Hello there

So, I'm just wondering what anyone knows about what the Amazon contract entails for an indie publisher? I was thinking of self publishing on Amazon, but I found out something about Amazon being able to sign away the rights to your book perchance some publisher, or some movie producer wanted it.

Click to expand...

Self-publishing and indie publishers are two different things: self-publishing is something you do yourself; independent publishers are those who aren't part of a larger conglomerate.

As for your questions regarding the rights you relinquish when you self-publish with Amazon: you need to read their terms of service, as others have already said. Where did you read this? It's possible you misunderstood, or the person whose comment you read misunderstood.

I'm not saying anyone's going to want to make my book into a movie, I'm only thinking theoritical and whatever's the safest possible way for me to publish without getting screwed by anyone.

Click to expand...

If you want to stay safe, then before you move further along in your publishing endeavours you must learn more about publishing: how it works, and what the various terms mean. Otherwise you'll risk making all sorts of mistakes.

Do Amazon publishers - the small ones - sigh the same contract as self-pubbed authors? Or is it different, they keep the rights to the book themselves?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Writers can self-publish with Amazon; publishers can sell their books through Amazon; writers can be published through one of Amazon's new imprints. Each of these involve separate contracts, with different rights and clauses involved. You need to read, and understand, the contracts which apply.

Silverrosess said:

Shelleyo: http://boingboing.net/2009/07/09/amazon-kindle-contra.html

And I understand that Self publishing, using contracts, and using publishers who use Amazon are all different things; I just wanted to see if anyone knew if small publishers who use Amazon as a venue - not publishers OWNED by Amazon - sign the same self-publishing contract as indie authors.

Click to expand...

The longstanding indie publishers don't generally use KDP, though I guess there's a new breed of "micro" publishers or somesuch that do. So the end result is you need to find out for sure with whatever small publisher you're considering.

In regards to KDP, the SFWA analysis came early on. Much of the language has been revised since then, and the important concerns like copyright ownership have for the most part been battle tested--if not legally challenged--as in the self-published author's favor over the last 5 years. The prevailing opinion seems to be there's no hidden rights-grab in there. (Not that you shouldn't review the TOS yourself.)

I also found this, which is a bit creepy: http://selfpubauthors.com/2013/03/0...mazon-to-refund-past-customers-who-bought-it/

Click to expand...

If you follow the progress of this story to the end, the email turned out to be an error by Amazon, which they recanted in follow-up correspondence. It was an ugly incident for Amazon, but should be considered an outlier for the typical self-publisher considering Amazon as a retailer.

Why do writers who want to self publish feel self publishing automatically makes them an Indie Publisher?

Would love to see the terms of those contracts...

I've seen this argument before. Many are looking at indie musicians and filmmakers who produce and distribute their own works, and assume "indie" has the same connotations in publishing.

Silverrosess said:

Shelleyo: http://boingboing.net/2009/07/09/amazon-kindle-contra.html

And I understand that Self publishing, using contracts, and using publishers who use Amazon are all different things; I just wanted to see if anyone knew if small publishers who use Amazon as a venue - not publishers OWNED by Amazon - sign the same self-publishing contract as indie authors.

Click to expand...

That's boilerplate stuff.

Bigger publishers get different terms and completely different arrangements with Amazon. They can have pre-orders, for instance, different author pages, a whole host of things the standard self-publisher or small publisher (though I'm sure there are exceptions) can't get.

Smaller publishers may be simply publishing their writers' books through the KDP program. I'd side-eye any publisher that does things this way, personally. If I were going to sign with a publisher, I'd want one who could do things I couldn't do on my own.

I also found this, which is a bit creepy: http://selfpubauthors.com/2013/03/0...mazon-to-refund-past-customers-who-bought-it/

Click to expand...

That was a nightmare situation for her, which turned out to be an Amazon mistake, not a precedent for future situations.

BenPanced said:

I've seen this argument before. Many are looking at indie musicians and filmmakers who produce and distribute their own works, and assume "indie" has the same connotations in publishing.

Click to expand...

That's probably why people started using the term in publishing, you're right. Whether it's technically correct or not, it's pretty commonly used to refer to self-published authors, and not just by said self-published authors, so much so that now it does have the same connotations to many people.

BenPanced said:

I've seen this argument before. Many are looking at indie musicians and filmmakers who produce and distribute their own works, and assume "indie" has the same connotations in publishing.

Click to expand...

Decades ago I worked for CBS Records; when I moved to book publishing, the landscape was completely new. The rules of engagement in the two businesses were so very different that I found very few parallels. I often see parallels being drawn now between the music business and trade publishing, but I'm not sure they're useful or helpful.

shelleyo said:

Smaller publishers may be simply publishing their writers' books through the KDP program. I'd side-eye any publisher that does things this way, personally. If I were going to sign with a publisher, I'd want one who could do things I couldn't do on my own.

Click to expand...

Me too.

That's probably why people started using the term in publishing, you're right. Whether it's technically correct or not, it's pretty commonly used to refer to self-published authors, and not just by said self-published authors, so much so that now it does have the same connotations to many people.

Click to expand...

"Indie" and "traditional" are widely used online now, and in various writing communities and so on: but they're not terms which are yet widely used within trade publishing in the context you're suggesting here, and misusing them in such a way can and does cause confusion when you're dealing with trade publishers.

By all means, use the terms if you want: but if you end up talking to people within trade publishing, who aren't part of an online community such as this one--which is probably the majority of them--then be prepared to explain your own meanings of the terms, and expect confusion.

Old Hack said:

"Indie" and "traditional" are widely used online now, and in various writing communities and so on: but they're not terms which are yet widely used within trade publishing in the context you're suggesting here, and misusing them in such a way can and does cause confusion when you're dealing with trade publishers.

Click to expand...

Is this shifting though? Invariably, when I see an interview with a publishing insider, and the topic is broached, I see the insider use the term "traditional" publishing too. (I wish I'd started jotting down links a year ago...) I keep waiting for an outright correction of an interviewer, or the subtle shift to the preferred term but I have yet to notice it. I do sometimes see the avoidance of "indie" for the preferred "self-publisher".

J. Tanner said:

Is this shifting though? Invariably, when I see an interview with a publishing insider, and the topic is broached, I see the insider use the term "traditional" publishing too. (I wish I'd started jotting down links a year ago...) I keep waiting for an outright correction of an interviewer, or the subtle shift to the preferred term but I have yet to notice it. I do sometimes see the avoidance of "indie" for the preferred "self-publisher".

Click to expand...

It is shifting, which was my point. Here at AW, it's even listed as against the rules to use phrases like indie publisher or traditional publishing, but that hasn't stopped the general Internet and casual usage of them. When those terms are continually used in legitimate articles from legitimate places (as opposed to any old bloggers or pseudo-news sites), that demonstrates a considerable shift.

Personally, I still don't like the term traditional publishing and generally say trade-publishing. I hated the term indie for a long time, now I don't care. Someone who considers herself an indie publisher is a publisher operating outside the big-boy publishing industry. Whether that person is publishing her own work exclusively or the work of others as well no longer much matters to me. I understand the traditional usage, but these things do evolve.

but they're not terms which are yet widely used within trade publishing in the context you're suggesting here, and misusing them in such a way can and does cause confusion when you're dealing with trade publishers.

By all means, use the terms if you want: but if you end up talking to people within trade publishing, who aren't part of an online community such as this one--which is probably the majority of them--then be prepared to explain your own meanings of the terms, and expect confusion.

Click to expand...

I wasn't actually suggesting they're commonly used within trade-publishing but at the very least online when referring to self-published authors. And while it was probably those self-pubbed authors who started using the term, it's been adopted by far more than that now.

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of the publishing industry by suggesting they'd be totally confused by the terms. If I were speaking to someone from a Big 5, I'd probably use the terms trade-publishing and self-publishing, simply because that's what I'm most used to, as well. But I would suspect that people in trade-publishing are savvy enough to understand that terms like indie and traditional are commonly used outside their offices.

They're smarter than that, and if not, they're so far behind the times that I'd side-eye that a little bit and wonder how effective they could be in today's market.

J. Tanner said:

Is this shifting though? Invariably, when I see an interview with a publishing insider, and the topic is broached, I see the insider use the term "traditional" publishing too. (I wish I'd started jotting down links a year ago...) I keep waiting for an outright correction of an interviewer, or the subtle shift to the preferred term but I have yet to notice it. I do sometimes see the avoidance of "indie" for the preferred "self-publisher".

Click to expand...

I've seen publishing professionals have the terms "traditional" and "indie" explained to them during panel discussions at conferences, or work out what they mean from the context of the ongoing conversation, and then use those terms for the duration of the panel discussion.

I've seen interviewers ask their questions using those terms, and have watched the publishing pros being interviewed respond in those terms out of courtesy to the interviewer, even though they wouldn't usually use those terms (as they have usually made clear at the time).

And yes, I've seen a few publishing professionals use the terms during discussions without prompting.

But mostly (and I'm talking of a huge majority here, and greater than a 90:10 split) the publishing professionals I know, both professionally and personally, use the terms trade publishing and self publishing. They do sometimes confuse self and vanity publishing, but that's far less frequent now than it was even three years ago, than goodness.

shelleyo said:

It is shifting, which was my point. Here at AW, it's even listed as against the rules to use phrases like indie publisher or traditional publishing, but that hasn't stopped the general Internet and casual usage of them. When those terms are continually used in legitimate articles from legitimate places (as opposed to any old bloggers or pseudo-news sites), that demonstrates a considerable shift.

Click to expand...

It's not against the rules, shellyo. It's in the guidelines to just one room, that's all, and those guidelines are there to help ensure clarity. They were introduced after we noticed how many conversations ended up going round in circles arguing about what the terms meant and whether they were appropriate or not.

Most of the "legitimate places" that I see talking about publishing use the terms trade and self, not traditional or indie (in this context). I'm talking here about trade periodicals rather than newspapers which aren't associated with publishing, for example. Whenever I read an article about book publishing in a newspaper it seems slightly off to me: the issues are subtle, but they're there. It makes me wonder how much other stuff I read in the papers is so ill-informed.

I understand the traditional usage, but these things do evolve.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But the whole trade/traditional thing hasn't yet evolved to such a degree that it's widely used in trade publishing, which is why it's probably best to use trade for now when talking to trade publishers.

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of the publishing industry by suggesting they'd be totally confused by the terms. If I were speaking to someone from a Big 5, I'd probably use the terms trade-publishing and self-publishing, simply because that's what I'm most used to, as well. But I would suspect that people in trade-publishing are savvy enough to understand that terms like indie and traditional are commonly used outside their offices.

They're smarter than that, and if not, they're so far behind the times that I'd side-eye that a little bit and wonder how effective they could be in today's market.

Click to expand...

Shellyo, you're right that people who work in trade publishing understand that people outside the trade use different terms, and that some of them can even work out what those terms are and what they mean. I know this because I work in trade publishing, and have done so for around three decades now. The people you just accused me of underestimating are my friends, my colleagues, and myself.

Old Hack said:

It's not against the rules, shellyo. It's in the guidelines to just one room, that's all, and those guidelines are there to help ensure clarity. They were introduced after we noticed how many conversations ended up going round in circles arguing about what the terms meant and whether they were appropriate or not.

Click to expand...

Okay, it's against the rules in this one room. But it does says rules, and it does say that using the proper terminology is required. So a little bit more than a guideline.

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249332

The people you just accused me of underestimating are my friends, my colleagues, and myself.

Click to expand...

You're making this into a personal accusation and insult when it's not.

then be prepared to explain your own meanings of the terms, and expect confusion.

Click to expand...

My point was that once the terms are clarified to those who aren't already familiar with them (and I suspect most are familiar with them), I think there's unlikely to be confusion.

In your latest post above, you pointed out how easily the people you're talking about do figure it out, even if they've not heard the terms used that way before. Even when people are called out here for using those terms, it's usually to instruct them that they're wrong, not out of any genuine confusion about their topic.

Sorry, shelleyo, I didn't get round to responding to you last night.

shelleyo said:

You're making this into a personal accusation and insult when it's not.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not.

I've not referred to "accusations" or anything so negative, and that wasn't my intention at all. I'm sorry if you read my comment to mean that: I'll try to be clearer next time.

You wrote this:

I think you're underestimating the intelligence of the publishing industry by suggesting they'd be totally confused by the terms.

Click to expand...

My point was that you didn't seem to realise that I am one of those people in the publishing business that you referred to, and that the things I've said here come from discussions I've had with others in the publishing business. I've not based my comments on anecdote or hearsay, but on real-life discussions I've had, and on real-life encounters.

My point was that once the terms are clarified to those who aren't already familiar with them (and I suspect most are familiar with them), I think there's unlikely to be confusion.

Click to expand...

There is a period of confusion before those terms are clarified, though, and it takes further time to clarify things. Why not just avoid that confusion by using the correct terms from the start? When writers meet up with publishing professionals in pitch sessions and so on, they don't often have much time to talk to them: why waste any of that time sorting out confusion, when it's so easily avoided completely?

In your latest post above, you pointed out how easily the people you're talking about do figure it out, even if they've not heard the terms used that way before. Even when people are called out here for using those terms, it's usually to instruct them that they're wrong, not out of any genuine confusion about their topic.

Click to expand...

If you know of a way to point out that people are using the wrong terminology without pointing out that they're wrong, I'd be glad to hear it.

Whatever your interpretation of our motives, I can assure you that when mods point out the correct terminology here, it's done in an attempt to avoid confusion and to help writers become more knowledgeable about publishing.

Take this part of the discussion to PM if you want to continue it, please, shelleyo. You know we don't discuss mod discussions in public here. Thanks.

BenPanced said:

I've seen this argument before. Many are looking at indie musicians and filmmakers who produce and distribute their own works, and assume "indie" has the same connotations in publishing.

Click to expand...

Except, indie used in music doesn't even mean what those folk think it does. It means the same thing as it does in publishing - small, independant labels, not folks going it alone.

I'm self published, and I have an agent who tries to sell my newest stuff. If it doesn't work out, I will self publish those books too.

The terms 'indie publishing' and 'traditional publishing' bother me, but I have stopped trying to correct people. One of the things that bother me is that it feels disingenuous. Like people know it's not accurate but use it anyway. I say if you're going to self publish, do it right, and own it. Don't dress it up. Call it what it is. There is NOTHING wrong with self publishing. But to do it right, you have to know how books are published. You have to know the publishing process and mimic it in your own books. In short, you have to be a publisher.

The biggest thing, to me, is professionalism. If you want to be seen as a professional, you need to understand the whole industry. You need to know that indie publishers = independent publishers which is not the same as self publishers.

To the op: if you're going with a small or micro press who says they're going to put your book in KDP Select, I would be a little put off.

I'm an indie publisher. That's how I identify myself. I understand I'm not allowed by the rules to use that term, but outside of this space, it's what I use and for the most part it's what my friends use to refer to themselves, and I see it in the press, and in articles about the changes in publishing.

I think of "self publisher" as an out of date term that brings up mostly negative images of some poor soul who can't do better with boxes of books in their basement. I'm also gay and I think of "self publisher" as really similar to "homosexual." It's something that is still in common usage and it may be dictionary accurate, but it's kind of a dig and meant to imply a second class status.

Katie Elle said:

I'm an indie publisher. That's how I identify myself. I understand I'm not allowed by the rules to use that term, but outside of this space, it's what I use and for the most part it's what my friends use to refer to themselves, and I see it in the press, and in articles about the changes in publishing.

Click to expand...

You can identify yourself as a polka-dotted banana if you want to; but that won't change that you are a self-publisher. And with regard to the articles you see in the press, I refer you to my earlier comment.

I think of "self publisher" as an out of date term that brings up mostly negative images of some poor soul who can't do better with boxes of books in their basement. I'm also gay and I think of "self publisher" as really similar to "homosexual." It's something that is still in common usage and it may be dictionary accurate, but it's kind of a dig and meant to imply a second class status.

Click to expand...

I think of "self publisher" as an accurate, specific term, just as "independent publisher" is an accurate and specific term. Neither term has anything to do with anyone's sexual orientation, and neither is used with any negative intention, but some people are determined to take offense at just about anything, it seems.

Katie Elle said:

I'm an indie publisher. That's how I identify myself. I understand I'm not allowed by the rules to use that term, but outside of this space, it's what I use and for the most part it's what my friends use to refer to themselves, and I see it in the press, and in articles about the changes in publishing.

I think of "self publisher" as an out of date term that brings up mostly negative images of some poor soul who can't do better with boxes of books in their basement. I'm also gay and I think of "self publisher" as really similar to "homosexual." It's something that is still in common usage and it may be dictionary accurate, but it's kind of a dig and meant to imply a second class status.

Click to expand...

Which raises the question - if you are so ashamed to be called self published, why are you doing it?

if you are so ashamed to be called self published

Click to expand...

I'm not ashamed to be working directly with storefronts. I just believe some words are wielded as a way to demean others and that any given group of people has the right to define their own terms.

Also fwiw, I worked at a small academic press for 7 years as a typesetter. I never once heard the term "indie." We were a small press or an academic press.

Katie, I know 'indie' has become a sort of colloquial term in self-publishing circles, but it is a term that is used in professional publishing. It's a term that already has a definition. Let me point out a couple casual references for you on a publisher's website:

http://hotkeyblog.wordpress.com/201...fe-of-an-editorial-assistant-part-2/#comments

Listen to the video, and you'll hear her call the company a "little indie" and then read the comments and you'll see how a misuse of the term is bothersome to real indies.

Here's another from the same site where the poster talks about working at big companies and small indies:

http://hotkeyblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/so-you-want-to-be-a-publisher/

The problem I have, Katie, is that by avoiding the use of the term "self-publishing" or "self-publisher" you're perpetuating this belief that it's a second-class status. That might have been the case a few years back, but it's not the case anymore. At least it doesn't need to be.

As I mentioned, I'm self-published. The only reason anyone needs to be ashamed of it, is if you're poorly published, and in that respect it doesn't matter if you're self-published or not.

I think it's a mistake for self-published authors to use the term "indie" and I think it makes people see them (us) as ignorant. I'm not saying the readers see it that way, since it's unlikely your casual reader is familiar with publishing terminology, but rather other professionals in the industry. I have a feeling, however, that it's too late to correct the usage. I think it'll become as common as "traditional publishing" and honestly, it's not a fight I care to have. In fact, I think Amazon.com has a new search option on their site for "indies" and it's specifically self-publishing.

Anyway, I really wish you all kinds of success with your books. I hope you don't take offense to anything I've said, I wish you had links in your signature so I could check out your stuff.

Cheers and good luck!

Katie Elle said:

I'm not ashamed to be working directly with storefronts. I just believe some words are wielded as a way to demean others and that any given group of people has the right to define their own terms

Click to expand...

Katie, I'm sorry you feel so offended by being called a self publisher. Not only would I never use that term in a negative light, I won't put up with anyone else doing so here either. If you ever feel that the term is being used as an insult at AW, then report the post or drop me a PM: the mods can't take action if they don't know that something's wrong.

profen4 said:

The problem I have, Katie, is that by avoiding the use of the term "self-publishing" or "self-publisher" you're perpetuating this belief that it's a second-class status. That might have been the case a few years back, but it's not the case anymore. At least it doesn't need to be.

Click to expand...

You make a good point.

We often hear about the stigma associated with self publishing, and I wonder how much of that stigma exists mainly in the minds of the people who complain about it (not that I'm denying some people are unfairly critical of self publishing, of course: I've seen such bias in action, and it's ridiculous).

As I mentioned, I'm self-published. The only reason you need to be ashamed of it, is if you're poorly published, and in that respect it doesn't matter if you're self-published or not.

Click to expand...

Very true.

I think it's a mistake for self-published authors to use the term "indie" and I think it makes people see them (us) as ignorant. I'm not saying the readers see it that way, since it's unlikely your casual reader is familiar with publishing terminology, but rather other professionals in the industry.

Click to expand...

Exactly. As self-publishing continues to grow, more and more writers cross over to the other side--whether that is trade or self publishing. When self published writers deal with trade publishers it's important that they are professional, competent and able; and if they use incorrect terminology, they'll not appear professional no matter how hard they try.