Roaylties on net?

Status
Not open for further replies.

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
Hi all

I need some input on the issue of royalties paid on net, specifically for ebooks if that nakes a difference.

i.e. is it generally acceptable
should 'net' be defined
what costs could be reasonably included e.g. cover artists, credit card charges, set up fees in house or with a distributor?

My impression that royalties should be on retail, or via a distributor perhaps on wholesale--and that if they are on net the publisher should define net in the contract?

How exactly does it work, does all income go to costs first, then to royalties and publisher profit? i.e. if the artist is paid this way she gets paid before the writer sees a cent?
 
Last edited:

JanDarby

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
3,553
Reaction score
1,121
I'm assuming you're asking for general information, not individual legal advice, so general info is all I'm giving

Net should definitely be defined if that's the basis for royalties, especially since there isn't an industry standard for it. In some businesses, it might be common knowledge what "net" includes (i.e., general overhead or just specific items clearly linked to a given product and what type sof expenses are generally incurred), but that's not true of publishing, where it's much more common for payment to be based on the gross (retail) price.

Without a definition, and without any industry standard to refer to, a contract that simply provided for payment of X% of the "net income" might well be subject to a claim that there was no meeting of the minds, and therefore no contract.

On a practical note, I can't even imagine the headaches in trying to do this. It's one thing if the royalties are based on X% of the amount collected from a distributor (which is common, as I understand it, for epublishers that list books with fictionwise, etc., so the royalties from books sold at the epublisher's own website are X% of the cover price, and the royalties from books sold at a distributor's website are X% of the amount fictionwise pays to the publisher).

It would be quite another thing altogether if overhead was factored into the "net" (how and who would decide how much overhead should be attributed to a given book; and this is absurd anyway, b/c the overhead should come out of the publisher's share of the income, and if the royalty rate is too high to cover their overhead, then the business model is messed up somehow), along with, say, advertising (if there's an ad by the publisher for just one book), and the cover art, and whatever other book-specific expenses might exist.

My head hurts just thinking about it. If all they're saying is that if they list the book with a distributor, and the distributor takes a cut, then royalties are based on the net after the distributor's cut, that's easy enough to write into the contract. But to leave it as an open-ended "net," would make my legal hackles rise.

JD
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
Yes, I am after some general perspectives. My thoughts are along the lines you give. I see no evidence that 'net' has an agreed meaning in publishing and even the generally attributed meanings seem different again with epublishers.

I feel that publishers may like to use net, not least as it makes the royalties look higher--but it leaves the door open to all sorts of moving costs from them to the author and so might reasonably be considered a red flag?

My reason for asking is general, I want to blog the issue--and prompted by some publishers moving from gross to net.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.