I am reviewing a publishing contract I believe requires revision. Several provisions appear too broad.
1. One provision authorizes the Publisher to license others to publish and sell the author’s work, but the royalty clause only requires payment to the author for sales by publisher.
I feel something is missing. There should be acknowledgement that sales of the Author’s work by others activates the same payment obligations as if the sales were by the publisher. Correct?
2. Related to this same problem, the contract allows outright sales or "licenses" to third parties, and there is nothing limiting the scope of this right. In other words, the entire “work” or novel could be sold or licensed for a lump sum price, and there is nothing putting any bottom floor on what that figure would be. From that day forward, the Author would receive nothing because the full work was licensed.
Is a clause needed that might say that only “volumes” of the work may be licensed, and not the entire work and copyright, itself? Otherwise, isn't the Author totally at risk, and would the Author not then need absolute veto power over licenses?
3. I know common sense must prevail, especially since the publisher also wants to maximize profit, but shouldn’t the contract put a floor on the price of a book? Fifteen percent of nothing is nothing. Fifty percent of nothing is nothing.
Is it standard that a publisher can lock up a novel for years without even a floor placed on price? And isn't "price" the only standard by which the reasonableness of license agreements can be evaluated?
Thank you for any help you can offer.
1. One provision authorizes the Publisher to license others to publish and sell the author’s work, but the royalty clause only requires payment to the author for sales by publisher.
I feel something is missing. There should be acknowledgement that sales of the Author’s work by others activates the same payment obligations as if the sales were by the publisher. Correct?
2. Related to this same problem, the contract allows outright sales or "licenses" to third parties, and there is nothing limiting the scope of this right. In other words, the entire “work” or novel could be sold or licensed for a lump sum price, and there is nothing putting any bottom floor on what that figure would be. From that day forward, the Author would receive nothing because the full work was licensed.
Is a clause needed that might say that only “volumes” of the work may be licensed, and not the entire work and copyright, itself? Otherwise, isn't the Author totally at risk, and would the Author not then need absolute veto power over licenses?
3. I know common sense must prevail, especially since the publisher also wants to maximize profit, but shouldn’t the contract put a floor on the price of a book? Fifteen percent of nothing is nothing. Fifty percent of nothing is nothing.
Is it standard that a publisher can lock up a novel for years without even a floor placed on price? And isn't "price" the only standard by which the reasonableness of license agreements can be evaluated?
Thank you for any help you can offer.
