Thank you for your reply.

All I can add is that there are a lot of factors that are pushing advances down. I guess I also wonder–and would be interested to learn–if you know of authors with major house where the term is not term of copyright, as long as the book is “in print’ (though that’s variously define). Just to be perfectly clear, my comment about “facts” and light and heat” has to do with the sort of outrage I hear from authors about clauses in the contract that are often deleted quite willingly, like the option clause, as well as a general distain for NYC big six publishers as if there isn’t an actually much larger, broader, and more author-friendly world of publishers beyond that.

In general, I feel very strongly that the traditional publisher-author contract should be thrown out the window. As a former and future publisher, I have often felt uncomfortable sending a prospective author a contract that is largely incomprehensible with royalty statements to come that are equally obscure at best. Asking a “partner,” which your authors certainly are or should be, to sign a contract of this sort is very disrespectful and harmful to what is *fundamentally* a mutually beneficial relationship.

In terms of coming up with “the contract of the future,” I think a good place to start is simplifying the whole nightmare of royalty rates. I would argue that the contract should involve a flat royalty rate, across all formats, discounts, etc.–a simple % per book sold in any form.

Another area has to do with world English rights across format. Yielding on this would actually encourage US publishers to invest in ways and means of driving sales of their authors’ books around the world. Translation rights, when granted, should be based on language, not territory. And, if a U.S. publisher wants Spanish-language rights, for example, then they should pay for them and find ways of exploiting them as fully as possible for their benefit and benefit of their authors.

I’d love to see a lively discussion (here and elsewhere) of the future of the author-publisher contract.

Peter

“In another unusual move, Mr. King leases his titles to publishers, typically for a period of 15 years, rather than selling them. Most authors sell copyrights, which typically last until 70 years after the author’s death. Mr. King credits his former agent, Kirby McCauley, for driving that bargain. “He said, ‘There’s no need to sell the rights for these books when you can rent them,’ ” said Mr. King. “It gives you the option to move on if you don’t like the way that particular publisher is selling things, and that motivates them to try to move the books.”"

Yup, that’s respect. And Peter was right, King admits to getting smaller advances now than he used to get, but these kinds of deals, can make a ton more in the long run. And the contracts are two-sided. Now the question is how do midlist writers like me get just the basic respect of them not demanding they own my copyright forever? Having an option now helps, just as King had an option to move. But I sure don’t see this changing much.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204644504576651540980143566.html

Peter, as a publisher, I also never asked (or will allow WMG Publishing to ask when it expands out) for option clauses. Period. And I also signed over one thousand contracts with authors (although most were short fiction contracts, not all but most.)

I agree that arbitration would be a wonderful thing to have added into contracts. First there needs to be an author side of a contract. And in most contracts the author side has pretty much vanished except for the amount of money. Otherwise, the author side is restrictions put on by the publisher with no give back on the other side. So arbitration would be a wonderful thing in a balanced contract.

And I agree also about the lack of heat needed in these discussions. I just get sort of angry, honestly, when so many authors just worry about getting a little extra money and never think about how valuable their copyrights are and getting a little balance in respect.

So I also look for facts. Not sure what you think I said that I did not base on facts???? As an instructor of hundreds of younger professional writers, I have seen over the last few years upwards of a hundred different book contracts, not counting mine and Kris’s contracts. Trust me, there has been none of my three points I made in this article in any of them, including mine. And that’s what I am talking about from facts. Nothing more.

On point #2, sorry, but as a publisher I negotiated and signed hundreds of author contracts. The option clause is always the first to go, at least when an agent is involved. If you’ve had other experiences, it may be that there wasn’t enough leverage to justify the publisher yielding on this point. In any case, the publisher doesn’t get to control future books only the option to consider offering on them, which the author can refuse.

On point #3, the whole point of arbitration is for it to be independent of either party’s specific interests and to diminish the likelihood of court action.

I’ve have to confess that I find the discourse on these sorts of topics need to be informed with facts and experience, and less with emotion: more light than heat.

If one, alternatively, prefers to move away from traditional publishers and go the self-pub route, that’s great. But let’s have that discussion in the light not with an attitude of “don’t confuse me with the facts.”

I doubt that last comment will engender much sympathy with my “legacy” publisher views, but healthy dialogue requires a commitment to facts, history, etc.

Yours, truly,

Peter

In genre fiction, the option clause is, in my experience, non-negotiable. I don’t know of any authors who have been able to get that one dropped. Re-worded, yes, but not taken out altogether.

Also, current non-compete clauses are veering toward language that looks like this: “Author will not publish or authorize publication of another work that would directly compete with or impair sales of the Work by Publisher, without obtaining Publisher’s prior written consent.”

That’s pretty broad, over-reaching, and WAY in the publisher’s favor.

On question #2, in the contracts lately the publisher has put in forms of non-compete into warranty clauses in the boilerplate as well. And what right does a publisher have to control the author’s other work? They are buying one book or a series of books. And spreading those books out over years and years. The problem is that some of us just write faster than a publisher can publish, or seem to publish. And the assumption, is, of course, from a New York “god” standard that if another book similar came out IT WOULD HURT their book. Yet it has been proven over and over and over that more books find more readers. The non-compete clauses have become too stupid for words. And don’t belong in the warranty clauses either. It is a form of control when no control is needed. Now if we were talking a design of a car or a type of candy bar, maybe, but these are books. No book is the same. Forcing a writer to non-compete with say, a romance book, where all plots are the same anyway, is just damn silly.

And yeah, yeah, you have a character who readers really love and so you sell a trilogy on that character to New York. Why shouldn’t you be allowed to HELP New York by writing shorter work with that character? And help the sales of the bigger books through New York with smaller books done indie? It would all help. That’s what New York doesn’t yet understand and thus feel they must control all aspects of the author’s life. Nope.

As for question #3, sure why not arbitration. But that assumes two equal sides on the contract. I’m just trying to get writers to ask for a contract that is only 3/4 balanced to the publisher. Right now it is 99% to the publisher. My three points on this blog are to get writers to start trying to slowly pull that back from giving publisher’s total control for no reason and little money. So sure, arbitration on breaches would be great. Go ahead, try to get a publisher to include that. Let me know how that goes. (grin)