For the past week or so I’ve kept myself from commenting on the lawsuits being filed in publishing, some of which I hinted were coming a long time ago. Why didn’t I want to comment?? Mostly because people just don’t understand what’s happening and how complex this all is. I didn’t want to have to shut off the Amazon bashers here. Or even read their screeds. (In fact, if that’s all you believe, like a religion, please do not bother to comment because I will not let the comment through.)
But this morning I had to break my silence on all this because there is even more news that affects all of us.
So for a clear-as-possible look at what the possible impact of the Supreme Court granting cert in the Kirtsaeng case, go read C.E Petit’s blog. Read it slowly and carefully and trust me, as he said, this is so complex, you won’t really understand it all without a legal degree. However, his point is clear. In bold letters he wrote, “There is no clear, universal answer.”
So go read. Worth the time. And thanks, C.E. for talking about this.
http://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2012/04/c416e.html
If you want more precise information about what the Supreme Court did this morning, go to ScottUS Blog. It talks about what the court did and what the meaning of the Kirtsaeng case might be directly.
The issue of the Kirtsaeng case is this: “How do Section 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which prohibits the importation of a work without the authority of the copyright’s owner, and Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act, which allows the owner of a copy “lawfully made under this title” to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy without the copyright owner’s permission, apply to a copy that was made and legally acquired abroad and then imported into the United States?”
In essence, they are dealing with an aspect of “The First Sale Doctrine” of copyright law (Section 109(a)), which allows the sale of a rightfully-purchased work without the permission of the copyright holder. (Think used book stores or any normal bookstore. Or electronic store for that matter.)
Let me give you a few things to think about with all this in very plain English that will not be precise.
– Agency pricing (very simply put) is the attempt of the copyright holder (publisher) to dictate a price a retailer must sell a book for. (Before we only had Suggested Retail Price and retailers did not have to follow the suggestion. And note, the lawsuits filed last week are not copyright lawsuits under the “First Sale Doctrine.”)
– The filings against Apple and five publishers (very simply put) are because they (allegedly) got together and agreed on an the agency model to go against Amazon. And the publishers stayed together to enforce the new pricing system. (Why they didn’t do this ten years ago with the returns system is beyond me.)
– Having Justice Department accounting teams for the next few years roaming around in all five major publisher’s systems and money trails is going to cause some interesting shifts in publishing (to put it simply.)
– Kirtsaeng case (very simply put) is about the right of a seller to sell a rightfully-purchased copy of a work anywhere in the world they want at any price they want.
– The ruling on Kirtsaeng could have (depending on the ruling and the scope of the ruling) a major impact on the right of a copyright holder (author or publisher) to control (agency pricing among other things) how and where (which country) a copyright holder can control the sale of their product.
Example
Let me give only one very, very simple example to get you thinking more on the deeper issues involved. Say a painter did a wonderful oil painting. Protected under copyright, of course. In the States this painter was selling his paintings for $500.00. But in Germany he sold a dozen of them to an art gallery for $200 each wholesale. (Thinking they would stay in Germany.) But the art gallery shipped them all to the States and had another gallery in the States selling them for $300.00. Thus the artist’s going price of $500 in the States was undercut to $300.00. And the artist lost money. Does the artist (copyright holder) have the right to control where and at what price his work is sold for?
That is (very simply put) what the Kirtsaeng case this morning is all about. And the decision will have an impact on how much a copyright holder can control.
Yeah, yeah, I know, all simple statements on very complex issues. Go read C.E.’s post. He kept it very simple as well, but far, far more accurate, while using direct quotes and legal interpretation.
(And remember, if you are an Amazon basher, please go spout on other sites. Your bashing won’t get through here, not because I am an Amazon supporter so much, but because you really don’t know what you are talking about.)
That is a very interesting question. As a consumer, I’d want the freedom to resell what I own at a market rate regardless of where I bought it. As a producer, I’d want the ability to set my prices based on local incomes without worrying about import/exporters between regions undercutting my pricing.
Issues of global interconnectedness, maximum profits and freedom, and intellectual property for the post-modern age! Innnnnnnnnnnnterrrrresting.
…good thing I’m not on the Supreme Court.
Hi Dean,
Good link, thanks for sharing. If I had to flip a coin, I’d predict a decision in favour of the publisher for three reasons.
First, and foremost, are territorial rights — this could, as Petit points out, destroy territorial rights, although I see it in a slightly different way. I’m not so sure that territorial rights would “disappear” and people could bypass them so much as publishers would be forced to buy “global” rights in their licensing of works. It seems like too big a change for the SC to decide based on just this case, and absent revised legislation, I would guess they are more likely to kick it back to Congress to fix, and/or I would expect them to go narrow rather than large.
Second, there is a slippery slope element hiding in the background. While this case involved Wiley producing two versions (one in U.S., one abroad), and both official and legitimate versions ending up back in the U.S. for sale, lots of people will use the scare of piracy to argue that if you don’t protect the IP in this case, anyone will be able to rip off anyone everywhere outside of “first sale” locales. Kind of the flip side of territorial rights — rather than first NA serial rights, you’ll have to buy first global serial rights or risk everyone ripping you off with impunity. This presumably could apply to photos on websites too, as well as any other content. And since there are very few lawyers let alone justices who truly understand piracy, it might scare them the other way.
Finally, there is a broader political issue here that goes way beyond copyright, but one which runs in parallel worlds — it is so huge, and so well lobbied, that I wonder if it will dwarf the “literary copyright issue”, or not at all. Heck, it looks like something Sorkin would write for West Wing, and in part he did, although the issues changed after the episode aired. Here’s the weird twist — AIDS in Africa.
Stay with me for a minute … U.S., Canadian, European pharmaceuticals were under a lot of pressure to provide free or at least cheap AIDS meds to Africa. But the companies couldn’t figure out how to get around the same issue as the textbook case — if they sell the meds in Africa for $10, and they have an inherent street value of $50 in America, then there is a $40 incentive for someone to steal/re-appropriate the drugs in Africa. Then, rather than use them for treatment, ship them / smuggle them back to the U.S. and sell them at a U.S. discount for $40 and steal the market. But the big pharmas claimed they needed to protect the $50 market in the U.S. (rightly or wrongly) to recoup their R&D expenses.
They were willing, and some of them spent a LOT of time on this trying to come up with a solution, to sell the drugs at cost. Some were even willing to subsidize. But they were never able to effectively square the circle, and a lot of the momentum died. Some did in small stages, some set up deals with large donor groups, but nothing anywhere near the original idea or premise, and far under what was needed. Heck, even a $2 difference in price on cigarettes jumps the smuggling between Canada and the U.S. and gets organized crime involved — imagine a $40 difference when lives are at stake? I had a small window seat in the Canadian plans early on, with a lot of really smart, creative, passionate people looking for solutions and they found none.
While this case is officially about books, it is also about protecting one’s IP from imports cannabilizing one’s own sales in a primary market for recouping costs and making the main profits. In many respects, it’s not unlike a publisher (or five of them) worrying that low ebook prices will cannibalize paper sales. But if the pharma industry gets worried, they have VERY deep pockets to help the cause of the publisher.
And while I might be cynical about pharma, publishers, and their lawyers, they aren’t wrong when they sound a klaxon on this one. Like Petit said, it could be HUGE, beyond any amount of change Amazon or all of the digital innovation has brought to the publishing world.
I suspect the status quo will win out, or it will be very narrowly constructed in the decision. I don’t have Petit’s full-size crystal ball as my time at law school was cut short by the realization I preferred humanity to practicing law, but I love following cases still. As with Apple and its two “till death do us part” friends remaining standing, it’s a fun spectator sport, unless you care about the industry by being, say, a writer.
Cheers, and thanks for the link…really good coverage.
PolyWogg
I have read every article I could on this thing. I’ve tried to wrap my head around it. And I’ve finally come to the decision that I don’t understand any of it.
I have less heartburn now.
I’m not even American, much less an American Lawyer, but I am unclear whether this case is a constitutional one or merely interpretation of existing statute laws which could be changed. In other words, if the supreme court rules against the status quo and guts the protections against importing copyright goods, could congress change the first sale doctrine?
I suspect if the worst happens there is so much money at stake that if congress can change the law they will.
Pray no one messes with the first sale doctrine, other than to limit some aspects. But the point of so much of this case is the international sales aspects, which we do as indie publishers.
Okay, I’m still a newbie publisher, but I thought I understood the free market capitalist economic model: I produce a book and sell it for whatever the market will bear. What happens to it after that is out of my hands — the buyer can shred it, use it as material in a papier-mache project, sell it to a used bookstore, or donate it to a library in Mali. Whatever. Why should I imagine that I control the selling price after the first sale?
Regarding your painter, I would imagine he could insert a clause in his wholesale contract forbidding re-sale of his works in any retail market below his retail price. Would that be price-fixing? I don’t know enough contract or commercial law to answer that one.
I’m not sure this falls under copyright law anyway. The fact that the artist owns the *image* does not change the fact that the German wholesaler owns the canvas, wood and paint. Just like your books, Dean: you own the story, but not my personally purchased copy of a paperback book containing it. I can sell your book for whatever the market will bear, but I can’t sell your words because I don’t own them. But I’m not sure how relevant that is to this case, or why you brought up copyright law.
Ahh, Sarah, you are missing the big picture here. Do you own the book on Amazon? Yes. But alas, there is no copy sold yet, so with electronic sales, the distributor is holding the right to sell, but not a copy of the book itself. And that’s where all this gets very, very muddy. (grin)
Dang it, Dean! You’ve got me looking up case law and copyright statutes all afternoon.
The DOJ spokeswoman said they didn’t have a problem with agency pricing per se in the collusion, but it seems like a SCOTUS ruling on Kirtsaeng will decide agency pricing’s fate after all. Or have I totally misread everything?
Suzan, yes, that is possible, depending on the scope of the ruling and if (a huge if) the ruling can be extrapolated past the international aspects of the case. All depends, so we will wait until next June and see. But your reading is similar to mine. The first suits are about collusion. This new case could go at agency pricing itself.
I’m neither a lawyer or a publishing ‘expert’, but this all seems pretty easy for me to take sides on.
In the painter example, if the painter is selling the paintings to a German person or company and they turn around and sell it to someone else, I am not seeing the issue, really.
If the guy at the used car dealership has a sticker price of 5k on a car and I talk him down to 4500 and then sell it for 4700, what’s the issue? Ok that is not a copyright issue, but the business end looks pretty similar from here.
By the same token, if I get a heavily discounted book @ Amazon and buy 20 of them at 1/2 the hard cover price and then hold a yard sale and sell them to my neighbors for 25% off cover price after the Amazon sale ends, what’ the difference?
As a guy who wants to make a living selling books one day, I don’t love the idea that someone can undercut me, but I’m not sure what can be done about it save for being very selective about where I distribute and what I charge wholesale.
The painter in the example accepted $200 for his painting in Germany. That’s what the agreement was. Sour grapes comes to mind – especially in the current global economy.
At the same time, I see where some poor copyright holder is taking a bath on his work too.
Tough call,
joemontana, the issue is the international rules against what is happening, including sections of the copyright law that expressly forbid such things.
A follow up – something Dean or C.E. would be much more able to address than I.
When I buy Windows 7 – I am buying a license, not Windows 7 itself. That is why I can;t install it on all 5 computer in my house – I need a copy for each.
Is it the same for a book? Yes I am buying paper (or electrons), but I am not BUYING the intellectual property. So I suppose,what I am asking, is this a licensing issue?
That is, is the trust of the case question of what that license entitles someone to do.
My other question is – isn’t the copyright holder actually the author? If Publisher X is leasing the copyright so to speak, is there a question of just how much power they have to make those decisions for authors?
Sorry if C.E. answered these in his post – for some reason I can’t view his blog…
I’ve got to admit, that’s one I didn’t see coming. Ponzi schemes and books… with the rest of us having trouble even checking one bag of luggage. Thanks for the heads-up (and thanks to C.E., as well.)
Rick
I hope this goes the right way. Parochial on my part but I instruct students and time to time I encourage the class to buy international copies of books that are outrageously priced here. Even with the shipping they save money. Sigh….
What a grand mess! Thanks Dean for pointing out this additional *important* case. Every global selling company has pricing & distribution issues, Indie folks too. For instance, Apple fans in Australia have been paying heavy penalties for living down under for decades now.
Messing with First Sale would be a disaster, almost unthinkable, at least to my way of seeing it. The rest is total chaos and the speed of Indie publishers should allow us to do well, even if we use printing plants around the world. Bottom line, we should be able to make good money no matter how these cases are decided.
Dean, you said: “Pray nobody messes with the first sale doctrine.” So you would like the importer to win in the Wiley case?
I also have a question about agency pricing and the alternatives.
If a wholesale model is where I decide on my wholesale price and my suggested retail price, why should I care if the retailer charges less than my suggested retail price as long as I get my wholesale price?
Someone told me that prior to Smashwords adopting the agency model with Indies, the understanding was that Indie publishers received a fixed percent of the sellng price, and retailers could pretty much sell the books for whatever amount they wanted and give Indies their percent.
I understand that if Indies have no options and this is the contract offered, people will take it, but with competition now among retailers for Indie books, I can’t imagine anyone returning to a model like that one.
Do you think a wholesale model works better for Indies where we don’t really care what happens after we sell copies of our books to the retailers or distributors?
Teri, the problem is that we don’t “sell” our books to Smashwords or Kindle. They are just distributors. Our electronic books are sold when a reader buys them and not before, thus the first sale doctrine does not apply to what happens between an indie publisher and a distributor such as Amazon. And in that one point is where so much of this gets really, really interesting in copyright law.
And I don’t think the court would mess with the first sale doctrine. But they may closely define the legal rules of copyright when it comes to shipping and selling books outside of the US, and thus, since all of us are selling around the world now, this is important on how they come down AND if they extend it beyond the facts of the case at hand for them. Lots of ifs, but worth watching next spring.
Fingers crossed that they don’t gut first sale–whatever the benefits are of agency pricing (and I’m highly skeptical that there are any), the first sale doctrine is essential to a healthy book market. If I understand my law correctly, it’s the principle underlying not only used book stores, but libraries, video rental places, people passing books to their friends, and all other manner of sectors of the entertainment and culture industries that keep the demand for new product alive. If we lose that, we’re going to have a VERY uncomfortable decade or two as we figure out an entirely new marketplace, on that is novel in the history of the modern world.
-Dan
Yow. Have just finished reading C.E.’s analysis. The classical call sanctus excrementum leaps readily to mind.
-Dan
Wow, more scrapple to wrangle with (that almost rhymed). I think you once said Dean, that we should keep head down full steam ahead in these times of change. I keep thinking of the cowcatchers on the front of the old steam engines, Dean. I feel like now is the time to use mine, small as it may be. Just my .02. No matter how many cows get onto the trackx, just keep going.
Holy mackerel! These issues make me wonder if self-publishing is worth the worry :/
Katya???? Wow, lost me on that one. Self-publishing worth the worry? These cases we are talking about are dealing with international publishers, which in a small sense we are. But worry? If the law changes, we just change to follow it. What I am doing (with the wonderful help of C.E. and others) is to help people stay informed and be aware when changes are coming, might come, or when there is nothing to think about.
But worry? Why, unless you have some push on the US Supreme Court, there ain’t a damn thing any of us can do except sit and watch and stay flexible. (grin)
Just throwing out one acronym should tell you part of what’s at stake in Kirtsaeng, and in Wormyfruit:
NAFTA.
Consider, for a moment, the suggested list prices on otherwise identical mass-market paperbacks — one at a bookstore in Windsor, Ontario, from the Toronto arm of Macmillan (and I’m just picking on Macmillan here because the name remains the same across the border), and one at a bookstore in Detroit, from the New York arm of Macmillan. Of late, the Canadian dollar has been close enough to parity with the US dollar that the dollar difference between the two provides an opportunity for arbitrage… and that’s exactly what Kirtsaeng was doing.
Remember, there’s a hierarchy of legal authority in US law: The Constitution is at the top of the heap, followed by international treaty obligations in self-executing treaties (like the non-price-discrimination parts of NAFTA), followed by international treaty obligations in non-self-executing treaties (like other parts of NAFTA), followed by Congressional acts, followed by Executive acts. In Kirtsaeng, § 602 of the Copyright Act — which conflicts with § 109 — is below NAFTA in the hierarchy, so it must at least in principle give way to NAFTA. That means that the higher Canadian list prices on mass-market paperbacks may be lawfully undercut at a Canadian store if the Canadian store just gets its stock from a US distributor.
Except that the issue presented for review does not refer to international treaty obligations… which is going to make things that much more interesting (in the Chinese-proverb sense).
One thing to clarify here is that no author/writer using Smashwords, Pubit! or KDP (and maybe other ebook platforms) is selling ebooks–they are licensing the ebook for limited personal use to the reader/purchaser of the license.
Because it is a license to read the book, the first sale doctrine does not come into play. The books in Kirtsaeng are physcial copies and subject to the first sale doctrine (or possibly not as Kirtsaeng court will decide). So I am not so sure how Kirtsaeng changes things for ebooks.
Whether the current manner of licensing ebooks versus selling them to readers is valid or not will not be decided by Kirtsaeng. If some court here decides that the licenses are thinly veiled sales, then that would probably wreak havoc throughout the software world as nearly all software is licensed.
Josh, sorry, but a sale of your ebook by Amazon to a third party is a sale. And comes under the first sale doctrine. That single copy of that ebook can be lent to another person, read by their entire family, or even sold to another person like a used book. Your book is not a software program. You are not licensing it for use. You are selling a copy, just as a physical book publisher sells a copy of your “licensed” work.
And actually, the word “license” and “sale” are loosely the same in common language, while they are different under copyright law.
As copyright holders, we license our books to a traditional publisher to allow them to then make copies and sell those copies. When we become the publisher, we sell our books directly through distributors to the third party. But we NEVER license any part of that book to a buyer under copyright law.
(And again, I am being frighteningly general here… just to try to stay as clear as possible.)
Would Wiley selling the same book in a foreign market at a much reduced price from the American one be considered dumping? Because that’s illegal, or was the last time I looked at business law.
If so, then Wiley might be using a foreign market to create a higher sales volume to bring down the cost per book, charge only marginal cost for those books, or even sell below cost, and then sell to the American market at a significantly higher price.
Japan dumped a lot of cars in the US a number of years ago – selling at below cost in the US and selling for much higher prices in Japan.
Unfortunately, I have always found copyright law extremely muddy. I just write and try not to think about it.
I know, ostrich in the sand. I do know that I own my words. Plus, after some of your posts, I will be very careful about contracts.
Thanks again for the info and I am sure that I am extremely lost – lawyers really like to muddy things up.
Cyn
Actually, Cyn, my suggestion is to just learn a detail or two a month about copyright. That way it doesn’t get overwhelming and in a year or two you have a good working knowledge of what you need to make money with your writing without being taken. And actually, IP lawyers, working for writers, do exactly the opposite of muddying the waters. They help clean up what publishers have done and explain what you are signing. Never sign a major contract without an IP lawyer looking at it first. If you sign without a lawyer, my words I’m afraid will come back to haunt you.
“Josh, sorry, but a sale of your ebook by Amazon to a third party is a sale. And comes under the first sale doctrine. ”
I’m not at sure this is right. The relevant terms to the contract you agree to when you “buy” a kindle book are found at: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_left_sib/178-4986724-6224222?ie=UTF8&nodeId=200506200
Specifically:
“Digital Content” means digitized electronic content obtained through the Kindle Store, such as books, newspapers, magazines, journals, blogs, RSS feeds, games, and other static and interactive electronic content.
…
Use of Digital Content.
Upon your download of Digital Content and payment of any applicable fees (including applicable taxes), the Content Provider grants you a non-exclusive right to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Kindle or a Reading Application or as otherwise permitted as part of the Service, solely on the number of Kindles or Other Devices specified in the Kindle Store, and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content is licensed, not sold, to you by the Content Provider. The Content Provider may include additional terms for use within its Digital Content. Those terms will also apply, but this Agreement will govern in the event of a conflict. Some Digital Content, such as Periodicals, may not be available to you through Reading Applications.
Limitations. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense, or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove or modify any proprietary notices or labels on the Digital Content. In addition, you may not bypass, modify, defeat, or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content.
While I am not a lawyer, the contract is written in the form of a license agreement, and not a sale. Of course, to the best of my knowledge this has not been tested in court.
Not tested, and better for the publisher, Thomas. (Publisher meaning indie writer also in this case.) But again, what they say and what is reality is another matter completely. And in book contracts, you license your work as well. The terms are difficult at best to keep straight and impossible, even in some court cases I have noticed.
Hi Dean,
I just read an interesting article over at David Pakman’s blog, and thought of you.
http://www.pakman.com/2012/04/16/why-should-ebooks-cost-15/
If Publishers can’t cover their costs with $10 Ebooks, then they deserve to go out of business. Adapt or die, as the saying goes.
If I am in that situation Dean, I will get an IP lawyer. I do want someone on my side.
Thanks
Cyn
Thanks for the heads up, Dean, and to C.E. for the excellent and entertaining analysis. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.
I’m trying to relate this discussion into my current situation. Have been offered a standard (scary) contract with a large technical publisher for a nonfiction technical work in my field. I’d publish primarily to add clout to my consulting business, as I have a unique approach to what I do (financial analysis of large IT projects). The deeper I dig into legal issues associated with the contract, the more I see my situation as being like the novelists (with even less potential for earnings, particularly from epublication). I am very concerned with any part of the contract limiting my ability to conduct my business and its marketing in any way I see fit going forward. Anyone have thoughts regarding applicability of above discussion to technical publication?
Mary Ann, I just don’t know about that side of the business. But on the contract, get an IP lawyer to help you. As far as the lawsuits, those are going to take time, years actually, before too much settles out. One of the big factors, in my opinion, is DOJ auditors inside all these old systems of publishing companies. Who knows what that is going to cause, but again, years…
Sorry I couldn’t be of more help. Anyone else have an opinion on this side of publishing?
Mary Ann, you may want to sit down and make a list of the pros and cons of going with the technical publisher as opposed to publishing your book yourself, under your own publishing company name.
On the publisher side, you may or may not get a good “push” from the technical publisher when the book comes out; you’ll probably get a little more cash up-front, but the numbers may equal out in the end (or be less than what you could do on your own). And, of course, there’s always the question of how soon would the book actually come out and be useful to you, what rights would you be asked to give up, etc.
If you put it out yourself, you can have paper copies in your hand within a month, market it however you like, sell it through the same ebook venues that fiction authors are using (Amazon, B&N, Apple, etc.) as well as directly from your website, and as an add-on to presentations, give complimentary POD copies to your [prospective] clients, etc. Not to mention the ease of issuing updated versions at any point in the future, retaining all rights to your work, and never having to worry about non-compete clauses with yourself.
If you treat your own publishing imprint like a publisher (as Dean suggests fiction authors do), there’s no reason why your self-published technical book cannot be just as successful as if it comes out through one of the traditional publishers. This is all just my opinion, of course, but is the direction I’m looking at for some technical material I’m creating as well. Whatever you choose, good luck with it!
@ Lyn & Dean — Your thoughts much appreciated!
My dilemma centers around the value of the prestige of going with a big publisher. A business school friend suggested that potential big government clients (I’ve had a few and would like more) might be more impressed by big publishers, while small innovative companies would be intrigued by entrepreneurship and self publishing (not sure this market is buying what I’m selling but who knows without trying?). This raises the issue of target audience and on and on until a person could get dizzy.
My original idea for going with the big publisher was to put my stake in the ground — I have developed a unique approach to creating business cases for IT projects. Now that I begin to unravel the issues with liability, rights and non-compete, going big seems diametrically opposite my nimble entrepreneurial approach, which has served me well for 10 years. Several Sisters in Crime associates (who suggested Dean’s blog) recommended publishing big once, then turning to self publishing. But even with a great IP attorney, the non-compete issues could rear their ugly heads for many decades to come. I know it’s right to shun legal issues at every opportunity.
My question may boil down to — have big publishers become more trouble than they are worth? I’m old enough to have grown up thinking publication by the big guys would be nirvana, so sorting out the pros and cons is a bit intense. A crystal ball would be nice! Thanks again, both of you.
Neglected to say — I have a background in journalism, publishing and printing, significant computer skills, and know from friends and colleagues what’s involved in self publishing. No intimidation factor involved there. My question is confined to whether the big name imprint continues to be worth my current and potential pain and suffering in bringing my work to market.
Mary, honestly, in each job situation, the value of being with a “name” publisher is going to vary greatly. And within each area of business or genre. Do you, off the top of your head, know the major prestige markets for literary fiction? (Certainly not Simon and Schuster.) New Yorker I’ll give to you, to a degree. But inside of that world, the value would not be in the same markets a mystery writer would value. See what I mean? Your area of big government clients would have a different aspect to it.
Another factor to consider is that most people, unless inside publishing, don’t recognize or even care about who publishes what. Scary, but true. And even I am constantly looking up or asking about an imprint name I don’t recognize for a major fiction publisher. There are thousands. And now with indie writers bringing in thousands more imprints that look like regular traditional publishers from the outside, it’s even more confusing.
So no right answer. But if you do it yourself, make sure you look like a publisher and act like a publisher instead of a writer. That’s critical.
As for your question about “are big publishers more trouble than they are worth now? I just did an entire blog right behind this one on that very topic, trying to find a balance and even a value of traditional publishing. And I failed. They are not worth it to me anymore, mostly because of the contract problems. They don’t bring enough to the table for me to even bother with mailing a manuscript to them, let alone signing one of those contracts giving away my novel forever. So for me, personally, the answer is no.
But I am not in your situation, dealing with the clients you are dealing with. So really not sure if all this rambling is even going to help. (grin)
Dean –
You’re not the first to suggest to me that very few people notice who publishes a book. That all of us talking about this find it scary doesn’t mean it’s not true. Or shouldn’t be exploited by uppity authors.