Facebook admits it did not read terms of the app that harvested data of 87 million

From CNBC:

Facebook did not read the terms and services of the app that improperly shared user data with Cambridge Analytica, the company’s chief technology officer said Thursday.

“We require that people have a terms and conditions and we have an automated check there at the time — this was in 2014, maybe earlier,” Mike Schroepfer told U.K. lawmakers at a parliamentary committee hearing. “We did not read all of the terms and conditions.”

Aleksandr Kogan, a Cambridge University researcher, created an app that collected data on millions of Facebook users. Kogan’s company, Global Science Research, then shared that data with political analytics firm Cambridge Analytica.

. . . .

Kogan said on Tuesday that Facebook did not pull it up on its terms of services until after The Guardian newspaper reported early informationabout it harvesting user data.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told U.S. lawmakers earlier this month that Kogan was “in violation” of his agreement with the platform and that this was a “big issue.” But the data scientist hit back at the company’s boss, arguing that tens of thousands of other developers were employing similar practices to his app.

Link to the rest at CNBC

PG has lost track of the number of Terms of Service, Terms and Conditions, Terms of Use, etc.,  documents he has read or reviewed or written since the lovely little contracts started popping up online over thirty years ago. Had he known where the internet would go, he would have counted.

Apples iTunes’ TOS reportedly runs to over 20,000 words.

A website called TermsFeed provides both free and “premium” terms of service you can just copy and paste into your online business’s website. It has a nice article about “I agree to” Checkboxes so you can appreciate the full range of possibilities.

PG is certain Facebook’s “automated check” is an interesting program, but PG suggests it will require the highest form of artificial intelligence to avoid being fooled by the lengthy and impossibly dense language contained in a great many TOS documents.

Unfortunately, TOS documents are legally binding – sort of, maybe, up to a point.

Legally binding or not, when people depend upon a company for a significant portion of their income (like KDP) and KDP receives the money and passes some of it through to those people, the TOU document can be rather important, particularly when the violation of its terms can stop the money flowing.

PG just checked KDP’s Terms and Conditions, which Amazon helpfully indicates were last updated in September 2016. Since he has looked at them since September, 2016, he doesn’t have to look at them. No, PG is not aware of any case involving a modification of a TOU where someone forgot to update the “date last modified” information. He is certain this mistake has occurred on at least a few occasions, however.

(Legal minutia tip – If you want to know what changes from revision to revision, save a copy somewhere on your computer that you’re not using for something more useful and do an MS Word document comparison with the prior TOU when a new TOU shows up. If you have your own website with your own TOU, keep the old ones somewhere. If you don’t, you’ll be embarrassed like the Facebook guy if anyone claims they didn’t violate the old ones and you improperly changed them.)

 

Do Romance Authors Receive Worse Treatment from Publishers Than Anyone Else?

PG is trying to extricate a client from a nasty publishing contract with a large romance publisher. Both the client and the publisher shall remain nameless.

PG is frustrated. The client is frustrated.

PG has conducted extrications from enough publishers to have come to a conclusion.

Across the broad range of different types of books and different varieties of publishers with which PG has dealt, as a group romance publishers are the worst. Worst contracts, worst behavior, worst attitude towards writers.

A public event PG can talk about began in 2012 when a class action was filed against the company on behalf of Harlequin authors who signed book contracts with Harlequin between 1990 and 2004. The suit was filed in 2012 and settled in 2016. You can find information about the settlement of the class action at Harlequin Class Action Settlement.

The lawsuit was based on Harlequin’s practice of sublicensing e-book rights through a Swiss subsidiary, which resulted in authors receiving 3% to 4% of net profits from their works rather than the 50% Harlequin agreed to pay in its publishing contracts.

PG has previously blogged about this case. You can see prior posts, including some court documents, by Clicking Here

Basically, the story was that HQ didn’t mention ebook royalties in its publishing contracts. Those contracts included a catch-all clause which essentially said HQ could license other rights and split the proceeds on a 50/50 basis with the author. The contracts also included a provision which said if HQ licensed the other rights to an affiliated entity, the royalties paid to the author had to be equivalent to market rates for licensing those other rights to a company not affiliated with HQ.

When ebooks appeared on the scene, rather than asking its authors to sign new contracts or ebook addenda to their existing contracts, HQ decided to license ebooks to a related Swiss company for a royalty of 6% of the cover price. The Swiss company then sublicensed each book to HQ print and ebook companies to distribute, so HQ-Switzerland kept 94% of the ebook proceeds and paid 6% to HQ-SorrySucker.

Under the “other rights” clause in the publishing contract, the author would be paid 50% of the amount of the license fees received by HQ-SorrySucker. HQ-SorrySucker paid the authors 50% of 6%. Even English majors know that results in a royalty paid to the author of 3% of the cover price each ebook.

This was at a time when Amazon would license ebooks from authors under KDP for royalties of 70% of the cover price. If HQ-SorrySucker had taken the normal route taken by other publishers, HQ authors would have received royalties at the rate of 35% of the cover price.

The following is from an Amici (the plural of Amicus or Friend of Court) Brief filed in the case by Romance Writers of America and the Authors Guild:

In the spring of 2011, Amicus The Authors Guild began receiving reports from its members that their e-book royalties from Harlequin were extremely low. These members believed Harlequin was self-dealing by licensing e-book rights to one of its corporate affiliates for 6% of the cover price (i.e. suggested retail price). Because the royalty payable to the author under the “all other rights” clause is 50% of the amount received by the publisher, a 6% royalty to the publisher results in a royalty to the author of only 3% of the cover price – far below the customary range for sales in secondary media. The Authors Guild contacted Harlequin to voice these concerns and to request a copy of Harlequin’s inter-affiliate license agreement. Harlequin declined to provide the document on the ground that it was proprietary.

During the same timeframe, Amicus RWA was also in communication with Harlequin regarding e-book royalty issues. Harlequin  provided to its authors, RWA, and other industry participants the following explanation of Harlequin’s inter-affiliate licensing practice:

Our authors contract with Harlequin Books SA (“HBSA”), our related Swiss company.  HBSA licenses  the right to publish an author’s work in print and digital to our operating companies and to third-party publishers, which then bring books to market in their country (incurring costs of translation, production, distribution, marketing, branding, etc.). In return, HBSA receives a license fee.

The NAR [net amount received by the Publisher] is the license fee. For editions where the author is to be paid 50% of NAR, the author’s royalty is therefore 50% of the license fee received by HBSA. The license fees are expressed as a percentage of cover price. Historically they ranged from 6% to 8%. The author’s 50% share of that fee would then equal 3% to 4% of the cover  price.

As noted, the publishing contracts at issue require that in any affiliate licensing arrangement the “Publisher” must receive license proceeds that are “equivalent to the amount reasonably obtainable by Publisher from an Unrelated Licensee for the license or sale of the said rights.” Based on their considerable reservoirs of knowledge and industry data sources regarding royalty rates in the publishing industry, the Amici confidently represent  to this Court  that  the  6% to 8% royalty that Harlequin Enterprises elects to pay to  its Swiss “Publisher” subsidiary is a small fraction of the proceeds that the “Publisher” could obtain from an unaffiliated licensee in the open market for e-books.

. . . .

Generally speaking, a book publisher makes money by exercising the rights that it has licensed from the author of a given work, through the sales of books or sub-licenses of publication rights in various sales and distribution channels.

Historically, the primary sales channel for print book publishers was through retail book stores. In the modern era of e-books, publishers sub-license their digital copyright rights to online “e-tailers.” The most well-known e-tailers of e-books are Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Apple, but there are many others in the field.

There is no hard and fast rule or convention in the publishing industry on the royalty rates or license fees paid by e-tailers to publishers for e-books. There are, however, numerous sources ofdata on the market’s behavior. In the experience and collective knowledge of the Amici, publishers are almost universally able to extract from an e-tailer at least 50% of the cover price of an e-book. A 70% split for the publisher is quite common and can be obtained even from industry power­ houses such as Amazon and Apple.

It is clear to the Amici that if the Harlequin’s Swiss “Publisher” subsidiary operated as a normal market participant, it could readily license the new e-book versions of its backlist for license fees of 50% to 70% of the cover price of each work sold. In this scenario, the 50% royalty payable to authors under the 1990 to 2004 publishing agreements would be 25% to 35% of the cover price of each work sold. Instead, however, the Swiss “Publisher” licenses the e-books to its parent, Harlequin Enterprises, for 6% to 8% of the cover price, and the authors’ 50% royalty is thus only 3% to 4% of the cover price. From the perspective of the Amici, it appears that Harlequin Enterprises has simply siphoned off 42% to 64% of the cover price before the money reaches the Swiss “Publisher” subsidiary, so this amount will not have to be split with the authors.

PG has calmed down now, but he still wonders whether romance authors are treated worse than other authors by the publishing establishment.

PG does know Amazon loves romance authors and it shows its love by paying them money.

PG has never had a client ask him whether he thinks the author can make more money from HQ than from Amazon.

PG was not a math major, but he could probably figure out his answer to that question without a spreadsheet.

Boy Who Came Back From Heaven author sues book’s Christian publisher

From The Guardian:

Alex Malarkey, the American boy who disavowed his bestselling account of meeting Jesus after an accident, has launched a lawsuit against the book’s Christian specialist publisher. While the publisher has “made millions of dollars”, the suit alleges, it has “paid Alex, a paralysed young man, nothing”.

The car accident that almost killed Malarkey happened in 2004 in Ohio, when he was six years old. Two months later he woke up from a coma to find himself paralysed from the neck down. He and his father, Kevin, a Christian therapist, wrote The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven together. According to Chicago’s Tyndale House, the firm that brought the book out in 2010, Malarkey wrote of “the angels that took him through the gates of heaven itself. Of the unearthly music that sounded just ‘terrible’ to a six-year-old. And, most amazing of all … Of meeting and talking to Jesus.”

But when he was 16, Malarkey revealed on his blog that he had made it all up. “I did not die. I did not go to heaven,” he said. “When I made the claims, I had never read the Bible. People have profited from lies, and continue to. They should read the Bible, which is enough.”

Tyndale House pulled the book, which had already sold a reported one million copies, saying in a statement that it was “saddened to learn [Alex is] now saying that he made up the story of dying and going to heaven”.

Malarkey, who is now 20, filed a lawsuit against the publisher earlier this week, claiming his father “concoct[ed] a story that, during the time Alex was in a coma, he had gone to Heaven, communicated with God the Father, Jesus, angels, and the devil, and then returned”, and alleging that while Tyndale House has “made millions of dollars off Alex’s identity and an alleged autobiographical story of his life, [it has] paid Alex, a paralysed young man, nothing”.

. . . .

“Despite the claims in Alex Malarkey’s lawsuit,” the [Tyndale House] statement continued, “Tyndale House paid all royalties that were due under the terms of our contract on his book … Tyndale took the book out of print in 2015 when Alex said that he had fabricated the entire story. Any books still available from online vendors are from third party sellers.”

Link to the rest at The Guardian

Here’s a link to the Complaint. (Corrected link now)

It appears that, while Alex was a minor, his father wrote the book and entered into the publishing contract. The book lists the authors as Alex’s father and Alex.

The publisher stopped selling the book in 2015 after Alex revealed that the events described in the book as taking place while he was in a coma never happened.

The lawsuit is claiming damages for violation of Alex’s Right of Publicity under the Illinois Right of Publicity statute claiming that the publisher’s use of Alex’s identity in the book and related materials violated Alex’s rights.

Additional counts include invasion of Alex’s privacy by giving publicity to his private life when there was no legitimate public interest because the book was false, placing Alex in a false light, intrusion on the seclusion of Alex and his private affairs, defamation, violation of Illinois’ statute prohibiting deceptive trade practices, and financial exploitation of a person with disabilities in violation of an Illinois statute.

PG says it will be interesting to see how this suit proceeds. While he’s not an expert on Illinois law, in the US, a parent is generally empowered to act on behalf of a minor child in legal matters, including entering into contracts on the child’s behalf, including contracts involving depictions of the child in books and elsewhere.

If Alex’s father was the sole author of the book, he may have had the right, as Alex’s father, to grant the publisher the right to publish a book describing Alex’s experiences or supposed experiences.

On the other hand, Alex is certainly a sympathetic plaintiff – paralyzed and living on government benefits.

 

French Law’s Principle of Strict Interpretation

From The 1709 Blog:

One of the cardinal principles of French copyright law is the principle whereby any license/assignment of a copyright interest by an author is to be strictly interpreted such that any right not expressly mentioned is not granted.

. . . .

A professional photographer had licensed the rights to one of his photographs to an advertising agency for use in a real-estate promoter’s brochure and website for the price of 844 euros.

He later learned that the photograph was used, without his authorization (but with credit, such that there was no issue regarding his right of attribution) in an advertising campaign, appearing inter alia in Paris Match, the well-known magazine.

. . . .

The Court started by recalling the provisions of Section L.131-3 of the French Intellectual Property Code pursuant to which the license (or assignment) of copyright is subject to the condition that each right be distinctly mentioned and that the license (or assignment) be delineated with respect to its scope, purpose, territory and duration.

. . . .

The license relates to the illustration of a brochure and there is no express mention of a press advertisement, such that use in Paris Match goes beyond the authorization that was given.”

Link to the rest at The 1709 Blog

PG says this is a refreshing change from the creative approach some publishers employ to conjure up the inclusion of electronic rights in old publishing contracts created on Selectric typewriters.

The Publishers and the Public – a psychological drama

From Kenilworth Books:

There is a great deal of social pressure in the book industry to be smiley and gushingly positive all the time – and we are, when it is appropriate. The many authors whose work we love, and the many small publishers in particular whose work adds so much to what we offer as an independent bookshop, we will support with all our strength. But every now and then someone has to find both the courage and the words to explain that something is not right (even if they are damned for it) and to try to make suggestions as to what needs to change.

. . . .

The British Book Industry has a monstrous fair-trade and exploitation issue skulking beneath the surface which is slowly suffocating everything – it needs to be dragged in to the light and be seen for what it is.

Discussion about having a fair-trading arrangement for the production and selling of books needs to be moved up a gear; we need a pricing agreement that is coupled with a covenant about the fair treatment of authors. I’ve spoken to authors and illustrators who have been told off and threatened by their publishers for commenting on, or even just for sharing our previous blogs – making all but the bravest less willing to add their experiences to the discussion, except privately. Oddly perhaps, I’ve had the same experience with publishers; half a dozen publishers, both large publishing houses and small independents have contacted me privately with words of encouragement, telling me that the pressure on them to release books to Amazon, WH Smith and the supermarkets at extremely high discounts is embarrassing, crippling to their profit margins and has been the catalyst that has changed the nature of their business and not, they feel, for the better.

. . . .

Our friends in indie bookshops across the country are heading to Parliament soon to meet and discuss the plans put forward by The Big Green Bookshop for an Alliance of Independent Bookshops. The initial proposal included a plan for indie bookshops also to secure higher discounts from publishers – enabling them to compete in a low-price war. It is important that all booksellers understand what happens when a book is discounted, and who it is who feels the burden of this discount culture the most.

. . . .

The moment I go to the publisher and request a higher discount, the royalty rates for the author start to creep lower. When the Net Book Agreement was removed we were in a pre-digital world, no one had anticipated the arrival of e-readers (even though the first model of the Kindle in 2007 sold out within just a few hours) or the growth of leviathan that is Amazon – and as a result no one expected that trade discounts, even when ‘liberated’ from the constraint of the Net Book Agreement, would go above 55%. But they rocketed to much higher, and in cases now some retailers are demanding more than 70% discount on books from the publisher – meaning that the royalties back to authors, which are tied closely in to the rate of discount, are also decreasing year on year.

. . . .

Many authors however are struggling; writers with thirty years’ experience and many dozens of important and successful books to their name, are living on their over-drafts, taking second jobs to make ends meet, surviving by their partner’s incomes, or realising that they can earn more money by not writing but by doing events based on previous books. I spoke to one prominent, award-winning writer who told me ‘I have produced more than 200 books in 30 languages; many of my titles have sold over 1 million copies, I have a stack of awards – and yet I have not yet earned out the £10,000 advance I was given to cover two years’ work, and struggle to make ends meet‘. I’ve met writers who, just to enable them to continue in their chosen profession, are borrowing money from relatives, who have moved abroad for a lower cost of living and many whose thoughts of giving up are so dominant that I think it is fair to say that there is a prowling mental health risk too.

. . . .

The royalty arrangements for authors are so complex that the vast majority of authors do not even claim to understand them. If you know an author well enough to ask, please get them to show you their royalty statement – what you’ll see is a standard 10% of the recommended retail price for a new hardback book but then a separate and much lower rate for ‘discounted sales’ and another lower rate for ‘online sales’ (Amazon). When you have a complex contract, a lot can be hidden, intentionally or otherwise. That 10% as a full price royalty is only for hardbacks. On paperbacks it is, as a standard, 7.5% – with variations. And royalties are different again when a book is prepared for export. Royalties can go up according to sales and over time – but only once an author has earned out the advance on a royalty (if there is an advance).

. . . .

On ‘Special Sales’ (of which more later) the terms are, as standard, 10% of publisher’s net receipts, but when that book is so heavily discounted, that equates to about 3% of rrp – so for a £1 book, and author gets between 2p and 3p. It is important too that we start to question the level of transparency when out-dated agreements underpin the entire industry.

. . . .

In economic terms the issue is not only one of fair apportionment but also of clarity of who takes the risk. I can already hear publishers and trade magazine writers shouting ‘The publisher! The publisher takes the risk’. Yes, certainly the publisher is taking much of the financial risk, and many of the smaller publishers are making very modest profits indeed as a result. However, they are not taking all the risk. By firing out huge numbers of books, placing marketing behind a few and leaving the others to sink or swim, the culture of large-scale publishing is pushing a huge part of the risk back on to the authors, whose remuneration is already low. On the face of it writers, as a producer of goods, have a low production cost – they work largely alone, at home, with minimal tools. And this is the way that the publishing industry generally views authors now – they are cheap producers. And if one gives up because they can’t make ends meet, there will always be another easily and cheaply obtained.

. . . .

The largest retailers seem to be in control of pricing and the perception of value, while the large publishers place themselves in importance far above the authors and illustrators on whose work they rely.

. . . .

Large retailers are demanding higher and higher discounts from the publishers and the publishers are protecting profits by using the antediluvian complexity of authors’ contracts and royalty arrangements as a cushion. Royalties are not protected in any way against either a publisher’s decision to discount, or a retailer’s demand for a discount. I hear from publishers that presence on Amazon is now prerequisite for sales success – a lack of presence there now seems to mean that other retailers won’t take it and reviewers won’t cover it; so publishers would say that they have little choice but to fall in with the demands made for 53-70% discounts. If the net revenue by the publisher then is only 30% of cover price, the author will get 30p of a £10 book, not the 60p they would have got had it been sold at a standard 40% trade discount.

. . . .

Many authors struggle to make any claim to their back catalogue of work, even when the publisher has no intention either of supporting the development of that author, or of ever re-publishing older books. Authors are having their perceived value, along with their incomes, reduced year on year. Few rights, dubious contracts, low income.

. . . .

In addition to this there are several murky areas of publishing about which we should all be concerned – ‘Special Sales’ is one that leaps to mind. This is when a publisher can sell on an author’s backlist (the author having little choice because of, again, contractual arrangements) to a company that will then produce the book to sell at very low price at discount stores, through catalogues or at book fairs. In this case, the author’s royalties are even lower: just 2-3%, while the publisher will take 60-70% of the profit with the books being printed at extremely low cost.

Link to the rest at Kenilworth Books

Kenilworth Books is a small bookshop located in Kenilworth, England. Kenilworth is located in Warwickshire, about 6 miles from Coventry in the West Midlands.

.

.

Neither the OP or the bookshop’s website identifies the author of this piece, but PG’s best guess is that the author is either an owner or manager of the bookshop.

In either case, PG found the OP to be quite insightful and well-written. Clearly, the author of the piece understands the book business very well and is familiar with the way authors are commonly treated by traditional publishers.

The gravamen of this article and the previous one PG posted from The Bookseller that appears immediately below is that publishers are killing their own industry by the way they treat authors and most booksellers.

A book industry comprised mainly of large publishers and Amazon is not a place in which publishers would find quiet lives.

On the one hand, Amazon pays indie authors much higher royalties than traditional publishers do. On the other hand, Amazon always wants to be the lowest-priced seller of goods, so the publishers’ margins will come under greatly-increased pressure.

If publishers’ short-sited pricing tactics squeeze physical bookstores out of the market, the publishers’ main advantage in the eyes of most traditionally-published authors – access to physical bookstores – will be gone. Barnes & Noble is teetering on the edge of collapse so, in the US, publishers won’t have any large customer who can purchase a wide range of physical books in large numbers other than Amazon.

PG suggests that, in early 2018, smart authors will keep as many options open as possible.

He further suggests that an author signing a traditional publishing contract:

  • with non-compete and option clauses and
  • royalty provisions structured to make it likely the author’s effective royalty rate will be well below the “standard” royalties that are always listed first in these contracts and
  • that will last the rest of an author’s life and then some
  • is the archetype of an author failing to keep her options open.

And, of course, traditional publishing contracts are always subject to assignment and sale, so the dedicated and experienced book people working for the publisher who romance the author into signing the publishing contract won’t last long if the publisher is acquired by a venture or distressed property financial type. If an author thinks present-day royalty statements are difficult to understand, wait until she sees the statements the new owners create.

Alex Strada Is Contractually Binding Her Collectors to Support Emerging Female Artists

From Artsy.net:

New York artist Alex Strada used to not give much thought to artist contracts. She’s hardly alone. Even though large swaths of the art world—from museum exhibitions to art fairs—depend on dense legal agreements, you’re not going to find a legal class on contracts as a required course at Columbia University’s visual arts program, from which Strada received an MFA in 2016.

But what if the invisible legal documents that make the art world go round were not only more conspicuous, but were also a mechanism through which to address the art world’s gender imbalance?

That’s the question Strada is posing through her recently unveiled artist contract, which, among other provisions, requires anyone who purchases one of her works to sell it 10 years later and use the accrued proceeds to buy a piece by an emerging female artist.

“Purchasing [my] work means buying into and supporting that fairly underrepresented demographic within the art market,” said Strada, herself an emerging female artist. The contract’s 10-year resale provision aims to project that support into the future.

. . . .

Strada was inspired by the Siegelaub agreement—a contract drawn up in 1971 by gallerist (and later textile artist) Seth Siegelaub and lawyer Robert Projansky that entitles artists to certain rights over their work after it is sold. For example, by signing the Siegelaub document, collectors agreed to pay artists 15% of the appreciated value of the purchased artwork if they resell it later (what’s called an artist’s resale royalty).

Siegelaub described his original contract, which has never been tested in court, as a “practical real-life, hands-on, easy-to-use, no-bullshit solution to a series of problems concerning artists’ control over their work.” In addition to helping address the economic imbalance between artist and collector, the contract also serves as something a piece of conceptual art itself. Attaching it to a sale makes an artistic statement as the legal document becomes inseparable from the artwork.

. . . .

“I was really excited by the idea that contracts could be a place to infuse my own political beliefs, feminist beliefs, and views of how the art market could potentially work,” Strada said.

Link to the rest at Artsy.net and here’s a link to the contract

PG says this works in the “Contract as Publicity Stunt” category. The chance of PG mentioning Ms. Strada in TPV was non-existent had she not undertaken her contractual innovation.

Is her contract enforceable? Only partially enforceable? Ditto for Mr. Siegelaub’s contract.

PG doesn’t know the answers to those questions. From a quick perusal of Ms. Strada’s contract, PG easily came up with some ways of circumventing the agreement that might work.

PG suspects the contracts would have a very short lifespan should the work ever fall under the jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court. Under Chapter Two of the Uniform Commercial Code, the contracts would seem to work, but whether a security interest in the artwork arises under Chapter Nine is a bit dodgier.

Most wealthy art collectors are likely to have carefully-crafted estate plans to control the disposition of their assets after their deaths and minimize estate and inheritance taxes. PG is uncertain how these artist contracts might affect those plans and what might happen if, for example, the estate plans called for the donation of the artwork to an academic institution or non-profit organization after death. Might a discerning institution reject the gift on advice of counsel?

And what happens when the artist dies? Is the owner of the artwork dealing with Uncle Ned and Aunt Stella in Wichita? Or the artist’s child, Flaming Star, Chairman of the Communist Party USA?

PG is not familiar with the decision-making process of art collectors when considering the acquisition of a work. He suspects more potential purchasers are aware of Ms. Strada and Mr. Siegelaub because of their contracts, so that might be a plus for the artists.

However, unless completely infatuated with the artist and excited about maintaining a continuing and binding legal relationship with that artist, probably for the remainder of somebody’s life or longer, some collectors might look for somewhere else to spend their money or make an offer to acquire the work contingent upon the absence of any innovative contracts.

Stealing Intellectual Property

From Kristine Kathryn Rusch:

I just had the most illuminating conversation. I had been consulting with someone about one of the TV deals I’m currently negotiating. I had run into a situation I had never encountered before, and I needed help evaluating it.

. . . .

The expert I consulted, gracious and interesting, had a lot to say about a lot of things. He gave me tips that are too on-point for my negotiations to share here.

And then he said something that scared the crap out of me.

Once a big company, studio, or someone with too much money has an option on your book, that organization will often register the copyright.

Initially, I was unconcerned when he said that, because, as I told him, the first thing I do when anyone connected to the film and TV industry comes knocking is this: I register my copyright with the U.S. Copyright office. If I answer someone’s email, it’s guaranteed that before I do, my work is registered.

If you don’t understand the value of registration, when it’s needed and when it’s not needed, then get yourself a copy of the Copyright Handbook from Nolo Press, and read the damn thing from cover to cover. I am not answering basic copyright questions here, although I did address some on a post some time ago. I also addressed a lot of copyright issues in my book on contracts and dealbreakers from last year.

It doesn’t matter if your copyright is registered, the expert said. They’ll register anyway, even before they’ve started production on anything. The strategy is to create confusion over who owns the copyright, and it’ll take litigation to straighten that confusion out.

The best thing I could do, he said, was to make sure that any agreement I have with anyone had an active termination date in which all rights reverted to me without me taking an action at all. What does that mean?

Instead of calling this a termination clause, he called it a snap-back. If the person I’ve negotiated with doesn’t have a screenplay by such-and-so date, then the rights licensed in the agreement automatically revert to me. If there’s no principal photography by such-and-so date, then the rights licensed in the agreement automatically revert to me. If the movie has not been made by such-and-so date, then the rights licensed in the agreement automatically revert to me. And so on, and so forth.

Link to the rest at Kristine Kathryn Rusch and thanks to Colleen for the tip.

Here’s a link to Kris Rusch’s books. If you like the thoughts Kris shares, you can show your appreciation by checking out her books.

Hachette to Honor Weinstein Books Contracts

From Publishers Weekly:

Following a New York Times report exposing decades of sexual assault allegations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein and his subsequent removal by the board of the company he co-founded, Hachette Book Group has addressed the future of writers signed to his book publishing imprint, Weinstein Books.

“Hachette Book Group will honor its contracts with writers who have come to us via Weinstein Books,” a spokesperson for the company told PW. “We will consider all of our options going forward, keeping support for our authors foremost.”

. . . .

Weinstein Books is a joint venture with The Weinstein Company, but its author contracts are with HBG, not Weinstein. Its authors include Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski, who recently wrote on Twitter that she has “a three-book deal with Weinstein Books, through Hachette. I can’t go forward with those books unless Harvey resigns.”

Link to the rest at Publishers Weekly

The OP doesn’t provide the dollar total for the advances Hachette has paid to Weinstein. PG opines that any number of Hachette executives can’t forget that number. But, of course, supporting authors is always the most important priority.

Freight asks authors to buy own books

From The Bookseller:

Troubled publisher Freight Books has been accused of “rubbing salt in the wound” by sending an email to writers asking if they wanted to buy their own books.

Founded as an imprint of Freight Design in 2011 by Davinder Samrai and Adrian Searle, operations at publisher Freight Books have been thrown into disarray since the abrupt departure of Searle in April due to “irreconcilable differences over strategic direction”.

Last month, authors and agents called on Freight Books to provide more transparency about its financial status after it emerged its writers had not been paid for several months. It has also been reported that Freight has been in talks to sell the book side of the business, following an “unsolicited” request to buy the press, but last month the publisher was taken to court by Glasgow-based printing company Bell and Bain Printers over unpaid work dating back to the beginning of the year.

In an email to authors seen by The Bookseller, Samrai highlighted the “extremely uncertain” future the publisher faced and invited authors to buy their own books, saying that it “may be possible to set stock against any monies you are owed”.

Samrai said that during a “recent legal process”, it was explained that should the court’s decision go against him or Freight Books, then “matters relating to Freight Books […] could be taken out of my hands”.

“If you would like to buy stock of your titles, it may be prudent to act sooner rather than later”, Samrai said. “I appreciate this may cause unease but depending on quantities, I may be able to supply at a better discount than the regular author discount. If you would like to secure books – please email me your requests and I’ll do all I can to ensure you receive your books.

He added: “If any author is owed monies by way of royalties/advances etc. it may be possible to set stock against any monies you are owed. Also, if you are owed royalties an invoice should be submitted, in order to be registered on our accounts system (even if you not interested in books as payment).”

. . . .

A Freight author, who wished to remain anonymous, told The Bookseller: “I am utterly disgusted that a company in which so many writers put their trust thinks that selling an author discount copies of their own work can do anything but rub salt in the wound. The behaviour and mismanagement of Freight is an affront to everything the publishing industry should be about.” He added: “I for one hope I never hear of them again, and wish I had never had anything to do with them.”

Another Freight author, Alan Murray, said the offer was “a bit bonkers”. He said: “Authors who have not been paid are offered their own books at a discount – presumably allowing revenue raised to pay authors (and others) who haven’t been paid and whose contracts have probably been breached. Thanks, but no thanks. Count me right out.”

Link to the rest at The Bookseller

PG wonders if this story should be catalogued under “How Publishers Nurture Authors”.

Joshua A.T. Fairfield’s ‘Owned’ examines the ‘feudal system’ of digital property rights

From Talking New Media:

The issue of digital property ownership recently, and surprisingly, came to the forefront during Hurricane Irma. Select Florida Tesla car owners received a notice that there was a software update available for their vehicles. The update, once applied, suddenly allowed gave their vehicles about a 30 mile increase in range. The idea was to help Floridians get out of harm’s way. But what it really did was remind the Tesla owners just who owns the software in their cars. It turns out that the only thing that had separated out two different models of Tesla — one that offered more range between charges, and one that didn’t — was the software in the vehicle, something that Tesla could change at any time.

In a way, this is the issue at the heart of Joshua A.T. Fairfield’s book Owned: Property, Privacy, and the New Digital Serfdom, from Cambridge University Press.

. . . .

“We own and control fewer and fewer of the products that we must use to function in modern society,” Fairfield writes. “Many computing devices (iPads, for instance) run only those programs approved by the device seller. We cannot even tell our devices not to reveal our personal data.”

“This is an untenable position in an information-age society,” Fairfield believes, and so he urges readers to promote changes in the laws governing such things, believing that right now we are living in a digital rights environment closer to feudalism than freedom.

. . . .

“First, internet technologies created an unprecedented ability to copy intellectual property — file sharing services spread pirated music like wildfire and fueled the music industry’s fears for its own future — before they created the ability to track and verify individual copies of electronic information,” Fairfield writes.

Then, the rise of free content created a situation were “software providers needed a revenue model that circumvented internet users’ refusal to pay for content that they could obtain — usually illegally, but with some degree of safety — for nothing. So software providers monetized information about their customers by surreptitiously monitoring everything their users typed, clicked or did, and selling that information to advertisers who could use it to extract more and often costlier deals from their customers.”

Fairfield’s observations are somewhat self-evident, we see examples of them every day, but the author gives the readers the background information, the cause and effect, and then lays out what needs to be done about, best summed up in the line “ordinary property ownership should apply to digital and smart property.”

Link to the rest at Talking New Media

PG suggests there are a lot of click-to-accept terms of use that might not hold up to well-lawyered litigation based on fraud, intentional misrepresentation, various consumer protection statutes and the like. He further suggests that smart lawyers will rein in their corporate clients’ overreach when establishing their legal relationship with their customers/users based on a mouse click instead of a signature at the bottom of several pieces of paper.

In PG’s litigating days, he observed that if, during the course of a trial, the judge decided one party or the other was a bad guy/gal, things didn’t go well for that party in the courtroom or in the judge’s decision.

Of course, a losing party can always appeal the trial court’s adverse decision. However, PG once heard an experienced trial judge say, “I know how to write an opinion that will never be reversed by an appellate court.” Knowing that judge, PG was inclined to believe him.

In PG’s experience, trial judges overwhelmingly want to do the right thing regardless of the legal arguments of the parties. Most good judges ascended to the bench because of a desire to do the right thing and could have earned more money by staying in their former practices. At the end of the trial, they want to walk out of the courthouse feeling like they helped make the world a little fairer with their decision.

In a fight between a giant corporation and the little people, most judges tend to identify with the little people.

De Gruyter Will Digitize the Entirety of its Backlist. All the Way Back to 1749.

From No Shelf Required:

De Gruyter has taken the decision to digitize the entirety of its backlist all the way back to 1749. The decision to make this significant investment to complete the prestigious archive was taken earlier this year and the digitization process will begin shortly.

Many treasures are among works to be digitized, including Noam Chomsky’s “Syntactic Structures” as well as versions of “Grimm’s Fairy Tales” to name but two. The project is expected to conclude in 2020 with 3,000 additional titles to be available by the end of 2017. Of those titles digitized during the rest of this year, up to one hundred of the most important series will have priority, to allow librarians to complete their holdings.

. . . .

De Gruyter’s desire to secure its backlist for generations to come stems from the publishing house’s long tradition as a family-owned company which not only has a commitment to the past, but also a keen interest in shaping the future.

Link to the rest at No Shelf Required

PG sometimes tells his author clients before they sign typical legacy publishing contracts that those contracts will effectively last forever if the publisher wants them to do so.

Writers, Scam Artists, Agents, And More (Sigh)

From Kristine Kathryn Rusch:

Just when I thought it was safe to get back into the water…

I’m editing a lot these days. I only edit short fiction projects. Anthologies, anthology series (Fiction River), the occasional nonfiction book, and some magazines. I’m also consulting with the fine folks at WMG Publishing, because they’ll be handling the contracts for the revival of Pulphouse next year. Dean’s vision for Pulphouse includes reprinting some of the older stories, which means we have to deal with estates.

Too often, estates mean agents.

But even some lazy-ass living writers give their agents control of everything. It took me one year—one year—to get my hands on a non-fiction reprint that I wanted for a project of mine. The centerpiece for that project was an editorial written more than 20 years ago by a writer who had forgotten they had even written it. This writer, a friend of mine, doesn’t do email, and mostly stays off-line. (I know, I know.) I didn’t know about their tech phobia when I started into this, and had sent five different emails before I asked another editor friend how to reach this writer.

The editor advised snail mail.

Before I resorted to that, though, I called. The author and I are friends, after all. On the phone, the author told me that their agent handles everything. I do mean everything. The author—one smart cookie otherwise—can’t be bothered to concern themselves with touching anything to do with business. I had no idea this author was an Artiste, but I guess I know that now.

I also know why most anthologists refuse to reprint this author’s work.

I was pretty excited about this non-fiction project when I started it. I missed the publication window because of this agent and this writer. Fortunately, my publisher pushed the deadline back. We’ve pushed it back again, and again, and again. And frankly, I’m not feeling it any more. I have completely soured on the project.

The big bad agent, by the way, negotiated a horseshit deal for the writer that essentially gave me more rights than I would ever need. I offered the usual fee, which the agent did not negotiate up (although he could have). By that point, I was too pissed to give a break to these people. The amount of money—on publication, if there’s a publication—to the agent and the author will be negligible.

. . . .

Who the hell gives over control of everything, I mean everything, to an agent?

Oh, most writers. Never mind.

Still, I expect better. And if a writer is going to give control of the business side of her work to an “expert” then the expert better be damn good at negotiating and taking care of the writer’s interests.

So far, all of the agents I’ve encountered who handle everything are the worst negotiators in the business. They let things slide, they don’t care about being paid, they don’t ask for the right kind of language in a contract, they license the wrong rights or sell those rights outright.

. . . .

On one of the many projects I worked on recently, I contacted a writer to reprint one of their stories. I wrote a standard email letter, requesting permission to reprint, and the writer wrote back that they had no idea if the rights were available. The writer said I should contact the editor who originally published the story and ask.

I was taken aback. I had never had a writer say such a thing before in all of my years of editing. I knew the editor in question, and had worked with him many times. Never once did that editor, in all his various projects, try to control all the rights to a project. It wasn’t in his standard contract, the one he used for his anthology projects. It wasn’t in his special contracts, for other projects. It hadn’t ever happened, not in years of dealing with this man.

Honestly, this is where Writer Me and Editor Me had a conflict. Writer Me decided that Editor Me should get clarification from that writer before going to the writer’s editor. You see, Writer Me figured the editor in question would be confused at best or insulted at worst by the suggestion that he controlled the rights.

I did not want to offend him—as a person, not as an editor I might work with.

So I asked for clarification from the writer on the problem and added, as I do with many writers—bestsellers and nonbestsellers alike—that I would be happy to look at the clauses or contract in question (with the pertinent information like SSN and payment blacked out) to see what rights the author had actually sold. After all, the author clearly had no idea. Frankly, I figured the author didn’t know how to read a contract, and certainly didn’t know copyright law. I’ve seen that dozens of times before.

Link to the rest at Kristine Kathryn Rusch

Here’s a link to Kris Rusch’s books. If you like the thoughts Kris shares, you can show your appreciation by checking out her books.

Actor recites all 9 hours of Amazon Kindle T&Cs

From CNet:

Do you read the terms of service for every service you sign up for? Stop lying, you don’t. But you have a very good reason. They’re very long and very boring, and you just want to get stuck into whatever you’re signing up for.

. . . .

To highlight just how ridiculous it is, Choice hired an actor named Laurence to read aloud all 73,198 words of Amazon’s Kindle terms and conditions.

Based on the estimation that 500 words is one A4 page, that’s 146 pages, and it took poor Laurence nine hours to slog through the whole thing.

Link to the rest at CNet and thanks to G.P. for the tip.

.

.

Having written, rewritten and read more Terms of Use than he cares to remember, PG says such “Agreements” always begin as shorter documents, then grow over time. They never seem to shrink.

Unless a provision is determined by a court or government agency to be illegal or unenforceable, it stays in the Terms of Service (or Terms of Use or Terms and Conditions) forever. These three titles (abbreviated as ToS, TOU or T’s & C’s when lawyers communicate with one another) tend to be used interchangeably to refer to the same type of document embedded somewhere on a corporate website or printed in tiny, tiny type on a much-folded piece of paper inserted into product packaging.

On occasion, stories arise about someone who inserts a provision at about the 80% point in a corporate TOU that offers to pay whomever reads the provision a reward of $100 with an email address to claim the reward. Months pass, then years, and the reward is never claimed.

While PG would never recommend treating the contractual provisions included in a TOU lightly, as a general proposition, most large organizations with lengthy TOU’s threaten violators with great vigor, but seldom seem to take enforcement actions to trial before a judge or (heaven forefend!) a jury.

In PG’s experience, TOU’s tend to be much, much longer than agreements on similar subjects that are negotiated between two parties who are each represented by counsel.

PG stumbled across an article in The Telegraph which indicates the islands from which the foundations of American law originated may have a more sensible view of TOU’s than the US does. It’s official: you don’t have to read the Ts & Cs

How a PR man became a giant of children’s literature

From The Christian Science Monitor:

Two decades before The Cat ever donned a hat, Theodor Seuss Geisel was an oil industry ad man who was also the architect of a wacky navy, named for himself – a sort of PokemonGo of the late 1930s.

On March 2nd, fans will celebrate the 113th birthday of Dr. Seuss, as Geisel is now known, but precious few will recall the Seuss Navy, Geisel’s biggest success as an ad man and the tipping point of his life as he moved from illustrator to children’s author.

It was all about drumming up publicity for a client. “Back in 1935, while working in the ad department of the Standard Oil Company, Geisel was tasked with creating a campaign to launch Esso Marine Lube for the New York International Boat Show that was coming up in 1936,” Bruce Wells, curator for the Oil and Gas Historical Society in Washington, D.C., said in an interview, ” Esso (which still exists in Europe today) was part of Standard Oil which today is part of Exxon Mobil.

Geisel and his colleagues created an interactive campaign that engaged adults in boat races, games, contests, and an annual “Seuss Navy Luncheon and Frolic.” All manner of merchandise and prizes were created by Esso, some of which still haunt eBay today.

. . . .

The pivotal point of Geisel’s PR career came with his decision to generate three, 30-page, Seuss Navy story booklets with rhyming text and his crew of characters, says collector and Seuss expert Gregg Philipson of Austin, Texas, in a phone interview. Geisel later said his experience working at Standard Oil “taught me conciseness and how to marry pictures with words.”

. . . .

So how did Seuss move from doing PR for an oil company to becoming an icon in the field of children’s books? “I would like to say I went into children’s-book work because of my great understanding of children,” Seuss quipped in the Dartmouth interview. But actually, he continued, “I went in because it wasn’t excluded by my Standard Oil contract.”

Link to the rest at The Christian Science Monitor

PG says that far too many of today’s employment contracts would have precluded Geisel from writing or publishing anything derived from his work as an employee.

Logan Composer Is Getting Sued Over Allegedly Stolen Lucifer Theme Song

From i09:

Warner Bros. has a hell of a problem on its hands. A pair of musicians are suing the company and Logan composer Marco E. Beltrami for using the theme song they helped create for the show without giving them money or credit.

 Robert and Aron Marderosian, known collectively as The Mardos and Heavy Young Heathens, filed the suit in California last week. It claims that Beltrami, who did the Academy Award-winning scores for 3:10 to Yuma and The Hurt Locker, reached out to the brothers for help in creating a theme song for the show. According to the lawsuit, Beltrami “was not able to capture the essence of what Warner Bros. and NS Pictures were looking for,” and that Warner Bros. had rejected all of Beltrami’s submissions.

The Mardos agreed to create a theme song for the show in exchange for co-writer credit, as well as retention of all publishing rights if the show went to series. However, according to the lawsuit, Beltrami passed off the composition as his own and didn’t tell Warner Bros. about his agreement with the brothers after they chose the six-second excerpt that was ultimately used in Lucifer.

Link to the rest at i09

Working for free (but working for yourself)

From Seth Godin:

Freelancers, writers, designers, photographers–there’s always an opportunity to work for free.

There are countless websites and causes and clients that will happily take your work in exchange for exposure.

And in some settings, this makes perfect sense. You might be making a contribution to a cause you care about.

. . . .

But just because you’re working for free doesn’t mean you should give away all your upsides.

Consider the major publishing platforms that are happy to host your work, but you need to sign away your copyright.

. . . .

Now, more than ever, you have the power to say “no” to that.

Because they can’t publish you better than you can publish yourself.

It doesn’t matter if these are their standard clauses. They might be standard for them, but they don’t have to be standard for you and for your career.

Link to the rest at Seth Godin

PG says “This is our standard contract” may be the oldest con known to humankind to persuade someone (including an author) to sign a terrible contract.

The “standard contract”, “standard clause” or “standard language” designation is designed to make the author think that everyone agrees to those terms. Who is an author, particularly a new author, to dare to ask for something different than all the established authors accept?

This is baloney. Publishing contracts are changed all the time.

Publishing contracts of a certain era were formatted so the changes in “standard” language were shown in a different font or otherwise highlighted. PG has seen such contracts that included dozens of changes for authors who were not best-sellers. Many agents have a set of standard changes they always make to the “standard contract” from a particular publisher.

Most publishers no longer use stone tablets for their contracts. Microsoft Word can change a “standard contract” to a fairer contract in an eyeblink.

PG says, “Ask and ye shall receive.” And if you don’t receive, you can walk away and get a better deal from someone else. The Amazon or Draft2Digital or Smashwords, etc., options are always open.

Another negotiating tip – Always have an alternative planned before you begin a business negotiation. Negotiation theorists call this a BATNA – Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. Part of the psychology of the “standard contract” ploy is the assumption that the author is mentally and emotionally committed to having a book published by a particular publisher, working with a famous editor, seeing big stacks of books in Barnes & Noble, etc.

Prior to sending the contract to the author, many publishers encourage an author, particularly a first-time author, to think everything will be sunshine and lollipops. The author has told all of her relatives and friends that Big Time Publishing has accepted her book, imagined what it will be like to fly on a private jet to Paris for a book signing, what she will say during her Nobel Prize acceptance speech, etc., etc., etc.

These sorts of things put immense pressure on an author to not walk away from a bad deal. PG suggests that an author may want to defer any announcement until after a fair contract is negotiated and signed. However, he knows this can be a very difficult thing to do, so perhaps a cautionary element should be added to any pre-contract announcements, “But I’m going to make sure the contract and all the details are right before this is official.”

Major Record Labels Under The Gun In Sales v. Licensing, Carpenters Case

From Forbes blogs:

The dispute between artists and labels over the income earned from digital downloads continues to rage.

Traditionally, record labels sold physical copies of music mediums, like CDs, and then would pay a royalty to the artist for each record sold. When iTunes came on the scene in 2001, the labels treated the sales of digital downloads the same as sales of physical CDs, and ever since have paid the artist a royalty on sales of those digital downloads. However, labels actually license the master recordings to digital distributors like iTunes and after a while artists began to make the argument that the income earned from digital downloads should be treated as licensing income and not sales income. The reason why artists want downloads to be treated as licensing income is because instead of getting a small percentage for a sales royalty (most commonly ranging from 11-20%, with an average of about 15% of the wholesale purchase price), licensing income is usually split 50-50 between the label and the artist. Therefore, artists stand to make a lot more money in royalties if a digital download is treated as a license rather than a sale.

This issue came to court starting in 2007 with the case FBT Productions v. Aftermath Records, a case involving royalties paid on Eminem recordings at the “sales” rate rather than the “licensing” rate. FBT won the lawsuit, establishing that income from digital downloads should be treated as licensing income rather than sales income, but Universal Music Group (owner of Aftermath Records) argued that this case should not set a precedent for all artist or record deals.

. . . .

The Carpenters. Surviving member Richard Carpenter (fighting on behalf of his sister Karen Carpenter’s estate, as well) audited the band’s label, A&M Records/Universal Music. Artists often audit record label books to make sure that they are getting paid the proper royalties. Richard Carpenter’s audit showed that the label was under-reporting the number of downloads sold, was calculating the royalty on those downloads at a lower base price than they were supposed to, and that the label was paying a royalty on digital downloads at the sales rate instead of the licensing rate. Apparently, attempts to resolve the issue amicably were unsuccessful, and thus Richard Carpenter sued.

The Carpenters’ suit cites the FBT case as a precedent, and if the court follows FBT’s ruling then Carpenter has a good chance of success.

Link to the rest at Forbes blogs

PG has written about the sales vs. licensing royalties issue several times. If you search TPV using the key word, Eminem, you’ll find several posts.

 

When your agent wants to charge you a fee

From QueryTracker Blog:

There are two kinds of lousy agents. The first is the scammer, the kind who wants to get money from authors without in any way performing the services an actual agent ought to perform. When you know the basics about the business, you’ll recognize those. They ask you for money just to read your manuscript and refer you for “necessary” editing services to their friends, many of whom are actually themselves operating under a different business name.

The second kind of lousy agent is just…slippery. That agent is harder to recognize from the outside. While you know to run from agents who charge reading fees, for example, what do you do about one who brings up “administrative charges” after the contract is signed?

Today a writer sent me a copy of an email his agent had sent him. This agent is a legit agent at a legit agency. It’s just that….well, you’ll see.

The agent sent the writer an email about changes to their literary agency agreement, with the expectation that the writer would sign it and be thrilled. (Note: I’ve removed all references to The agency and rephrased in order to clarify in parts. The content is the same, and I verified on the agency’s website.)

In the current contract, the only charges are for any extraoridinary expenses that may occur (courier services, foreign exchange, etc.), $250.00 per year, and a $500.00 cancellation fee should the author wish to terminate the contract.

Please note: don’t sign a contract with that stipulation. Why should the author be charged a fee to break the contract? There’s no matching fee for the agent if the agent decides to fire the writer, after all. Usually an agented writer is pleased to stay onboard. When the writer wants to leave, often it’s because the writer has issues with the way the agent is representing the manuscript. By charging this ridiculous contract-breaking fee, the agent has stated that s/he would rather have a bitter, angry client than just part ways amicably.

. . . .

Then we get to the fun part, where the agency describes their new contract, introducing an administrative fee structure:

The first year we represent a manuscript we charge five hundred dollars ($500.00), then an additional two hundred fifty dollars $250.00 each year until we place it with a publisher. Upon securing a publishing contract, the agency receives 15% of net revenues.

On their website, they try to sweeten the deal: they explain that this fee helps them partner with writers who are serious and willing to invest in their careers.

. . . .

This agent seriously wants you to fork over five hundred bucks before even starting the job, and that $500 won’t come out of the advance when the book sells. Then, if the agent fails to sell your book in one year, the agent gets rewarded with an additional $250.

Link to the rest at QueryTracker Blog and thanks to Deb for the tip.

Micro-Publishing: An Inside Look at Goosebottom Books

From Digital Book World:

You’ve probably heard of indie publishers, but have you heard of micro-publishers? Author Shirin Bridges, owner of Goosebottom Books, calls her company a micro-publisher: a professional publishing organization that brings together a flexible workforce to produce a small number of highly targeted books.

Because of the nature of micro-publishers as small, custom organizations, no two are alike. This in-depth look at Goosebottom’s structure and goals can offer insights into the benefits of this new highly flexible option for energetic authors and entrepreneurs looking to reach niche audiences.

. . . .

Goosebottom was created with the goal of producing books for children about females who have found a way to effect change in their communities.

“We run Goosebottom like a co-op,” said Bridges.

The organization does not employ full-time staff members. Instead, trusted professional members come together on an as-needed basis. Bridges noted that she doesn’t pay herself, but the other members of the team receive standard compensation. Authors get advances and royalties, illustrators get either a flat fee or a royalty, and all copy editors and designers get a flat fee.

. . . .

“Micro-publishers can’t compete in the realm of general fiction.” said Bridges. “They have to know their narrow niche.”

Bridges defines the brand as the thinking girls’ series that boys are interested in, too.

The stories produced at Goosebottom Books span various times in history, and the stories come from all over the globe. For example, one series is about real-world princesses, including Hatshesput of Egypt and Sorghaghtani of Mongolia. Another series, called “Dastardly Dames,” includes biographies of iconic women such as Cleopatra and Njinga, “The Warrior Queen.”

. . . .

“There’s recognition out there,” said Bridges. “People see me at conferences and say they recognize the logo.”

. . . .

Goosebottom Books, like publishers of any size, is inundated with queries.

“We get two to three manuscripts a day,” said Bridges. “Though they’d be hard-pressed to know how to find us.”

Link to the rest at Digital Book World

PG knows nothing about Goosebottom Books, its personnel or financial backing.

However, the first thing that popped into his mind when he read the OP was All Romance E-Books.

Goosebottom struck PG (perhaps wrongly) as a hobby, albeit a serious hobby, for most of its participants. There is nothing inherently bad about that type of organization, but is Goosebottom and its books only a hobby for the authors it publishes?

PG quickly scanned the website and couldn’t find anything about the contracts Goosebottom wants authors to sign. He checked out the publisher’s Terms of Use and they were standard boilerplate legalese.

If the same attorneys who wrote the TOU wrote Goosebottom’s publishing contracts, PG would expect the usual (unfortunately) term-of-copyright, all ancillary rights language that most publishers include in their contracts.

This type of language is dangerous enough for authors publishing through well-established traditional publishers. In PG’s astonishingly humble opinion, such provisions definitely should not be in the publishing contracts of small publishers, some of whom will definitely go out of business in either an organized or unorganized fashion before their authors’ copyrights expire.

For small publishers who may read this, what are PG’s alternatives?

  1. The publishing contract lasts for a specified term – three years, five years, seven years, ten years max. At the end of the contract term, the parties can renew the agreement if everybody’s still happy.
  2. The publishing contract is for printed books and ebooks only.
  3. For any other rights associated with the book (games, toys, movies, etc.), the author agrees to negotiate with the publisher if the publisher wants to do something with those rights, but is not required to grant those rights to the publisher.
  4. If any payment of royalties and/or royalty statement is more than 30 days late, the author may immediately terminate the contract on written notice to the publisher and all rights to the author’s books immediately revert to the author.

If an author is writing as a hobby, perhaps he/she may knowingly take the risk of giving his/her stories to a publisher on a wing and a prayer. However, if an author is working towards a career in writing, the author and any publishers with which he/she associates should engage in sound business practices.

Paul McCartney is suing Sony to finally obtain ownership of The Beatles’ catalog

From COS:

Last March, it was reported that Paul McCartney had begun the process that would allow him to legally regain the rights to his portion of The Beatles’ catalog from Sony/ATV. Facing resistance from the music publishing company, McCartney has now filed a lawsuit in a New York court seeking a judgement affirming that he’ll regain ownership to the songs he co-wrote with John Lennon by the end of 2018.

McCartney is invoking the US Copyright Act of 1976 in his argument. The legislation allows for songwriters to reclaim copyrights 56 years after a legal transfer by filing a termination notice. With the earliest Lennon-McCartney compositions hitting that mark on October 18th, 2018, Macca has issued numerous such notices to Sony/ATV over the last decade. However, the company has refused to acknowledge his rights, hence the new lawsuit. “For years following service of the first Termination Notices, Defendants gave no indication to Paul McCartney that they contested the efficacy of Paul McCartney’s Termination Notices,” reads the complaint.

. . . .

For their [part], Sony may be hoping to employ a legal tactic currently being used against Duran Duran in a similar legal situation. In that case, an English court ruled that British interpretations of contract law supersede the US termination law. Essentially, if a British contract says an artist promises not to transfer its stake in a copyright, the artist can’t then try to issue a termination without breaching the original agreement.

. . . .

This whole mess started in the 1980s when McCartney famously advised Michael Jackson to invest in song publishing rights. Jackson then went out and bought ATV, which owned the Lennon-McCartney catalog. A decade late, Jackson agreed to a merger between ATV and Sony in which the latter gained half his stack. The publishing company acquired the other half from Jackson’s estate in early 2016.

Link to the rest at COS and thanks to Matthew for the tip.

Here’s a copy of the complaint:

.