From The New Publishing Standard:
Intent on preserving its reputation for quality, IngramSpark, the print-on-demand arm of Ingram that targets self-published authors, sent out notice today that new rules would come into play in April 27, and that some authors may find their titles removed from sale.
IngramSpark is taking a necessary stand to uphold the integrity of and reduce bias against independently published works. To align with our industry’s needs for content integrity, we will actively remove print content from our catalog that does harm to buyers and affects the reputations of our publishers and retail and library partners.
Among the offending products that were previously tolerated will be:
- Summaries, workbooks, abbreviations, insights, or similar type content without permission from the original author.
- Books containing blank pages exceeding ten percent, notepads, scratchpads, journals, or similar type content.
- Books or content that mirror/mimic popular titles, including without limiting, similar covers, cover design, title, author names, or similar type content.
- Books that are misleading or likely to cause confusion by the buyer, including without limiting, inaccurate descriptions and cover art.
- Books listed at prices not reflective of the book’s market value.
- Books scanned from original versions where all or parts contain illegible content to the detriment of the buyer.
Link to the rest at The New Publishing Standard
For example: A Summary of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Say it ain’t so! Cliff and his Notes on the chopping block?
We saw an example of number 3 a while back, when Vox Day mimicked a John Scalzi novel. I don’t recall the book, but he used a similar cover and title, which violates rule 3. Now, I remember fans of H. Beam Piper saying that the Scalzi book Day was ripping off was itself a ripoff of one of Piper’s books. However, Scalzi would be inside the rules because he didn’t use the same title, cover art, or byline. And I guess the interior of the story wasn’t straight plagiarism. I’m almost positive there was another incident, where someone deliberately used a similar byline to someone else? But the second byline was for pr0n or something?
Regardless, this rule would keep people from trolling authors, and siphoning off sales, which would simultaneously trick innocent readers who think they’re buying one book but they’re getting another. It’s one less thing for the potential victim of the next Tweet-mob to worry about.
I’m not sure if the journal example in number 5 works for me. But, I’m guessing this rule wouldn’t apply if the journal was bound in the high-grade flesh of sheep / goats / cows / deer, tooled in gold, and featuring acid-free, smyth-sewn parchment pages with gilt edges … but Ingram probably doesn’t do that kind of high-end stuff anyway 🙂
I think the full list at the link is what they meant by “harm to buyers,” as MCA quoted. They definitely don’t reference anything that gives a whiff of censorship. I’m relieved; Ingram is too big a distributor to go down that road. It says something, though, about The Times We Live In that it seemed plausible they might be getting in the censorship game 🙁
Guys, this is a definite follow-the-links in the OP situation. They lead to this:
http://marketing.ingramcontent.com/MRKNG/2020/714-14441/faqs.pdf
I bolded number 5, because it answers Harald Johnson’s question.
They say they’re currently targeting print, not ebooks, but on the print side it sounds like they’re addressing the problems people have been asking Amazon to address for years from the ebook side. The gist of what’s in that link suggests they’re after scammers, not wrongthinkers, which is a huge relief.
Have you ever noticed one of your books listed by another seller for $52.13 or some strange, large amount? These are sellers hoping someone will accidently choose their option. I don’t know how often it happens. I assume it’s for that.
This language: “remove print content from our catalog that does harm to buyers”
Makes me nervous. It sounds like the kind of thing that can be used to justify anything, including censorship.
Oh, and the policy is apparently that, when they take your book down, they will NOT refund any setup fees. Blatant theft, to my mind.
Well, I think you’ve taken what was said out of context and assumed the worst possible interpretation. I could be wrong.
What the heck does that mean???
I took that as “squeeze every cent out of the consumer that you possibly can, just like the Big Five.”
They WERE on my list for distribution some day. No longer. The main reason being, however, that as the OP is subtitled, “but many of the new guidelines are unduly subjective.” No. Thank. You.
I infer that it means books whose content doesn’t justify the price, like those scam books that farm content.