Lyrical Press Screwing Their Authors? Say It Aint So…
Monday, August 24, 2009Posted in: E-publishers Behaving Very Badly, Lyrical Press
Ooh, what is this I hear, Lyrical Press going the way of so many other newish e-pubs, and losing whatever common sense they were born with?
You remember Lyrical Press don’t you? You should remember, Renee Rocco, the CEO was featured on here quite often.
I received three emails from three different sources, eager to let me know about the goings ons at Lyrical Press.
Honestly, who’s surprised by any of this? I just want to know which fucktards signed a contract that contained the following:
10. REVISIONS – If the Publisher considers it necessary in the best interests of the Work, the Author agrees to revise the Work on request of the Publisher. The provisions of this agreement shall apply to each revision of the Work by the author as though that revision were the work being published for the first time under this agreement, except that the manuscript of the revised work shall be delivered in final form by the Author to the Publisher within thirty (30) days after request for revision.
Further, no initial payment shall be made in connection with such revision. Should the Author not provide a revision acceptable to the Publisher within a reasonable time, or should the Author be deceased, the Publisher may have the revision done and charge the cost of such revision against royalties due, or that may become due, the Author, and may display in the revised work, and in advertising, the name of the person, or persons, who revised the work.
So basically, if you die, Lyrical Press will make revisions to your book, and your family or your next of kin, wont see a penny of the money made from said book, and not only that, but the book wont even have your name on the cover, it’ll have the name of the person who edited/revised the book. Niiiiiice.
20. RIGHT OF TERMINATION This agreement may be terminated at the Publisher’s discretion so long as written warning is provided to the Author within a thirty (30) day timeframe and a valid reason is provided. The terms of this agreement may be terminated for conduct unbecoming of a representative of the Publisher.
In the event of Author requested termination of this agreement, Author will compensate Publisher and Editor for monies invested in the Work in the sum of no less than one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00) and not to exceed two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00). Author termination of this agreement relies solely on Publisher’s discretion.
So basically, if Renee Rocco terminates your contract, you have to pay her money for the privilege of getting the old heave-ho. Seriously? Is this normal? More to the point, why would anybody sign a contract with such conditions? That’s just crazy.
Anyway, it looks like the rust is starting to set in, this Lyrical Press author has decided to go public, I wonder if there’ll be any more.
Oh let’s hope so, there’s nothing better in RomLand than publishers going batshit crazy in public. It really warms the cockles of my heart.
anneD
August 24
11:51 pm
I don’t think it’s unusual that there is a clause about rights of termination and that there might be a penalty for costs incurred (say if you pull the contract just days before release when the cover and editing has obviously been done), but the clauses I’ve seen don’t state is as a ‘your break this contract and you pay us X amount of dollars no matter when you do it.’
Anon Y. Mouse
August 25
12:20 am
It’s not the buy-out clause I have the most issue with (though kill fees are in general VERY frowned upon). It’s the “If you die or don’t change your book to suit us we can and will tear your book apart, let someone else rewrite it to please us and then, not only will we charge you for destroying your story, we won’t even put your name on the book as the author, but instead give credit to the person we let destroy it.”
That is, plain and simple, bullshit. It reminds me of what New Concepts did with that one author’s partials, except Lyrical is attempting to do it by banking on authors not understanding or not paying someone to explain exactly what that shifty clause means.
The kill fee is the least of the evils revealed in those posts, but of course the kill fee is the only thing Renee Rocco is addressing in her cut and paste replies in the comment sections. Why? because even she knows it’s bullshit and has no way to justify that kind of treatment.
Anybody know who the author this happened or is happening to? Word is it’s come out in the open because Lyrical actually did rewrite some poor author’s book without her okay.
Emmy
August 25
1:05 am
So basically…anyone could submit a book that Lyrical says is crap. LP can then re-write a chapter or two and release the book under a different name and pay the original author nothing?
Whoever signs that contract is a fucktard. Might as well give your MS away for free.
Anon Y. Mouse
August 25
1:16 am
And don’t forget Emmy, the original author has to PAY the person who rewrote their MS!
And with no charge amount named, they could charge anything they wanted, any amount at all, to assure the author never saw a dime of royalties.
Fucktards, yes. Those who wrote it and those who signed it.
Shiloh Walker
August 25
2:36 am
There ain’t no way, on earth, ever, I’d sign a contract containing either of those clauses.
This is why it’s always wise to get a contract lawyer to look it over-somebody who is looking out for YOUR best interests. Would likely cost the $150 LP demands and would likely save you a lot of stress, headache and grief.
kirsten saell
August 25
3:35 am
Playing devil’s advocate here, but I don’t see anything that says the original author’s name wouldn’t be on the book, just that the name of the person who did the revisions would be on it. It also says no “initial payment”. Could this mean they won’t pay an advance on a work so revised, or perhaps that royaties will be withheld until the cost of revision is earned out?
According to what I see (and granted, I’m not a lawyer) if an author died and the work required revision, the publisher could pay someone, say, $500 to do the revision, deduct that cost from royalties owed to the estate, and display both names on the cover thus: Book X by Deceased Author and Revision Writer. After the revision costs earned out, royalties would then be paid to the estate.
That said, it’s troubling that the publisher hasn’t put an upper limit on what they can pay (and thus charge to the author) for “necessary” revisions. And the wiggle room that led everyone to assume the author’s name would not be on the book is a bad bad thing in a legal contract.
The second quoted clause isn’t nearly as bothersome to me as the first. I can certainly see how a publisher, after investing in a book, might want recompense if an author chooses to pull it. It doesn’t say anything about the author having to pay anything if the publisher decides to terminate. Still, I’d think long and hard about signing something with a clause like that–pair it with the first, and I’d run screaming like a little girl.
Frank Rocco
August 25
3:48 am
During our dealings with Mrs. Strauss to improve Lyrical’s contract we are in earnest in our desire to maintain an author friendly house. And, although we do ensure fair and respectful treatment of all Lyrical authors, as a business, we must take certain measures to protect our company through our contract. Just as authors must protect themselves as a business, so too does the publisher. This is why Lyrical’s contract is negotiable and why, upon offer of a contract, we stress the importance of seeking legal advice prior to sighing. We can not force the issue, just let it be known how important it is to never sign anything you do not fully understand or agree with. An informed author makes for a happy author and prevents a situation like this from happening.
This situation erupted over one unhappy author. This author made it known she would go public with her disatisfaction with Lyrical Press. We were clear in letting her know we respected her right to do so. It is also our right to protect our reputation, which is why I am publicly addressing this situation against my belief in keeping in-house matters private regardless of what might be said against Lyrical publicly.
Should anyone feel they would like to further discuss this situation they are more than welcome to do so. publisher@lyricalpress.com.
Frank Rocco
August 25
4:02 am
What I forgot to add in the above post was, the early termination fee had been struck from our contract after listening with an open mind to what Victoria Strauss had to say on such a clause. We felt it served no good to anyone to keep such a clause in.
Teddypig
August 25
4:55 am
I think Victoria Strauss is a tad miffed about you implying she approves of your actions.
If you invoked any of these clauses on any author that worked for you they do not have much a choice but to cry foul right? You have screwed them over.
Seems to me a publisher that knows what they are doing with the proper professional resources would not need to use these clauses since most Top ePublishers do not seem to have them and might I point out none of them need Victoria Strauss to hold their hand either.
maddie
August 25
5:08 am
Never even heard of Lyrical Press and by the sound of it, won’t be buying from them either.
All you want to be writers should take a look at all those rappers and hip-hop artist back in the day that made it big but signed a contract that screwed them over, some so bad that ended up owing the record company money!
They all said the same thing about wanting it so bad that they sign the dotted line and basically sold themselves cheap.
Oh and most of them had hit records at the time and where broke as they were in the beginning.
Anonymous
August 25
5:20 am
Anonymous
August 25
10:25 am
So we’ve got two or three blogs complaining about a clause in the contract, we’ve got Lyrical Press saying Victoria Strauss Ok’d their contract (probably not the smartest thing to say in a public forum) and we’ve got Victoria Strauss clarifying (rightly IMHO) that she isn’t t the final arbiter of all things contractual in the publishing world. (Though I wonder why she didn’t question this clause at the time the whole “kill fee” thing happened.) We’ve got Lyrical saying “get a lawyer before signing” after the fact as opposed to just saying “hey we’ll just drop the clause all together and make this go away” and pointing to on unhappy author for having started all this in the first place.
A couple of observations:
1) Unhappy author aside, the clause probably should be removed from Lyrical’s contracts despite assertions that Lyrical needs to cover it’s financial ass when it comes to setting up a publishing house and the cost associated with producing en eBook. The last time I looked, that’s called “the cost of doing business” and you generally recover your costs from the consumer by marking up the price of your goods – you don’t charge the producer of the goods, namely the author, for revising a manuscript. It simply looks like you’re purposefully trying to take advantage of authors and really, this whole “controversy” points to a lack of experience in the management at Lyrical Press because anyone with half a brain would have realized the kill fee and now this contract issue aren’t standard in the publishing industry.
2) There is a very disturbing gang mentality that overtakes bloggers when they smell blood in the water and everyone wants to jump in to rip a piece of flesh from the wounded party. There will be those foaming at the mouth, pointing and screaming in a shrill voice “cheerleader!” or “sock puppet!” should anyone dare try to defend Lyrical or should one of their authors stupidly come forward and say “they along with most authors are extremely happy at Lyrical Press.
3) The blogosphere ain’t exactly free from the prospect of litigation. As recent as last week a woman successfully sued Google to get them to unveil the name of a blogger who’d said some pretty nasty things about her, presumably to take legal action against the blog owner. This was a precedent setting case that is probably going to open the floodgates for litigation against bloggers on everything from slander to libel to God know’s what.
So, while it’s all fine and good to justify a blog posting that is critical of Lyrical Press and it’s contract (which really should be changed) it’s another thing entirely when criticism morphs into attacks. I doubt very much that Lyrical Press is running a scam, though there are veiled assertions that they are. I suspect this is more a case of people who are learning the ropes of the publishing world as they go – a great way to learn about the industry, not a great way to run a business when there are authors who hope to somehow become a successful novelist.
Frank Rocco
August 25
10:48 am
Allow me to add the clause in question is one Lyrical will consider removing. As we are currently on vacation, it is something we will look into when we return to the office next week.
Lyrical is not out to bring harm to authors, regardless of what is being implied. We are running a business, and in doing so, are open to ways to improve Lyrical Press. That desire also extends to Lyrical’s contract.
Ghetto Diva
August 25
12:05 pm
I thnk Anon 10:25am might be Kruger. And even if your not, I’m going to break it down.
First, for example Lyrical press authors do have a right to defend themselves, BUT it is in there best interest that they do so with class, and having a brain in your head would help. You can come on the blogsphere and say Yes I’m a Lyrical author, and this is what I have to say. And there are those who will probably yell out sock puppet, just like you said, BUT said authors need to develop thick skin in that issue.
Second, in one of the response HERE, “This is a Lyrical Press issue and should be handled internally”, I truly respect that the author has brought this to the public. Too many newbies are being SCREWED UP THE ASS, because newbie presses are taking advantage. I will never sign up with a new publishing house. They say get a lawyer, and read over the contract, but did darling Rene Rocco hire a lawyer to write the contract? Or did she just decide to write it herself.
And third:
Many of us read the news and probably know this happened, but why post it here? So Karen, could give a shit, and be fearful of saying anything to Renee? Not going to happen. Just like I said in the beginning, presses like these with no experience whatsoever in the publishing world suck ass. And authors looking to publishing there work, should stick around to the publishers that have been around forever. And Anon, here’s more for you under the threat of a lawsuit, you suck, Renee sucks, and Lyrical Press is a BIG NO NO. Now try to get me to reveal who I am.
Shannon Stacey
August 25
1:52 pm
Shiloh and Kirsten, did you strike that clause from your Samhain contracts before you signed them?
Brynna Curry
August 25
2:38 pm
First of all, name calling is ridiculous people. Two year olds fight that way and since you need be at least eighteen to sign a contract, I’m sure we should all be above that. If someone is unhappy, let them deal with it privately, or legally in a court of law, which is their right, with class and dignity instead of dragging their own names through the mud with Lyrical.
I won’t repeat the nasty things you’ve said and I am not familiar with the situation that started all this, but I am a Lyrical author. I am also contracted with other publishers and let me say this loud and clear. I AM HAPPY WITH ALL OF THEM. If you don’t like something in a contract, ask them to change it. That is your responsibility, no one forces you to sign anything.
Have you any idea how hard these people work? They are available 24-7 literally. My editor ROCKS and is teaching me things I didn’t know about writing as we go through the editing process, making my new works even better. No one turns out a flawless, publishable as is ms on a first draft. No one. You are never too old to learn something new, and to say otherwise is not only arrogant, but ignorant as well.
As a reviewer, I’ve seen books published with no name companies that should have been in print. I’ve also seen print books that weren’t worth their paper. Think about who you are harming before you set the world on fire with your flaming.
I wish you all peace and happiness in your endeavors. Time is too precious to waste with hate.
Brynna
Ghetto Diva
August 25
2:56 pm
What nasty thing did I say? The truth? If you suck, you suck. If you don’t believe you suck, then be thick skinned. Brynna, I unfortunately am talking from experience, because I’ve had to deal with presses like this, before making the smart move to submit to a company that has been around for years, and that has proven time and time again that they are trustworthy.
I’ve dealt with a publisher who would not pay me, nor provide proper edits, and at the time I was the only one who took a freaking stand. I’ve dealt with numerous publishers who claim to be author friendly, and I’ve found out that it was a load of bull. No authors backed me up, when I decided to public. The fact that you are “happy” with Lyrical does not mean that others are. Like I said, I commend the ones that have chosen to take a public stance about this. Because there sure are others at Lyrical who are to scared to voice there opinion.
And here is my advise to the others who don’t want to go public for several reasons, put your fears aside and do it. You’d be helping alot of writers if you did.
sybil
August 25
3:22 pm
I think they are going for the if you don’t get a lawyer you get what you get.
Shannon Stacey sez
“Shiloh and Kirsten, did you strike that clause from your Samhain contracts before you signed them?”
So both those clauses are in the samhain contract? Or one of them? Did you strike them? Is that easy to do?
Karen Scott
August 25
3:34 pm
You know, if somebody was screwing me over, class and dignity would go out of the window.
I really hate that somebody who is apparently ‘HAPPY’ with her publisher, would deign to tell others who weren’t so happy, to belt up, and take it indoors. That kind of attitude really sticks in my craw.
“The world”? I’m not being funny Mrs, but this is Lyrical effing Press, a small time e-publisher run by a woman with a dubious blogging history, not blinkin effing Penguin.
Also, who are we harming, and is there a particular reason why we should be thinking of them before we set the world on fire?
If Lyrical goes tits up, it will be my pleasure to repost this comment. It really will. I am evil that way, it cannot be helped.
Maybe that’s your first clue my darling.
Anonymous
August 25
4:10 pm
I think this whole thing is a chick thing and I do so love a good cat fight.
Shannon Stacey
August 25
4:43 pm
Sybil, I was referring to the revisions clause, which is not only in the Samhain contract, but is fairly standard in the industry (including NY contracts).
I didn’t scratch it, which apparently makes me a fucktard, but, as I said, it’s fairly standard and wasn’t the contractual hill I chose to die on. It’s meant to protect the publisher in the case of the author seriously dropping the ball after the publisher has invested in the work.
sybil
August 25
4:57 pm
Got cha, I don’t really know much about any of it but oddly this sounds familiar. Not the you’re a fucktard part but even if you are I will still like you *eg*. Is there an official fucktard ruling to be had?
Thing that sounds odd it the death part but I could see publisher doing that in reprints and such, retaining the author’s name. But at first glance and knowing what I do about Lyrical it sounds all bad. Of course I find it shocking anyone would put their book with the dishing diva but I am odd like that.
JulieLeto
August 25
5:30 pm
Okay, I haven’t read through the comments. I may not. I just want to deal with the clauses.
The first says that IF THE AUTHOR WILL NOT REVISE (or cannot), then the company will do it for them. And it will charge the cost of that to the author. That seems fair. If the author is alive and refuses to do the needed changes (it happens) and the publisher needs to pay someone ELSE, why shouldn’t they charge the author? And if the author is dead, well, this clause might be pointless if they have a literary power of attorney, which designates someone to do that work for them. But if they did die and extensive revisions had to be made, then I don’t think it’s unfair for the author’s heirs to have to foot the bill…or that the person who did the rewrite might by listed on the cover. As in “by Dead Author, with Reviser Name.”
And in the second clause, the author only has to pay if THE AUTHOR cancels the contract. If the publisher has already invested time editing, creating a cover, doing backcover copy, etc…then again, this is fair.
I don’t see what the problem is. The best thing for an author to do is A) hire a literary attorney and discuss the idea of getting a literary power of attorney and B) don’t cancel a contract after a book has gone into production. Or better yet–honor your contracts.
I had to cancel a contract once. I paid back all the money given to me and lost my agent’s commission. It wasn’t her fault I canceled the contract, so I did not ask her to pay back her part…she did her job. She sold the book, she negotiated the contract AND she handled the cancellation. However, I did it three months before the book was supposed to go into production and the publisher incurred no expenses because of it. If that had been the case, I would have written the book and would not have canceled. I still felt badly because they had to find another author to take my slot. But they did.
Shiloh Walker
August 25
6:03 pm
Couple of things… the thing that bugs me about the revisions clause: i don’ want another writer rewriting my work. If revisions are needed, I’d do them, however, I realize some authors who may refuse to do revisions-I don’t get that, but hey.
The thing that bugs me-the way this is worded? The publisher could revise happily along and do whatever they want, without getting author or author’s successors any say in the manner. What if the revisions they want are unacceptable to the author? What if the revisions totally undo the story? Trust me-that happens. By signing this contract, the author gives up the control to keep her story ‘her’ story.
Frankly, there are enough unprofessional pubs in the world that I can see one insisting revisions that AREN’T necessary-that don’t improve the book’s quality or take away from the story. I can see that.
I won’t sign a contract, especially from someplace that is so very unproven, that gives them permission to take their red pen to my work and I have no say in the matter. AND they stick somebody else’s name on it? No. They are taking MY work and making it NOT my work with that.
I’ll revise my story when it’s needed, but I’m not giving somebody else permission to revise it AND claim money for it, and leave me no authority over it.
If there was a clause that specified the revisions meet author AND publisher approval, it would strike me as more fair to the author. But as it is? No, and especially not from somebody who has yet to prove themselves.
The second thing is the fact that the pub can get out for any reason, for free, but the author can’t. That’s not fair. However, i see that somebody mentioned that clause was removed, so less of an issue at this point.
I will be honest-I’ve seen enough epubs go down in flames or fizzles and I’m not likely to sign with a new one unless I *know* they know what they are doing-like I knew Crissy w/Samhain would be a success. I knew it before she even opened for submissions. I trusted her because she’d already earned my trust.
Other places? Unless they’ve been open for a while and I’ve gotten an idea how they operate, there is no way I’d even consider it and a contract with these clauses would have been dropping it with no further consideration.
kirsten saell
August 25
6:29 pm
The revision clause (almost word for word what is quoted above), did give me pause–especially since it, too, had no upper limit as to what they could charge me. I read it over and over, and thought about it for over a week before I made a decision. But having talked to other Samhain authors and having watched the publisher do business over time, it annoyed me less and less–because 1) I was confident in my ability to revise upon request, 2) I’d read enough Samhain books to believe they wouldn’t ask me to do anything freaky with my story, and 3) my first book, much though I loved it, was not the “book of my heart”.
I did think about asking them to strike it. But every author needs to weigh the contract against the book in question. Had my first book with Samhain been “the book of my heart”, hell yeah, I’d have fought tooth and nail to have that clause removed or amended. Had there been a clause forcing me to do more than “pay any advance monies” back if the publisher pulled the book over disagreement over said revisions, yeah, I’d have asked them to strike one or both clauses, or simply declined signing with them.
And I will add that the only incidence in my four published books where I was asked to make a change to the actual story (as opposed to simply tweaking sentences or rewriting passages that were awkward or unclear), my editor let me know before she offered me a contract. And she explained before I signed what options I’d have with Samhain should I choose not to revise, and how they would likely impact sales.
I suppose that communication with an editor before the contract is signed can do a lot to ease a writer’s mind. I have a wonderful, communicative editor whom I trust. That also made a big difference in how I viewed the contract.
But again, I seem to be the only person here who realized that displaying the name of the person who revised the manuscript did not necessarily preclude displaying the original author’s name as well. And that the original author would still be paid–after the cost of revision was deducted from her royalties.
Perhaps I was naive in thinking the publisher would still put the original author’s name on the work? But that’s how I read the clause in my own contract: Book X by AUTHOR Y as revised by Editor Z. Though I can only imagine the bad press they’d garner if they didn’t do it that way…
Anonymous
August 25
7:05 pm
Yes, Frank and Renee clearly care.
Enough to copy and paste their responses from one blog to the next rather than actually give enough of a shit to provide people the decency of a thoughtful response.
I’m blown away by just how much they care.
Myra Willingham
August 25
7:12 pm
If a writer is that desperate to get published that s/he would sign such a ridiculous contract, I’m sorry but s/he deserves what s/he gets. Yeah, I know newbie writers aren’t that familiar (if at all) with contracts but ye gads! They can Google and find out whether they are being screwed or not. And that’s exactly what this Lyrical Press is doing: screwing their authors and not in a good way.
Shiloh Walker
August 25
8:27 pm
Shannon, word for word, that’s not how it is in my contract so it’s not an issue. I’m not going into more detail than that, because I keep my contracts confidential.
However, Samhain has more or less ‘proven’ itself for me. In this case, Crissy is the one who’d proven herself, even before she started Samhain. I trust her, and I know Samhain is it for the best quality book-they’ve proven themselves and since we’re both in it for the same thing, I’m going to give them a lot more trust than I’d give elsewhere.
A new press wouldn’t get that trust from me and there’s no way I’d agree to the wording on their contracts. Just wouldn’t.
So maybe I should amend my first comment… There is no way I’d sign a contract with those terms, not with a new, unproven epub. They’d have to give me some sort of option to protect my work if I felt the revisions were detrimental to the story.
Melissa Blue
August 25
10:49 pm
Ok. The clauses shown are vague, which never bodes well. It can be interpreted anyway you like unless you get to court and a judge does it for you. Yet the clause that bothers me is the second one about the termination. There is no timeline. The termination of contract can happen five years after production, but I still owe them “no less than $150.”
And what does the last line really mean? What they are willing to charge you, or what contracts are they willing to terminate. Due to the location of the sentence I’m going to assume the former. But that’s the problem with vague contracts, you don’t know.
So the moral of the story…If you don’t understand parts of your contract ASK. If you are uncomfortable with the clauses don’t agree to them. If the publisher is willing to negotiate all for the better. AND, if they read anything like the second one and they are not willing to negotiate (or willing to clarify) RUN, LITTLE FOREST, RUN!
Jaci Burton
August 26
6:11 pm
Ok so I’m in no way shape or form affiliated with Lyrical Press. Don’t write for them. Don’t intend to. I”m not bff’s with the owners.
But the contract language, at least #10, is pretty standard in all contracts. It’s in all of mine nearly verbatim, both epublishing and NY print contracts. You don’t like them you strike them or rewrite them. My NY contracts are about 30 pages long with a massive amount of strike throughs and rewrites. It’s standard operating procedure in this industry. No one signs a contract as is.
And Shiloh, unless you and I got totally different original contracts from Samhain, it’s in there. You might have amended the original language, but that language is in there.
Really, what it all boils down to and what others have stated is this: it’s the author’s responsiblity for vetting the contracts. You don’t like language that’s in there, either refuse to sign it as is or suggest amendments. If you sign it like it is, you live with the consequences. Bitching about it after the fact is bullshit.
My opinion only. Your mileage my vary.
AbbyNormal
August 26
9:57 pm
Jaci Burton wrote:
>>But the contract language, at least #10, is pretty standard in all contracts. <<
Not according to Victoria Strauss who says it's standard in non-fiction contracts not fiction contracts.
You do have a point, though. If you're retarded enough to sign the damned contract, suck it up. You signed the damned thing so stop your freaking whining. Rather than take it to the blog world, sue them.
JulieLeto
August 27
3:45 pm
Jaci made me go look…and yes, the clause #10 was in my last contract with Penguin. It was struck out by my agent, but it was in there. So yes, it’s standard to have it in there…but inadvisable to accept. (My agent never asked me my preference, she just struck the clause. I rarely read the parts she strikes.)
But the fact is that authors should not sign contracts that have clauses they don’t agree with or don’t understand. And if the publisher says “it’s standard” they aren’t lying, necessarily. Standard language does not equal “everyone signs this.” It means “every publisher puts it in.”
Look, EVERY AUTHOR SHOULD HIRE A LITERARY ATTORNEY, esp. their first time around. Not a tax attorney. Not a real estate attorney. Not your brother’s cousin’s sister in law who went to law school but never passed the bar. Hire a real literary attorney who knows what PUBLISHING contracts are supposed to look like. Can’t afford it? This is the cost of doing BUSINESS. And it’s not as expensive as you think.
If you end up with stuff you don’t like, it’s no one’s fault but your own…and it is not the fault of the publisher, who is in business for themselves. Of course the initial contract is in their favor!
kirsten saell
August 27
4:57 pm
That’s certainly it. The contract is there to spell out obligations on both sides, and since the publisher writes the contract it will obviously be written with their needs in mind.
Although I do think after reading Vitcoria Strauss’s comment over at EREC, that the language of that particular clause requires amendment in the boilerplate. It’s WIDE open to interpretation. If it’s intended for post-pub, non-fic books, but can be applied to pre-pub fiction–geez that’s a lot of wiggle room. Wiggle room is good when you’re sleeping with a partner or crawling through air ducts, but in a contract? Not so much.
Merangue
September 11
1:24 pm
From Piers Anthony’s Internet Publishing (http://www.hipiers.com/publishing.html)- one of the primary sources online to find out the reputation of e-publishers:
“September 2009 update: there have been ugly reports on other sites condemning this publisher. As far as I can ascertain, they are fallacious, a hate campaign.”