busy
paganbooks today. The payment clause looks like this:Payment: $25 from earned royalties and once the anthology sells enough to go to print (it will be released in ebook first), a copy of the anthology in print. Contributors are able to purchase additional copies in accordance with our regular contract.
This bothers me, and it's the second time this week I've seen a clause like this. The problems are: 1) It is the publisher's job, not the writer's job, to assume financial risk for a book. Note that "from earned royalties" means that if the book fails to turn a profit, the writers could conceivably receive no payment for their hard work; and in any case, payment would be substantially delayed. Also, "once the anthology sells enough to go to print" means that a contributor's copy may or may not be forthcoming. 2) Royalties are customarily open-ended percentages, paid two to four times per year as long as the book remains in print. Flat fees are customarily paid on acceptance or on publication, up front, once only. Combining the two in the fashion described above takes the most favorable aspects for the publisher and leaves the writer strongly disadvantaged.
The unpleasant result is a market that is ... shall we say, potentially paying instead of actually guaranteed to generate income. Pro and semi-pro writers should beware of clauses like this. The above publisher at least specified their poor terms in their call for submissions. I've seen another instance where an anthology was billed as paying, but when the contract came, turned out to be only potentially paying. If you're looking at anthology calls, you might want to query first to find out exactly what the payment terms are before you decide whether you want to participate in the project. In fact, if you're working with a publisher who will be profiting from your work, ask yourself what you are getting out of that relationship and how reliable it is. Publishers can write whatever contract terms they want, but they have a bad habit of taking advantage of writers just because they can. This is not behavior I wish to encourage.
Deleted comment
March 15 2008, 01:43:08 UTC 13 years ago
Deleted comment
March 16 2008, 21:01:51 UTC 13 years ago