Comments on: Simon & Schuster Changes The Rules: Goodbye Reversion of Rights!

By: $1000 for an article?

$1000 for an article? — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:09:15 +0000

[...] Booksquare weighs in on the S&S Reversions Rights Clause. [...]

By: Kassia Krozser

Kassia Krozser — Mon, 21 May 2007 22:12:01 +0000

As David noted, a good agent *might* walk away. As for will walk away? What if all the other publishers make the same moves? What if it’s the choice of this clause or no contract — and nobody else is biting? There are so many variables in a negotiation. It’s going to take more than one agent walking away from the table. The potential for loss on the part of S&S needs to be significant enough that they would reconsider this “standard” language.

By: Suellen Ocean

Suellen Ocean — Mon, 21 May 2007 20:56:26 +0000

Last August I sold the electronic rights to the California Oak Foundation to publish my self-published book, Acorns And Eat’em. They added the phrase “5 years” which I thought was great. That means that they will re-negotiate with me in 5 years. They aren’t your typical publishers nor did I receive big bucks but there are caring business people out there.

By: David Thayer

David Thayer — Mon, 21 May 2007 20:41:53 +0000

I was struck by Kathleen’s comment that a good agent would walk away from S&S over this issue.
A few agents went on record objecting to this change, Brian DeFiore and, I think, Simon Lipskar from Writers House, but I don’t know how negotiations might play out for the vast majority of authors if faced with the choice between S&S and nothing.

By: Kathleen Dante

Kathleen Dante — Mon, 21 May 2007 18:34:20 +0000

Kassia — A good agent will walk away from the table or even not submit to S&S if they prove to be immovable on this issue.

By: Kassia Krozser

Kassia Krozser — Mon, 21 May 2007 14:15:30 +0000

Kate — I’m hoping you’re being facetious. Or that your agent represents a list of authors who have sufficient clout to withhold work until this clause is changed. It would take a lot of these authors to impact the publisher’s bottom line before they reconsidered this position.

It is not the norm for a certain level of author to be in a position to seriously negotiate terms of the standard contracts. There are, always, negotiable aspects of the deal, but publishers will only “give” so much and on certain points. A good agent knows how, when, and where to push; any time the standard language is altered, it is precedent-setting.

By: Kate Douglas

Kate Douglas — Mon, 21 May 2007 04:38:54 +0000

Thank goodness I have a terrific agent.

By: Marcus

Marcus — Mon, 21 May 2007 01:12:58 +0000

Of course, the really lovely thing about on-demand publishing is the middle man isn’t needed as much any more.

Hard lessons the MPAA and RIAA have been beaten over the head with for years.

Most authors don’t make a whole lot of money in the first place, and unlike, say, an action film, the barriers to entry are typically very low.

So if so many authors don’t make a whole lot of money from their book, how strong, pray tell, is the motivation to sell your kidney to S&S in that, as yet not completely predictable, date in the future when the electronic book reading experience is widely considered as positive or better than reading printed matter?

By: Anne 2.1 » Blog Archive » links for 2007-05-20

Anne 2.1 » Blog Archive » links for 2007-05-20 — Sun, 20 May 2007 23:27:49 +0000

[...] Simon & Schuster Changes The Rules: Goodbye Reversion of Rights! | Booksquare “It is a general rule of life that the party who drafts a contract is the party who benefits the most.” (tags: publishing copyright ip contracts legal media ebooks) [...]

By: Susan Helene Gottfried

Susan Helene Gottfried — Sun, 20 May 2007 20:44:02 +0000

Thank you for clarifying the whole bit about the rights being owned for the length of the copyright. When I’d asked for clarification about that on another blog, I didn’t get a particularly enlightening response.

Either way, I agree that unless you have an infallible crystal ball, it’s not a smart move.