james_davis_nicoll (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2013-03-12 02:09 pm
james_davis_nicoll) wrote2013-03-12 02:09 pm
HAIL HYDRA! DONATION TO COMPANY ORGAN BANKS NOW OPTIONAL, NOT MANDATORY!
Reacting to criticism from the Science Fiction Writers Association and other groups about the terms for its new digital imprints, Random House has made changes to its contracts. The most significant change is that prospective authors for the Hydra, Alibi, LoveSwept and Flirt imprints will now be able to choose from two models--the original profit share deal or a more traditional advance plus royalty deal.
At the cost of sounding like a churl, when they say
Hydra, Alibi, Loveswept, and Flirt seek to acquire rights throughout the world and in all languages. This expands the author’s opportunities and earnings potential.
Actually, this*may* expand the author’s opportunities and earnings potential or it may not; the author already has the option of selling rights around the world and I could see how having one entity handle them could work out for or against the author. What it does is expand Hydra, Alibi, Loveswept, and Flirt’s opportunities and earnings potential.
no subject
Phase 3: Profit!!!
no subject
no subject
(a) While it may seem better for writers to put all their rights eggs in one basket to avoid "the hassle" of negotiating those rights with another party, I suspect that logic would refute that. If that negotiation has worth and a potential return on investment, then surely the more times the owner of the IP has the chance to negotiate for rights to the same IP, the more chance that owner has to be profitable. You could say that "oh, but you might not be able to sell those rights, so really money in hand", but the point is that I may not be able to sell them now but I can keep trying as long as they're mind to sell, and the world is a big place, and chances are good that someone will want them if they're worth something.
(b) The "for the length of copyright" to me is insane and not a deal that any IP owner should ever sell. This basically puts ownership of the right to make money of IP for the length of time that anyone involved can make money off the IP. Your IP might be worth comparatively little now, but who knows what will happen in a decade or two. Sure, your urban fantasy that deals with pixie sex might only be marginally valuable as a book property now, but what happens when someone convinces Hollywood1 that pixie-sex is the best way to suck in the teen demo ten years from now? Then suddenly, you're in the rising tide floats all boats situation, and you don't own your rights.
I would have thought that the maximum value for writers is, in fact, to constrain each rights license to as short a term as possible, for as narrow a medium as possible, for as much money as can be gained under the circumstance as possible. This lets you re-negotiate with the same IP as frequently as you can. Which has probably got to be good for the creator of the IP, all things being equal.
But I'm not a creator, or a publisher, or a business person, really. So I could easily be incorrect.
1 And really, it's not so much Hollywood that's the big thing to consider here, is it? I mean, who knew what kind of cash would be involved in the gaming industry today, a decade or so in the past? I suspect that what you're looking to do is have the opportunity to control your rights over media that's still growing or about to come online, and Hollywood might not be that arena... (gaming, or some other new type of creative media that can be package and sold, might).
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Bondage Fairies, a hentai manga about pixy police women and a cadre of evil bondage pixies who've been kidnapping local wildlife and other pixies.
It's weird and revolting.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
(From When Gravity Fails by George Alec Effinger.)
no subject
no subject
no subject
Between this and Amanda Palmer's recent TED talk (http://www.thevinyldistrict.com/storefront/2013/03/an-open-letter-to-amanda-palmer-a-fellow-musicians-response-to-the-ted-video/), I'm getting weary of the continuing message to entry-level creative professionals to expect nothing for their efforts, to count themselves lucky, to live on hope and handouts. Palmer's nothing if not sincere, but the end result is so transparently the production of a creative class that's ripe for exploitation.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
One wonders if professional writers are (or should be) worried that they'll be increasingly supplanted by people who are willing (or can afford and choose) not to get paid.
One wonders if the publishers will offer deals that feature no advance, but royalties, and only a very limited license to publish with dramatic secure-back (i.e. you have exclusive north american book publishing rights for two years, and from that point if the property isn't in print, in hardcopy and e-book, available through all major online retailers, the rights revert back to author).
One wonders if more and more genre publishers will self-publish, or publish in commune groups.
It's a brave new world a comin'!
no subject
I believe he wrote that piece specifically in response to complaints that his employer was asking people to write for free. The employer that presumably pays him to be an employee. I'm reminded of the old saying, "Where you stand depends on where you sit."
no subject