Writer Beware Blogs!

SFWA on Harlequin Horizons

2009-11-19T23:24:00.001-05:00

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware

SFWA has joined RWA and MWA in issuing a statement about Harlequin Horizons.

-------------

In November, 2009, Harlequin Enterprises, Ltd. announced the launch of a new imprint, Harlequin Horizons, for aspiring romance authors. Under normal circumstances, the addition of a new imprint by a major house would be cause for celebration in the professional writing community. Unfortunately, these are not normal circumstances. Harlequin Horizons is a joint venture with Author Solutions, and it is a vanity/subsidy press that relies upon payments and income from aspiring writers to earn profit, rather than sales of books to actual readers.

The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, Inc. (SFWA) finds it extremely disappointing that Harlequin has chosen to launch an imprint whose sole purpose appears to be the enrichment of the corporate coffers at the expense of aspiring writers. According to their website, “Now with Harlequin Horizons, more writers have the opportunity to enter the market, hone their skills and achieve the goals that burn in their hearts.”

SFWA calls on Harlequin to openly acknowledge that Harlequin Horizon titles will not be distributed to brick-and-mortar bookstores, thus ensuring that the titles will not be breaking into the real fiction market. SFWA also asks that Harlequin acknowledge that the imprint does not represent a genuine opportunity for aspiring authors to hone their skills, as no editor will be vetting or working on the manuscripts. Further, SFWA believes that work published with Harlequin Horizons may injure writing careers by associating authors’ names with small sales levels reflected by the imprint’s lack of distribution, as well as its emphasis upon income received from writers and not readers. SFWA supports the fundamental principle that writers should be paid for their work, and even those who aspire to professional status and payment ought not to be charged for the privilege of having those aspirations.

Until such time as Harlequin changes course, and returns to a model of legitimately working with authors instead of charging authors for publishing services, SFWA has no choice but to be absolutely clear that NO titles from ANY Harlequin imprint will be counted as qualifying for membership in SFWA. Further, Harlequin should be on notice that while the rules of our annual Nebula Award do not expressly prohibit self-published titles from winning, it is highly unlikely that our membership would ever nominate or vote for a work that was published in this manner.

Already the world’s largest romance publisher, Harlequin should know better than anyone else in the industry the importance of treating authors professionally and with the respect due the craft; Harlequin should have the internal fortitude to resist the lure of easy money taken from aspiring authors who want only to see their work professionally published and may be tempted to believe that this is a legitimate avenue towards those goals.

SFWA does not believe that changing the name of the imprint, or in some other way attempting to disguise the relationship to Harlequin, changes the intention, and calls on Harlequin to do the right thing by immediately discontinuing this imprint and returning to doing business as an advance and royalty paying publisher.

For the Board of Directors,
Russell Davis
President
SFWA, Inc.

MWA Weighs In On Harlequin Horizons

2009-11-19T18:29:00.002-05:00

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware

Today, Mystery Writers of America (a sponsor of Writer Beware, along with the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America) issued this announcement to its members:

-----------------------------------

Dear MWA Members:

Recently, Harlequin Enterprises launched two new business ventures aimed at aspiring writers, the Harlequin Horizons self-publishing program and the eHarlequin Manuscript Critique service (aka "Learn to Write"), both of which are widely promoted on its website and embedded in the manuscript submission guidelines for all of its imprints.

Mystery Writers of America (MWA) is deeply concerned about the troubling conflict-of-interest issues created by these ventures, particularly the potentially misleading way they are marketed to aspiring writers on the Harlequin website.

It is common for disreputable publishers to try to profit from aspiring writers by steering them to their own for-pay editorial, marketing, and publishing services. The implication is that by paying for those services, the writer is more likely to sell his manuscript to the publisher. Harlequin recommends the "eHarlequin Manuscript Critique Service" in the text of its manuscript submission guidelines for all of its imprints and include a link to "Harlequin Horizons," its new self-publishing arm, without any indication that these are advertisements.

That, coupled with the fact that these businesses share the Harlequin name, may mislead writers into believing they can enhance their chances of being published by Harlequin by paying for these services. Offering these services violates long-standing MWA rules for inclusion on our Approved Publishers List.

On November 9, Mystery Writers of America sent a letter to Harlequin about the "eHarlequin Manuscript Critique Service," notifying Harlequin that it is in violation of our rules and suggesting steps that Harlequin could take to remain on our Approved Publishers list. The steps outlined at that time included removing mention of this for-pay service entirely from its manuscript submission guidelines, clearly identifying any mention of this program as paid advertisement, and, adding prominent disclaimers that this venture was totally unaffiliated with the editorial side of Harlequin, and that paying for this service is not a factor in the consideration of manuscripts. Since that letter went out, Harlequin has launched "Harlequin Horizons," a self-publishing program.

MWA's November 9 letter asks that Harlequin respond to our concerns and recommendations by December 15. We look forward to receiving their response and working with them to protect the interests of aspiring writers. If MWA and Harlequin are unable to reach an agreement, MWA will take appropriate action which may include removing Harlequin from the list of MWA approved publishers, declining future membership applications from authors published by Harlequin and declaring that books published by Harlequin will not be eligible for the Edgar Awards.

We are taking this action because we believe it is vitally important to alert our members of unethical and predatory publishing practices that take advantage of their desire to be published. We respect Harlequin and its authors and hope the company will take the appropriate corrective measures.

Two Deep Questions

2009-11-19T12:24:00.005-05:00

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware

Deep question number one: Why has the launch of Harlequin Horizons provoked such a gigantic firestorm of indignation, when the launch of West Bow Press (which is exactly the same sort of venture, except way more expensive and with a referral fee scheme thrown in) not only didn't cause a big outcry, but received some fairly positive mentions from industry professionals?

I have my own theories, but I'm interested in what others think.

Deep question number two: Is Thomas Nelson RWA-eligible? If so, why hasn't RWA repudiated it as well?

Harlequin Horizons: Another Major Publisher Adds A Self-Publishing Division

2009-11-18T11:51:00.005-05:00

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware

Hot on the heels of the launch of West Bow Press, Thomas Nelson's new self-publishing division, Harlequin Enterprises has unveiled Harlequin Horizons, a company that "that offers aspiring romance writers the opportunity to self-publish their work and achieve their goals."

The official press release is here.

Like West Bow Press, Harlequin Horizons is powered by self-publishing conglomerate Author Solutions, though its standard packages are considerably cheaper--from $599 to $1,599, as opposed to West Bow's $999 to $6,499. You can also spend up to $3,499 for a specialty package (West Bow's specialty packages top out at an eye-popping $19,999--are Christian writers richer, or is it just easier to persuade them to part with the big bucks?)

Both West Bow and Harlequin Horizons also give authors the chance to expend sizeable additional sums, such as $11,999 for a premium Christian publicist (West Bow) or a just plain premium publicist (Harlequin Horizons). Interestingly, while several of West Bow's standard packages and all of its specialty packages include a bookseller return program, with Harlequin Horizons that's available only as an extra.

Like West Bow, Harlequin Horizons wreaths self-publishing in nebulous, glowing verbiage, extolling benefits and ignoring downsides. With West Bow Press, you can Begin Your Legacy. With Harlequin Horizons, you can Reach the Stars. And just like West Bow, Harlequin Horizons cordially extends the carrot of commercial publication: "While there is no guarantee that if you publish with Harlequin Horizons you will picked up for traditional publishing, Harlequin will monitor sales of books published through Harlequin Horizons for possible pick-up by its traditional imprints."

Unlike West Bow, Harlequin Horizons bears its parent's name. And that is making some Harlequin authors quite unhappy.

On the Dear Author blog, a lively discussion of the new venture is summarized here. Authors' concerns include dilution of the house brand (if low-quality self-published books carry the Harlequin name, the overall reputation of Harlequin may suffer), a loss of prestige for non-self-published Harlequin authors (the perception that "anyone" can get published by Harlequin), new authors spending money on self-publishing in the belief that it's a path to getting noticed by Harlequin (well, of course; this is one of the new service's major marketing pitches--no surprise, since Harlequin Horizons is a money-making enterprise), and the choice of Author Solutions as a partner (given the complaints about several Author Solutions brands--one of my blog posts is referenced).

In a followup post, some of these concerns are addressed by Malle Valik, Harlequin's Digital Director, who reveals that while "Harlequin put its name on the Harlequin Horizons site to clearly indicate this is a romance self-publishing site," Harlequin Horizons books will be branded HH (not Harlequin), and that "[t]he copyright is not associated with Harlequin." As to why Harlequin is establishing a self-publishing division, Ms. Valik says,

Bowker reported in 2008 that more titles were published through self-publishing than traditional publishers. Self-publishing is a fast growing and vibrant part of the publishing industry today. Harlequin has decided to provide a romance focused self-publishing business for those that choose to go down the self-publishing road.

In other words--self-publishing is a big business, and Harlequin wants a piece of the pie. As I noted in my post on West Bow Press, the potential for new revenue is large indeed:

In 2008, according to PW, the number of on-demand and short-run titles (the bulk of which represent offerings by self-publishing companies) jumped by 132% (total growth since 2002: 774%), outstripping books produced by "traditional production methods". Not only does adding a self-publishing line allow a publisher to cash in this trend, it presents the possibility of monetizing rejections. By the same token, the self-publishing service's connection with a major publisher will be a major attraction for authors--especially if the publisher suggests that it may take the better-performing books commercial.

For the record, I don't for one teeny tiny second believe that discovering new writers, or giving them a chance to "begin their legacies" or "reach the stars," plays a major part here. That's just a marketing pitch. This is about money. Now more than ever, commercial publishers need to shore up their bottom lines--and adding self-publishing divisions is an easy and profitable way to do so.

Harlequin Horizons offers more confirmation of this fact. But what it confirms even more is the ambition of Author Solutions. Over the past few years, Author Solutions has been absorbing its largest competitors. Now it seems to have come up with a lucrative new business strategy that offers even more possibilities for expansion. For that reason alone, I think we'll be seeing more self-publishing divisions in the coming months or years.

(Something I didn't know: Although only West Bow Press and Harlequin Horizons have received wide attention, they are actually the second and third such Author Solutions partnerships. According to this article in the Indianapolis Star, Author Solutions is also partnered with another Christian publisher, LifeWay. LifeWay's website makes no mention of self-publishing, but a tiny link at the very bottom leads to Cross Books, "a Christian publishing company that blends the best attributes of self-publishing and traditional publishing." Author Solutions isn't named on Cross Books' website, or at least nowhere that I could find, but the Terms of Use confirms the connection.)

Revised Google Book Search Settlement Filed

2009-11-16T11:32:00.004-05:00

On Friday, Google, the Association of American Publishers, and the Authors Guild filed a revised version of the Google Book Search Settlement. It's now up to Judge Denny Chin to set dates for a notice period, an objection hearing, and the final Fairness Hearing.

A brief overview of the issues that led to the revision, and a summary of some of the changes, is provided by the New York Times.

One of the major concerns of Settlement critics, and also of the Department of Justice, which has urged the courts to reject the Settlement because of anti-trust concerns, was the issue of orphan works (in-copyright works whose authors can't be found), and the fear that Google would gain a de facto digital monopoly over those works. The revision establishes the position of an "Unclaimed Works Fiduciary," or trustee, who will be responsible for all decisions about orphan works, including whether to license rights in those works to third parties. Another potential monopolizing provision, which according to the Times "was widely interpreted as ensuring that no other company could get a better deal with authors and publishers than the one Google had struck," has been dropped.

The concerns of European publishers, which have been distressed by Google's digitization of thousands of European-published books included in US libraries (despite the fact that the Book Search Settlement was supposed to pertain only to US copyright holders), have been addressed by restricting Google's database to books published in the US, Canada, UK, and Australia.

Another major change (per the Authors Guild's upbeat overview of the revision): Google's ability to monetize the database--which in the original Settlement was essentially unlimited--has been curtailed. "Future business models have been pared down to three: individual subscriptions, print-on-demand, and digital downloads. None of these business models can be implemented by Google without approval of the Registry's board, and none can be implemented without notice to all claiming rightsholders, who will have the absolute right not to participate."

Many commenters feel that substantial concerns remain.

According to Settlement critic James Grimmelman, a Google monopoly still looms. His argument is too subtle to summarize here, but he sums it up this way: "Settlement 2.0 confirms that Google will have the only game in town for the unclaimed works...The DOJ all but invited Google and the plaintiffs to empower the Registry to license Google’s competitors; they declined that all-but-invitation."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, for which privacy was a significant issue, feels that the revision leaves those concerns unaddressed. The ACLU agrees.

The Open Book Alliance, which has formally objected to the Settlement, calls the revision "a sleight of hand." (What the OBA would have liked to see in an amended Settlement is described here.)

And as blogger Danny Sullivan points out in his coverage of the Settlement revision press conference, the copyright concerns that sparked the original lawsuit--that Google has turned copyright law on its head by requiring rightsholders to opt out of its database rather than in--remain entirely unaddressed (though it's my impression that this issue is falling ever more steadily into the background as the Settlement grinds its way toward approval).

Google's own summary of the revisions can be seen here.

Much more information, including discussions, objections, and documents, is available at The Public Index.

The deadline for claiming payment for books that were digitized without permission has been extended from January to March 31, 2010. However, given the changes, it would seem that consideration should also be given to those of us who, like me, opted out of the original Settlement, and now might want to reconsider. None of the many articles I've read address this issue.

Agent Inbox

2009-11-13T10:26:00.003-05:00

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware

Yesterday, PW reported on the launch of AgentInbox, a new service from collaborative writing website WEbook (I've blogged about WEbook before).

"AgentInbox is a service that connects publication-ready authors with reputable, vetted literary agents," says the service's FAQ for writers. Writers enter their book's "vital stats," including title, genre, query letter, and all or part of the manuscript (there are several tutorials to help with the polishing process). They can then check AgentInbox's roster of participating agents and choose which ones they'd like their submission to go to. WEbook staff pre-screens submissions, then forwards them on to the agents chosen.

According to PW,

AgentInbox will focus in particular on query letters while also ensuring the manuscripts adhere to basic editorial standards and readiness, said Ardy Khazaei, president of WEbook.

WEbook’s team of in-house and freelance publishing professionals will review pitch letters, make sure that the letters match the actual manuscript and that the manuscript is properly formatted, but the company will not make any recommendations about the quality of the content.

How does it work for agents? According to AgentInbox's FAQ for agents, agents create a profile listing their interests and submission preferences. They can then check their submissions online, sort them by various categories including genre, and "[r]eject unsuitable submissions with a single click, and contact the gems directly."

At present, AgentInbox is free for writers, though in future, premium services may be subject to a fee.

AgentInbox reminds me a lot of Creative Byline (about which I have also blogged), an automated submission service targeted to publishers. Creative Byline provides not just screening, but actual editorial feedback on writers' materials--but otherwise the setup seems quite similar.

Both AgentInbox and Creative Byline are a riff on the manuscript display site, or electronic slush pile, which aims to attract agents and publishers by moving the acquisition process online, and to serve writers by promoting their work direct to publishing professionals, without the need for sending multiple queries. There are many iterations of this basic idea, from the static display site where writers' submissions hang like banners in hopes someone will come along and view them (example: BooksandManuscripts.com), to supposedly more selective display sites where submissions are pre-screened for quality before being made available to registered agents and publishers (example: OnlyOneChapter), to crowd-sourced display sites where reader rankings drive submissions to the top for consideration by participating agents and editors (example: Authonomy).

The display site idea first surfaced in the late 1990's. Despite innovations in concept and advances in technology, electronic slush piles have so far failed to establish themselves as a genuine alternative path to representation or publication (for writers), or as an alternative method of manuscript acquisition (for agents and publishers).

Will AgentInbox--which already has signed up an impressive roster of participating agents, one of whom, according to PW, has already found a client via the service--be the tipping point? Only time will tell. Worth noting, however: Creative Byline, which has been in business for more than a year and a half, continues to have difficulty expanding its publisher list (currently, only six publishers are signed up), and has reported no sales as a result of writers' use of the service. Simply because agents can be more flexible in their acquisition guidelines than publishers, I'd expect a greater success rate for AgentInbox, at least initially. But I would also guess that unless AgentInbox staff do a bit more than just make sure that manuscripts are properly formatted, agents will lose enthusiasm for the service.

(Writers take note: whether or not it improves access to agents, AgentInbox won't help with those most common of writerly gripes, form rejection letters and nonresponse. For agents, one of the advertised perks of the system is that they can "delete [submissions] or send automated rejections with a few clicks.")

Blog Post/Article Roundup

2009-11-11T10:47:00.003-05:00

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware

Some blog posts and articles that piqued my interest over the past few weeks.

Inspired by a silly piece by writer Jeff Rivera on GalleyCat, in which he, the owner of a self-publishing service, and an anonymous author question the usefulness of literary agents, agent Miriam Goderich of Dystel & Goderich provides an eloquent rebuttal: Who Needs an Agent? You Do.

From agent Holly Root: why not to sweat the small stuff. "There’s a ton of ink spilled online over do’s and don’ts for writers, and while I am a firm believer that knowledge is power and all, too much information can be paralyzing, and some of us on this side of the desk are guilty of making it seem much harder than it already is. If you really read and adhered to every.single.thing. every agent said online you would never finish a book or a query letter and if you did it would probably be a bland groupthinked mess, which actually will get you rejections."

Agent Jennifer Jackson provides some helpful advice on query letters, including this explanation of what your query letter may say about you and your book (query-hating writers, pay heed): "Now, I'm not going to say that it's not hard to sum up the book that the writer has spent months, or even years, producing in a way that will make someone want to read it. I think it's a challenge. And you should definitely give it your best shot. Because, yes, the query is an important part of the initial submission. It sets the stage for reading the synopsis and sample pages. It can reveal things such as the writer's background, whether their approach is professional, how they see their novel, and other intangible gut feeling responses."

A pair of really informative posts from agent Rachelle Gardner: How Book Royalties Work and Is Your Book Worth It? (covers what commercial publishers spend on book production).

For writers who, like me, are not enamored of the relentless pressure to self-promote, this New Yorker parody of a marketing plan may make you laugh--or cry.

From writer Caroline Hagood, a short essay on writer's block that I totally relate to. (For me, actually, what Ms. Hagood describes isn't true block--it's more the getting stuckness that I think all writers experience from time to time [and I experience a lot]. True block--the absolute dearth not just of ideas, but of words--is something else again.)

Speaking of being stuck: from Colson Whitehead and the New York Times, some not-exactly-serious ideas for what to write next.

Wanna Be a Virtual Author's Assistant?...Maybe Not

2009-11-03T11:00:00.000-05:00

posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware

As readers of this blog know, I'm fascinated by the strange phenomena that flourish at the fringes of the publishing world. So I was thrilled recently to discover yet another example: an online course that teaches people how to become Virtual Author's Assistants.

What's a Virtual Author's Assistant, you may ask? The course website offers this explanation:

Author's Assistants are people who work behind the scenes to create, organize and coordinate all the different pieces necessary to get a book published. To writers, they are miracle workers.

The world of publishing can be frightening, overwhelming and frustrating. An author's assistant is the expert the writer turns to guide them step by step through the process.

From their homes, Virtual Author's Assistants organize the publishing process for authors around the country and around the world.

Expert? As it turns out, potential Virtual Author’s Assistants need know nothing about the publishing industry. "[D]on’t worry. We'll teach you. All you need is a love of books, a few basic business skills and a desire for fun and interesting work." (Wow. Who knew this publishing stuff was so easy and entertaining? I must have missed that nugget of wisdom in my 25+ years as a writer and writers’ advocate. And gosh, I must be awfully dense, because after all that time, I’m still learning.)

VAA course content includes such important items as how to prepare and proof a manuscript, how to get an ISBN and bar code, how to register copyright, how to put together a media kit, and how to launch an Amazon Bestseller Campaign. Aspiring VAAs will also be tutored in how to create a business website to attract author clients, and ways to identify and solicit authors as business prospects (this article offers a glimpse of how that might be done, encouraging VAAs “to know where authors and aspiring authors hide” and to “[s]ell the author on the amount of money and time you can save them over doing this work themselves”). Those who complete the course will be "a certified graduate of the only course of its kind in the country," and will receive the suitable-for-framing certificate to prove it. They’ll also be eligible to place the "Virtual Author’s Assistant Professional insignia" on their websites and business materials.

Best of all: this expertise can be yours in just 30 days, for a cost of only $597! You can also, optionally, buy a website. For $85 more, you can earn a Master Virtual Author's Assistant certification. And if you’re really enterprising, you can recoup some of your expense by becoming an Affiliate, earning 10% every time you successfully refer someone to the VAA program.

Leaving aside any questions of information quality (the course is offered by Jan B. King, a publishing and business consultant who does appear to have professional writing and publishing experience), this all sounds highly dubious to me. I don't know about you, but if I were hiring an assistant, I'd be looking for someone with real-life experience, not a made-up certification from an online coursepack. Not to mention, I'm not exactly rolling in disposable income--and I'm a commercially-published author who is getting paid for my work. From the verbiage on the Virtual Author's Assistant website (see "The 24 Services Authors Ask For Most"), it's apparent that the main consumers of VAA services are expected to be self-published writers. But what are the odds that such writers, who will have to shell out possibly substantial sums to printers or self-publishing companies, could (or should) afford to pay for an assistant, virtual or otherwise? And if they can, would it not make sense to seek out a specialist--a qualified book shepherd, for example--rather than someone with just 30 days of online training?

So how likely is it really, if you spring for VAA training, that someone will hire you? The VAA website dodges that question, citing only the "thriving" Virtual Assistant industry and alleging that more books would be published "if they had the help of an author's assistant." Another VAA website provides even more circular reasoning in its FAQ: "How competitive is the market for author's assistants? Let me answer this way: About 500,000 new trade books were published last year. At present there are fewer than 300 fully-trained professional virtual author's assistants. The demand is very high for qualified author's assistants and will be for a long time in the future."

The same website hosts a VAA Directory that lists 58 members. A spot check of their websites suggests that most primarily focus on general Virtual Assistant services, so I’m guessing that VAA certification is something most Virtual Assistants add, rather than specialize in. However, that makes it impossible to get a sense of how "high" the "demand" might actually be for VAA services. I did find the website of the International Association of Virtual Author's Assistants, but it appears to be a vehicle for selling marketing and other services to authors, rather than a professional group for VAAs.

Bottom line: this seems to me to be a program that offers little advantage either to people looking for work they can do at home--since I find it extremely unlikely that there really is a "very high," or even a "high," demand for VAAs--or to authors, who may be solicited to pay for services they can ill afford, may not need, and could likely get from more qualified providers. However, I try to keep an open mind--so I’d love it if any successful VAAs or authors who’ve happily used them would comment here.

In the meantime--caveat scriptor, and caveat emptor!

Rights and Copyright

2009-10-29T17:53:00.003-05:00

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware

Copyright, literally, is "the right to copy." It guarantees the authors of creative works--including books, artworks, films, recordings, photographs--the exclusive right for a set period of time to allow other people to copy and distribute the work, by whatever means and in whatever media currently exist. It also prohibits copying and distributing without the author's permission. You own copyright by law, automatically, as soon your work is fixed in tangible form--i.e., the minute you write down the words.

Contained within copyright is the entire bundle of rights that an author can grant to others or utilize him/herself. For book authors, this includes the right to publish in book or other form, to make translations and audio recordings and films, to create serializations or abridgements or derivative works...the list goes on, and continues to expand as technology makes different forms of publication and distribution possible.

When you sign a publishing contract, you are granting the publisher permission to exploit (i.e., to publish and distribute for profit) some or all of your rights for a defined period of time. Because you own the copyright, granting rights doesn't mean you lose or abandon those rights--merely that you authorize someone else to use them for a while, either exclusively (no one else can use them at the same time) or nonexclusively (you can also grant them to others). Eventually, once the contract term has expired or the book has ceased to sell in significant numbers, the publisher will cease publication and relinquish its claim on your rights. This is known as rights reversion. Sometimes reversion is automatic (as in a fixed-term contract); sometimes you must request reversion after the book has been declared out of print (as in a life-of-copyright contract). Once your rights have reverted, you are free to re-sell them if you can or use them yourself, as you choose.

For many readers of this blog, the above will seem pretty elementary. But confusion between rights and copyright is not unusual--not just among authors (one common misplaced fear, that granting rights to a publisher means you lose them forever, is often used as a justification for self-publishing), but among inexperienced publishers. If I had a dollar for every small press contract I've seen that hopelessly conflates rights and copyright (for instance, requiring writers to grant copyright, but then reserving a variety of subrights to the author), I could take my husband Rob out to a very fancy dinner.

Some suggestions to untangle the confusion and protect yourself:

- First and foremost, understand copyright and the rights it gives you. The US Copyright Office, the UK Intellectual Property Office, and the Australian Copyright Council all offer information. The more you know, the more likely it is that you'll recognize bad contract clauses when you run across them.

- Except in specific circumstances, such as doing work-for-hire, don't give away your copyright, not even temporarily. Inexperienced publishers sometimes ask for this, believing they need it to properly exploit authors' rights. They don't--and if things go wrong, it can work out very badly for you.

- You don't necessarily need to be afraid of life-of-copyright contracts. In a fixed-term contract, you grant rights for a defined amount of time--say, three years. In a life-of-copyright contract, you grant rights for the duration of copyright (currently, in the USA and most of Europe, your lifetime plus 70 years). New authors often find life-of-copyright contracts very scary--but they're standard in commercial publishing, and many smaller presses have them also. They are not intended to allow the publisher to hold your rights until 70 years after your death, but rather to create an open-ended situation in which the publisher can keep your book in print for as long as it continues to sell.

Of course, you need to evaluate the situation. For a new small publisher, life-of-copyright might not be such a great idea, since the failure rate for new publishers is very high. A fixed-term contract might be better, as it would at least ensure you got your rights back eventually, even if the publisher didn't bother to return them before disappearing. And a life-of-copyright grant term must be balanced by a rights reversion clause (see below).

- Speaking of grant terms, make sure there is one. Whether it's three years or life-of-copyright, your contract should state the term for which rights are being granted. I've seen small publishers' contracts that lack this important detail.

- Make sure your contract includes some provision for rights reversion. While you want to grant rights to a publisher that will properly exploit them, you also want eventually to get your rights back. When and how this happens should be clearly spelled out in your contract.

A time-limited contract is one way to ensure reversion--but beware of automatic renewal clauses that make it difficult for you to terminate, or that rely on you remembering to send the publisher notice before the renewal date and thus can easily be forgotten. Beware also of excessive grant terms--for instance, the contract of one well-known author mill extends for seven years, which is longer than many commercially-published books remain in print. For a smaller publisher, three to five years, with the possibility of renewal if both parties agree, is probably the most you want to consider.

For life-of-copyright contracts, there should be a rights reversion clause detailing when the work will go out of print (ideally, this should be tied to minimum sales or royalty levels, rather than mere availability for sale, so that the publisher can't hang on to your rights if your book is selling just a couple of copies a year) and what steps you can take to demand that the publisher return your rights (usually, a letter asking the publisher either to republish or return rights, and providing a timeframe for the publisher to respond). Never sign a life-of-copyright contract that does not include such a clause. Yes, they exist; I've seen them.

Also look for a clause requiring the publisher to publish within a specific period of time (say, 12-24 months), or else return rights. This will prevent the publisher from sitting on your book without ever publishing it, or from pushing the publishing date back indefinitely due to incompetence or malice.

- Last but very definitely not least, never rely on a publisher's verbal assurances. A confused or devious publisher may assure you that, even though its contract requires you to give up copyright, "you aren't really losing your copyright, because we'll give it back later on." Or, even though its life-of-copyright contract doesn't include a reversion clause, "you don't need to worry, because we never hold on to rights forever." Maybe the publisher means it, maybe it doesn't--but do you really want to risk signing with a publisher whose contract doesn't match its promises? Along with Yog's Law, a principle by which authors should always abide is this: If it's not in writing, it doesn't exist.

For more on copyright, including the reasons why you don't need to register copyright for unpublished work and a discussion of several common copyright myths, see the Copyright page of the Writer Beware website.

Author Mills and a Request for Contact

2009-10-21T14:01:00.003-05:00

Unlike commercial or trade publishers, whose business model is based on book volume (selling as many books as possible from a limited number of authors), author mills' business model is based on author volume (selling a limited number of books from as many authors as possible). The most famous example of an author mill is PublishAmerica, but there are others, such as VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller, an academic author mill.

Unlike vanity publishers or self-publishing services, author mills don't charge upfront fees--which is why they can convincingly present themselves as "real" publishers--but they often do their best to turn their authors into customers, heavily encouraging them to buy their own books, or incentivizing self-purchases with special offers and discounts. Because of the need for author volume, editorial gatekeeping is lax (though many author mills, knowing how much authors crave validation, claim to be selective). Author mills protect their profits by doing everything on the cheap, with minimal or nonexistent editing, interior and cover design that's straight-from-template, and no meaningful marketing or distribution, resulting in tiny sales for the average author mill book. They also often have exploitive, nonstandard contracts.

Because author mills are typically deceptive in the way they present themselves, many writers believe they are signing up with real publishers, and are bitterly disappointed by their publishing experience. Author mills may also be ineffectual, haphazard, or grudging about fulfilling their contractual obligations--so even writers who go into the relationship with their eyes open may not receive what they expect.

I'm currently writing an article on author mills, and as part of my research I'd like to hear from writers who have published with an author mill. I'm interested not just in writers who had problems, or whose expectations weren't fulfilled, but in writers who chose an author mill specifically for what it could do for them, and were satisfied with the result.

Please email me at beware@sfwa.org. In accordance with Writer Beware's policies, I'll keep all information completely confidential (it will NOT be shared) unless you specifically give me permission to quote you (which I can do without using your name, if you prefer). Don't worry if you get my autoresponder--I'm away from home at the moment, but will be back early next week and will reply then.

Thanks so much!

Why Referral Fees Present Ethical Problems

2009-10-15T08:36:00.000-05:00

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware

This is a followup to my post on Thomas Nelson's new self-publishing division, West Bow Press--specifically, on Nelson's plans to pay referral fees to agents and others who refer writers to West Bow.

Agent Rachelle Gardner has written a thoughtful blog post on West Bow (I agree with much of her analysis), which has generated a lively comments thread. The issue of referral fees is discussed by a number of commenters, including Nelson's Michael Hyatt, who says:

With regard to agents getting a referral fee, I don't see how that is much different than the way it is now. (I was an agent myself for eight years, so I am speaking from my experience.) While the agent represents the author in a traditional relationship, his or her money comes from the publisher. In this case, the same is true. Obviously, as an agent of integrity, you wouldn't make this recommendation to your client unless you (a) disclosed your compensation and (b) felt it was good for your client—just like traditional publishing.

Several commenters agree. However, I have some problems with this reasoning.

Referral fees are not analogous to commissions. An agent who sells an author's work to a commercial publisher gets a percentage of what is paid to the author. An agent who gets a fee for successfully referring an author to a self-publishing service gets a percentage of what the author pays. In the first case, the author (not the publisher) is rewarding the agent for services rendered. In the second case, the publisher is rewarding the agent for services purchased. Big difference.

As to integrity, I'm sure there will be agents who will make responsible referrals, providing full disclosure and recommending West Bow only for authors they really believe will benefit. I'm also sure there will be agents who won't. Some agents may even make referrals a standard part of their rejection letters (as successful agency Objective Entertainment has done with AuthorHouse), whether West Bow is appropriate for the author or not--and many authors will take such referrals more seriously than they otherwise might, since they'll perceive that they are backed by the agent's reputation and authority. Relying on integrity to ensure that an abuseable system isn't abused is naive at best.

Another consideration: who will be most motivated by the prospect of a referral fee? Not, I would guess, agents who are making good money on rights sales, and thus have no need to nickel and dime their rejections (or, if they wanted to recommend West Bow for altruistic reasons, would likely do so whether there were a fee or not). For mid-level agents, however, and especially for amateur and disreputable agents, referral fees could be extremely attractive. When fraudulent editing service Edit Ink was paying fees to agents who sent it business, there were disreputable agencies that survived entirely on the income they got from those referrals. It's true that Edit Ink dates back to the 1990's, which is like a century ago in Internet time--but the basic motivator, easy money, is the same.

Of course, if the referral fees Nelson plans to pay are on the order of those offered by AuthorHouse's Affiliate Program, even questionable agents may not be all that interested. If they're more like Edit Ink's, however (EI paid referrers 15% of what the author paid, and EI's charges were typically in the thousands) the temptation will be more substantial.

In 2001, self-publishing service Xlibris (then independent, now part of the Author Solutions empire) attempted to launch a similar referral program, with agents who referred authors to Xlibris receiving a percentage of the fees authors paid the company for its services. At the time, memory of Edit Ink and other writers' scams, several of which received considerable media coverage, was still current, and public criticism forced Xlibris to abandon the program. Public memory is short, though. This time around, I fear that many people will simply file Nelson's referral fee plans in the "publishing is changing" drawer, which is a handy place to store issues you don't much want to think about.

Thomas Nelson Adds Self-Publishing Imprint

2009-10-13T08:53:00.004-05:00

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware

As reported today in the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Nelson, a major independent Christian publisher, is adding a self-publishing line to its business.

Books from the new imprint, West Bow Press, will be designed, printed, and distributed by Author Solutions, the self-publishing mega-company whose brands include AuthorHouse, iUniverse, Trafford, Xlibris, and WordClay.

Per the WSJ article, "Thomas Nelson editors won't edit the self-published manuscripts, but they will monitor sales to identify potential big sellers. Specific terms of the arrangement weren't disclosed."

Certainly this is an indication of the ambition and clout of Author Solutions, which over the past couple of years has acquired several rival companies, and attempted--in my opinion extremely misleadingly--to reinvent itself as an "indie publisher".

But might it also be a sign of things to come in the commercial publishing world? According to the WSJ article, Nelson is "searching for new revenue as the book industry continues to struggle." And that potential for new revenue is large indeed; in 2008, according to PW, the number of on-demand and short-run titles (the bulk of which represent offerings by self-publishing companies) jumped by 132% (total growth since 2002: 774%), outstripping books produced by "traditional production methods". Not only does adding a self-publishing line allow a publisher to cash in this trend, it presents the possibility of monetizing rejections. By the same token, the self-publishing service's connection with a major publisher will be a major attraction for authors--especially if the publisher suggests that it may take the better-performing books commercial.

I've speculated before about the possibility that more commercial publishers may add self-publishing divisions in order to keep their core publishing business afloat, as has Jane Smith at her How Publishing Really Works blog. I don't often prognosticate about the future of publishing--but I have a hunch that this is something we'll see more of in coming years.

Edited 10/14 to add: Michael Hyatt of Thomas Nelson has written a long blog post about West Bow Press.

It appears that there will be a referral fee component to the program. Nelson is looking "to work with agents and consultants as 'WestBow Press Affiliates,' so that they can help more authors realize their dream of getting published. Rather than simply send a rejection letter, they can now offer a legitimate alternative and earn a referral fee in the process." Given the potential for abuse inherent in such referral programs, this is a dismaying development, and I hope that Nelson will reconsider.

A Question You Don't Want Your Publisher to Ask

2009-10-09T11:07:00.005-05:00

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware

Here are eight words you never want to hear from a publisher that is considering your manuscript for publication:

"How many books are you planning to order?"

Many writers are aware that it's a major red flag when a publisher's contract includes a clause requiring authors to buy their own books, or to commit to some kind of sales guarantee. Since an outlay of cash is a condition of publication, this is vanity publishing--what we at Writer Beware call "back-end" vanity publishing, since you're buying into the end of the publication process (finished books) rather than the beginning (paying for the book to be produced).

Stealthier back-end vanity publishers rely on pressure and encouragement, rather than contract clauses, to get authors to purchase their own books. They may produce "author manuals" that extol self-purchases with promises of huge profits, or employ "publicists" whose sole job is convincing authors that buying their books for re-sale is essential to success, or offer frequent special deals and discounts (buy 50 books, get 10 free!) to make self-purchases as attractive as a sale on canned soup at the grocery store. Since inexperienced authors may not know a lot about how publishing is supposed to work, they can be easily ensnared by this kind of deception.

Still other publishers that focus on author self-purchases are well-intentioned amateur efforts run by people who have no professional publishing experience, little or no financing, and, often, no concrete business plan. Because of their lack of capitalization and marketing expertise, it's very tempting for such publishers to settle into a business model where they rely on their authors as their principal customer base and sales force. This creates a closed loop, in which published books are marketed mainly to the books' creators--all but eliminating the publisher’s risk, and even possibly, guaranteeing a small profit. It’s this kind of publisher that’s most likely to ask you the question with which I began this post, rather than surprising you with contractual purchase requirements or bombarding you with special offers post-publication--since its intentions are basically benign, and it's not consciously trying to deceive or screw you.

Intentions aside, the author is the loser in all three of these scenarios. A publisher that relies on its authors as a main or major source of income is considerably reducing--if not entirely removing--its incentive to market and distribute the books it publishes. Why should it bother trying to sell books to the public, when it can turn its authors into customers? Why should it expend money and effort on getting books into the hands of readers, when it can persuade writers to function as an unpaid sales force, buying their own books and then re-selling them?

In each case, the publisher is failing to do what publishers are supposed to do: get books out into the world. While it's certainly true that authors nowadays are expected to self-promote, the self-promotion an author can do and the marketing a publisher should do are two different things--and without your publisher's active marketing and distribution support (I'm not talking here about writing press releases or getting books listed on Amazon), you have very little platform on which to build your self-promotion efforts. You're likely to wind up in much the same position as if you'd self-published--except that you'll probably have a more restrictive contract, a less professional product, and, in the case of the more unscrupulous back-end vanities, a considerably smaller bank account.

So if a publisher asks you about your plans for buying your own book, be on your guard. Even if the publisher isn’t obviously a vanity, even if it assures you that it's only collecting preliminary data and declares that your answer will have no bearing on its decision, the mere fact that it's thinking about author self-purchases at this early stage of the game is reason enough to move on.

(This post, by the way, was inspired by a real example: Black Rose Writing, which recently moved from just asking about authors' purchase plans, to actually including a purchase requirement in its contract.)

Thoughts on Self-Promotion

2009-10-06T10:09:00.003-05:00

Posted by Victoria Strauss

As I close in on the end of my current writing project, the issue of self-promotion is much on my mind. I don't mind admitting that it's a prospect I contemplate with dread. I'm one of those I-just-want-to-sit-in-my-room-with-my-laptop writers who really is not constitutionally suited for a world in which the definition of "author" also includes "huckster" (or, if you want to be a bit more diplomatic about it, "entrepreneur").

Nevertheless, self-promotion is a fact of life for today's book writer, an issue that's explored in an interesting article by Neely Tucker of the Washington Post. The article explores the dizzying array of self-promotional options that are made possible, in large part, by the Internet. To relatively old-school methods like readings, signings, and author websites, the Web has added blogs, blog tours, social networking, book trailers, and more.

"Being an author has become much more of an ongoing relationship with your audience through the Web, rather than just writing a book and disappearing while you write the next one," says Liate Stehlik, publisher of William Morrow and Avon Books. "You have to be out there in the online world, talking and participating."

Typically, the article starts out with a success story: Kelly Corrigan, whose cancer-survivor memoir was not tagged by her publisher for any extra promotional perks, and who took promotion into her own hands. Corrigan created a book trailer, got friends to host book parties, put together her own book tour, hand-sold her books, and posted a video of one of her readings on YouTube. The end result: 20 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list, and a second career as a paid speaker.

Does this give me hope for the success of my own self-promotional plan, whatever it may eventually be? Does it make me more motivated to roll up my sleeves and dive into the self-promotion ocean? Well, sure. But there are also some things I'm keeping in mind.

The article ties some of the trend toward self-promotion to publishers' shrinking publicity budgets. But the truth is that publishers never provided significant promotion for more than a handful of their authors, even in pre-Internet days. What's really driving the self-promotional frenzy, in my opinion, is the dilution of the market. As the article points out, 560,000 books were published in the USA last year (more than were published in the entire 10-year period between 1980 and 1989, when title output averaged around 51,000 per year). Even if you subtract the nearly 300,000 that were self- or micropress-published, that's way too many books. How do you make your book stand out from thousands of others in your subject or genre? Go forth, intrepid author, and self-promote!

But if the book market is overcrowded and fragmented, the new self-promotional frontier of the Internet is even more so. Not only is there a tremendous number of different options, every other author with a new book to flog is rushing to take advantage of them. For each new Web-based self-promotional strategy that comes along, there's a narrow window of opportunity in which it's actually possible to grab some eyeballs; thereafter, everyone piles on, and you wind up struggling not just for the visibility of your book, but for the visibility of your book trailer or blog or Twitterfeed or whatever. So as I plan my self-promotion strategy, I need to remember that, just as my book will be competing against too many others, so will my efforts to promote it.

Another thing to note: Kelly Corrigan's book was nonfiction, a memoir about cancer survival. This gave her advantage--not just over fiction authors (the market for nonfiction is much bigger than for fiction, and nonfiction audiences are often easier to identify and target) but over many nonfiction authors, since cancer is a subject of urgent interest to enormous numbers of people.

Often, however, when self-promotion is discussed, it's discussed as if all books are more or less the same, and any and all self-promotional methods are equally applicable. But books are not the same, nor are readers. Though there's always some overlap, the audience for nonfiction is different from the audience for fiction. The audience for romance is different from the audience for thrillers. The audience for YA is different from the audience for middle grade. In other words, the method that worked for one author will not necessarily work for you. In planning my self-promotional strategy, I'll look at everything, but I'll look most closely at what authors in my own market area are doing.

And that brings me to the final thing I'll be keeping in mind as I think about self-promotion: no one actually knows what works. Agent Richard Pine, quoted in the Post article, praises Kelly Corrigan's self-promotional moxie, but points out that "Her videos could have not worked just as easily as it turned out they did." The article goes on to say:

So all these shiny things that go fast are really fun to produce, and some are even fun to watch. But do they move units any better than the old-fashioned author signings in a local bookstore? Do they help a book sell more copies, or merely keep pace with others in the marketplace?

Nobody really knows, a range of publishers and industry watchers say. There is not a clear-cut means of connecting Web site traffic, say, to results in sales, and some experts warn new authors not to go overboard.

In this, despite the bells and whistles of the Internet, the promotional game has not changed at all. Publishers have never really been able to reliably tie sales data to promotional methods--and even if, in some cases, they can, what's effective for one book will not necessarily be effective for another.

The key, I think, is to be realistic. Have a plan. Do your research. Know the options. Keep your head--don't get carried away by the hype that surrounds every new self-promotional strategy. Keep it reasonable--for your budget, your time- and energy-level (don't let self-promotion cut too deeply into the time you allot to your real job, writing), and your personality (do conventions stress you out? Do you despise Twitter? Then focus your efforts elsewhere). Even if you can't really know what will work, be aware of what probably won't--press releases, email blasts, "marketing" services that will charge you an arm and a leg for Web-based strategies that are either not worth doing or doable on your own (here's one example).

And never forget that the basis of all self-promotion is something very simple, and infinitely complex: a good book. There really is no substitute.

Victoria Strauss -- The Perils of Searching For Publishers on the Internet

2009-10-01T11:55:00.002-05:00

Imagine you're a new writer. You've just completed your first manuscript, and are on fire to get it published. You don't know a lot about the publishing world, or how to identify a good publisher for your book--but that's okay. You have the Internet.

So you open a search engine--Google, let's say--and type "publishers" into the search box. Here's what you get.

The two top nonsponsored listings are for Random House and HarperCollins--big names that you may recognize. You navigate through their websites for submission information...bummer. In your genre, they won't look at any manuscript that doesn't have an agent.

The sponsored listings look a lot more encouraging. Instead of "Agented submissions only," they say things like "We Want to Read Your Book!" and "Get your book published today--the industry leader for new authors!" and "The only choice for new authors." There's just one problem. Of the eleven listings, ten are for fee-based publishers (though you may not realize that right away, since some are less than candid about the fact that you have to pay) or self-publishing services. The eleventh is for a "publisher search" website that includes no real publishers, only vanity publishers and self-publishing companies.

Suppose, instead of Googling "publishers," you'd Googled "book publishers." Here's what you'd see, and it's just as bad. Of the nonsponsored listings, Random House is first...and PublishAmerica is third. Again, there are eleven sponsored listings--ten for fee-based publishers or publishing services, and one for another faux publisher search website, this one registered to Author Solutions, parent of self-publishing services AuthorHouse, iUniverse, Xlibris, Trafford, and WordClay. Guess which publishers it suggests?

Just about any general search you may do--"novel publishers" or "find a publisher" or "getting published" or "how to get published"--is fraught with similar perils. Of course, the search pages also throw up helpful links--to Absolute Write, or Publishers Marketplace, or Publishers Weekly, or Harold Underdown's tongue-in-cheek but very helpful how-do-I-get-it-published quiz. But I've gotten enough email over the years to know that many inexperienced writers look no farther than the highly-visible sponsored links.

All of which underscores the need for caution on the Internet. (Yes, I know I've blogged about this before, but it's such a consistent issue for the writers who contact me that the point can't be made too often.) Don't get me wrong--I love the Internet, and can't imagine my professional life without it. It's an invaluable research resource, offering unprecedented access to a treasure trove of information, enabling knowledgeable writers to fine-tune their agent- and publisher-quests as never before. For new writers, however, it can pose substantial hazards, since there's at least as much bad information as good--not to mention all the people who want to sell you something that may not be good for you. Even so-called professional resources aren't always reliable--the writing and editing question forums at LinkedIn, supposedly a place for business and professional networking, are absolute pits of bad advice and misinformation--and as for writers' message boards, it's a good idea never to forget that people who know nothing are as eager to opine as people who know something.

Unless writers are able to filter the information they find online, they're at risk of making bad decisions or falling victim to predators. In other words, writers need to know something about publishing before they start searching for publishers (or agents). Rather than plunging in and attempting to learn on the fly, it's a much better idea to first take the time to build a knowledge base. There are many ways to do this, and it doesn't have to be tedious. My blog post, "Learning the Ropes," offers some suggestions.

Trust me: it's one of the best investments in your future career you'll ever make.

Victoria Strauss -- Google Book Search Settlement Fairness Hearing Adjourned

2009-09-28T09:32:00.002-05:00

I'm a bit tardy on reporting this, but what can I say--I was on vacation last week, and didn't bring my laptop. What's more, I didn't miss it a bit. No email, no blogging, no Twitter--bliss! Which just goes to prove that I'm not an Internet addict. No, not me. I can quit any...time...I...want...to.

Anyway.

Last week, the U.S. Justice Department's anti-trust division urged the court to reject the Google Book Search Settlement, citing "concerns of the United States regarding class action, copyright and antitrust law." (The full text of the DOJ's brief can be seen here.) However, it urged the parties to continue discussion, since "a properly structured settlement agreement in this case offers the potential for important societal benefits, [and] the United States does not want the opportunity or momentum to be lost."

As a result, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers petitioned the court to adjourn the Fairness Hearing scheduled for 10/7, arguing that negotiations with the DOJ would substantially change the provisions of the Settlement and that, under those circumstances, it made no sense to seek approval of the current Settlement. On 9/24, Judge Denny Chin granted the petition. However, parties to the Settlement will still have to appear on 10/7, as Judge Chin has scheduled a status conference for that date.

In his adjournment order, Judge Chin noted that "the current settlement agreement raises significant issues, demonstrated not only by the number of objections, but also by the fact that the objectors include countries, states, nonprofit organizations, and prominent authors and law professors." However, "the proposed settlement would offer many benefits to society, as recognized by supporters of the settlement as well as DOJ...if a fair and reasonable settlement can be struck, the public would benefit."

So...it's back to the negotiating table. Meanwhile, Google faces a challenge in France, as the AFP (France's publishers' association) and Society of Authors contest Google's digitization project in a court case that opened on 9/24.

I'll be following these stories as they unfold.

I chose to opt out of the Settlement (for my reasons for doing so, see below). Now that the Settlement is off the table as it currently stands, that choice may be moot. Given my concerns about copyright, as well as the ways in which Google seems poised to monetize its vast digital library and the impact that may have on authors' rights, I think there's a good chance I won't change my mind--but in light of what are likely to be substantial changes, it seems only fair that authors be given the opportunity to reconsider their decisions. It will be interesting to see if, in fact, we get that chance.

For reference, my previous posts on the Google Book Settlement:

4/28/09: Judge Extends Google Book Search Settlement Deadline

7/3/09: DOJ Investigates Google Book Search Settlement

8/14/09: SFWA's Statement on Google Book Search Settlement

9/1/09: Google Book Search Settlement Deadline Looming

9/4/09: Why I Opted Out

Victoria Strauss -- Airleaf: Coda

2009-09-18T12:22:00.000-05:00

In May 2008, the Indiana Attorney General filed suit against vanity publisher Airleaf and its owner, Carl Lau for taking authors' money without providing services in return. Additionally, Lau was accused of violating Indiana's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, of using company assets to cover expenses not related to the business, and of continuing to solicit authors, promise services, and accept payment for months after Airleaf became insolvent. The suit sought restitution for Airleaf authors, civil penalties of up to $5,500 per violation, and reimbursement for the cost of the investigation.

A Consent Judgment between the AG and Airleaf/Lau was entered on June 30, 2008. There was a provision for restitution--but for just two of the 120 authors named in the suit.

On August 21, those authors received the following email from the Attorney General's Office:

Dear Consumer,

As most of you know, on June 30, 2008 the Office of the Indiana Attorney General entered into a Consent Judgment with Airleaf and its owner, Carl Lau. Among other things, the judgment contained a provision regarding restitution for your particular loss. For those of you who do not already have a copy of the judgment, please feel free to access a PDF version via www.IndianaConsumer.com. Our ongoing investigation since that filing was made revealed that Airleaf and its owner are insolvent and any attempt at formal collection activity would therefore be fruitless.

On August 3, 2009 Carl Lau and his wife filed a join ‘no asset’ Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana, under Case Number 09-11308-AJM-7. The filing again confirms our conclusion that further attempts to secure restitution are inadvisable.

Enclosed you will find a Notice of Bankruptcy Filing the Bankruptcy Court recently sent to my Office. Please note that the due date for “objections to discharge” is November 20, 2009. Bankruptcy law allows creditors (which you are by virtue of the Consent Judgment) to file a lawsuit within the bankruptcy proceeding to prevent discharge of the debt at issued if the creditor can prove fraud.

The State has concluded that such a lawsuit, even if prosecuted successfully, will not be collectable. Therefore, we will be unable to obtain restitution for your loss. If you believe you might wish to pursue such a lawsuit on your own, please consult a private attorney.

Sincerely,

Tom Irons, Deputy Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division

It's disappointing, but not surprising. Cases of this type tend to be mainly moral victories; there's rarely any money left for restitution.

Details of Lau's bankruptcy filing (which suggest that he has at least some assets) can be seen in a news article reproduced at Airleaf victim advocate Bonnie Kaye's blog.

On an unrelated note, Writer Beware is about to go on vacation, so no blog posts for the coming week. See you when I return!

Victoria Strauss -- VDM Verlag Dr. Mueller

2009-09-14T09:36:00.004-05:00

For some time, I've been receiving questions about VDM Verlag Dr Mueller, a German academic publisher. VDM describes its business thus:

VDM publishes academic research worldwide - at no cost to our authors. Annually, we publish more than 10,000 new titles and are thus one of the leading publishing houses of academic research. We specialize in publishing theses, dissertations, and research projects.

VDM uses digital technology (which it dubs "print-to-order [PTO], a further development of the print-on-demand [POD] procedure") to make its books and monographs "available" (which just means they can be special-ordered) through online and physical booksellers. There's no cost to authors, who receive a "fee" plus "up to" 20 free copies of their book. There's also no editing or proofreading: what you turn in is what's printed, and the process for doing so, in which authors essentially create their own books and covers, is very similiar to uploading content to a self-publishing service. Retail prices are absurdly inflated, even for a digitally-based publisher. As for marketing, "data is optimized by the publishing house and entered in all relevant catalogues worldwide. The book is offered to the leading international book distributors." Put another way: there isn't any.

VDM, in other words, is an academic author mill.

Author mills, which must maintain an enormous volume of authors in order to make money, have a voracious appetite. Those that feed on book writers need only lie in wait on the Internet, since book writers are actively seeking publication--but students and professors may not be, or may be looking only in specialized areas, so rather than wait for them to come to it, an academic author mill must go to them. VDM (and its clones--see the last paragraph) do a lot of cold call solicitation.

If you receive one of VDM's emails, and you've got an old dissertation sitting around, you may think you have nothing to lose, and might even get a little exposure and a bit of money. Be warned, though: the terms of VDM's contract (which Writer Beware has seen) are not author-friendly.

- The contract requires an exclusive life-of-copyright rights transfer, without any provision for releasing those rights other than VDM failing to publish or deciding to discontinue publication. The author's only possible recourse would appear to be Article 41 of the German Copyright Act, which allows writers to revoke licenses "[i]f the holder of an exclusive exploitation right does not exercise such right or exercises it insufficiently." VDM doesn't allow the author to exercise this entitlement until five years have passed, however--and good luck proving "insufficiently."

- The contract allows VDM to transfer the licenses you've granted to third parties without your permission (though if it's paid for those uses, you get 50%).

- In the contract I saw (as well as in this archived VDM author information sheet from mid-2008), ebook royalties were 40%, and print royalties 12%--both paid on net revenue. This may be a relatively recent policy for the company, however. My research turned up discussion from 2007 suggesting that VDM was paying print authors just 3% of net.

- Royalties are scheduled to be paid just once a year.

- Or possibly never. "In order to cover the administration expense and the data management," VDM is not obliged to pay you anything if your royalties average 10 euros or less per month. With a print-on-demand academic book, this is entirely possible--indeed, it's quite likely, especially given VDM's eye-popping cover prices. Moreover, if royalties average 50 euros or less per month, you'll receive book vouchers instead of money. I would guess that VDM rarely has to write a royalty check.

VDM also does business as VDM Publishing House, LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, Südwestdeutsche Verlag für Hochschulschriften, Verlag Classic Edition (VCE), and Alphascript Publishing--which appears to specialize in cobbling free Wikipedia entries into expensive books, (VDM's defense of this policy can be seen here).

Victoria Strauss -- Writers' Myth: "You Have To Know Someone"

2009-09-10T11:25:00.002-05:00

We've punctured a number of writers' myths on this blog, including the notion that commercially-published writers must give back their advances if their books don't earn out, the fear that agents and editors will blacklist writers who displease them, the conviction that "just getting it out there" (via self-publishing, for instance) is enough to jump-start a career, the idea that getting published is some kind of crapshoot, and the "everyone has to start somewhere" excuse that throws so many writers into the arms of amateur agents and publishers.

Here's another one: "You have to know someone in order to get published."

Agents and editors simply aren't interested in work by unknown writers, this myth goes, because unknowns are too risky. In order to get attention for your debut manuscript, you need to be famous, have a friend or relative in the publishing biz, be referred by a client, or already possess a publishing track record (hence a popular variant of the myth, "You can't get published without an agent, but you can't get an agent unless you're published"). Without these connections, your chances of selling your first book are practically nil.

Of course, having connections doesn't hurt. But trust me, they aren't a pre-requisite for publication. If they were, very few debuts would ever reach the market.

Along with the "everyone has to start somewhere" fallacy, the "you have to know someone" myth is one of the most pernicious, because it convinces many writers that it's not even worth trying for commercial publication. Instead of boldly querying the top agents who can get their manuscripts onto the desks of editors at big publishing houses, or going direct to the reputable independent publishers that accept unagented submissions, many writers who buy into this myth confine their queries to amateur or track-recordless agents, or decide to self-publish, or approach only micro-presses. Of course, while hooking up with an amateur agent is never a good move, self- or micro-press publication can be entirely appropriate in the right circumstances. But if you have commercial ambitions, it's probably not the best place to start--especially if you haven't even given the commercial route a chance. You'll never know whether you could have succeeded if you don't try.

We've actually touched on this myth before. Then, we had only anecdotal evidence with which to debunk it. Now there's something a bit more solid.

A few weeks back, YA author Megan Crewe decided to conduct an inquiry into the publishing connections myth. She recently published the results of her poll--and they're very interesting.

270 writers participated, representing a variety of genres: children's picture books, middle grade, YA, adult genre, and adult literary/mainstream. Although "[o]nly 55% of the respondents had an agent when they sold their first book,"

[t]he majority of the authors who had an agent, got that agent with no prior connection (62%). They simply cold-queried the agent, submitted their book or proposal, and were offered representation...

Authors were even less likely to have a connection to the editor who bought their first book. 72% sold to an editor they had no connection to (28% cold-queried or submitted on their own, 44% had their agent submit to an editor the author didn't know).

Megan's conclusion:

The poll wasn't perfect, but it seems pretty clear to me that having connections in the publishing industry is far from necessary when it comes to both getting an agent and getting an editor to buy your book. So if you have connections, sure, go ahead and use them. Certainly can't hurt. But if you don't have any, if you can't afford to go to conferences to meet agents and editors, don't despair. Cold querying works just fine!

There you have it--persuasive proof that you do not, in fact, need to know anyone in order to sell your first book.

(A note on the respondents who sold their first books without an agent: Given the reluctance of the larger houses to deal with unagented authors, the fact that nearly half the respondents had no agent surprises me. However, many respondents appear to have been children's picture book writers, which is one of the markets in which it's more feasible to go agentless, even with the bigger publishers. Also, the numbers may be skewed by when the writers sold their books--before the 1990's, the big houses were still relatively open to unagented writers--or to whom, since smaller publishers are more likely to be willing to work directly with authors.)

(And another note, on why, rather than triggering publishers' and agents' risk-averseness, new writers can actually be more attractive than established ones: A new writer is an unknown quantity. He or she could fail--but s/he could also break big. J.K. Rowling and Stephenie Meyer are extreme examples, but there are many more modest ones. An established writer, on the other hand, is a known quantity, since publishers and agents always have access to his or her Bookscan numbers--and this is not always a good thing, especially if the writer's sales have been flat over a couple of books, or if they're actually shrinking. In those circumstances, the publisher may well well feel that the untapped potential of the brand-new writer is a better investment than the lackluster track record of the established author, who may have proven his/her talent and professionalism, but has also demonstrated that s/he is not going to break out. This is why I'm always saying that while the difficulty of first publication hasn't changed greatly over the past few decades, sustaining a career has become enormously more challenging.)

Victoria Strauss -- Google Book Search Settlement: Opting Out

2009-09-04T11:50:00.002-05:00

This morning, I opted out of the Google Book Search Settlement.

For several months, I've had no question that I did NOT want my books included in Google's database. It's not the display of bibliographic information, or even snippets, that I object to--it's the possible uses the settlement empowers Google to make of my work down the road (including selling my books in electronic and POD form). If those uses were limited and clearly defined, I might not have a problem--but they aren't, and I just can't see allowing such a sweeping license to my work, where the implications of granting that license are so unclear.

My only question was whether my desire not to participate in the Settlement would be best accomplished by opting out--in which case Google would "voluntarily" honor my request not to digitize or display my books, but not be barred from changing its mind at some point in the future; the advantage is that I would retain my right to sue Google for infringement--or by opting in and directing Google to remove my books from its database, in which case I would waive forever my right to legal action against Google for any use of my work. Either option presents the risk that Google might at some future point renege, and I might find my work used anyway.

Two things convinced me that opting out was not only the best, but also the most morally acceptable, decision. The first was reading Scott E. Gant's objection to the Settlement, which provides a blistering analysis of the Settlement's raid upon the very ground of copyright, and also of the inadequacy of Google's efforts to notify copyright holders. It convinced me that I couldn't accept the Settlement, even to the degree of opting in solely to prevent Google from using my work.

The second was my conviction that the Settlement will not be approved at the Fairness Hearing on October 7. The flaws are just too glaring, the objections are just too persuasive--and then there's the Dept. of Justice's antitrust investigation. There could be years of litigation ahead. For writers who've opted into the Settlement--or who've done nothing and have been opted in by default--what will the rights implications be? I don't want to be a party to that either.

In an article from the Guardian that I read this morning, an advocate of the Settlement is quoted:

"The obvious social justice and social utility impact that the book project is going to have ... are getting lost in the discussion," said Professor Lateef Mtima, director of the Institute of Intellectual Property & Social Justice at Howard University, a pioneering black college in Washington.

He suggested it would help "so many segments of our society today who for decades have been left out of the communication exchange, who have been on the wrong side of the digital divide".

I don't disagree. In fact, I think it's a compelling argument. The article continues:

However, critics of the deal said that this does not address their concerns with the settlement - which are not about whether digitising books is useful, but whether the specific terms of the deal will hamper innovation and damage authors.

For me, this is exactly the issue. As alluring as is the prospect of a universal, digital world library, I don't believe that the Settlement, fatally flawed as it is, is the way to establish that.

If you decide you want to opt out, there's still time--you have till the end of today. See my previous post on opting out for links and information.

Victoria Strauss -- Florida Attorney General Files Suit Against Robert Fletcher / Writers' Literary Agency

2009-09-03T15:01:00.003-05:00

As many readers of this blog know, Robert Fletcher, purported literary agent and publisher, from whom Writer Beware recently won court costs after he filed a frivolous defamation lawsuit against us, has been the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Florida Attorney General's Office.

Today, the Attorney General, Bill McCollum, announced that his office has filed suit against Fletcher. Here's the official press release:

Attorney General Bill McCollum today announced that his office filed a lawsuit against a Boca Raton company that allegedly preyed on aspiring authors. According to the Attorney General’s lawsuit, Writer’s Literary Agency and owner Robert Fletcher used more than 20 websites and related companies to collect funds from potential authors, but misled victims about fees, costs, and promised results.

The Attorney General’s Economic Crimes Division received more than 175 complaints from around the world claiming Fletcher and his associates, who claimed to act as literary agents and publishers, allegedly collected money from victims anxious to see their work published. Potential writers paid anywhere from $89 for an initial critique to over $600 for various services including editing and marketing of a manuscript to publishers. Allegedly, Fletcher also told potential writers that fees were paid from book sales when in fact all costs of publishing were paid by the authors. According to the lawsuit, few books were ever sold as a result of the efforts of Fletcher’s companies.

Investigators determined Fletcher expanded into the field of publishing within the past year. Fletcher admitted to having no background as a literary agent and to using at least 10 aliases in his businesses.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief against Robert Fletcher and his associates, as well as his many businesses, prohibiting further business activities in the field of literary agencies or publishers. The Attorney General is also seeking full restitution on behalf of all victimized consumers, civil penalties of $10,000 for each violation of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and reimbursement for fees and costs related to the investigation.

As is often the case in these situations, the info in the press release only skims the surface. Just 175 complaints are mentioned, but over the years (Fletcher started his business, a single fee-charging "literary agency" known as Sydra-Techniques, in 2001), Writer Beware has received hundreds, possibly well over a thousand, complaints about Fletcher and his companies. And although many of his victims did pay just a few hundred dollars, many others were relieved of several thousand for agenting, editing, and publishing "services."

The lawsuit can be seen here.

Victoria Strauss -- Google Book Search Settlement Deadline Looming

2009-09-01T11:58:00.003-05:00

Writers: The deadline for deciding whether to opt out of the Google Book Search Settlement is September 4, 2009. That means you have just four days to decide.

If you want to opt out, you must do so by September 4, or lose your chance forever. Opting out must be done in writing. You may opt out online, or send a written notice by US mail, postmarked on or before September 4 (instructions and address are here).

If you don't opt out, you will automatically be included in the Settlement. You'll then have until January 2010 to log in to the Book Search website, set up an account, and claim your work.

(Note: many of the links below are from the FAQ on the Google Book Search Settlement website.)

The Book Search Settlement covers all works published on or before January 5, 2009 (so if your work was published after that date, or is yet to be published, you aren't affected), and anyone with a US copyright interest (don't assume, if you're not a US writer, that this doesn't mean you--if your book was published or distributed in the USA, you may be included). "Works" means both books and inserts (shorter pieces included in a longer work).

Google defines a book as "a written or printed work" that meets the following conditions:

- It was published or distributed to the public or made available for public access under the authorization of the work’s U.S. copyright owner or owners on sheets of paper bound together in hard copy form; and
- It was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, UNLESS the work is not a "United States work" under the U.S. Copyright Act, in which case such registration is not required; and
- It is subject to a U.S. copyright interest (either through ownership, joint ownership, or an exclusive license) implicated by a use authorized by the Settlement.

Google defines inserts as:

...forewords, afterwords, prologues, epilogues, poems, quotations, letters; textual excerpts from other Books, periodicals or other works; song lyrics; musical notation; children’s Book illustrations; or tables, charts and graphs that are not pictorial works.

The Settlement also creates the Book Rights Registry, which "represents the interests of Rightsholders in connection with this Settlement with Google as well as potential licensing deals with other entities, subject to Rightsholders’ authorization."

What happens if you choose to remain in the Settlement? You'll be able to "claim" your books and inserts, and receive some compensation for the ones that Google has digitized without permission. You'll also be able to direct Google to remove one or more of your works from the Book Search database, request it not to digitize other works, and control whether and how it displays your digitized works (including whether they're offered by Google--now and in the future--for sale or download). In exchange, you give up the right to sue Google for copyright infringement--though you do retain the right to object to the terms of the Settlement.

What happens if you opt out? You'll lose the right to object to the terms of the Settlement, but retain the right to sue Google for copyright infringement. You can also request that Google not display any work of yours that it has digitized, and/or that it not digitize any further work. Google is currently "voluntarily" honoring these requests, though there's nothing in the Settlement to compel it to do so, or to prevent it from changing its mind.

The Google Book Search Settlement is a sweeping agreement that shifts the ground on copyright, and has far-reaching implications for the future of books. Whether to opt in or out is a complex, difficult decision. Authors should strive to inform themselves as fully as possible (a tour of the links below should help with that), and should not allow themselves to be swayed by the small amount of money they may receive from Google if they remain in the Settlement.

The Authors' Guild, one of the parties to the Settlement, provides an overview of the Settlement's possible benefits. However, resistance to the Settlement has been mounting, both in the USA and overseas, and many organizations and individuals have filed objections or issued statements of opposition, including SFWA, the National Writers' Union, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and the Open Book Alliance (a coalition of organizations that includes some of Google's biggest rivals). And the US Department of Justice is conducting an antitrust investigation.

As of this date, a surprisingly small number of individuals and groups have opted out or filed objections, but likely this will grow in the coming days. The Public Index is keeping track, with links to the documents. They make for instructive reading.

For the record, I oppose the Settlement (SFWA's opposition statement pretty much sums up my reasons) and don't want my books to be part of it. But I haven't yet made up my mind whether to opt in and direct Google to remove my work from its database, or to opt out and risk that Google might decide to renege on its voluntary promise to exclude opt-outers. For me, opting out is morally preferable, but I fear that it is less real-life practical.

Edited to add: I should have noted that the Settlement has not yet been formally approved by the Court. This will happen (or not) as a result of a Fairness Hearing, which will be held October 7, 2009.

Whether the Settlement stands or not, the opt out decision must be made by September 4.

Victoria Strauss -- Amazon BookSurge Anti-Trust Lawsuit Can Proceed

2009-08-27T11:47:00.004-05:00

Last year, Amazon decreed that it would direct-sell no print-on-demand books that weren't printed by its POD subsidiary, BookSurge.

The change in policy sent small publishers and POD self-publishing services, many of which used rival digital printer Lightning Source, into a frenzy of alarm. In order to sell their books on Amazon, they'd either have to enter into parallel relationships with BookSurge, or use Amazon's Advantage program. Storms of protest ensued. Amazon refused to budge.

Most publishers and publishing services eventually came to an agreement with Amazon. Not self-publishing service BookLocker, however. In May 2008, its owners, Angela and Richard Hoy, filed a class action antitrust lawsuit against Amazon, alleging violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

In July 2008, Amazon filed a motion to dismiss. But yesterday (August 26, 2009) Chief U.S. District Judge John Woodcock Jr. denied that motion. This means that the BookLocker suit is free to proceed.

Richard Hoy provides details at the lawsuit website. "Among other steps," he says, "we anticipate beginning discovery (where we are able to request documents from Amazon) shortly. Although there is still a long way to go, surviving the motion to dismiss is an important first step."

Judge Woodcock's ruling can be seen here.

Publishers Weekly has coverage.

Victoria Strauss -- Postage Promotion

2009-08-25T16:51:00.002-05:00

Whenever I think I've seen it all, something new comes along.

The explosive growth of self-publishing options over the past decade or so has spawned a mini-industry catering to writers trying to get notice for their books. From publicity companies (some competent, many not) to the marketing packages hawked by self-publishing providers such as AuthorHouse (typically overpriced and largely ineffective) to completely worthless pseudo-services (email blasts, online catalogs, book fair "representation"), self-published authors these days have near-unlimited opportunities to spend money on self-promotion.

Such as this one, from self-publishing service Outskirts Press: put your book cover on a postage stamp.

No, I am not making this up. From an Outskirts' press release, dated today:

Outskirts Press, the fastest growing full-service self-publishing and book marketing company, recently announced it is making available to its family of over 4500 published authors an opportunity to feature their book cover on customized first-class US postage stamps.

Every envelope they send out can then promote their own books with these new eye catching stamps. These are legitimate, custom First Class U.S. Postal stamps, and they come in quantities of 120, each with a color image of the author’s book cover.

This clever book marketing tool is just one more marketing device within an already expansive repertoire of promotional aids provided by Outskirts Press to its authors. Unlike many self-publishing firms, Outskirts Press understands the key role marketing plays in their authors’ success, and they continually develop new promotional and marketing services for their authors to use well beyond the initial publication of their work.

Of course, Outskirts' "new promotional and marketing services" are also designed to snag their authors' dollars. Prices aren't mentioned in the press release, but per this list of add-ons to Outskirts' basic publishing packages, 120 custom stamps will set an author back $149.

When was the last time you took a careful look at a postage stamp?

Victoria Strauss -- Publishers' Kill Fees, and Why They're Bad For Everyone

2009-08-21T11:55:00.005-05:00

Traditionally, in the magazine and newspaper industry, a kill fee is "a negotiated payment on a magazine or newspaper article that is given to the freelancer if their assigned article is 'killed' or cancelled." (Read the full definition here.) The contracts for the magazine articles I and Ann Crispin wrote for Writer's Digest included kill fees--but that was a few years back, and I suspect they are less common now.

In the world of small publishers, however, "kill fee" means something quite different: a fee--usually a few hundred dollars--paid by an author to her publisher for getting out of a contract early. I've seen a lot of small press contracts that include kill fees, and it's my impression that such clauses are becoming more common.

For obvious reasons, kill fee clauses are onerous for authors, who in some circumstances might have good reason to want to end a contract early, and can't do so without opening up their wallets. Plus, many publishers employ kill fee clauses abusively, holding them over the heads of unhappy authors, or attempting to use them as an income source by offering to jettison dissatisfied writers at the slightest provocation, or terminating the contracts of writers who've pissed them off and demanding the fee even though termination wasn't the writer's decision. EPIC, an association for epublished authors, identifies kill fees as a red flag contract clause--one that authors should absolutely avoid. I agree.

From an honest small publisher's perspective, on the other hand--a publisher that isn't planning on browbeating its authors with kill fees, or using the fees to try and make an extra buck--a kill fee may seem to make good business sense. "We don't want to hold onto an unhappy author," the publisher might reason. "But we invest a lot of work in editing, designing, marketing, etc. So if we can't maximize our investment by selling the author's book for the full contract term, it's only fair that we should get some reimbursement if she decides to leave early."

Problem is, if the unhappy author can't afford the kill fee, the publisher will wind up stuck with her anyway--along with the extra resentment produced by the author's knowledge that she could have gotten free if only she'd had the cash. (I recently heard from an author and publisher in exactly this situation.) Alternatively, if the author can afford the kill fee, she may see it as an easy exit, and jump ship without giving the publisher the chance to address whatever problems she thinks she's having--thus losing the publisher a book it might have retained if it had had more time to work things out.

So kill fees are a definite writer beware--but they're a publisher beware too, because while they may sound good in theory, in reality they can backfire. For publishers willing to let their unhappy authors go, it's far simpler--and far more author-friendly--just to allow authors to terminate the contract at will, without the potential complications and and bad feelings of a kill fee. Or, if the publisher prefers to try to resolve the problems, not to include a termination provision at all, and make termination decisions on a case-by-case basis.