4 ms·

I would go so far as to say that these clauses aren't even slimy, they're just lazy. If the publishers are truly scared that the author's behavior could lose th

I would go so far as to say that these clauses aren't even slimy, they're just lazy. If the publishers are truly scared that the author's behavior could lose them substantial amounts of money, then there have existed for decades far more terrestrial constructs for them to use - tying compensation to total sales numbers, tying compensation to milestones, or even just lowballing them. To tie their compensation to what is essentially a form of censorship hands disproportional power to the publishers, is subject to lawsuit, and is entirely asinine.

tytso 7y ago
Publishers front nearly all of the deelopment costs of the book --- e.g., the advance, the printing costs, whatever editing work that gets done, etc. Publishers don't have to pay all of these costs; they could make the authors front all of those costs, which reduces their risk. There is a name for that sort of arrangement; it's called a "vanity press". But funny thing, most authors don't want to use vanity press, and most writer's guilds don't consider publication by a vanity press to be a valid criteria for membership in the Author's Guild, Science Fiction Writer's Association, Romance Writer's Association, etc.
- munificent 7y ago
  > Publishers front nearly all of the deelopment costs of the book The largest development cost for a book is the labor to write the book, and the training required to be able to do so, and that is fronted entirely by the author. Advances tend to be very small and are a loan from the publisher to the author. Printing costs have been going down for decades. Print on demand now means that publishers have complete control over choosing a printing cost that minimizes their risk and matches their projected sales. Editing is a cost, but is relatively small compared to writing the book. > There is a name for that sort of arrangement; it's called a "vanity press". That term arose in the time before print-on-demand where an author really did have to sink significant capital into printing their own book. Likewise, before digital distribution, a vanity press author was unlikely to be able to get their book in many stores. Choosing to self-publish a book that couldn't get picked up by a traditional publisher was an indication that the author was doing something for their own enrichment more than for good financial reasons because they were unlikely to recoup those costs. But self-publishing today requires little capital investment and it's trivial for a self-published book to be widely distributed. That means it's much more possible for an author to be making a sound financial choice to self publish. > don't consider publication by a vanity press to be a valid criteria for membership in the Author's Guild, Science Fiction Writer's Association, Romance Writer's Association, etc. The Author's guild says: > Regular Membership: Traditionally published authors with at least 1 published book in the U.S.; self-published authors who have made at least $5,000 in the past 18 months from their writing; and freelance writers who have published 3+ pieces or made $5,000 in the past 18 months. SFWA says: > A published work of fiction of a minimum of 40,000 words either sold to a small press or self-published for which the author can demonstrate net income of at least $3,000 over the course of a year since January 1, 2013. Income can be in the form of advance, royalties, or some combination thereof or; RWA just says: > Per RWA policy, all prospective members must provide proof that they are seriously pursuing a career in romance writing in order to qualify for General membership. Either of the following serve as proof: One complete original work of romance fiction of at least 20,000 words. Multiple complete original works of romance fiction* which combine for a total of at least 20,000 words.
  - Finnucane 7y ago
    >Advances tend to be very small and are a loan from the publisher to the author. No, not a loan. An advance does not normally get paid back if it doesn't earn out.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      But it does get paid back if it does earn out. The payout profile looks basically the same as a non-recourse loan.
    - munificent 7y ago
      That just means it's a forgiven loan. The point is that the advance does not add to the money the author makes on top of royalties. Advances are not an additional cost to the publisher. They are an investment with some risk, but they control that risk by choosing the size of the advance.
  - lastres0rt 7y ago
    ... but what about graphic novels?!
munificent 7y ago
> tying compensation to total sales numbers, tying compensation to milestones, or even just lowballing them. Author contracts already do all of those things. Advances have gotten lower and lower over the years ("lowballing them"), and typically pay out incrementally at various phases of completion ("compensation to milestones"). Once the book is done, most of the author's compensation comes from royalties ("tying compensation to total sales numbers"). Authors are already highly incentivized not to commit "moral turpitude" because doing so will tank sales of their book and thus their royalties. Publishers aren't adding morals clauses to incentivize authors. It's just another example of the classic move a large corporation in a position of power trying to grab even more power. If they could get away with it, publishers would add a clause to every contract saying, "We can demand your advance back at any time for any reason or no reason at all, just because we feel like it."
- kwhitefoot 7y ago
  How things have changed. Byron was a rock star author at the same time as he was described as 'mad, bad, and dangerous to know' By Lady Caroline Lamb.
hammock 7y ago
>If the publishers are truly scared that the author's behavior could lose them substantial amounts of money The risk is not recouping their investment, but rather degrading the overall enterprise value of their entire publishing business through bad PR. Unless the author agrees to tie their pay to the performance of the entire enterprise (which why would you), something like a morality clause is a better option.
- hammock 7y ago
  If one or more of the four people who have downvoted my comment could explain themselves we might all learn something here.
mc32 7y ago
Let’s hope this attitude doesn’t trickle down into the legal profession where we have attorneys and layers in general refusing service to people who are morally corrupt /bankrupt or are previous felons. Or, don’t spend public dollars defending “bad” people.
- derefr 7y ago
  Heh, imagine a world where the law requires the appointment of a public defender, but it's also disallowed by the bar association to serve as one.

tytso 7y ago

Publishers front nearly all of the deelopment costs of the book --- e.g., the advance, the printing costs, whatever editing work that gets done, etc. Publishers don't have to pay all of these costs; they could make the authors front all of those costs, which reduces their risk. There is a name for that sort of arrangement; it's called a "vanity press". But funny thing, most authors don't want to use vanity press, and most writer's guilds don't consider publication by a vanity press to be a valid criteria for membership in the Author's Guild, Science Fiction Writer's Association, Romance Writer's Association, etc.

munificent 7y ago
> Publishers front nearly all of the deelopment costs of the book The largest development cost for a book is the labor to write the book, and the training required to be able to do so, and that is fronted entirely by the author. Advances tend to be very small and are a loan from the publisher to the author. Printing costs have been going down for decades. Print on demand now means that publishers have complete control over choosing a printing cost that minimizes their risk and matches their projected sales. Editing is a cost, but is relatively small compared to writing the book. > There is a name for that sort of arrangement; it's called a "vanity press". That term arose in the time before print-on-demand where an author really did have to sink significant capital into printing their own book. Likewise, before digital distribution, a vanity press author was unlikely to be able to get their book in many stores. Choosing to self-publish a book that couldn't get picked up by a traditional publisher was an indication that the author was doing something for their own enrichment more than for good financial reasons because they were unlikely to recoup those costs. But self-publishing today requires little capital investment and it's trivial for a self-published book to be widely distributed. That means it's much more possible for an author to be making a sound financial choice to self publish. > don't consider publication by a vanity press to be a valid criteria for membership in the Author's Guild, Science Fiction Writer's Association, Romance Writer's Association, etc. The Author's guild says: > Regular Membership: Traditionally published authors with at least 1 published book in the U.S.; self-published authors who have made at least $5,000 in the past 18 months from their writing; and freelance writers who have published 3+ pieces or made $5,000 in the past 18 months. SFWA says: > A published work of fiction of a minimum of 40,000 words either sold to a small press or self-published for which the author can demonstrate net income of at least $3,000 over the course of a year since January 1, 2013. Income can be in the form of advance, royalties, or some combination thereof or; RWA just says: > Per RWA policy, all prospective members must provide proof that they are seriously pursuing a career in romance writing in order to qualify for General membership. Either of the following serve as proof: One complete original work of romance fiction of at least 20,000 words. Multiple complete original works of romance fiction* which combine for a total of at least 20,000 words.
- Finnucane 7y ago
  >Advances tend to be very small and are a loan from the publisher to the author. No, not a loan. An advance does not normally get paid back if it doesn't earn out.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    But it does get paid back if it does earn out. The payout profile looks basically the same as a non-recourse loan.
  - munificent 7y ago
    That just means it's a forgiven loan. The point is that the advance does not add to the money the author makes on top of royalties. Advances are not an additional cost to the publisher. They are an investment with some risk, but they control that risk by choosing the size of the advance.
- lastres0rt 7y ago
  ... but what about graphic novels?!

munificent 7y ago

> tying compensation to total sales numbers, tying compensation to milestones, or even just lowballing them. Author contracts already do all of those things. Advances have gotten lower and lower over the years ("lowballing them"), and typically pay out incrementally at various phases of completion ("compensation to milestones"). Once the book is done, most of the author's compensation comes from royalties ("tying compensation to total sales numbers"). Authors are already highly incentivized not to commit "moral turpitude" because doing so will tank sales of their book and thus their royalties. Publishers aren't adding morals clauses to incentivize authors. It's just another example of the classic move a large corporation in a position of power trying to grab even more power. If they could get away with it, publishers would add a clause to every contract saying, "We can demand your advance back at any time for any reason or no reason at all, just because we feel like it."

kwhitefoot 7y ago
How things have changed. Byron was a rock star author at the same time as he was described as 'mad, bad, and dangerous to know' By Lady Caroline Lamb.

hammock 7y ago

>If the publishers are truly scared that the author's behavior could lose them substantial amounts of money The risk is not recouping their investment, but rather degrading the overall enterprise value of their entire publishing business through bad PR. Unless the author agrees to tie their pay to the performance of the entire enterprise (which why would you), something like a morality clause is a better option.

hammock 7y ago
If one or more of the four people who have downvoted my comment could explain themselves we might all learn something here.

mc32 7y ago

Let’s hope this attitude doesn’t trickle down into the legal profession where we have attorneys and layers in general refusing service to people who are morally corrupt /bankrupt or are previous felons. Or, don’t spend public dollars defending “bad” people.

derefr 7y ago
Heh, imagine a world where the law requires the appointment of a public defender, but it's also disallowed by the bar association to serve as one.