07-22-2012, 06:13 PM | #46 | |
Apprentice Curmudgeon.
Posts: 427
Karma: 3286968
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Runaway Bay, QLD, , Australia
Device: Kindle DX Graphite, Touch, Paperwhite, Sony, and Nook.
|
Quote:
|
|
07-22-2012, 06:17 PM | #47 |
Apprentice Curmudgeon.
Posts: 427
Karma: 3286968
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Runaway Bay, QLD, , Australia
Device: Kindle DX Graphite, Touch, Paperwhite, Sony, and Nook.
|
|
Advert | |
|
07-22-2012, 07:44 PM | #48 | |
Treachery of images ...
Posts: 4,069
Karma: 91561091
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Device: Blackberry Playbook, Sony 650, Kobo Glo, H2O, Aura One, Forma, Libra 2
|
Quote:
More often than not the power holder is the person/entity offering the contract, not the intended signatory of the contract. This power differential changes when the intended signatory is in a position to bargain because they are being sought out by the contract holder, eg already established names (in whatever field). Until then - it's likely to be: the companies way or the highway!! I don't know about where you live but in Australia it is just not on that a lawyer should be required prior to entering into a contract either of or for employment. The contracts have to be written in language that can be readily understood, with all their clauses clearly stated. In the matter that is the topic of this thread ..... it is yet to be determined whether there is a matter that needs to be remedied or not, and whether there was a less than open disclosure of the monies to be paid out in the terms of the contract. Last edited by Lynx-lynx; 07-22-2012 at 07:56 PM. |
|
07-22-2012, 07:58 PM | #49 | |
Wizard
Posts: 4,812
Karma: 26912940
Join Date: Apr 2010
Device: sony PRS-T1 and T3, Kobo Mini and Aura HD, Tablet
|
Quote:
Obviously I am missing something. Helen |
|
07-22-2012, 08:15 PM | #50 | |||
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
|
Quote:
When it comes to *romance* writers and especially romance writers with Harlequin contracts the lawsuit is hardly obscure: http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2012/0...40597969416098 Quote:
More, the lawsuit is a *class action* lawsuit. It impacts *everybody* with a Harlequin contract in one way or another; it is not "obscure" to them. And if they haven't heard of it yet (unlikely) they *will* by next week: http://legalminimum.blogspot.co.uk/2...rlequin-e.html Quote:
|
|||
Advert | |
|
07-22-2012, 08:40 PM | #51 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 5,185
Karma: 25133758
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3 (Past: Kobo Mini, PEZ, PRS-505, Clié)
|
Quote:
The 1990-2004 standard form publishing agreements provided that the Plaintiffs were to be paid 50% of the net receipts of the "Publisher" from the exercise, sale, or license of digital rights to their works. I gather that authors who specifically contracted for *ebook* sales are not part of this class. The complaint is that the "Publisher" is Harlequin, the agency with whom they signed the contract, not "whatever subsidiary Harlequin invented to launder money;" they don't get 50% of what Harlequin-main gets from Harlequin-sub.
|
|
07-22-2012, 09:51 PM | #52 | |
Wizard
Posts: 4,812
Karma: 26912940
Join Date: Apr 2010
Device: sony PRS-T1 and T3, Kobo Mini and Aura HD, Tablet
|
Quote:
Cannot still grasp the concept. If they signed with harlequin, and Harleqin transferred the rights to a subsiduary or other company would they stilll not get what they signed for? I know if you buy rights you can sell them. But if the sale of those rights includes payment terms can you just change them willy nilly? Take mineral rights for example. If the sales contract says that the seller will retain rights to 20% of the moneys derived from these mineral rights, does this dissapear on resale of the property without your agreement? Maybe it does and I am unaware. And if there is no clause for ebook rights how can they sell the ebook? And if there is a clause of 6-8% you can't sue in this class action. So who can sue? That is my biggest question. I have a few more, but if someone could explain this one to me, maybe they wold be answered as well. Helen |
|
07-22-2012, 09:53 PM | #53 |
Seriously?
Posts: 529
Karma: 3347562
Join Date: Nov 2010
Device: Kobo Aura HD, Kobo Mini, iWhatever
|
.....
Last edited by david_e; 09-05-2012 at 05:37 PM. |
07-22-2012, 10:28 PM | #54 | |
Apprentice Curmudgeon.
Posts: 427
Karma: 3286968
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Runaway Bay, QLD, , Australia
Device: Kindle DX Graphite, Touch, Paperwhite, Sony, and Nook.
|
Quote:
Seems straightforward to me. They had a deal and are trying to change the deal after the fact. I can't see that they have a chance of success. |
|
07-22-2012, 11:06 PM | #55 | ||
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 5,185
Karma: 25133758
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3 (Past: Kobo Mini, PEZ, PRS-505, Clié)
|
Quote:
Harlequin signs for rights, offering author "50% of whatever we receive." Harlequin creates "Harlequin-Subsidiary, a special overseas company." H-S is owned by people from Harlequin, and has no rights to do business other than those granted by Harlequin. Harlequin licenses the book to H-S, agreeing that H-S gets 90% of the cover price. Book sells for $8 list. H-S keeps $7.20, handing $.80 to Harlequin. Harlequin pays author $.40 per copy sold. At the end of the year (or whatever), H-S's profits get folded back into the main Harlequin profits. End result: Harlequin keeps $7.60 per title, and pays the staff at H-S out of that. Quote:
In those contracts, the phrase "digital resale rights" (or something very similar) is used; the contracts that mention "ebooks" and 6-8% are so different that they're not part of this lawsuit. Those contracts had different royalty arrangements. It's not that those with 6-8% ebook royalties can't sue; they're just not part of *this* contract set and not included in this class-action lawsuit. |
||
07-23-2012, 12:24 AM | #56 | |
Treachery of images ...
Posts: 4,069
Karma: 91561091
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Device: Blackberry Playbook, Sony 650, Kobo Glo, H2O, Aura One, Forma, Libra 2
|
Quote:
RE the subject under discussion in this thread, it seems that legal action has been instigated claiming that clause/s have not been applied as indicated on the contract or have not been spelt out clearly in the terms of the contract, or whatever else is in the claim. It may be the case (or not) that the clauses concerning payment to the author were not clearly articulated and may have caused the authors to 'believe' one thing when in fact something else was intended. Last edited by Lynx-lynx; 07-23-2012 at 12:29 AM. |
|
07-23-2012, 02:59 AM | #57 | |
eBook Enthusiast
Posts: 85,544
Karma: 93383043
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
|
Quote:
None of that excuses unfair contracts, of course, and please don't think that I'm in any way condoning such things - I'm certainly not. But a lawyer will be much better able to spot any potential "gotchas" in a contract than an ordinary person will. In the UK there's a specific law called the "Unfair Contract Terms Act" which makes obviously unfair clauses in a contract illegal (and invalid). Last edited by HarryT; 07-23-2012 at 03:02 AM. |
|
07-23-2012, 04:21 AM | #58 | |||
Not so important
Posts: 1,063
Karma: 10181343
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Zurich
Device: Sony PRS-505, Kindle 4, iPad, Kobo Glo 4
|
Quote:
Quote:
So, in principle, it is not limited in it's business to Harlequin -- whether the do business with other companies on the publishing level I don't know. It's rather unlikely they don't do business with financial institutions outside of the Harlequin group. Quote:
|
|||
07-23-2012, 07:25 AM | #59 | ||
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 11,732
Karma: 128354696
Join Date: May 2009
Location: 26 kly from Sgr A*
Device: T100TA,PW2,PRS-T1,KT,FireHD 8.9,K2, PB360,BeBook One,Axim51v,TC1000
|
Quote:
The authors and agents were dealing with Harlequin and the contracts they signed called for certain specific royalty rates. At the time ebook rights were lumped in with other subsidiary rights (like movie, TV, etc) at a 50% royalty. For tax purposes all the contracts Harlequin negotiated were signed not by Harlequin Enterprises (whose employees did the negotiation) but with their swiss subsidiary, which then licensed the book rights to the parent company. For print books (which had low negotiated royalties to start with) Harlequin's self-licensing terms were comparable to what an outsider would pay. (Which is apparently a legal test of validity.) For ebooks the agreed-upon royalty rate was 50% of net *publisher* recipts. In order to avoid paying the agreed-upon rate, Harlequin set the self-licensing terms at ~10% of their real world value and paid the royalties based on that. The lawsuit claims that by that practice Harlequin is cheating the entire class of plaintiffs and is breaking the terms of the contract as negotiated. To prevail, the plaintiffs have to prove that Harlequin switzerland (5 employees) is not the real publisher but just a front for Harlequin Enterprises which is the actual publisher of the books (both e-and p-) so that the net receipts cited in the contract should be the actual wholesale price and not the artificially low self-license price. To prevail, Harlequin merely has to convince the court that licensing an ebook that sells for US$4.99 for $0.50 is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Which they might do, given the right lawyer and the right judge. Stranger things have happened. The thing to remember is that the class in the legal action at issue includes not just the named authors but the majority of Harlequin authors. (And that the ones not under the 1990-2004 contracts have their *own* separate issues with Harlequin practices.) As wikipedia notes, Harlequin practices have been frowned upon for years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlequ...prises#Current Quote:
Twenty years ago, ten years ago, even as recently as 2004, aspiring romance writers had little recourse than to swallow Harlequin's "standard" rates if they wanted to be published. That is no longer true. The authors have alternatives and are exercising them. Harlequin could easily "win" this legal fight and lose the war for the future of the romance market. Last edited by fjtorres; 07-23-2012 at 07:31 AM. |
||
07-23-2012, 07:27 AM | #60 | ||
Professional Contrarian
Posts: 2,045
Karma: 3289631
Join Date: Mar 2009
Device: Kindle 4 No Touchie
|
Quote:
Quote:
"Class action" just means the attorneys believe there is a larger group who should be represented by this smaller group pressing this particular case. The contracts from 2005 on all specified ebook royalty rates, and are not affected by this case. I'm sure there are a lot of writers who had contracts in the specified time period (1999 to 2004). The question is how many of those titles were sold as ebooks and in significant amounts. |
||
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Amazon (w/ Macmillan) to pay authors royalties for books not sold | Daithi | News | 15 | 02-04-2011 07:24 PM |
Royalties payments for each ebook-selling site | jamesread | Writers' Corner | 30 | 10-08-2010 09:20 PM |
Royalties on ebooks - a view from authors | Argel | News | 12 | 01-07-2010 11:54 AM |
Some authors getting a bad deal on ebook royalties? | sirbruce | News | 19 | 06-10-2009 09:43 AM |
Are enterprises ready for e-readers? | DaleDe | News | 3 | 02-20-2008 02:51 PM |