Author Fired for Self-publishing eBooks

[Fbone]

Did she remove her books from Smashwords? I cannot seem to find them.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

From my take of things, it isn't quite that way. The author mentions how the contract was for a novel, and what they'd self published was short story collections. How is it bad faith?

They gave her an advance on a novel. As Elfwreck pointed out, the contract almost certainly grants the publisher exclusive rights.

Otherwise, you could have an author who signs with multiple publishers at once, and each one getting "one book each."

I don't know what the contracts say about re-releasing back catalog.

I am also guessing that communication on both sides was problematic. She should have notified the publisher of her intentions during the negotiation phase, especially since it sounds like she plans to re-issue older work -- which could easily be a nightmare for marketing. Her agent really should have head this problem off at the pass.

The publisher probably didn't handle this perfectly either; it would probably be good for her to release something this year, or at least have thoroughly reviewed timing and strategies with her, given that she was accustomed to releasing what she wanted at any time. At the same time, to them she probably looks like a loose cannon who would issue titles without informing them or with any regard to a marketing strategy.

[afa]

I agree with what some others have said; it's hard to judge whether or not the publisher is in the wrong without knowing the contents of the contract.

I suppose it is possible that the contract she signed mentioned some sort of 'exclusivity' clause, preventing her from publishing (or self-publishing) elsewhere without their consent.

If this is one of the Big 6, then I assume the termination of the contract had legal grounds. Big companies usually have top-notch legal advisors, and I doubt they would make a rookie mistake like terminating her contract when she was not, in fact, in breach of it.

Of course, whether it was ethical or not is a different question.

[Fbone]

She also states that she accepted the contract and $20,000 advance because she was "debt-ridden." It looks like she entered negotiations from a weak desperate position.

[afa]

Good point. So even if such clauses are not entirely common, they might have sensed her desperation enough to play hard-ball at negotiation.

[Sil_liS]

I am curious about this part:

My lawyer quickly pointed out that the first collection, HOUSE OF SKIN, PRIZE-WINNING STORIES, had been e-published in December, before I signed the contract with the publisher, so they immediately targetted the second collection, CANNIBAL NIGHTS, PACIFIC STORIES, Volume II, published recently in July.

Most of the stories in both collections had each been published several times before, first in Story Magazine, then again in The O'HENRY AWARDS PRIZE STORIES anthologies, the PUSHCART PRIZE stories anthologies, and THE BEST AMERICAN SHORT STORIES, 2000, anthology. And, over several years both collections had been submitted to each of the Big 6 publishers in NY. I still have their rejection letters, including one from the house I was now under contract with. So you might say these stories were, in a sense, recycled, sitting in my files rejected. Yet, as published collections, this Big 6 publisher suddenly found them threatening.

If they rejected the stories, do they still have the right to say that they can't be e-published somewhere else?

[TimW]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Did she remove her books from Smashwords? I cannot seem to find them.

Cannibal Nights is on Smashwords.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

They gave her an advance on a novel. As Elfwreck pointed out, the contract almost certainly grants the publisher exclusive rights.

There is better description of the whole story at the teleread.com server.
The author has published an unrelated short stories, not the novel that she received the advance for. The publisher called her and tried to persuade and later to motivate her not to publish *anything* through Amazon.
When she refused they canceled her contract without stating the reason. Had she broken some slick clause in contract a lawyer from publisher would have called her and told her that she violated this or that clause.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by kacir

When she refused they canceled her contract without stating the reason. Had she broken some slick clause in contract a lawyer from publisher would have called her and told her that she violated this or that clause.

Again, at the moment we are only hearing one side of the story, that rarely leads to a full understanding of what has happened.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If they rejected the stories, do they still have the right to say that they can't be e-published somewhere else?

If your submissions are rejected, you can do what you want with them.

If your contract specifies exclusivity, and you self-publish them, that very likely violates the contract.

If your contract specifies exclusivity, and you had a previous publishing deal, your old publisher can do what it wants with the backlist titles within the scope of their contract with the author.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

If your submissions are rejected, you can do what you want with them.

If your contract specifies exclusivity, and you self-publish them, that very likely violates the contract.

If your contract specifies exclusivity, and you had a previous publishing deal, your old publisher can do what it wants with the backlist titles within the scope of their contract with the author.

She said that the stories from the book in question were published separately, by a publisher (publishers?) that isn't part of the Big 6. I don't get why the problem publisher is unnamed. Her wiki page links to a Random House page as her brief biography.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

She said that the stories from the book in question were published separately, by a publisher (publishers?) that isn't part of the Big 6. I don't get why the problem publisher is unnamed. Her wiki page links to a Random House page as her brief biography.

I think it's a matter of legality Sil_liS. Suppose you and me have an argument and I post about it (from my viewpoint) somewhere on the web and name you directly. You could then accuse me of libel. Where as if I just described you as 'a certain mobileread forum member' others could draw their own conclusions about who I was talking about (based in part on past postings probably) and while you may argue that I had libeled you it becomes more legally ambiguous since I didn't name you straight out as the other party. Likewise if she's published with Random House in the past or had dealings with them but doesn't name them as the other party directly it is harder for them to say they've been libeled I think.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by alansplace

i believe that what she was saying was that the generation that are 'fanboys' (meaning 12 to early 20's) would describe the behavior of her editor as 'going ballistic' (an analogy to a missile being fired).

Maybe that's it - I understood what she was getting at, but I didn't get how fanboys fit it. ("Going ballistic" has been in common usage here since the mid-80's, I think).

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by afa

If this is one of the Big 6, then I assume the termination of the contract had legal grounds. Big companies usually have top-notch legal advisors,

And narcissistic administrators who totally ignore them.



Look at Exxon and Duke University.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

They gave her an advance on a novel. As Elfwreck pointed out, the contract almost certainly grants the publisher exclusive rights.

Otherwise, you could have an author who signs with multiple publishers at once, and each one getting "one book each."

I don't know what the contracts say about re-releasing back catalog.

I am also guessing that communication on both sides was problematic. She should have notified the publisher of her intentions during the negotiation phase, especially since it sounds like she plans to re-issue older work -- which could easily be a nightmare for marketing. Her agent really should have head this problem off at the pass.

The publisher probably didn't handle this perfectly either; it would probably be good for her to release something this year, or at least have thoroughly reviewed timing and strategies with her, given that she was accustomed to releasing what she wanted at any time. At the same time, to them she probably looks like a loose cannon who would issue titles without informing them or with any regard to a marketing strategy.

Exclusive rights over the item in question for the contract.

According to Teleread, which is generally a source I trust, say the publisher that was going to publish her novel, rejected the short stories. Unless her contract specifically states that she may not publish anything, through any means, other than what the would be novel publisher chooses to publish themselves, I do not see how they could be in the legal right.