Author Fired for Self-publishing eBooks

[ATimson]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

She refused, and it sounds like they broke the contract--insisting she pay them back and potentially refusing to release her book as scheduled.

Insisting she pay them back is probably breaking the contract. But publishers generally aren't obligated to actually publish the book; they can choose to pay a kill fee and terminate the contract instead.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Apparently that's pretty typical:

From http://askaliteraryagent.blogspot.co...ell-to-be.html

This is exactly why I said that things don't match up in post 31. The blog seems to talk about a person new to the business, who barely managed to print short stories after being rejected by the Big 6, and not considering legal complications self-published them as two books with Amazon. There is one thing there as well, because she seems to imply that the unnamed publisher has a problem with her using Amazon, but the first of the short stories collection was e-published before the contract was signed.

In reality, Kiana Davenport published her first novel in 1994 and has a number of prizes under her belt. Before her first novel she was a Fiction Fellow at the Bunting Institute at Harvard-Radcliffe. Why would a publisher think that she can only sell 2500 copies? Why would she only get 25%?

[frahse]

Elfwreck and others.

First I am not looking at the contract or any other agreement. For example "an agreement/outline of intent" is always useful.

The item the publisher is upset about was published after her contract was signed but before her book with the publisher was done. Did the contract somehow, someway, in any way stipulate that she was to work exclusively for the publisher or to let the publisher have the right to any other items or maybe even let the publisher know of other actions by her?

I don't know. Does anyone here know?

To answer some people here, the $20,000 advance doesn't obligate the author to be a slave for the publisher in perpetuity, but my guess (only a guess without the aforementioned paper work) is that the contract stipulated certain obligations that the author didn't understand or didn't choose to follow.

No one is winning here.

[Daithi]

Even if the author is right it may not really matter. Unless you become a blockbuster author the publishers hold all the power. It is hard enough for really good authors to get accepted by any of the Big 6, and the publishers are the guys who can get your book into the stores. Plus they can give those advances this author wanted. So she may be completely in the right, but it is a Pyrrhic victory if she wants a publisher.

This sucks for this author, but it is what it is. I look forward to a future where the Big 6 don't hold all the power.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

No, she demanded that the publisher follow the contract they'd both signed.

Which none of us have seen.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Which none of us have seen.

Granted; we're working off assumptions & possibilities based on the contents of other contracts we know of, and what some lawyers have said about them.

It's possible that she's in violation of the contract, and will need to return the $20k and self-publish instead. It's also possible that the publisher is overreaching; since they first offered her incentives to remove her other book, I suspect they know that it's not a cut-and-dried case.

We can't sort out the exact details of this case; we can discuss the likely contents of the contract and what a hypothetical author in a similar situation could do.

[carld]

Traditionally authors have been free to place their work wherever they could whenever they could. I've never heard of anyone working under an exclusive "you can't publish anything else, anywhere else" contract.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by carld

Traditionally authors have been free to place their work wherever they could whenever they could. I've never heard of anyone working under an exclusive "you can't publish anything else, anywhere else" contract.

Check out the link in posting #13 in this thread. Option clauses and stronger clauses seems to be common.

[carld]

Originally Posted by tompe

Check out the link in posting #13 in this thread. Option clauses and stronger clauses seems to be common.

Thanks, yes, I'm familiar with first refusal clauses, those are pretty common, but I've never seen a non-compete clause before. Those are really new.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Granted; we're working off assumptions & possibilities based on the contents of other contracts we know of, and what some lawyers have said about them.

It's possible that she's in violation of the contract, and will need to return the $20k and self-publish instead. It's also possible that the publisher is overreaching; since they first offered her incentives to remove her other book, I suspect they know that it's not a cut-and-dried case.

We can't sort out the exact details of this case; we can discuss the likely contents of the contract and what a hypothetical author in a similar situation could do.

So we really don't know whether "she demanded that the publisher follow the contract they'd both signed" do we?

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

This is exactly why I said that things don't match up in post 31. The blog seems to talk about a person new to the business, who barely managed to print short stories after being rejected by the Big 6, and not considering legal complications self-published them as two books with Amazon. There is one thing there as well, because she seems to imply that the unnamed publisher has a problem with her using Amazon, but the first of the short stories collection was e-published before the contract was signed.

In reality, Kiana Davenport published her first novel in 1994 and has a number of prizes under her belt. Before her first novel she was a Fiction Fellow at the Bunting Institute at Harvard-Radcliffe. Why would a publisher think that she can only sell 2500 copies? Why would she only get 25%?

It is very interesting how different she seems in the blog as opposed to on Amazon...it does almost seem like two completely different people. I don't really know what to make of this, though.

2500 books is how many she needs to sell for the publisher to break even on the advance - presumably they hope she will sell many more, but that was all that they were willing to pay for up front. It would be interesting to know how many they were planning on printing. And maybe how many her other books sold.

As for the 25% - she says in her blog that she's giving up 75% of the "profits" from the e-book; I suspect that she just means that she's getting a 25% royalty on the e-book. But that's just my assumption.

[speakingtohe]

Sounds like a lot of bad ideas and decisions to me

Failure to consult a lawyer.
Failing to use an accountant.
An inflated sense of self worth.

May seem harsh, but an established author who is in enough financial trouble that they 'need' $20,000 immediately to help with financial difficulties has probably been living well beyond their means or not paying taxes.

A motivated person can get/save $20,000 fairly quickly by getting a second (or first) job and giving up luxury items. Of course the big trick is actually using this money to pay of creditors instead of on a 'much needed' vacation or new car.

I also wonder why, if the book is completed, and looks to be saleable, the publisher would just cancel the contract. A slap on the wrist, a demand to withdraw books from Amazon I could understand, but an arbitrary cancellation of a saleable product seems a bit bizarre.

Helen

[MaggieScratch]

I sincerely doubt she's getting 25% of cover price royalties on the hardback. That's unheard-of, except possibly for the Stephen Kings and Nora Robertses of the world, and maybe not even for them.

She said she's giving up 75% of the profits on the electronic version. If she's selling on Amazon, she gets 70% of the selling price, right? If she gets 25% of net on the ebooks from RH (which is about the going rate), that might be 75% less than what she gets from Amazon. I'm too derpy to do the math, but that's what I'm getting from this. (However, if RH is selling the books for more than she would charge, it might end up being the same or more overall. Rates and final numbers are two different things.)

On a $20,000 advance, $30 hardback, figure 8-10% of the cover price, so she's likely getting $2.40-3.00 per book. At the most generous rate, that's a sell-through at ~6500-7000 books. They will likely print at least 10,000. For literary fiction, yeah, that's about right.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Sounds like a lot of bad ideas and decisions to me

Failure to consult a lawyer.
Failing to use an accountant.
An inflated sense of self worth.

May seem harsh, but an established author who is in enough financial trouble that they 'need' $20,000 immediately to help with financial difficulties has probably been living well beyond their means or not paying taxes.

A motivated person can get/save $20,000 fairly quickly by getting a second (or first) job and giving up luxury items. Of course the big trick is actually using this money to pay of creditors instead of on a 'much needed' vacation or new car.

I also wonder why, if the book is completed, and looks to be saleable, the publisher would just cancel the contract. A slap on the wrist, a demand to withdraw books from Amazon I could understand, but an arbitrary cancellation of a saleable product seems a bit bizarre.

Helen

20k is more than what I make in a year, once you factor in taxes. I work full time, and make $10 an hour. I live very frugally.

As far as needing it quickly, well, there are still times frugal people need money quickly. Death in the family, sudden medical expenses, unexpected disasters such as house fires.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

..................May seem harsh, but an established author who is in enough financial trouble that they 'need' $20,000 immediately to help with financial difficulties has probably been living well beyond their means or not paying taxes........A motivated person can get/save $20,000 fairly quickly by getting a second (or first) job and giving up luxury items. Of course the big trick is actually using this money to pay of creditors instead of on a 'much needed' vacation or new car.Helen

Now for the reality check - this is 2011.

I don't see any reference that $20,000 was needed, no sum was mentioned, but that "an advance" would help the indebtedness.

And the big trick in our neck of the woods is getting an interview for a first job, even with motivation, let alone a second, so please tell me in more detail how it is so easy to earn $20,00, because I'm sure a lot of people, including me, would love to know. It's certainly obvious I'm doing things wrongly.
And I don't have many "luxury items" to give up, frankly - which I note you cannily avoid specifying.
And, finally, your blanket assumption that the OT would be unable to resist using this mythically easily acquired cash to vacation or buy a new car, rather than pay off debts is, to me, offensive.