According to the New York Times, a new standard contract by one of the US's most prestigious publishers means that if you publish with them under it, you'll never get the rights to your book back, even if they have no copies in print and do no promotion:

http://www.danutakean.com/blog/?p=235#more-235

Emma

With the new contract language, the publisher would be able stop printing a book and prevent the author from publishing it with any other house.

That sentence, to my mind, is as good a reason as any to get a Good Agent... and that statement goes totally against what I've been thinking recently (something along the lines of ‘sod it I don’t need that kind of *expletive deleted*).

I used to have a good opinion of that publisher. Not any more.

Emma, thanks for finding this.

Dee

I do so understand why writers want to bypass agents, but this is a good example of why they're not just for selling the book.

It's not just this publisher, of course. With print-on-demand technology, it becomes a very moot point when a book goes out of print. I know it's an issue that the Society of Authors is very up-to-date and concerned with.

Emma

So basically, if you signed with them, they could sell just one copy of your book, and you couldn't go to another publisher because they retain all rights?

That's shitty. There should be a clause of some sort which states that publishers have to agree to sell a minimum number of books before they can retain the rights, otherwise you have the freedom to use another publisher.

Is there not some sort of writers ombudsmen - can't spell that word properly.

K x

Is there not some sort of writers ombudsmen

The US equivalent of the Society of Authors and the Association of Authors' Agents ought to be making the most almighty fuss - I hope they are. I imagine the UK bodies are watching like hawks, too. S&S are a UK firm as well, so you can't help wondering if that clause will sneak in over here.

And as Dee pointed out, the only way round really is to have an agent with enough clout to get the clause taken out before you sign it. This is only their standard contract, after all.

It's always been a bone of contention that publishers don't formally put things out of print, which under just about every contract means the rights revert to the writer. They just say 'reprinting' and wait to see how many backorders they collect. But in the end it's not worth their while to keep it in the catalogue and the systems if they're not selling any - either they commit to that reprint, or formally make it OP. The trouble with the digital age is that they can run off a copy whenever an order comes in.

Emma

<Added>

More news about this - am posting it in the Lounge so it gets read...

It's a dog in a manger attitude that can only damage the relationship between author and publisher. I was also wondering if an agent was the way to go. Now I have the answer!
Kat
x

Another salutary story about author's rights:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/05/27/svgraduate127.xml

It has taken Charles Webb 40 years to write a sequel to 'The Graduate'. [titled 'Home School'] He made no money from the film... He sold the film rights to his 1963 novel for a relative pittance (reportedly $20,000) and therefore received no share of the $100 million that Mike Nichols's film has grossed at the American box office since its release in 1967. At the same time he effectively signed away ownership of his own characters.... He has no interest in money, and nor would he get any if Home School is made into a film - at least not without a long and costly court battle, for which he says he has neither the funds nor the stomach. At the moment, the French production company Canal Plus owns the screen rights to all the characters from The Graduate.

An update.

http://www.authorlink.com/news/item/1338

Simon and Schuster have backed down on the rights reversion issue according to last week's Bookseller. Good news for us all I think.

Naomi R

Thanks, I'll have a look.

Emma