This has been sent around to a couple of the small publishing e-lists I’m on. It was sent with permission to repost or forward.<\/p>\n
I received this alert from the Writers Guild:<\/p>\n Simon & Schuster has changed its standard contract language in an The publisher is signaling that it will no longer include minimum The new contract would allow Simon & Schuster to consider a book in Other major trade publishers are not seeking a similar perpetual We urge you to consider your options carefully:<\/p>\n 1. Remember that if you sign a contract with Simon & Schuster that 2. Ask your agent to explore other options. Other publishers are not 3. If you have a manuscript that may be auctioned, consider asking 4. Let us know if other major publishers follow suit. Any Feel free to forward and post this message in its entirety.<\/font><\/p>\n The megacomglomerates in all areas of the media are fighting hard to claim as many rights as they can and screw the “talent” that actually butters their bread as well as the customers who buy their slickly packaged output. I don’t know if there’s anything we can do<\/u> about this, except not feed the machine by patronizing them or<\/u> supplying them. Also in recent news: the Department of Justice has proposed legislation allowing copyright violators to be sent to jail–without the need to prove the violation. Pete Masterson<\/a> wrote on [self-publishing], “Hollywood and the music industry are behind this proposal so that they can more easily prosecute those involved with peer to peer exchanges and other activities<\/font> that may involve copyright infringement. Personally, I think Hollywood has enough lawyers and funds to handle their own civil enforcement activities and do not need to be funded by taxpayers to involve the Note that “other activities” could well include fanfic, especially based on big-selling authors like J.K. Rowling. The Electronic Frontier is urging people to take action to oppose this proposed legislation.<\/p>\n http:\/\/action.eff.org\/site\/Advocacy?id=299<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This has been sent around to a couple of the small publishing e-lists I’m on. It was sent with permission to repost or forward. X-Original-To: wne-nwu@… Delivered-To: wne-nwu@… Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 08:25:27 -0400 From: Jan Whitaker To: Western … Continue reading
\nX-Original-To: wne-nwu@…
\nDelivered-To: wne-nwu@…
\nDate: Fri, 18 May 2007 08:25:27 -0400
\nFrom: Jan Whitaker
\nTo: Western New England Chapter\/ NWU<\/p>\n
\nattempt to retain exclusive control of books even after they have
\ngone out of print. Until now, Simon & Schuster, like all other major
\ntrade publishers, has followed the traditional practice in which
\nrights to a work revert to the author if the book falls out of print
\nor if its sales are low.<\/p>\n
\nsales requirements for a work to be considered in print. Simon &
\nSchuster is apparently seeking nothing less than an exclusive grant
\nof rights in perpetuity. Effectively, the publisher would co-own
\nyour copyright.<\/p>\n
\nprint, and under its exclusive control, so long as it’s available in
\nany form, including through its own in-house database — even if no
\ncopies are available to be ordered by traditional bookstores.<\/p>\n
\ngrant of rights.<\/p>\n
\nincludes this clause, they’ll say you’re wed to them. Your book will
\nlive and die with this particular conglomerate.<\/p>\n
\nseeking an irrevocable grant of rights.<\/p>\n
\nyour agent to exclude Simon & Schuster imprints unless they agree
\nbefore the auction to use industry standard terms.<\/p>\n
\ncoordination among publishers on this matter has serious legal
\nimplications.<\/p>\n
\ncriminal courts.”<\/p>\n