Blogger: Janet Kobobel Grant
Recently I’ve found myself explaining to a number of clients why some sections of contracts have especially stringent terms. My clients fall silent when I say, “Every paragraph has an author’s initials beside it.”(Which is a quote from an editor, by the way.) Oh, those initials are written with invisible ink, but the truth is authors are responsible for much of each publisher’s contract.
When I became an agent in 1996, some publishers’ contracts were three-page visions of elegant simplicity. They covered everything that needed to be agreed to, weren’t excessive in demands or so confining an author had little hope of making a living after signing the document.Today, some contracts are in excess of 25 pages, and it’s been a long time since I’ve seen anything that resembled elegant simplicity. The words that come to mind are “bloated,” “beyond reason,” and “too complex to comprehend.”
What happened in the intervening years?
Lots of changes, of course. Adequately spelling out the rights in a contract has become a feat worthy of a Gold Medal gymnast. Digital and multimedia rights alone have added several paragraphs to every contract. What it means for a book to go out of print has become a complicated matter as well.
But another big factor in fattening up contracts is the authors themselves. Through creative interpretations of the less expansive contracts of old, authors have pushed the line of what they could get away with to limits that astound and shock the unimaginative. To see what they’ve done is like walking through your house with a burglar as he tells you all your vulnerabilities that never would have occurred to you. A publisher, seeing an author violate the publishing house’s good will, phones an attorney and asks for new contractual language that protects the publishing house.
Want to know what a few of the clauses are I’m referring to?
1. If you miss your manuscript deadline, the publisher can cancel the contract–and you must pay back any of the advance given to you before the rights will be returned. Authors were missing deadlines, sometimes by years, rendering the value of the manuscript less than it was when the publisher offered the advance. These deadlines weren’t missed because of family emergencies or unexpected twists in life but because the author was too busy making money other ways, through speaking venues, public appearances or contracting with other publishers for higher advances and giving the new contract higher priority. Then the authors were asking for the rights back to the incomplete manuscript and to keep the advance. If you were the publisher, wouldn’t you add protections to your contract?
The result: Missing a book deadline has become much more treacherous. Now, if you miss your deadline, should the market have shifted since the contract was signed or should your sales numbers have plummeted, the publisher can terminate the contract and get the advance returned. Obviously, the publisher has the choice as to whether to pull the parachute cord, and most publishers are reasonable. But not all.
2. If the author doesn’t pay invoices for copies of the contracted book, the money can be deducted from any agreement between the publisher and author. Apparently many authors have grieved their publishers by aggressively “purchasing” copies of the published book but failing to pay for the copies. As a result, publishers have given themselves the right to dip their hand into any agreement they have with you to deduct from your earnings the money you owe but won’t pay. Just picture the scenarios that have occurred to result in every publishing contract having this clause. Who can blame the publisher?
3. Noncompetition clauses that result in the author not being able to produce any book-length work before the last contracted book is published. This has been a deadly clause for authors. Picture this: You sign a three-book contract, agreeing to write one book per year. You’re thrilled because you are receiving a nice advance to begin with and then regular payments during the three years you’re writing. But, as those years play out, you discover that with such a long time period, the payments aren’t adding up to enough to remain financially stable. When you check your contract, you find that the noncompete paragraph locks you into not write anything book-length, regardless of topic or genre, until the third book is published.
There are many versions of the noncompete, and I’m portraying it in its most extreme version (which occurs in several publishers’ contracts). It is, in my opinion, publishers locking down authors so the possibility of making a living wage is highly unlikely. Some publishers are immovable when it comes to this clause, but others are willing to make it a more reasonable part of the contract.
How did this paragraph come into existence? Picture the author who decided to contract simultaneously with several publishers and not to inform any of them of the other projects. The publishers, in good faith, invest editorial, marketing and sales dollars (tens of thousands of dollars) into making their book a success. Only to discover the author has created competition for him or herself by flooding the market with too many books at once. Everyone loses–every publisher and the author. So the publishers decided to build a fortress around each author, preventing that writer from creating a worst case scenario. Protection makes complete sense. But now authors who are savvy enough not to cannibalize their own sales must adhere to stringent noncompetes that make it hard to earn a living.
Other examples in contracts abound, but this gives you a taste of the bitter fruit all authors must eat from trees other authors planted. It’s not a pretty picture is it?
What other parts of contracts do you think have authors’ initials beside them?
Janet, thanks for explaining the reason behind some of those massive contracts. It’s always a little surprising to see the lengths to which some authors might (and apparently do) go, and the countermeasures employed by publishers. As always, your in-depth explanation is helpful.
Janet is not going to be able to join the conversation today so I’ll stand in her stead and try to answer any questions that arise.
Isn’t it funny that we hardly think about our own actions having industry-wide ramifications?
I don’t know much about contracts (yet), but the first two examples you gave seem decently reasonable, especially when you’ve shared reasons behind those clauses. As for the third example… I can actually understand the reasoning behind that one, too. Do you think it benefits the author to be working with just one publisher (and their marketing efforts, etc.) in selling copies of a book? (Or would an author almost always “win” if he or she were publishing several books at one time… but with less marketing backing from each publisher? That’s a hypothetical question since working with multiple publishers at once is not allowed.) Does “book-length” include other picture books (or even picture book-length) for children’s authors? Short stories or other articles could be written, right?
Again, thanks for these insights. I wouldn’t have thought of these situations until I smacked right into them! I appreciate you explaining them here.
Good questions, Caroline, and worthy of a whole blog post or two.
Quick answer: Yes, the best of all possible worlds is for an author to be with one house– to have a publishing home. Reality though is that publishers often are skittish about making the kind of commitment (in terms of books and advances) that would allow that. Many publishers would like one book a year from an author to start with, at a modest advance. The writer has to decide if he will be able to make that kind of commitment for a non-living “wage.”
As to what constitutes “book length”– that will be spelled out in the contract. Sometimes we even fight to put word counts into the contracts to add specificity.
I think the noncompete clause is the most fascinating to me. I would love to hear more about the different versions that publishers and authors are willing to agree to.
There are probably as many noncompetes as there are contracts. We try to narrow and the contract people try to broaden and we all land somewhere in between.
Janet, thanks for sharing this information. I’ve yet to see a publishing contract, but hope to one day. 🙂 It’s good to be aware of the clauses. And what brought them on. It sure adds insight into the contracts. Thanks for sharing this.
Yikes! Remember that kid who horsed around in the deep end until the lifeguard finally yelled, “Everybody out of the pool!” I never liked that kid.
Wow, I had no idea some of these terms existed. It does surprise me that authors would be so underhanded in some cases. It definitely must make the agent’s job more difficult–trying to make both parties happy and successful.
Oh my word! I was reading this and thought “Maybe I should go into carpentry”.
Some clauses appear to be ludicrous while others are just plain odd. It’s a good thing I know a few lawyers, in the USA, who can sit and hold my hand for WHEN I sign my contract. See? I’m all perky and positive, even though I want to mention brown M&M’s and the rights to choose who plays me at a book signing.
In all seriousness, yes, I do possess a grown-up gene or two, I would definately spend alot of time going over each and every paragraph in my contract to make sure I understand what is expected of me, and what is worth a nice polite debate.
But…I would have an iron clad clause stating that I get to choose who plays my hero in the movie. Fans self.
Oh, yeah, the heroine too, totally…
Who do you have in mind??
Well Sarah, since you asked…and BTW, my heroine’s name? “Sarah”.
I’d have a tough time choosing between Micheal Greyeyes, Jay Tavarre (if he could ugly it down a little) or Adam Beach. But if Wes Studi could magically grow younger, he’d own the role.
No blondes or redheads need apply.
I would be interested in more info about the noncompete clause too. Since I write and edit technical documentation for a private company with a governmnet contract and at times some of the documentation that I write and edit would be considered book-length would a potential publishing contract interfere with the way I earn my living?
Technical writing would probably not be considered competition– that writing and your book would not be competing for the same dollars. But it’s good to think about and your agent would want to spell that out just for clarity.
Thanks for bringing attention to these, Janet. The deadline one is sobering, and it makes sense. As a former tax accountant, I’m thankful for the “deadline training” I received in my previous job. The federal government doesn’t have any sympathy for a late filing. 🙂
How true!
I am curious about the noncompete. When you say some say you can’t write anything until the third is published does that mean literally “write” (as in drafts) or “publish” or does it vary depending on the language of the contract?
You’ve got it. It depends on the language but it generally means that you can’t publish anything that competes within the term specified in the contract. But remember, publishers don’t want you to sign their contract and then give their book short shrift while you get excited about a newer project. You can understand, right?
Absolutely! That makes complete sense, but since there’s such a long process to publishing it’d also make sense that after book 3 is turned in you start working on something new, too, which is why I asked. Guess most of it comes down to specifics in each contract.
The first point appears to be so obvious that people might wonder, “Why was that ever a problem?” Yet unless one gets into this industry as a writer thinking they are going to be the next J.K. Rowling (and have J.K. Rowling sized royalties), they are probably aware that the speaking gigs, pushing those WIPs to other publishers, etc, are just as important as signing that publishing contract, if not more: it’s good to see ones’ name in print, but is also good to be able to pay rent. If publishers are so worried about the glacial pace of an author finding an agent, getting that book into the hands of a publisher, and the publisher publishing that book…why, yes, I assume they are within their right to criticize the author about the pace of the industry…
What bothers me most about the second point is the reason behind it, which is the distasteful practice of authors trying to rig the best-sellers lists, which is a whole other problem.
The third bit of contractual language is frankly draconian. Hurray for pen-names, I suppose. Yet regarding the “flooding the market” worry (which can be a valid worry: try selling a book about boy-wizards or vampires nowadays!), writers are always told to not write a book to chase a trend, because the trend will most likely change by the time the book goes to market. What is it about an author having to take the same amount of time to write and revise a book to present to a different publisher, the agent having to take the same amount of time pitching the book and negotiating the contract, and the publisher to publish the book which completely renders that wisdom worthless? And what reader would actually dislike having more books from their favorite authors?
To recap: Writers entering the world (of publishing) are automatically bound by laws which came down as a result of one particular author at one particular point in history, through no fault of their own, but that of the original author and those transgressions….
….I don’t know if authors would exactly say the sort of contract they have to sign is a result of some Original Sin, but I have it on good authority that most, when viewing their royalty check, will swear their publisher is a mean snake 😉
Great post with lots of helpful information! Sometimes unpublished writers do not know the things they should look for in contracts before they get to that stage in their career. It would be greatly helpful to learn more about these kinds of clauses at a conference offered to any writer with a finished manuscript they are pitching. As usual, great insight.
Even though I’m not yet to the contract stage, this post makes me enormously glad that agents exist.
Wow. I’m so overwhelmed. This makes you agents so much more valuable in my mind. I know the world functions on contracts and agreements and fine print – this is just more evidence.
Thanks for all you do,
Becky
No wonder it’s wise to have an agent! Let the experts figure out what can be negotiated in a contract.
Many manufacturing industries have non-compete clauses so I can understand why the publishing industry has one, too. Competing with their own author seems unfair.
On meeting the deadline, I know of one well-published author whose novel in a series wasn’t published for years. He shot himself in the foot, because I lost interest. Life happens, but an author should do his best to meet the terms of a contract.
As for me, I’d sign my first contract in blood, but I’m not a horror writer.
“As for me, I’d sign my first contract in blood, but I’m not a horror writer.”
Bonnie, if you’re willing to do anything to get a contract, you’re already in a lot of trouble. Writing is a business, and you have to get the best deal you can for yourself, otherwise you’re either starving, or have to do something else to make a living.
I see this “I’ll take any contract, as long as I get a contract!” attitude among writers all the time. I don’t understand it. Writing may be your passion, but you still have to eat.
Hey Wendy, that was more helpful than you know. I think it’s really beneficial for the author to understand a little of the publisher’s side of the business, and to walk in their shoes, so to speak. Thanks! 🙂
Wow! “Until the last contracted book is published” is killer. What if they choose to keep bumping it back in the publishing schedule for reasons that have nothing to with the author? That just hits me as unreasonable. I’d say once the author has delivered it, it’s up to the publisher to publish in a timely manner. So maybe the author should agree to no compete for six months after delivery? Even so, as you point out, that doesn’t help the author who might want to publish a cook book to gain some income in the middle of the fantasy trilogy.
Ouch.
So, if you were the publisher, what would you try for?
That’s the tough thing with contracts, trying to see both sides and then crafting a win-win. We spend a lot of time trying to get the best for our clients while insuring that their project is a hands-down success for each publisher.
🙂 Not easy.
Wendy, she answered that question.
“So maybe the author should agree to no compete for six months after delivery.”
Also, it’s neither the agent nor the writer’s job to see both sides. Publishers have lawyers advocating for them. Your job is to advocate for the author.
Thanks, Mira. I agree with what you’re saying. The agent is to work for the author.
If she is going to be effective in that office, though, she has to see both sides and come up with logical, doable terms that allows both the author and publisher to find success.
If the agent is too hard-nosed, the publisher won’t work with her or her clients and if the agent is too much of a marshmallow, her clients will all leave her. So if her goal is to get the best deal for her clients, she must stand in the publishers’ shoes and see how much she can take and how much she has to give.
That’s how I see it, anyway. An agent is a diplomat working for his home country by giving his guest country all that he can give to keep relations on a healthy plane.
Sally,
I think there is compromise involved in any type of contract creation. But what I saw here in these comments was an agent, Wendy, ignore what your reasonable suggestion and instead ask you to accept that the publisher was going to stick with a complete non-compete clause.
Basically admitting she has no real power in the situation, which is true. If you ever find an agent who is able to negotiate the non-compete clause with a publisher, they will be given a medal.
The bottom line is all author contracts, unless the author is a best-seller, are pretty much boilerplate. Publishers have lawyers working for them, and authors have agents, who are not lawyers, signing off on contracts where all the terms are favorable to the publisher.
This is not diplomacy. It is surrender.
Goodness, Mira. Sounds like you drew several wrong assumptions from what I said in that comment. (Don’t forget, we are commenting fast sometimes in the middle of a crazy day.)
But let me set the record straight. You are wrong when you say that it’s “neither the writer’s nor the agent’s job to see both sides.” As in any business relationship, if we want a strong, lasting relationship, we need to find win-win solutions. We want our clients to be beloved by their publishers but we never do it at their expense.
Sally answered it beautifully.
You also said: “But what I saw here in these comments was an agent, Wendy, ignore what your reasonable suggestion and instead ask you to accept that the publisher was going to stick with a complete non-compete clause.”
I don’t see where you got that from what I said. We always go to work on behalf of our clients and negotiate the best possible terms.
And you said, “The bottom line is all author contracts, unless the author is a best-seller, are pretty much boilerplate. ”
Absolutely not true. We have negotiated our basic template with each publisher over the years with many hard-won concessions. And then with each new contract, we go to work again.
What you state as fact is so far from reality that I had to step in here and correct the record. The best thing is that we are able to negotiate and still the relationship work for all parties. That’s the win-win part.
Wendy,
Can you give some specific examples of contract points you recently negotiated for authors (non-best selling) that were favorable to the author and what those terms were?
I understand you can’t mention the names, but I would appreciate some specifics.
Although, I will say, having seen your comment to Bridget below, I understand the timing of this discussion may not be the best. I understand if you’d like to postpone; these issues are on-going and there will be other opportunities to discuss them.
I am sorry for Janet’s loss.
Mira, you saw Wendy ignore me.
I saw a busy agent take time to interact with an unpublished writer who is writing books in a genre the agent doesn’t even represent. Wendy doesn’t have a lot to gain by acknowledging my presence here. When she answers me, she’s saying, in effect, “I appreciate you for reading here.”
Do you have a blog? I have a hard time interacting with my six, or so, regular readers. I can’t imagine trying to answer 20 or 4o or 60 people. I appreciate that the authors of these posts take time to answer when people comment. It makes the blog feel welcoming.
Sally, I’m confused. We stopped this discussion out of respect for Janet. I’m not sure why you’re continuing it, both here and below.
If you’d like to keep discussing this with me in private, you can click on my name and get my e-mail from that.
Thanks.
I’m sorry. I wasn’t aware that we’d stopped the discussion. Obviously. Since I was still discussing. 🙂 I’m happy to hear that you want to be respectful of Janet’s feelings.
I didn’t think my posting yesterday was disrespectful. It’s not like they’ve closed the blog down and asked us to stop talking. I’m very sorry for Janet that she’s suffering this loss, but I’m not grieving like she is–I didn’t know her husband–and I doubt she expects us all to be silent out of respect for her grief. I suspect she’s spending time with her family telling healing stories about her husband and about God’s faithfulness and she isn’t reading these posts at all.
Sheds a whole lot of light on the statuses you ladies periodically post about disappearing into your respective contract-reading caves. Sure thankful for your wisdom!
Thanks, Amanda. Though as you know, I need to crawl off into the manuscript reading cave.
Listen up, writers: I’m sorry to burst your blame bubble, but the only clauses that bear your initals are the ones you initialed. You are NOT to blame for the changes in publishing contracts that have made them less and less favorable to you, the creator.
Ms. Grant gently chides the naughty writers over the first two clauses, which the writers clearly brought on themselves, so don’t go blaming the poor publishers, who are only defending themselves from you and I, after all. But those clauses are almost beneficent compared to the third–the noncompete clause–the most unconsionable (in an ethical OR a legal sense) of the three, and presented here as though it were just another gentle rap on the knuckles for your and your colleagues’ misdeeds. I don’t buy it, and I don’t think anyone else should either.
Furthermore, she’s blaming the victim. The writer is the person with the least power in the relationship being defined by the contract, the one without whom there wouldn’t be a book to publish, and the one whose career could be wrecked by signing off on most if not all of the current noncompetition clauses offered by corporate publishers. And seeing as how a newly-minted midlist author is very likely to be told the clause is non-negotiable and very likely to find her agent caving on it to preserve good relations with the publisher, clauses like that are going to be responsible for a lot of grief.
This is not–to me–an example of agents being even more valuable. Most of them, including, I’m afraid, Ms. Grant and Ms. Lawton, have entirely forgotten they’re supposed to be working for the writer, and have instead become apologists for the publishers.
Bridget, I completely agree. This is definitely a case of ‘blaming the victim.’ The psychology here is very disturbing.
It frames the wise and kind publisher as having to keep the selfish author in check with the help of the wise and kind agent.
It neatly blames the writer for corporate greed and agent ineffectiveness.
If that weren’t the case, if this were a fair scenario, where are the contract inclusions that were included due to publisher bad behavior? Where are the publishers’ initials located in the contract?
I can answer that question. There haven’t been any. Traditionally there were no clauses in the contract that weren’t ultimately to the publisher’s benefit. That may slowly be changing, but only due to pressure being placed on publishers. It is not voluntary on their part, something you might expect from a wise and kind mega-corporation.
The bottom line here is that information about how publisher/author contracts are one-sided and unreasonable is beginning to spread. The spin in this post is that it’s the writer’s fault. Otherwise, writers might question why the agent hasn’t protected them from such one-sided contracts.
A freaking men, Bridget. Boo hoo, poor publishers, the horrible little writers who create the content and get pennies on the copy might want some flexibility in their contracts. Yup it’s all your fault, writer, that giant corporations aren’t making any money and have to strangle you with clauses to ensure they continue to squeeze every last bit of heart out of you.
What a load of… wow.
Taking a knife to a gun fight comes to mind. No, actually more of a pea shooter to a gun fight.
You’re reading posts in the worst possible light. you’re assigning the worst motives to the author.
Why not assume Grant is trying educate her present and potential clients, so she can help them make more money and be more successful in every way?
It’s right for her to tell writers that publishers don’t have a corner on being evil and greedy. Some authors are evil and greedy, too. Publishers have been burned, acquisitions editors have been sacked, and printers and salespeople have lost their jobs, when authors haven’t come through with promised manuscripts or when authors have written for competitors and devalued their books.
This information can only make her clients smarter business people. It prepares them, it tells them what they’re facing, it gives then opportunity to decide what they can and can’t live with so they can plan their lives accordingly.
And to be a peacemaker, standing between two parties, requires that she try to get both sides to see through the other guy’s eyes. Here she speaks to writers and she encourages us to see through publishers’ eyes. When she’s speaking to publishers I bet she tries to get them to see through her clients’ eyes. I assume that, because I have no reason to assume the worst about her.
The thing that is so frustrating about your comment here is that you’re the person/s who most need to hear what she’s saying and you’ve got your fingers firmly planted in your ears. This post is about how we ought not assign evil motives to others–rather we ought to figure out what motivates them so we can look for a solution–and instead of hearing her, you assign evil motives to Grant.
Sally,
I understand that you are defending, Janet, because you most likely care about her as a regular blog reader. I respect that, and want to be clear, I’m not attacking her on a personal basis, but questioning what she has written here. In addition, given her recent loss, it really doesn’t seem appropriate to push this point home.
But I will say I have met very few evil authors, much less greedy ones, in my travels on the internet and in the world.
Sally, I appreciate that your opinion on this matter is different from mine. Be assured I do not attribute “evil motives” to Ms. Grant; I recognize that she’s in business. I take your point that the writers reading this blog are now warned against noncompete clauses. That much is a good thing if indeed they can succeed in avoiding signing off on such clauses in the future. I wish them success.
I’m sorry if I appeared to single out Ms. Grant and Ms. Lawton concerning their position on author-unfriendly clauses. It really isn’t just them. You see, I think most writers–particularly but not limited to new ones–think an author’s representative’s job is not to be a peacekeeper, but to represent the authors who hired them, as the name of their profession implies. As it happens, agents can’t fully commit to representing the interests of authors. Their need to keep on publishers’ good sides isn’t evil, it’s survival. But here’s the thing: I’d rather not be represented in contract negotiations by someone whose survival is dependent on the person on the other side of the table from me, and who will not be paid if I refuse to sign a bad contract. No-one I know would accept this in ANY OTHER KIND of business dealing, but it’s taken for granted that when it comes to a publishing contract, it’s ethical, above-board, and even desirable.
And you are free to disagree here also, but I don’t believe I do need to hear an agent–not just Ms. Grant, but any agent–apologize for the bad business practices of publishers; I sold my first fiction in 1974 and I’ve been making my living as a writer since 1988. I had two excellent agents who also had to survive; I’m not ignorant of how the publishing world works. I do, however, think writers need to be better educated than most of them are to judge by the comments I’ve read here.
Mira, I’m not arguing here because I like Janet and I think you’re being mean to her and she needs me to stick up for her.
I do sympathize with her now, for sure. I lost my own husband five years ago tomorrow, and I can remember how hard the weeks leading up to his death were and I can remember how hard the funeral was. So I’m praying for her.
But I don’t really know Janet and I’m not arguing with you because I feel a need to defend her.
I’m arguing here because you just happen to be hitting on one of my hot-button issues. I feel very strongly that we should interpret others in the most charitable light possible. I think so many of the problems in this world would be solved if we’d all stop being easily offended.
Bridget, I didn’t think you were singling out Janet and Wendy. But I did think you were saying Janet was writing a self-serving post rather than trying to serve her blog readers.
I’m sorry. I apparently misunderstood you. Do you think Janet was mistaken when she spoke of the authors that didn’t produce what they promised to produce?
I don’t. I’ve known writers who didn’t turn in contracted books–more than one, and my pool of writer friends is pretty small. So if I know more than one, I’m sure Janet knows of a lot more than that. I also know writers who write for two publishers, putting out similar books in the same year. They aren’t writing well or marketing well, because they are spread too thin, so now they have two books out just a few months apart and no one wants to read either book.
You think that agents shouldn’t be peacekeepers and you see their keeping on the good side of publishers as being at odds with them doing a good job for their clients.
I don’t understand how an agent could work effectively for her clients if she was on the bad side of the publishers. I think an agent who is fully committed to her authors, has to be on the good side of the publishers. I really can’t see why you think that’s a problem.
Sally,
I’d like to continue this discussion sometime; I think it’s interesting to share thoughts with you.
But since my feelings about this post are critical, I just don’t think it would be appropriate to respond right now, given Janet’s recent loss.
I’m sure we’ll pick this up again sometime in the future.
Bridget, you are welcome to take the role of victim here. You have plenty of company but anger and resentment are counterproductive when you are trying to build a career.
As you know, we love a good discussion and thank you for jumping in here. Normally we would jump in with both feet but right now Janet is unable to answer and we are going to have to postpone this discussion. We’ll pick it up as soon as things quiet down here.
Thanks to those in our community for stepping in with some interesting discussion.
If she’s been making a living as a writer since 1988, doesn’t sound like she’s building a career. Did you even read her post? Because a seasoned writer expresses serious concerns, and you just tell her she’s “taking the role of a victim”.
Karen Kingsbury came to mind as I read this post. Seems like she has a book releasing every three months. Now I know she’s Karen Kingsbury and all, but I don’t believe that all of her releases in the past few years have been with the same house.
Is this an example of a best-selling author having enough clout to get rid of that non-compete clause?
Janet and Wendy, thanks for sharing this. Very eye-opening.
Wow. I’m so glad you spelled this out for us, Janet. It’s enough to make your head spin.
I have a concern with #3 from above, because I currently work at a newspaper and I must publish my work to keep my job. Would that #3 clause affect my job in journalism?
Have you worked with journalists around that clause?? I would really love to know what you think. Thanks!
Why do publishers want to make in near impossible for authors to make a living wage?
Thank you once again for sharing important information from the other side of the publishing fence. When I’m ready to sign I will keep my eyes wide open for contract content that satisfies all parties involved.
If ever I saw such a clause as the non-compete in a contract of mine, I’d expecty agent to line it through. If s/he didn’t, it would go back as many times as it took. It’s hard enough to make a living as it is. Writers must be totally free to write and sell whatever they can. And what am I supposed to do if the next story I write is something my pub would never touch? I can’t be tied to such terms as this, and I’d expect my agent to act on MY behalf.
Sorry, but the non-compete clause is the biggest deal breaker out there and is designed to benefit the publisher, not the writer. When I read a great book, I almost immediately go out and see what else the author has written, so, if anything, having books out more quickly actually spurs sales. However, it does compete against other books from the same publisher, which is exactly where their interests are.
Film studios don’t tell Sandra Bullock or Samuel Jackson to only make one movie a year because they’re afraid new movie sales will impinge on that particular movie.
Going to agree with the last couple of statements. The first points made total sense… If you want to buy copies, you ought to pay for them. If you’re irresponsible enough to be late, you ought to be penalized.
But books by a given author don’t compete with each other; rather, they support one another. There is enormous evidence of this effect. Non-compete clauses are therefore extremely detrimental to writers. They should be considered a flat out dealbreaker for all writers. I will not sign contracts with a noncompete; I encourage all other writers to likewise refuse them. These clauses are disastrous to writing careers, and as a result, detrimental to their agents as well. I’m a little shocked that any agent would consider a contract with such a clause viable.