# More bad news for Harlequin/Silhouette authors re. ebooks



## Cheryl Bolen (Jun 9, 2011)

I reported a week ago about Harlequin/Silhouette uploading all their 1990s titles for the first time as ebooks on July 15. I have since learned what royalty rate to expect on these, and the rate is even lower than my print royalty of 6 percent of the cover price!

Novelists Inc. commissioned a literary attorney (Elaine English, who is also an agent) to examine a representative sample of contracts from over the years, specifically to rule on ebooks and royalties and reversion of rights. 

Her findings were most unwelcome, to say the least. The long and short of it is, authors will only get 3 percent of asking price. In my case, the ebook(s) is being offered for $4.79. So, my cut will be 14 cents a download. Woe is me.

And even worse, most of us who published with Harlequin/Silhouette will probably never be able to get back our rights.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

Ugh, that's awful.  But you're right-- once they're back "in print," you probably can't get the rights back.  My sympathies.


----------



## Millard (Jun 13, 2011)

_3%_?!

That's like, third world sweatshop slave labour bad.


----------



## MonkeyScribe (Jan 27, 2011)

Millard said:


> _3%_?!
> 
> That's like, third world sweatshop slave labour bad.


Seriously. Don't they feel even a tiny twinge of shame?


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

That's pretty awful. I'm sorry.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

Wow, 3 % just seems wrong.


----------



## Imogen Rose (Mar 22, 2010)

Dara England said:


> Wow, 3 % just seems wrong.


Yes, really wrong...


----------



## Kathleen Valentine (Dec 10, 2009)

Well, that sucks.


----------



## Allie Beck (Jun 22, 2011)

Even *Amazon affiliates* get a minimum of 4%! So someone who didn't write the book can put up a link with their affiliate account number in it and make more money than the author when it sells.


----------



## Donna Ball (May 8, 2010)

Hmmm...
This may explain why my request for a reversion of rights 11 months ago has received NO response.  
Can you say SLEEEEZY.....?

On the other hand, I guess we all knew they were snakes when we picked them up


----------



## AnneMarie Novark (Aug 15, 2010)

Good gracious!!!

That is downright sinful!!!

*shakes head in disgust*


----------



## Gertie Kindle (Nov 6, 2008)

That is truly appalling. I hope you sell 100K.


----------



## jnfr (Mar 26, 2011)

I hope you write more books. Many more books, and that you never give one right away to these vultures, ever again.


----------



## J.A. Marlow (Dec 18, 2010)

[Post content removed to protect my content and data because I do not agree to or accept VerticalScope's new Terms of Service. I hereby reject said terms and retain all copyrights to my information and content.

I disavow any association with the new ads that now exist that may be tasteless, racist, demeaning to women, sexist, or exploitative in any way.]


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake' said:


> That is truly appalling. I hope you sell 100K.


This is the problem. With HQ/Sil's arrangement, even if she sells 100k units, she'd only make about $14k. That's not enough to live on for a year, and it sounds like they've tied up her rights in perpetuity.

Shameful.

I also hope you write more books and publish them yourself, or through other, more advantageous publishing routes.


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

Okay, yes, it should be more, and harlequin should pay better, but isn't 3% better than nothing?  I ask out of ignorance, but are you getting anything for this book currently?  If not, then take whatever you get as a bonus and sell your new stuff without harlequin.


----------



## SuzanneTyrpak (Aug 10, 2010)

scarlet said:


> Okay, yes, it should be more, and harlequin should pay better, but isn't 3% better than nothing? I ask out of ignorance, but are you getting anything for this book currently? If not, then take whatever you get as a bonus and sell your new stuff without harlequin.


Getting nothing from Harlequin, but getting the rights back, would be much better. IMO, this deal is similar to being an indentured servant.


----------



## Will Write for Gruel (Oct 16, 2010)

It is shameful, but a contract is a contract. I've done a lot of work for hire writing where my writing has been resold and I didn't see even three percent -- I got zero. But it's what I agreed to. 

I am sympathetic. This sucks. Better to move on and write new fiction and forget about it. 

And I hope this makes it harder for Harlequin to recruit new writers.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2011)

I'm joining Kindle Readers Against Harlequin

Sorry that their authors will be hurt if they sell or if they don't sell.

And you know Harlequin will hold up their tiny royalties for 60 to 90 days after the month of sale.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Sorry for the bad news. That really stinks. 

Vicki


----------



## Erica Sloane (May 11, 2011)

That's awful. Sorry to hear it.

I guess the best thing you can do is somehow turn those newly uploaded ebooks into a marketing tool and at least it might pay off that way for your indie books.

Best of luck to you.


----------



## greenpen (May 30, 2011)

Cheryl Bolen said:


> I reported a week ago about Harlequin/Silhouette uploading all their 1990s titles for the first time as ebooks on July 15. I have since learned what royalty rate to expect on these, and the rate is even lower than my print royalty of 6 percent of the cover price!
> 
> Novelists Inc. commissioned a literary attorney (Elaine English, who is also an agent) to examine a representative sample of contracts from over the years, specifically to rule on ebooks and royalties and reversion of rights.
> 
> ...


Must be time to get the Authors guild, or whoever you are a member of, involved. Sounds like a diabolical cheek to me.


----------



## kcmay (Jul 14, 2010)

Disgusting. They should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Abigail (Apr 27, 2010)

Ewww that really stinks!

You never know they may go into administration one of these days when Indies really do rule the world ..and get what's due.


----------



## marshacanham (Jul 30, 2010)

There was a news release just yesterday about Harlequin upping the royalty rate for current as well as back titles and if you stabbed me with a fork, I couldn't find the link again, but I read it with interest, and even left a snarky comment because, even though they're raising the percentage from 6 to 12 for series and 25 for single title, it still sucks.  I wrote one book for H about 20 years ago and I've been trying to get the rights back since last July.  First letter was ignored, second got a response saying they would pass it along to the proper department, next thing I got, in or around April, was an enthusiastic letter saying they had *selected* my book to go into their huge reissuing program for backlist books and was I interested in participating before I went further with my request for rights reversion?  I fired back a big NO and haven't heard a word since.  I have heard of a lot of other authors being flatly refused, which sucks.  Something else I had read somewhere (I plead senior moments and a bad habit of not bookmarking articles I read) was that a group of authors were banding together to challenge the H clause about owning the rights to "every format not thought of now or in the future"

Anyone who hasn't seen a Harlequin contract, it's a real eye opener. LOL


----------



## John Hartness (Aug 3, 2009)

greenpen said:


> Must be time to get the Authors guild, or whoever you are a member of, involved. Sounds like a diabolical cheek to me.


Isn't this the sort of thing that organizations like RWA exist to work on? Shouldn't an author's organization be fighting for its members?


----------



## John Hartness (Aug 3, 2009)

marshacanham said:


> Something else I had read somewhere (I plead senior moments and a bad habit of not bookmarking articles I read) was that a group of authors were banding together to challenge the H clause about owning the rights to "every format not thought of now or in the future"


It's another version of the "Peggy Lee rule," which would likely be deemed unenforceable, especially if the suit is brought in California, where there is precedent to throw out that type of clause. But the fight would be EXPENSIVE and protracted.

But I predict we see it happen at some point within the next five years, and likely sooner. Some big name with enough cash to hire big lawyers is going to want to do what J.K. Rowling just did, and they're going to get pushback from a publisher who locked up "formats available now or in the future" and it's going to on like neckbone, as we say in the sticks.


----------



## Christopher Hunter (Apr 11, 2011)

Wow...that really puts all the hard work of an Indie author in perspective. As writers and promoters, do we want to bust our tails for 3% or 70%? Sure, the advance sounds sweet on the surface, but for the long term...geez! I wonder what was the clause to tie up the rights in such a way?


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Wow. I mean...wow. I'm reminded of that fantastic line from Matt Taibbi (sp?) about Goldman Sachs (whatever you think about GS, the line itself is still fantastic): something, something, a great vampire squid latched onto the face of humanity, shoving it's blood funnel into anything that smells of money.

This seems sort of vampire squid-ish to me. 

I am really sorry. Hope you can channel the frustration and write a bunch of bestsellers.


----------



## JoshuaPSimon (Jun 24, 2011)

That makes me sick just thinking about it.


----------



## DL Patterson (May 10, 2011)

http://ereads.com/2011/06/harlequin-raises-e-book-royalties-retroactively.html

So while it doesn't sound awesome or like you'll be getting your rights back, at least it might not be quite so bad? Though, what's the difference between cover & net with this?



 marshacanham said:


> There was a news release just yesterday about Harlequin upping the royalty rate for current as well as back titles and if you stabbed me with a fork, I couldn't find the link again, but I read it with interest, and even left a snarky comment because, even though they're raising the percentage from 6 to 12 for series and 25 for single title, it still sucks. I wrote one book for H about 20 years ago and I've been trying to get the rights back since last July. First letter was ignored, second got a response saying they would pass it along to the proper department, next thing I got, in or around April, was an enthusiastic letter saying they had *selected* my book to go into their huge reissuing program for backlist books and was I interested in participating before I went further with my request for rights reversion? I fired back a big NO and haven't heard a word since. I have heard of a lot of other authors being flatly refused, which sucks. Something else I had read somewhere (I plead senior moments and a bad habit of not bookmarking articles I read) was that a group of authors were banding together to challenge the H clause about owning the rights to "every format not thought of now or in the future"
> 
> Anyone who hasn't seen a Harlequin contract, it's a real eye opener. LOL


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

If they're smart they'll give the big name enough, or settle, so they can still screw all the smaller fish. Smaller fish would probably have to file suit together, no? IANAL, YMMV, etc.



John Hartness said:


> It's another version of the "Peggy Lee rule," which would likely be deemed unenforceable, especially if the suit is brought in California, where there is precedent to throw out that type of clause. But the fight would be EXPENSIVE and protracted.
> 
> But I predict we see it happen at some point within the next five years, and likely sooner. Some big name with enough cash to hire big lawyers is going to want to do what J.K. Rowling just did, and they're going to get pushback from a publisher who locked up "formats available now or in the future" and it's going to on like neckbone, as we say in the sticks.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Makes sense to me.  You put in 97% of the effort, so the math works out.

Seriously, though... that's ridiculous.  Go write new books and start earning 70%.


----------



## Mel Comley (Oct 13, 2010)

That is diabolical. Looking on the bright side maybe it'll help to sell your Indie books. 

Thanks for sharing, what these people can't grasp is if you hadn't written the book in the first place they wouldn't be making a profit!

Is there no way you can fight the contract? E-rights weren't around back then were they.


----------



## Gina Black (Mar 15, 2011)

I read the article on the link. I'm not impressed.

This may be legal, but it's completely unethical.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

marshacanham said:


> Anyone who hasn't seen a Harlequin contract, it's a real eye opener. LOL


This is true. And I am going to sound like a Pollyanna about the whole thing, having signed a bunch of them.

The royalty statement issue is a net vs gross thing. The exact terms of the current deal, as I understand them are that they offer category 15% net and single title 25%. We have to wait and see if this will come out to be 3% instead of the 6% they are giving us now.

The good news is, they budged on a thing they swore they wouldn't budge on. Now we have to wait and see if they need to move more.

What has happened with other e-publishers is that sales through the house website get more net then those through Amazon. So it might depend on where they sell. Or not. I could get screwed. I could get more money. I also know from experience that getting my rights back and self publishing will not automatically lead to profit. Still doing better with the trad books than the self published books. No, it is not a great contract. No, I am not getting the rights back.

But really, the 'poor Harlequin authors' thing kind of gets on my nerves. I am making a living off this. It's my full time job. My career is still going up, not down. Could I be doing better? Maybe. Probably. I don't know. Success, in any field is not an instant thing, where everyone who takes the same path gets to the same place.

Writing has always been a chancy profession. Like Superchicken used to say, "You knew this job was dangerous when you took it."


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Gina Black said:


> I read the article on the link. I'm not impressed.
> 
> This may be legal, but it's completely unethical.


It doesn't really have to be legal, or enforceable, it just has to be really expensive to challenge. Contracts don't really protect you from large corporate entities. They know you most likely won't have the means to enforce the terms unless they do something really stunningly, egregiously stupid, the sort of thing that makes for an excellent tabloid news story or something. If there's any ambiguity at all, anything that requires lengthy litigation or arbitration, you are probably SOL. In my (painful) experience, anyway.


----------



## Sandra Edwards (May 10, 2010)

SuzanneTyrpak said:


> Getting nothing from Harlequin, but getting the rights back, would be much better. IMO, this deal is similar to being an indentured servant.


What Suzanne said. This is just wrong on so many levels.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

scarlet said:


> Okay, yes, it should be more, and harlequin should pay better, but isn't 3% better than nothing? I ask out of ignorance, but are you getting anything for this book currently? If not, then take whatever you get as a bonus and sell your new stuff without harlequin.


No, it is not a "bonus". They are holding her rights in perpetuity, rights authors who were lucky enough not to do business with scumbags got back and republished as indies.

Some authors may be happy enough having their rights held forever but not having a choice turns authors into little more than slave labour.


----------



## marshacanham (Jul 30, 2010)

Christine Merrill said:


> This is true. And I am going to sound like a Pollyanna about the whole thing, having signed a bunch of them.
> 
> The royalty statement issue is a net vs gross thing. The exact terms of the current deal, as I understand them are that they offer category 15% net and single title 25%. We have to wait and see if this will come out to be 3% instead of the 6% they are giving us now.
> 
> ...


Seems like a timely place to put a wee link to my blog, where I discussed Choices in three installments. http://marshacanham.wordpress.com The choice to sign a contract, the choice to go indie...*shrug*


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

scarlet said:


> Okay, yes, it should be more, and harlequin should pay better, but isn't 3% better than nothing? I ask out of ignorance, but are you getting anything for this book currently? If not, then take whatever you get as a bonus and sell your new stuff without harlequin.


This is kind of like saying, "Well, yes, he beats her every night - but at least she has a roof over her head!"


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

LKRigel said:


> This is kind of like saying, "Well, yes, he beats her every night - but at least she has a roof over her head!"


No, it's not. It's like saying, I have a new job that pays me a decent salary, and my last job is going to give me some more money but i don't have to do any hours there.

Ultimately, I believe Harlequin show give the authors back their digital rights. And I applaud authors who are fighting for this. But if you're not making anything on the book at present and you are going to make something, I believe that that something is better than nothing.

And in your analogy, I hope we'd both be staging an intervention to get her out of the situation.


----------



## Cheryl Bolen (Jun 9, 2011)

Donna Ball said:


> Hmmm...
> This may explain why my request for a reversion of rights 11 months ago has received NO response.


I knew in my bones this would be coming; therefore I asked for my rights back before they had a chance to format these books digitally. However, as long as they were being printed anywhere in the world, I had to wait for 10 years from LAST publication date. Now, it'll never happen.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

scarlet said:


> And in your analogy, I hope we'd both be staging an intervention to get her out of the situation.


Exactly. This is a faulty analogy. I have this career. I am not a battered woman. NO ONE IS BEATING ME.
Can I get my rights back? No. 
Did I know this when I signed the contract? Yes.
Was it a good decision at the time? No one else wanted my first book. Self publishing was not a viable option. So, yes.
How do I want to proceed on future work? It's my choice.
Has writing been my only career for 4 1/2 years? Yes.
Will it continue to be? Yes. And I can say that with confidence.

Not rich. Also, not living in a box.

You cannot make blanket assumptions about the careers of others. You can make choices for yourself. That's it.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

I wonder if new submissions to Harlequin are down.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Allie Beck said:


> Even *Amazon affiliates* get a minimum of 4%! So someone who didn't write the book can put up a link with their affiliate account number in it and make more money than the author when it sells.


Which means the authors should do so -- set up a website (or a page on their blogs) for those titles. Even if you were writing under a pseudonym, you could be using those titles to help sell books you own.

Camille


----------



## Sandra Edwards (May 10, 2010)

The point is that the books are being "held hostage" (IMO). Did the authors know this when they signed the contract? If they read it thoroughly, the should have. But, even so, at the time, the authors had no other choice if they wanted to "publish" these books. 

Dismissing it as, "it's better to make something than nothing"...well, it's not as simple as that. These books could be making the authors far more $$$ if they had their rights back. 

Just saying....


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

Sandra Edwards said:


> The point is that the books are being "held hostage" (IMO). Did the authors know this when they signed the contract? If they read it thoroughly, the should have. But, even so, at the time, the authors had no other choice if they wanted to "publish" these books.
> 
> Dismissing it as, "it's better to make something than nothing"...well, it's not as simple as that. These books could be making the authors far more $$$ if they had their rights back.
> 
> Just saying....


Yes. It isn't "extra money" or a "bonus" that H is tossing at the authors (like dimes from Rockefeller). H contracts were always crappy. But for many, they were the only game in the universe. Things have changed, and authors can make a fair portion from THEIR OWN WORK now, so the H contracts look super crappy in the light of the new day.

Sadly, I think the authors are stuck. The only recourse might be the natural one: write new books and never submit a book to Harlequin or their iterations again. Harlequin will adapt to the new world AND it will have a sweet income stream from all these back lists while they do.


----------



## MegHarris (Mar 4, 2010)

> Things have changed, and authors can make a fair portion from THEIR OWN WORK now, so the H contracts look super crappy in the light of the new day.


That's really the problem here. Those contracts were signed way back in the dark ages, when traditional publishers were the only game in town. There weren't even ebook publishers at that time. If you wanted to be a writer, you dealt with the big boys. But it's frustrating not to be able to get out of ancient contracts when you know that you could indie publish the book and do so much better on your own.

I agree that a contract is a contract, and if there's no way to get out of it, then we have to grit our teeth and move on. But we still don't have to like it.


----------



## StaceyHH (Sep 13, 2010)

LKRigel said:


> I wonder if new submissions to Harlequin are down.


Doubt it. People are still submitting to vanity presses, slush piles are probably as big as ever, and I still personally know people who send queries to Harlequin. There are plenty of people who want to be published, don't see self-publishing as the way to "legitimize" their writing, and will still submit to places like this - 3% and loss of rights notwithstanding.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

EllenFisher said:


> I agree that a contract is a contract, and if there's no way to get out of it, then we have to grit our teeth and move on. But we still don't have to like it.


This is what I meant with the wife-beating analogy. I don't think H authors should be expected to like it.


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

EllenFisher said:


> That's really the problem here. Those contracts were signed way back in the dark ages, when traditional publishers were the only game in town. There weren't even ebook publishers at that time. If you wanted to be a writer, you dealt with the big boys. But it's frustrating not to be able to get out of ancient contracts when you know that you could indie publish the book and do so much better on your own.


This is exactly the point! eBooks as such didn't exist when those contracts were signed, so the authors weren't technically selling their e-publishing rights. A contract made in 1990 should NOT apply to a technology that didn't exist at the time, no matter what kind of ambiguous, all-encompassing language the contract used. Everyone who signed those contracts _knew _they referred to printed books; there was no reason to specify it, since those were the only type of books that existed. If any of these authors had the financial means to fight the contract, they would most likely win. Since they don't, and since it would probably cost them more to fight it than the rights are worth, Harlequin is taking advantage of them. They've probably made separate side deals with any of their authors who are popular enough to have the means to fight them, so no precedents are set.

I find it deplorable. Harlequin should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

StaceyHH said:


> Doubt it. People are still submitting to vanity presses, slush piles are probably as big as ever, and I still personally know people who send queries to Harlequin. There are plenty of people who want to be published, don't see self-publishing as the way to "legitimize" their writing, and will still submit to places like this - 3% and loss of rights notwithstanding.


And for some people, it's the path that will make them the happiest. A lot of authors aren't cut out to be business people. They don't want to handle the millions of other things that come after the ms is "finished" and before it's ready for readers, nor do they want to deal with all the stuff that comes after the book is published. Also, they might love being part of an "exclusive" club. There are intangible goodies that come with that dismal royalty percentage.


----------



## Brenda Carroll (May 21, 2009)

Cheryl Bolen said:


> I knew in my bones this would be coming; therefore I asked for my rights back before they had a chance to format these books digitally. However, as long as they were being printed anywhere in the world, I had to wait for 10 years from LAST publication date. Now, it'll never happen.


In reading this thread, I am convinced that waiting out the storm is still the best course of action. Sooner or later, things will settle down and find a level of least resistance. Sooner rather than later, I hope. Right now, we must all be cautious about signing our rights away. Of course, Miss Bolen is already having a problem and I wish the best for her. Meanwhile, I'll sit tight where I am and see what happens.


----------



## LCEvans (Mar 29, 2009)

I wouldn't pay $4.99 for a Harlequin. There are thousands of them available at my library or in yard sales and thrift stores. Of course, these are paperbacks not ebooks, but if I wanted to read a Harlequin, I'd head to the library first.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

JoshuaPSimon said:


> That makes me sick just thinking about it.


It makes me angry _and_ sick.
I also read a post somewhere that said most publishers are _'underreporting the sales of e-books.'_
Excuse me? A pickpocket is not _'rearranging the content of your wallet.'_ He is stealing your money. Publishers who do this are frauds and crooks who steal from their authors. They belong behind bars like the ordinary thieves they are.
Add to that the ridiculously draconian contracts they think they still can impose on authors.
I can see that in the past there were no alternatives if you wanted to present your writing to the public. However, now there are.
Alas, too many authors still suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> Alas, too many authors still suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.


No. Really. But thanks so much for that. And as I said before, not abused either. Can we mention Hitler now? Are we there yet? 

Saying again, we are all responsible for our own decisions. I don't demand other people be happy or sad over this, or choose any path over any other.

But assuming that anyone who is not violently upset is in need of rescue and intervention is no better than saying that it's crazy to self publish. Neither is true.

I believe that the words 'intangible goodies' were mentioned. Yes. There are some. It's up to me to decide when the bad outweighs the good. And as far as under-reporting goes, there is this thing called an audit. It's in my contract. As the LOLcats say, I can has. When I want.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

It's a business.  HQ is going to do what's best for HQ. It sucks for those authors who have books that are tied, but HQ has always been known for pretty ruthless contracts.  It's why a lot of successful authors who started in HQ moved on to other publishers.  It was a launching pad.
I do feel bad for authors who would do a much better job promoting that backlist if they owned them or had a larger stake in the royalties.  I think that's where HQ is shooting themselves-- they're giving those authors no incentive to promote.  In fact, it's a disincentive to promote.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Christine Merrill said:


> No. Really. But thanks so much for that. And as I said before, not abused either. Can we mention Hitler now? Are we there yet?
> 
> Saying again, we are all responsible for our own decisions. I don't demand other people be happy or sad over this, or choose any path over any other.
> 
> ...


I said that I could see that in the past there were no alternatives. So I was in no way speaking about you, let alone in any way judging you.

When I spoke about Stockholm Syndrome I meant authors who start out now. Again, not you.

A little bit oversensitive, are we?


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

Bob Mayer said:


> It's a business. HQ is going to do what's best for HQ.


And this is true of Amazon and Smashwords as well. Right now, business and author interests are aligned there. But that does not guarantee eternal happiness and a continual upward curve of success. Remember when the housing bubble was never going to break? Things change. Big companies always put their own interest first.

And in publishing, things are changing a lot. Every day. The current idie success model is great. And it's also about a year old. When did Kindle up the royalty rates? Because they weren't there when I first self published in Nov of '09.

Yes, HQ is more into itself than it is to me and had a harsh boilerplate. Not going to argue that, ever. I knew that when I signed. But I would generally recommend that everyone sign contracts with wide open eyes and ice in their veins.


----------



## Cheryl Bolen (Jun 9, 2011)

greenpen said:


> Must be time to get the Authors guild, or whoever you are a member of, involved. Sounds like a diabolical cheek to me.


Not Authors Guild, but Novelists Inc. They hired an attorney to look into a representative sample of HQ/Silhouette contracts. The attorney's "ruling" is pretty easy to read and can be found on their website. Link to it from the auqu part on the home page.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

Andrew Ashling said:


> I said that I could see that in the past there were no alternatives. So I was in no way speaking about you, let alone in any way judging you.
> 
> When I spoke about Stockholm Syndrome I meant authors who start out now. Again, not you.
> 
> A little bit oversensitive, are we?


Nope. When my contract is up in one book, I might sign with them. I might not. But if I stay, it will not be because I have Stockholm Syndrome. I will be looking at the deal on the table and calculating what I have to do to get that money, the distribution, and the sales numbers.

Likewise, if someone asks me, 'should I or shouldn't I' sign with HQ M&B or any other big publisher. I'd tell them to take a good hard look at what they want and why. Stockholm Syndrome does not apply, just because you think they may be making a bad deal.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> I said that I could see that in the past there were no alternatives. So I was in no way speaking about you, let alone in any way judging you.
> 
> When I spoke about Stockholm Syndrome I meant authors who start out now. Again, not you.
> 
> A little bit oversensitive, are we?


I know people who continue to work for Harlequin right now. They know what their options are and have decided that this is the best one for them.

I don't have to posit Stockholm Syndrome or any kind of psychological disorder to understand why they're doing it: it's because sometimes, a bad e-royalty rate is made up for by the fact that you can and will have your book translated into 20 languages and given global distribution. It's because, if you write for Harlequin Presents, the line gets every author that publishes in the line on the USA Today list. It's because some people want to build up a readership and a line that gets you a guaranteed slot in every Walmart and Target is not a bad place to start.

It's also because some people depend on their writing to pay the bills, and they literally cannot forgo the advance or they will not survive. I wouldn't gamble my family's livelihood--and forgo income for several months, if not longer--to self-publish. There are some not-great parts of working for Harlequin, but there are also some really good parts, too.

You don't know what these authors make. You don't know what their personal situation is. Saying that hundreds and hundreds of women must be either psychologically ill or ignorant just because you made a different decision under different circumstances is incredibly judgmental. Have you talked to these people? Do you know what they're wrestling with? Are you looking at their print runs and their distribution and their prior royalty statements?

And if this sounds "overly sensitive," be aware that you're talking about some really good friends of mine. I can tell you that they are definitely not afflicted by Stockholm Syndrome, and they know what their options are. They're smart, savvy business women. They're each going to react in their own way, depending on what they think will best fit their future.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Christine Merrill said:


> Nope. When my contract is up in one book, I might sign with them. I might not. But if I stay, it will not be because I have Stockholm Syndrome. I will be looking at the deal on the table and calculating what I have to do to get that money, the distribution, and the sales numbers.
> 
> Likewise, if someone asks me, 'should I or shouldn't I' sign with HQ M&B or any other big publisher. I'd tell them to take a good hard look at what they want and why. Stockholm Syndrome does not apply, just because you think they may be making a bad deal.


Again, nobody, least of all I said _you_ have Stockholm Syndrome.

On the contrary, I think you're taking rational decisions based on the the information you have and the current state of the industry.

And by the way, thank you for sharing this information.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Courtney Milan said:


> I know people who continue to work for Harlequin right now. They know what their options are and have decided that this is the best one for them.
> 
> I don't have to posit Stockholm Syndrome or any kind of psychological disorder to understand why they're doing it: it's because sometimes, a bad e-royalty rate is made up for by the fact that you can and will have your book translated into 20 languages and given global distribution. It's because, if you write for Harlequin Presents, the line gets every author that publishes in the line on the USA Today list. It's because some people want to build up a readership and a line that gets you a guaranteed slot in every Walmart and Target is not a bad place to start.
> 
> ...


This is a whole lot of new, additional information, which I didn't know, nor could know, when I posted my comment.

My comment was
a) tongue in cheek
b) based on what OP had posted
c) general, not aimed at her.



> Saying that hundreds and hundreds of women must be either psychologically ill or ignorant just because you made a different decision under different circumstances is incredibly judgmental. Have you talked to these people?


This is a logical fallacy, known as a Strawman. I never, by any stretch of the imagination said anything remotely suggesting that. It is downright intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Andrew Ashling said:


> > Saying that hundreds and hundreds of women must be either psychologically ill or ignorant just because you made a different decision under different circumstances is incredibly judgmental. Have you talked to these people?
> 
> 
> This is a logical fallacy, known as a Strawman. I never, by any stretch of the imagination said anything remotely suggesting that. It is downright intellectually dishonest.


You never said that authors who continued to sign contracts with Harlequin suffered from Stockholm Syndrome? Funny; this is what I read:



Andrew Ashling said:


> Add to that the ridiculously draconian contracts they think they still can impose on authors.
> I can see that in the past there were no alternatives if you wanted to present your writing to the public. However, now there are.
> *Alas, too many authors still suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.*


 (bolding mine)



Wikipedia said:


> In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a real paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors; sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.


It's possible that you didn't realize that Stockholm Syndrome is a serious psychological disorder. But that is exactly what you said: that people who continue to work with publishers such as Harlequin are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. And maybe you were talking tongue in cheek, but the reason I'm calling you on it is that tongue-in-cheek or no, it is incredibly disrespectful to people who are making business decisions.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

This. Business is business is business. If Amazon becomes the only game in town, I doubt their terms will stay quite as favorable.

There is something about large companies using their means to misinterpret contract terms in their favor that rankles, for me. I mean, in general I don't like bullying, and that is what the ebook rights business sounds like from what I've read (which, admittedly, is not a whole lot).

That said, there are things that these big companies can offer. Ideally it wouldn't be under exploitive terms, but sometimes you take what you can get, bc it's the best thing for you under the circumstances. I feel like this discussion has been had before on these boards.



Christine Merrill said:


> And this is true of Amazon and Smashwords as well. Right now, business and author interests are aligned there. But that does not guarantee eternal happiness and a continual upward curve of success. Remember when the housing bubble was never going to break? Things change. Big companies always put their own interest first.
> 
> And in publishing, things are changing a lot. Every day. The current idie success model is great. And it's also about a year old. When did Kindle up the royalty rates? Because they weren't there when I first self published in Nov of '09.
> 
> Yes, HQ is more into itself than it is to me and had a harsh boilerplate. Not going to argue that, ever. I knew that when I signed. But I would generally recommend that everyone sign contracts with wide open eyes and ice in their veins.


----------



## marshacanham (Jul 30, 2010)

DL Patterson said:


> http://ereads.com/2011/06/harlequin-raises-e-book-royalties-retroactively.html
> 
> So while it doesn't sound awesome or like you'll be getting your rights back, at least it might not be quite so bad? Though, what's the difference between cover & net with this?


Not so bad? They are announcing amendments to a legally binding contract that may or may not be read by the author, where silence for whatever reason (they could be off doing research in Borneo for a month) is considered acceptance, and where it isn't specifically defined or stated exactly how much the % of net will be. Is that net on what Harlequin makes if the cover price is the actual cover price? Or net on what Harlequin makes if the cover price is reduced in a bundled deal, 3 books for one low price, or in a mail order club, where you get 10 books for a penny if you sign to buy 5 more. Does the author get a share of that 1/10th of a penny?

I wonder what Harlequin's response would be, since they've invited authors to respond if they accept the terms, if every author wrote back and said no, we don't accept those terms. I bet the smiley face would be gone in an instant and the cute little black and white harlequin clown would turn back into Chuckie.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

marshacanham said:


> Not so bad? They are announcing amendments to a legally binding contract that may or may not be read by the author, where silence for whatever reason (they could be off doing research in Borneo for a month) is considered acceptance, and where it isn't specifically defined or stated exactly how much the % of net will be. Is that net on what Harlequin makes if the cover price is the actual cover price? Or net on what Harlequin makes if the cover price is reduced in a bundled deal, 3 books for one low price, or in a mail order club, where you get 10 books for a penny if you sign to buy 5 more. Does the author get a share of that 1/10th of a penny?
> 
> I wonder what Harlequin's response would be, since they've invited authors to respond if they accept the terms, if every author wrote back and said no, we don't accept those terms. I bet the smiley face would be gone in an instant and the cute little black and white harlequin clown would turn back into Chuckie.


I don't actually think that failure to respond would constitute acceptance. My contract specifically says that the only way to amend it is by a signed writing by both parties. This ain't that.

I don't know why they're doing things this way, but this is not the first time I've thought their legal department was asleep at the wheel.


----------



## marshacanham (Jul 30, 2010)

Bob Mayer said:


> It's a business. HQ is going to do what's best for HQ. It sucks for those authors who have books that are tied, but HQ has always been known for pretty ruthless contracts. It's why a lot of successful authors who started in HQ moved on to other publishers. It was a launching pad.
> I do feel bad for authors who would do a much better job promoting that backlist if they owned them or had a larger stake in the royalties. I think that's where HQ is shooting themselves-- they're giving those authors no incentive to promote. In fact, it's a disincentive to promote.


It's also a disincentive for authors not to ever sign with them again and if they can't see that...sheesh. They must want to stay in business, but how will they manage that if all their authors leave? I know many who have had to grit their teeth over the refusals to give their rights back and who say they will go indie...and are going indie...rather than sign another contract with Harlequin. I just don't understand why Harlequin can't see that and sticking a pinky finger in the dam isn't going to keep it from bursting. *shrug*

And that's not even taking into account that they're basically saying an author who writes a single title book is worth more than one who writes for series. Augh. Time to whip out the cool word for the day: Hubris.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Pwned. I should have read to the end of the thread. It's probably a good idea not to make any personal judgments about people involved. I've been under a terrible, exploitive, unenforceable contract in another industry; I knew it was crap when I signed it, but it was the best I could get at the time. You do what you can with what you have. If you have pressing financial obligations, a contract you don't love with an advance might work for you until you build up enough of name for yourself. (Here's hoping they don't require people to write under pseuds that they own. They dont do that, right?) Alternatively, not everyone is built to run a small business. Really. It just doesn't suit everyone, and there's nothing wrong with that. Hopefully the explosion in self-pubbing will help improve contract terms across the board, though, at the moment, it's not looking so fantastic. 

Again, the retroactive reinterpretation of terms is icky. But again, I haven't really investigated this. If that's what's going on: that is vampire squid behavior. But it's also fairly predictable. Maybe a lawsuit would help, and serve as a warning for other publishing houses, but that's a tricky situation, and I can see where writers don't want go there. 

Hopefully things are changing for the better, even if there are growing pains.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

Courtney Milan said:


> This is a logical fallacy, known as a Strawman. I never, by any stretch of the imagination said anything remotely suggesting that. It is downright intellectually dishonest.
> 
> You never said that authors who continued to sign contracts with Harlequin suffered from Stockholm Syndrome? Funny; this is what I read:
> (bolding mine)
> ...


No. This is what I said in my final sentence:



> Alas, too many authors still suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.


Where does it say "authors who continue to sign contacts with Harlequin?" Nowhere. You're deliberately trying to make me say something that
a) I never said
b) certainly don't mean

What I did mean is that, judging by some postings on another board - let's call it FantasticWriting - some, mainly new authors are scared into thinking that self-publishing is tantamount to destroying your career, and that e-books are the spawn of the devil. They are led to believe that publishers are the Great Gatekeepers who have a divine right to decide who gets published and what they get paid for their work. Some authors agree with that.

You are inferring non-existent meaning to my words. That _is_ dishonest

I think I posted earlier that I have the utmost respect for people in a difficult situation with even more difficult decisions to take.



> On the contrary, I think you're taking rational decisions based on the the information you have and the current state of the industry.


At the very least this is an overblown misunderstanding.


----------



## JodyWallace (Mar 29, 2011)

> Where does it say "authors who continue to sign contacts with Harlequin?" Nowhere.


Courtney probably meant to paste in this quote, where you DID say that:



> I said that I could see that in the past there were no alternatives. So I was in no way speaking about you, let alone in any way judging you.
> 
> When I spoke about Stockholm Syndrome I meant authors who start out now. Again, not you.


Either way, it makes sense for many authors to attack a publishing career from many angles. Mainstream, small press, indie. Three prongs, more poking! And that works for them. We're all different and all make different career choices that are beneficial for US, even if they wouldn't work for someone else.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

JodyWallace said:


> Courtney probably meant to paste in this quote, where you DID say that:
> 
> Either way, it makes sense for many authors to attack a publishing career from many angles. Mainstream, small press, indie. Three prongs, more poking! And that works for them. We're all different and all make different career choices that are beneficial for US, even if they wouldn't work for someone else.


Yep. I can agree with that. A multi-pronged approach seems sensible.
Again, I was speaking in general and _by no means_ commenting on, let alone judging, the individual decissions of any specific person.



> When I spoke about Stockholm Syndrome I meant authors who start out now.


I was being a bit succinct here. I probably should have mentioned the scare tactics that are used on some boards to keep authors from self publishing at all costs.


----------



## JeanneM (Mar 21, 2011)

Speaking of that "other" board, this thread is starting to sound like it.

Oh Goody. 

In case anyone is interested, Passive Guy has an interesting blog today on this issue:
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/06/2011/write-more-for-harlequin-receive-less-money/


----------



## Grace Elliot (Mar 14, 2011)

Has this made you think of going Indie (or are your current books Indie anyway?)
I'm debating which path to take but more and more, the list is growing on the Indie side. 

(3% - out to be illegal, but what do I know, I'm just a moral, right thinking person.)


----------



## datinman (Nov 29, 2010)

Wow! If there ever was a time to self publish, it is now!


----------



## Zelah Meyer (Jun 15, 2011)

It sucks for those caught up in this who could have made more money by getting their rights back and self-publishing.

However, at least I suppose there is a silver lining in that the traditional imprint name might draw readers to the author's work who would not otherwise have read it.  So, if it were me, I'd be angry (and I might buy in to a class action law suit) but I'd try and think of it as a loss leader to bring readers to the rest of my (self-published) works.  It's a bit like offering a book for free to bring in readers only at least you get something.  Not the ideal situation but at least it's not all bad and there are still some positive things to be gained.  Might not help if you've been burnt by this but at least it does have some glimmers of hope for you if you're still publishing under the same name, if you aren't then yes, this must be frustrating!


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Christine Merrill said:


> No. Really. But thanks so much for that. And as I said before, not abused either. Can we mention Hitler now? Are we there yet?
> 
> *Saying again, we are all responsible for our own decisions*. I don't demand other people be happy or sad over this, or choose any path over any other.
> 
> ...


If you sold your rights to Hqn before digital rights existed, would you explain to me how that is being _responsible for your own decision_?

HOW is that even making a decision!

You don't have to be angry. But HOW can you defend Hqn claiming rights they in fact did not buy? You don't want your rights? That's fine, but there are people who do and who can't get them.

I do not see any way this is defensible.

Edit: I edited the phrase "rights back" since it's not getting them BACK since people who didn't sign them away--since they were not in existence--don't want them BACK. They want what has always been theirs. This is a blatant rights grab, and one that would not stand up in court. Too bad the authors don't seem to be likely to get together to fight it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2011)

Hmmmm.

Can we conclude that "smart, savvy business women" = 4% royalty

But I can understand the other side of the coin: that Harlequin WAS the best deal when the contracts were signed a decade or two ago.

The honorable thing for H to do would be to offer their authors (who did make H a pile of money) a decent ebook royalty. The key word being "offer"

In other words, give their authors the right to accept a new decent royalty, or get their rights back.

I don't see H doing that, though.

This ebook situation is similar to the paperback revolution that hit the hardback publishers in 1939 and into the 40s and 50s. The major publishers just didn't think paperbacks would change the business.

Now ebooks are changing the publishing world every day. Harlequin should grab a life preserver while it can. Give your authors fair deal, or let them go.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> If you sold your rights to Hqn before digital rights existed, would you explain to me how that is being _responsible for your own decision_?
> 
> HOW is that even making a decision!


Um, were you around back when those contracts were signed? I was.

We all knew how exploitative those Harlequin contracts were. They weren't right then any more than they are now, but we knew exactly what they were. And yes, even back in the early eighties we were talking about those "future" rights like electronic rights. (Remember all kinds of subsidiary rights were already a part of the picture.)

As someone pointed out, when you're offered a crappy deal, it may be the best deal you get. But it's still your choice to make that deal at all.

The thing to remember here is that this is happening to all sorts of authors individually right now. The HQ authors, at least, could pool their resources for a legal challenge. Other writers are on their own.

But anybody who has signed a contract like that knows they're taking a gamble. (At least they do if they READ the darned thing.) It was pretty blatant and open in those days. This is not like contracts today, which are full of hidden booby traps.

Camille


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> If you sold your rights to Hqn before digital rights existed, would you explain to me how that is being _responsible for your own decision_?
> 
> HOW is that even making a decision!


They lay out the rights they want over many many bullet points. One of those points is essentially 'any rights that may exist in the future'.

I call it the Holodeck line. And I signed it, knowing what that meant. They want ALL rights. They are really clear on that now days. I think earlier contracts might have just said ALL rights. Forever.

I can't vouch for earlier contracts. There might be a contract with a loophole. If they try to exploit it, than the author can call them on that and win. Probably in a class action suit from NIC or RWA or some larger org. But HQ M&B has a legal department. They will do what is in their best interests. But I have never seen them cross the line into illegality.

Do you know the exact wording of the contract that makes you think HQ is grabbing rights they didn't already own, or at least rights that they think they own based on talking to their own legal department? Because it helps to be talking with facts on a subject like this.

I am not here to defend Harlequin. I am here to give the view of someone willing to sign the contract. And I can tell you, the one time they wanted to do something with me that wasn't part of the original deal, they talked to me and my agent, drafted a rider, and paid me extra. And the times I have looked at some action and thought 'Hey, wait a minute...' when I checked the contract, it was always something I'd agreed to.

So, yes. Stuff they do sometimes falls into the 'that kinda sucks' category. But I have no evidence that they are crooked. I am not telling anyone to sign something they don't think is fair. And like it or not, it is up to us to guess the future, when signing these things. Sometimes we will guess wrong.


----------



## CJArcher (Jan 22, 2011)

Isn't this exactly why so many romance authors pay a membership fee to RWA?  To help fight for a better deal? Good on Novelists Inc (as someone earlier in the thread pointed out they hired Elaine English to look into the contract) but it seems to me RWA would leave a much heavier footprint if they chose to hire legal rep to fight this.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

Okey Dokey said:


> Hmmmm.
> 
> Can we conclude that "smart, savvy business women" = 4% royalty


That depends on the price point of the book and the number of books sold. For instance, if the advice is to do it myself for .99 and take 30%, or let them do the work, give me up front money, sell a lot of books, and take a smaller percentage of a higher priced book, where the royalty usually comes out to be more than the roughly .33 I'd make on a .99 book?

Is that a little harder decision to make? Because we're talking about 100's of thousands of books for me and _millions of books _ for some of the other authors. It's not that hard to sell a million books for Harlequin. It's about length of career and number of titles, not additional marketing effort beyond the writing.

To put it bluntly, I am making more money for less work than I would if I were doing it all myself. I still do some projects myself, because I want to. If I decide to go totally indie, it will mean that the calculations on profit and effort have shifted. I will always do what I think is best for me.

And you are talking about Harlequin doing the honorable thing. That's not going to happen. They are going to do what is necessary to keep the majority of people signing contracts. They are going to do things that are legal, and that help themselves.

I'm sorry, but this is business. Fair and honorable don't generally apply. It's self interest on both sides of this contract.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Christine Merrill said:


> They lay out the rights they want over many many bullet points. One of those points is essentially 'any rights that may exist in the future'.
> 
> I call it the Holodeck line. And I signed it, knowing what that meant. They want ALL rights. They are really clear on that now days. I think earlier contracts might have just said ALL rights. Forever.
> 
> ...


Doesn't change the fact that in court such contracts (ones that sign away FUTURE rights is what I'm talking about) are unenforceable.

Such terms have been thrown out in many other similar contracts.

That is simple fact.

Edit: I've seen the contract. Lots of people have. They're hardly a state secret. Don't act like this is some secret that no one has access to but you. It's not.

Anyone who wants to stay with Hqn and thinks its a good deal for them has every right to. The issue is the people who DON'T want to. People sign all kinds of contracts with terms in them that no court in the country will enforce. Signing a contract in certain situations means absolutely nothing.

By the way, I've been around for a while. In 1990, NO ONE thought that in 2011 more ebooks than paperbacks would be sold so don't try to give me the "we knew all about digital rights". No one anticipated the Kindle beyond some kind of long distant scenario.

"Crossing the line into illegality" has nothing to do with it. We're talking about a contract dispute not criminal behavior. They are trying to enforce unenforceable terms of a contract. Writers may let them because they can't afford the costs of fighting a huge corporation, because the corporation secretly buys them off, or because even with the terrible terms of this they _might_ still do better than indie. We're talking about a lifetime of royalties so it is a darn good idea to sit down and make darn sure you will in fact do better. But that's for you to decide. I don't agree with people who say someone is stupid to take a contract based on their own self-interest.


----------



## Cheryl Bolen (Jun 9, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Such terms have been thrown out in many other similar contracts.
> 
> That is simple fact.
> 
> ...


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Doesn't change the fact that in court such contracts are unenforceable.
> 
> Such terms have been thrown out in many other similar contracts.


Then they'll get sued. And it will probably be a class action lawsuit since it will apaply to a lot of us. And if the contract is unenforceable, they'll lose.
If it's an uneforecable contract, than no one is trapped and there's not a problem. If it's an enforceable contract, then it's up to the people who sign it to make the decision on whether it is worth signing more of them.

They sent their letter on Friday afternoon. If there is more negotiating to be done or decisions to be made, writers and agents haven't had any time to do that. RWA is in two days. It will be interesting.

Not as interesting as the Harlequin Horizons bloodbath last year. Or the e-pub bankruptcy of a couple of years ago. But interesting.

I just look at the big picture and am faintly pleased to see any movement at all on their end. But it's going to take more than reading the internet to tell me exactly what this will mean to me in the long run. The 'net means 3%' thing gets tossed around a lot. But that is probably an average based on Elaine English's calculations. There is educated guessing involved. We need more details on how net is going to be calculated.

Not freaking out yet. If I got freaked out every time something like this happened?

I'd be freaked out a lot.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Based on net can be very tricky for an author or anybody else. How do they calculate net?  Doesn't HRQ have some problem about not letting former authors use their HRQ pseudonym if they go with another publisher?  Read something about that?


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't seen this specific Harlequin contract, however....

When you assign "All Rights," that is unequivocal, and tends to mean that you don't reserve any rights at all, even those which haven't been invented yet.  I haven't heard of any "all rights" contracts being thrown out of court.

It's the contracts that actually list specific rights, and then try to use weasel language to sneakily grab undefined other rights which tend to get thrown out of court.

I do think the writers of those books should seek legal counsel, but from what I know of the HQ contracts of decades past, I wouldn't count on the lawyer not laughing at me.  

Camille


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't seen this specific Harlequin contract, however....
> 
> When you assign "All Rights," that is unequivocal, and tends to mean that you don't reserve any rights at all, even those which haven't been invented yet. I haven't heard of any "all rights" contracts being thrown out of court.
> 
> ...


Currently, they specifically define 28 specific granted rights and add the holodeck 'everything else that might ever be invented clause' on top of those. And the electronic line also has a 'known form or hereafter discovered' addition.

If you sign with them, you have to accept that the books might be theirs forever, in all forms. I've never given them anything that I wasn't willing to let go of. And I definitely have ideas that won't qualify for these terms.


----------



## Gina Black (Mar 15, 2011)

This affects a whole lotta authors from those who wrote one book for HS to the few who have written over a hundred. Some of the authors affected are industry heavy hitters now. I'm wondering what Nora Roberts, Jayne Ann Krentz, JoAnn Ross, Jennifer Crusie, Debbie Macomber and others think of this. They are in a position to make a statement that would be heard. Could they do anything about it? I dunno. But if anyone could, maybe it would be them.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

daringnovelist said:


> I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't seen this specific Harlequin contract, however....
> 
> When you assign "All Rights," that is unequivocal, and tends to mean that you don't reserve any rights at all, even those which haven't been invented yet. I haven't heard of any "all rights" contracts being thrown out of court.
> 
> ...


You know, I hear a lot of people saying this, and I've never been able to get more than one case cite out of them. Elaine English--who is a lawyer--was hired to look at a handful of Harlequin contracts, and this is what she had to say:


> Based upon my analysis, I believe that Harlequin was clearly granted electronic rights under all of these contracts, except for the 1982 Mills & Boon contract and perhaps the 1991 Harlequin agreement. My analysis is based upon the language that appears in each of these agreements regarding "any other rights now known or hereinafter invented" or some other slight variation of that same language. While it is true that contracts are generally agreements mutually entered into by the parties based upon what each understood and knew at the time the contract was executed, courts will uphold language which is unambiguous. I believe this language to be unambiguous. Based upon my research, I believe that most courts would uphold that language as a valid grant and would interpret it strictly as it is written - i.e., that it granted all rights, even those later invented. While most of the cases on this subject are those involving grants of rights to music and licensing of book rights for films, in virtually every case, the courts were willing to hold the parties to that language. While the parties may not have known at the time that such rights (here e-books) existed or would ever be invented, the courts have read this language as saying that the parties clearly intended this to be a grant of whatever future rights might come into existence; i.e., an all-rights-at-all-times grant.


You can read her entire report here.

Category contracts post the early 90s from Harlequin say "all rights, including those that have not been invented." It's quite clear what the parties intend that to encompass: all rights, including those that have not been invented.


----------



## Tonya (Feb 21, 2011)

Those poor authors!


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Courtney Milan said:


> You know, I hear a lot of people saying this, and I've never been able to get more than one case cite out of them. Elaine English--who is a lawyer--was hired to look at a handful of Harlequin contracts, and this is what she had to say:
> You can read her entire report here.
> 
> Category contracts post the early 90s from Harlequin say "all rights, including those that have not been invented." It's quite clear what the parties intend that to encompass: all rights, including those that have not been invented.


You know, your quote from Elaine English basically says what I said -- if it's unambiguous, you won't get it thrown out. The cases which were thrown out used sneaky and ambiguous statements to hide what they were up to. (She's actually one of the sources I had in mind. The others were news stories which I have not kept.)

As I said, I have not read the contract, and I'm not a lawyer. I did study law briefly, and pay a lot of attention to things like this, and I was just summarizing the opinions and case law I've heard. And as I said, from what I've heard, a lawyer is likely to laugh this one out of his office -- but it is worth taking real legal counsel on it.

Camille


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

daringnovelist said:


> You know, your quote from Elaine English basically says what I said -- if it's unambiguous, you won't get it thrown out. The cases which were thrown out used sneaky and ambiguous statements to hide what they were up to. (She's actually one of the sources I had in mind. The others were news stories which I have not kept.)


Yeah, I think I hit reply to the wrong person and then didn't check. I meant to reply to the person you were replying to. Sorry.


----------



## Decon (Feb 16, 2011)

It might not work in America, but in England there are laws covering unfair contract terms. I don't have a clue about contract law, but I would have thought that the argument is not the contract, but the % royalties which are inequitable. 25% is the norm for contract negotiations these days with nearer 50% reported in the UK. Harlequin have been paying 6% as a base, increasing in stages to 10% since 2006, so goodness knows where the 3% comes from.Was this 3% mentioned in the original contract? If not, I would think any lawyer would tackle the unfairness from the point of view of the measly royalties and that the calculation for the earn out of costs on a printed book is more than the earn out on an eBook. It is the royalties that are unfair and tantamount to racketeering. I am also assuming many of these 1990 books have already earned out and are in to profit and will incur no further print costs.

Take a look at this blog post from 31st December 2006

http://dearauthor.com/ebooks/why-harlequin-authors-should-move-to-e-publishing/


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

This is good background material. It's a good place to start, not finish with the issue. A lot has been written about this case. This is the appeals court decision. The district court has much more detailed information about what happened. Good reading.

RANDOM HOUSE INC v. ROSETTA BOOKS LLC LLC
RANDOM HOUSE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROSETTA BOOKS LLC and Arthur M. Klebanoff, in his individual capacity and as principal of Rosetta Books LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket No. 01-7912.
Argued Jan. 24, 2002. -- March 08, 2002

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1250092.html


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

Terrence OBrien said:


> RANDOM HOUSE INC v. ROSETTA BOOKS LLC LLC
> http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1250092.html


So let me see if I understand. While that case & appeal didn't rule anything out, it seems that for now at least, these courts are siding with Rosetta and saying that the ebook rights do NOT automatically belong to Random House (the original print publsiher). Granted, different company, different contract, but it certainly hints at some hope for those authors who believe their old contracts have hopelessly tied up their books forever. Am I understanding it correctly?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Oh, ugh.  That sucks.  Just wondering how that happened.  Did they have rights in perpetuity, or?

Edit to add:  Okay - finished reading the thread.  While this sucks for people who want their rights back, it sounds like the contract was pretty clear.  Whether it was fair or not - who am I to judge that?  Obviously it was acceptable - it was signed.  

One last thought:  it's been mentioned a couple of times that someone might not have read the contract or didn't understand it... Not to be snarky, but this is a VERY important thing.  Seriously - always, always, always read every contract you sign.  Every single one, regardless of what it's for.  And if you don't understand a clause, ask for clarification.  That's a very basic rule of business - any business.  Actually, I'd go so far as to say that's a rule of life.


----------



## greenpen (May 30, 2011)

Christine Merrill said:


> Currently, they specifically define 28 specific granted rights and add the holodeck 'everything else that might ever be invented clause' on top of those. And the electronic line also has a 'known form or hereafter discovered' addition.
> 
> If you sign with them, you have to accept that the books might be theirs forever, in all forms. I've never given them anything that I wasn't willing to let go of. And I definitely have ideas that won't qualify for these terms.


But what gives them the right to pay out such minuscule royalties? Surely that's one point that can be challenged?


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

I remember when SFWA members went bonkers over Star Wars books becoming flat fee assignments rather than royalty based because George Lucas owned the franchise and figured he could do what he wanted.  And he did.  Lots of screaming and yelling; except I noticed few of the writers doing those books were the ones screaming and yelling.  They were earning pretty decent money for books they could knock out in a month or two, given that George Lucas had invented their backstory, their characters, etc.
In this case, it's the authors who are affected who have the last say on how they feel.  Someone listed some former HQ authors and how they would react.  I think it depends on how they're affected.  I wrote with Jenny Crusie and I know she disliked HQ and was so glad she was able to get away from them.  On the flip side, she got her start there.
Everyone's situation is different.  If someone signed a contract with those clauses in it, they signed it.  Fair has nothing to do with it.  There's sometimes a huge gap between fair and legal, unfortunately.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

greenpen said:


> But what gives them the right to pay out such minuscule royalties? Surely that's one point that can be challenged?


There are several other pages of this contract that detail what percent we get and where. And exactly how long it will take the rights to revert, and under what (hard to reach) conditions. It is very clear. Very difficult to misunderstand. This is not some complex legalese thing. You can sit down and finish it in a few minutes, even reading sloooowly for maximum comprehension.

Generally, the royalty rates are 2-6% with a few 10% thrown in for hardcover. The usual number quoted is 6%. I think the 2% is for international translations, for example my book which was just translated into Estonian.

They can get away with low royalties because of the volume of sales. Yes, this sucks. But the international distribution is unimaginable. Depending on line and sales, you can earn enough to write full time. 
Most of you have a day job to supplement your indie writing. 
Harlequin is my day job.

The 3% people keep quoting is based on the possible result of the rate of 15% on net for electronic books. Right now, I think we're getting 6% of cover. This sucks. They are 'raising' it to 15% of net. This might also suck. The question on the table is whether the change from cover to _net_ will be an increase or a decrease. And the info on this change came out late Friday. I am not for or against at this point, since I want to take the time to talk to people first and am headed to the RWA national conference in two days. I want to know what effect various outlets has on net, and whether it will result in 15% of cover at the eharlequin site. And how does this effect the stuff I do for them that is exclusively electronic? These are things not covered in the brief note the sent us.

Again. Not naive. Just not panicking.


----------



## Andrew Ashling (Nov 15, 2010)

You're playing in an altogether different ballpark than indies.
Yet I think at least one thing applies, and that is Konrath's philosophy about the worth of a book. A book is worth what it earns for its author. Not what it earns for its publisher, nor what the cover price is.
It's actually comparable with the $0.99 to $2.99 versus $9.99 discussion in the indie-world. Do lower prices lead to higher volume, and does this in its turn lead to higher royalties? The jury is still out on that one.
So, if Harlequin can make your books earn for you at a low royalty percentage combined with high volume, your only problem is whether you are content with your monthly royalties.
If not, it seems to me, from the outside, that Harlequin authors are in the same position as all employed people. You want more pay for your work? You form a union and you try to negotiate with management.
You seem to be doing all this in some form or other, so I think you're on the right track. Success.

We indies are in a different position. To give only one example. In my niche we're not likely to get translated into Estonian. Estonians are learning English so as to be able to read us however.


----------



## DL Patterson (May 10, 2011)

> If you sign with them, you have to accept that the books might be theirs forever, in all forms. I've never given them anything that I wasn't willing to let go of. And I definitely have ideas that won't qualify for these terms.


Or for, at least, it'll be theirs for 35 years.... I know, that's a really long time. But it's better than forever, and there's probably lots of people who were writing for them in the 70's who could get those books back now.

http://www.thepassivevoice.com/06/2011/a-get-out-of-jail-free-card-for-some-authors/


----------



## marshacanham (Jul 30, 2010)

greenpen said:


> But what gives them the right to pay out such minuscule royalties? Surely that's one point that can be challenged?


Unfortunately publishers can set whatever royalty they want to set and it's up to the author or agent to negotiate a higher/better rate before signing the contract. There was a publisher back in the 90's who caused a minor uproar when he was offering $1000 advances and 2% royalties to new authors. Some, who didn't know any better or didn't have agents, or just wanted to see their books in print, signed. They read the contract, they knew the terms, they signed anyway.

All of us who signed a Harlequin contract a decade or more ago, read the thing thoroughly and all of us knew what we were signing...but no one could have predicted the ebook revolution, and no one could have predicted what the "all rights that haven't been thought of yet" clause would end up doing. I consider myself a pretty intelligent person and I just snorted at the clause and signed.

It's a similar situation to the letters that Random House sent out about five years ago to all of us who had written books for Dell or Bantam or Ballantine imprints. It was an addendum to the contract specifying 25% royalty rate for ebooks. Five years ago, e-readers were still those big clunky things that needed recharging every hour on the hour. No one thought anything of the clause and even (my) agents just shrugged it off and said go ahead and sign, it doesn't affect anything.

Hah. Five years later we're all scrambling to get those rights back now and kicking ourselves (and our agents) for signing. But who knew, at the time? We all saw 25%, which was way better than 10% on the paperbacks...and we signed.

One thing I will say in Random House's favor, that I can't say in Harlequin's favor, is that RH is giving those rights back in most cases. I haven't heard of too many refusals for the older backlist titles. I got 7 back within weeks of writing a polite request. Six months after the fact, I'm still waiting to hear back from Harlequin.


----------



## kellymcclymer (Apr 22, 2010)

I, unequivocally, do not think this is bad news for authors. I think it is a sign that savvy authors should now ask a lot of questions, think about what they ultimately want in their Harlequin erights contracts, and negotiate for it. They may not get it (probably won't get everything they want), but I talked to some Harlequin high-up peeps at a conference last year and they seriously (I mean *seriously*) did not understand why their writers were unhappy with 6% e-royalties.

Now, less than 1 year later, they get it to the point that they're changing up the terms on their own. Big attitude shift.

There are lots of questions to be asked: what's definition of net? how will this affect writer's bottom line from books? will the revenues be distributed more often than quarterly? why the category/single title royalty difference when ebooks compete on a more level playing field?

But now there is a place for those kinds of questions to be asked and answered in a way that will affect the informed decisions that writers make to write for Harlequin again (the current offer is being made to active authors, and I haven't heard about those who aren't active).

That's huge. Especially if you had been sitting at the lunch table with me and a few HQ bigwigs who were quite peeved that authors were (from their perspective) holding up a bowl like Oliver and asking, "More?"

Who knows what will ultimately happen, but something will.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Yeah, I'm sad to see this, but I kinda said this would be the outcome when the OP first broke the news last month. It's sad.

But I did say, "this is all about Silhouette/Harlequin tying up the rights for eternity" and now we're seeing that's exactly the case.

To make matters worse, it isn't like Silhouette/Harlequin are going to be spacing these books out to maximize their sales for each author/book.

They're just taking a decade or two's-worth of releases, and uploading them to Kindle, nook, etc., all at once, on one day.

Flooding the market with literally THOUSANDS of titles (around 3,000, if I calculated right) that will be treated like new releases...

I predict this now: Anyone who thought Kindle Sunshine Deals hurt indies' sales and rankings?

Just wait until this happens in July... everyone's rankings will plummet for a while.

...And trad-pubs want to claim indies are flooding the market? Please...


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

To riff a little further on what Kelly said -- 

This is a transitional situation.  Right now, blacklists are getting sorted out and it's a great thing for some writers, and not so great for others.  However, think of it this way: many of those authors undoubtedly never expected to ever get any more income from some of those novels.  For some it's still found money -- albeit in very small amounts.  There are others who had choices and now regret making the wrong one, but life is full of that.

Once the backlists are sorted out, though, this issue is done.  It's just a lesson in "read your contract!"

Going forward, we watch what we sign.  We also have to use this as a lesson to remember later: no matter what you think the right choice is now, things are going to change in ways nobody expected -- and you may benefit or you may lose.  Always in motion is the future.

Camille


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> They're just taking a decade or two's-worth of releases, and uploading them to Kindle, nook, etc., all at once, on one day.
> 
> Flooding the market with literally THOUSANDS of titles (around 3,000, if I calculated right) that will be treated like new releases...


Oof. That is...wait, how is this even a good idea for...anyone? Including the publishers?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

genevieveaclark said:


> Oof. That is...wait, how is this even a good idea for...anyone? Including the publishers?


It's good for Silhouette and Harlequin because they'll never have to grant a single reversion of rights ever again on any one of those titles.

"Greed is good."
-Gordon Gekko


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

I thought it had been said several times in this post that HQ's contract, at least, was pretty unambiguous, and that there wasn't really a lot of wiggle room - they have the rights. I undertand that in many contracts those rights revert under apparently difficult to achieve circumstances, principally whether the title has been out of physical print for X number of years, but even if HQ had a whole bunch of titles that were about to revert back to authors, surely those rights don't revert back all on the same day? They could stagger them in groups to maximize their profits, rather than dump them all at once and blow their wad, so to speak.

I mean, feel free to ignore this, bc I pretty obviously haven't read the available primary material in depth (or at all, actually); I'm just musing on the internet. It just seems like flooding the market all at once is not the maximally beneficial strategy, and yes, it seems like they wouldn't do it unless they had to...but if they HAVE to, it also seems like their position isn't rock solid? I dunno. Either way: craptastic.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Genevieve,


I have no doubt you're right that the titles would do better if they were staggered for re-release. If maximizing sales was what this was about, I'm sure Silhouette and Harlequin would be going about this differently.

But it's all about sealing their rights to these works in concrete for eternity.

After all, they've already had one lawyer sent after them on this. The quicker Silhouette/Harlequin can get this done, the less chance that the WGA or some other author's rights organization can file a lawsuit and get a judge to issue a stay on the effort while the contracts are reviewed.

Which is, really, what should happen. The WGA should be filing a joint-and-several or class-action lawsuit against Silhouette and Harlequin over this. A judge should issue a stay or something like it while the contracts are reviewed. The publishers should have to wait until this works its way through an initial judgment and the appeals process.

They're gambling that they can get this done before WGA or some other organization can act, legally-speaking, to stop them.

But that's exactly why the two publishers are rushing to get this done. Because once the books are out there, in eBook form, it's over. They can perhaps be court-ordered into some sort of settlement, better payment terms perhaps, but the whole question of reversion and such is moot once Upload Day 2011 takes place.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Craig is right. They don't really care about maximizing profit on those particular titles.  

Aside from the legal issues he cites (which is undoubtedly the main issue) a huge business like Harlequin has more to think about than maximizing profits on backlist.  It's found money to them, so they're going to make decisions based on a lot of other factors -- the logistics of getting the job done, playing havoc with the competition, how it fits in with some of their other publishing plans.  Maybe they want these all out of the way before some other big effort in the future. Maybe they're going to reorganize their personnel structure, and so this is a great way to shuffle a bunch of employees into a "special project" and then terminate them with the project when it's done.

An organization that big is going to make a lot of "crazy like a fox" moves that make no sense to the rest of the world.

Camille


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Huh. Thanks for the info. I kind of wonder what state the contracts specify as their whatever you call it - the state the parties have agreed to settle disputes in, or whatever. It occurred to me as I was typing the last comment that, say, screenwriters pretty much immediatey give up all future rights to their intellectual property upon sale, and that this is not considered ambiguous. Sometimes they get points on net, but from what I've read that's treated as pretty much just as ego boost - the way they do accounting in Hollywood, almost nothing shows a profit on paper.

Anyway, I'm sure Craig's right, and they want to avoid any possible legal challenge.


----------



## ccjames (Jun 9, 2011)

Is it just me, or is it weird that they make this move right when the RWA national conference is going on in NY? I can only imagine the charged atmosphere in that hotel right now.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

genevieveaclark said:


> ...Sometimes they get points on net, but from what I've read that's treated as pretty much just as ego boost - the way they do accounting in Hollywood, almost nothing shows a profit on paper....


The fiction of "net profits" in Hollywood was highlighted in the lawsuit Art Buchwald vs. Paramount Pictures over the Eddie Murphy movie, Coming To America.

Apparently Buchwald, a political columnist, had pitched Paramount on a similar idea. They adapted it to Murphy and tried to cut Buchwald out.

If I'm remembering the history of the case correctly, Paramount offered some sort of settlement that was comprised largely out of a percentage of "net profits."

And they were able, on paper, to show that Coming to America never made any "net profits."

The general Writer's Digest/WGA line of advice ever since has been, "Never agree to a portion of 'net profits,' the thing to pursue and secure is a percentage of 'gross receipts.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

ccjames said:


> Is it just me, or is it weird that they make this move right when the RWA national conference is going on in NY? I can only imagine the charged atmosphere in that hotel right now.


RWA should file a joint and several suit ASAP and get a judge to issue a stay until the case can be heard. Like, tomorrow. First thing Monday AM.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> The fiction of "net profits" in Hollywood was highlighted in the lawsuit Art Buchwald vs. Paramount Pictures over the Eddie Murphy movie, Coming To America.
> 
> Apparently Buchwald, a political columnist, had pitched Paramount on a similar idea. They adapted it to Murphy and tried to cut Buchwald out.
> 
> ...


Buchwald should have known better. Brando laid it all out years ago, "never agree to net." Net can go on forever. Lucas still has some Star Wars movies that laughably still are in the red--so those who agreed to net--keep waiting to get their cut.


----------



## Cheryl Bolen (Jun 9, 2011)

I do hate to come off as sour grapes. After all, this (Harlequin) is the company that gave me a strart. That first book, which I contracted in 1997, is still being sold somewhere in the world. It's true, those writers in the Harlequin/Silhouette stable can make a living writing category romances (mine was historical, rather than category).

My gripe is that back in 1997 few of us gave any consideration to electronic rights (don't even know if people were using the word digital). And the contract was 41 pages long!

But yes to what Craig said. It is very calculated on the publisher's part that they're flooding the market on July 15 with many thousands of 1990s books -- books for which the authors will never, ever be able to get their rights back. 

The literary attorney hired by Novelists Inc. to look into the Harlequin situation did say there is something in the newest U.S. copyright law allowing authors (or their heirs) to get rights back after 40 years. . .


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

Maybe someone has addressed this but I just heard that Harlequin has adjusted their digital rates and they are retroactive. 15% net for category novels and 25% for single title. I've done the math and no matter how I turn it, this is at least double what authors used to get. I hope this is just in the first of changes to come.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

historicalromauthor said:


> Maybe someone has addressed this but I just heard that Harlequin has adjusted their digital rates and they are retroactive. 15% net for category novels and 25% for single title. I've done the math and no matter how I turn it, this is at least double what authors used to get. I hope this is just in the first of changes to come.


That would be very good news compared to the 3% rate someone cited earlier.

Of course, maybe it's a move to head off litigation.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> RWA should file a joint and several suit ASAP and get a judge to issue a stay until the case can be heard. Like, tomorrow. First thing Monday AM.


Just an FYI: RWA sent out an email notice today that they are consulting with council and will seek clarification as needed regarding the royalty change. So they are looking into the situation.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

DChase said:


> Just an FYI: RWA sent out an email notice today that they are consulting with council and will seek clarification as needed regarding the royalty change. So they are looking into the situation.


Good to hear, but let's hope they don't drag their feet; July 15 isn't far away. 

NOTE: I've never been published by Silhouette or Harlequin. I have no horse in this race personally. I just don't like seeing fellow writers messed over.


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

ccjames said:


> Is it just me, or is it weird that they make this move right when the RWA national conference is going on in NY? I can only imagine the charged atmosphere in that hotel right now.


Judging by the streams and streams of nonsense on my Twitter detailing how many pairs of shoes each author is bringing, they don't seem to be very concerned - publicly, at least. 

You know, even knowing these pitfalls, I would still sign a book deal with HQ. You might lose your rights to that book at a low royalty, but the audience you reach is pretty huge. I get 40% royalties of nothing unless I flog my guts out - 3% on marketed books don't seem all that bad to me.

Besides, you're signing on to a bit of romance genre history. My mother read HQ, and so did her mum, and so do I. I would give up the rights to a book to be included in that.

Of course, I'm a sentimentalist, though, so feel free to disregard my thoughts on that.


----------



## Pnjw (Apr 24, 2011)

anne_holly said:


> Judging by the streams and streams of nonsense on my Twitter detailing how many pairs of shoes each author is bringing, they don't seem to be very concerned - publicly, at least.
> 
> You know, even knowing these pitfalls, I would still sign a book deal with HQ. You might lose your rights to that book at a low royalty, but the audience you reach is pretty huge. I get 40% royalties of nothing unless I flog my guts out - 3% on marketed books don't seem all that bad to me.
> 
> ...


You know, I agree with you here. I have considered writing for HQ category. The distribution _is_ huge. Before, I didn't want to risk writing a category and have it be rejected, thus leaving no other outlet. It used to be if you wrote for the line, if they didn't buy it, that was that. Now we have this wonderful new world of self-publishing.

Reaching that huge readership seems like a small price to pay for a few 50K novels.


----------



## Cheryl Bolen (Jun 9, 2011)

Members of RWA did get a post yesterday that their legal counsel is looking into Harlequin's "new" retroactive royalty on ebooks of 15% "net." 

Apparently many Harlequin/Silhouette authors received this information from H/S and are not happy. 

I did not get the info. But I believe this is the info the attorney hired by Novelists INC. looked into and said the net equals 3 percent.


----------



## FictionalWriter (Aug 4, 2010)

I'm seriously scratching my head on that one. What kind of math are they using



Cheryl Bolen said:


> Members of RWA did get a post yesterday that their legal counsel is looking into Harlequin's "new" retroactive royalty on ebooks of 15% "net."
> 
> Apparently many Harlequin/Silhouette authors received this information from H/S and are not happy.
> 
> I did not get the info. But I believe this is the info the attorney hired by Novelists INC. looked into and said the net equals 3 percent.


----------



## kyrin (Dec 28, 2009)

historicalromauthor said:


> I'm seriously scratching my head on that one. What kind of math are they using


Publishers have a lot of expenses so the net profits for an individual title can be quite low. It all comes down to the expenses and the amounts the publishers record.

In some cases, 15% of the net will be the same or less than the old royalty rate (which was bad to begin with).


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

anne_holly said:


> Judging by the streams and streams of nonsense on my Twitter detailing how many pairs of shoes each author is bringing, they don't seem to be very concerned - publicly, at least.


Don't diss the shoes. Shoes are important. Especially since we want to look fabulous for 5 days straight, spending a large chunk of that time on our feet at what is basically a week long business meeting complete with signings, teaching and dinner, drinks, and dancing with the boss. I can work barefoot in my PJ's. But for this, I need makeup, professional clothes and an evening gown.

And I am taking many changes of attractive but comfortable shoes.

And also keeping a close eye on the Harlequin situation. Hopefully, we will have more info soon.


----------



## JackieBarbosa (Feb 25, 2011)

historicalromauthor said:


> I'm seriously scratching my head on that one. What kind of math are they using


What fascinates me about the hand-wringing over the new net rates is that the major publishing houses have been paying digital royalties on 25% of net for years and authors have been signing contracts agreeing to this without any particular concern over how net is being calculated. But unless you know what's getting subtracted out of the cover price to arrive at net (distributor's cut, discounts if not agency-priced, production costs, licensee cuts, and heaven knows what else), there's really no way at all to predict what 25% of net MEANS when it comes to royalty payments.

What I wonder is why on earth authors and agents haven't been up in arms about and questioning net payment calculations before Harlequin's announcement. Harlequin certainly seems to represent a special/unusual case when it comes to the way they license books to multiple distributors and therefore potentially shave amounts off of the cover/sale price throughout the chain before applying the percentage to arrive at the author's share. That said, I don't know why the whole net thing has ever been particularly acceptable to anyone because it's completely fungible and dependent on so many factors, it's impossible to know how much the author will earn on any individual sale of his/her book. That hardly seems a wise system of payment for authors to agree to, although I've done it in the past.

I can tell you going forward, if I ever sign another contract with a publisher, I will ask that my royalty be paid on the cover price for digital books. I would accept a lower royalty rate in exchange for absolute certainty as to how much I will be paid on each sale of the book. Net never gives you that security and never will.

Also, I do want to point out that my understanding of Elaine English's analysis was that it applied to contracts she looked at written between 1983 and 1994. Since the new Harlequin rates apply ONLY to active authors, not to authors with backlists who no longer write for Harlequin, it's not likely that her analysis applies to a majority of authors affected by the new rate structure. Someone needs to look at the new/existing contracts to figure out what the new rates mean to these folks. It's also not yet clear if the new rate structure applies to the digital only lines (Undone, Briefs, Bites, etc.) nor is it entirely clear what "active" means (I have a Brief coming out in December, but nothing else under contract/due; there is no indication from Harlequin as to whether this means I'm active or inactive).


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2011)

I don't understand why anyone would sign a contract without a cancellation clause or end date.  How do you sign a contract that allows a publisher to hold onto your rights forever?  That isn't a publishing contract .. that sounds like work-for-hire.  Or a contract that allows a publisher to just change your royalty rate on a whim?  How does an agent allow that unless he/she is an idiot?


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

I posted on this at Write It Forward today:
*Harlequin, author royalty rates, non-compete: Business reality but is it smart?*
http://writeitforward.wordpress.com/


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Mind-boggling.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I don't understand why anyone would sign a contract without a cancellation clause or end date. How do you sign a contract that allows a publisher to hold onto your rights forever? That isn't a publishing contract .. that sounds like work-for-hire. Or a contract that allows a publisher to just change your royalty rate on a whim? How does an agent allow that unless he/she is an idiot?


We are talking in many cases about contracts signed more than 20 years ago, before anyone envisioned digital books or the option to self-publish backlist titles. Even five years ago, authors were not thinking about these kinds of things.

No contract allows a publisher to hold your rights forever. I believe the maximum term possible is 35 years. Yes, that's a long time, and at my age, it might as well be forever, but it actually isn't forever. Most contracts written even 20 years ago included "in print" clauses, meaning the publisher had to either print more copies of the book or return your rights to you, usually within seven years. Unless you are one of NY's bestselling authors, your rights were very likely to revert since they were not very likely to reprint/reissue your book seven years later.

In recent years, the "in print" clause has been interpreted differently by some publishers, who believe that as long as the book is available in digital form, it is still in print and therefore rights need not be reverted at the end of seven years. I'm waiting for an author to test this with litigation, and it will be interesting to see whether the publisher or the author prevails. In either case, my only print contract clearly specifies the publisher must print a minimum number of copies or revert my rights at the seven-year point. I'm pretty sure I'll get that book back in 2016 .

Finally, Harlequin does not have the right to change the author's royalty payments without the author's consent. In this case, Harlequin has assumed the position that non-action on the part of the author equals consent; however, authors can refuse to accept the new terms and stick with their original contract by contacting Harlequin in writing.

No, I am not a shill for Harlequin. I'm just restating what the letters sent to agents clearly says.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> I don't understand why anyone would sign a contract without a cancellation clause or end date. How do you sign a contract that allows a publisher to hold onto your rights forever? That isn't a publishing contract .. that sounds like work-for-hire.


It's not work for hire because it's not a flat rate payment. Every time they come out with another edition of the book, which they have to do to keep the rights, we get paid royalties. When they cease publishing it, after x number of years, we get the rights back. We didn't sign without an end in sight. But the end of the contract might just be on a very distant horizon.

And I signed because historicals don't go obsolete as fast as contemps. Everything I've written is still earning enough money to make me content with the deal. It's not like they are clinging to something that they aren't using.

As far as changing the royalty rate goes, the initial appearance is that this is bringing us _up _ to industry standard not _down._
If it's a better deal, then hooray! If it turns out to be a worse deal, then the authors will turn it down.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Jackie,

Forever was used as a relative term, here, obviously... but what this move by Harlequin and Silhouette will do is tie up their ownership of rights indefinitely, because the book cannot ever be deemed "out of print." Therefore, no reversion of rights will ever be granted. Because eBooks are always available, always buyable, always in print.

Others have shared that H/S's contract language, even 20 years ago, contained verbiage that the contract covers "rights not thought of yet" or legalese to that effect. I can believe that, because I worked once for a small publisher whose contract included even odder language... language about "universal rights," which they went on to explain included "worlds not currently inhabited" and "delivery formats not currently envisioned." (And that publisher got a lot of their contract language from Simon and Schuster, who acted as their distributor.)

I believe we could get some clarity here if our resident author/IP lawyer, Courtney Milan, were to chime in. But a 35-year maximum term isn't correct, she cited something much longer for "corporate-owned works" deemed "work for hire."

In the past, publishers like H/S avoided granting rights reversions by printing "just enough" copies and distributing them to small global markets... thus the book remains "in print" technically even if it's not been for sale in a major book market for over a decade or more. eBooks just give trad-pubs a new way to keep a book technically in print for the maximum term possible. (Which is usually beyond the lifespan of most authors, which is why "forever" was used.)

So, to sum up, I think there are some risk exposures here you're not exactly anticipating because you (reasonably) expect H/S to act like reasonable human beings, and not act out of greed.

But it's pretty clear that Harlequin and Silhouette are "doing business," not acting reasonably.

And they have a financial incentive to "do business."

They're looking at a market where a lot of authors are getting rights reversions on old, out-of-print works, re-releasing them onto the eBook market, and raking in good money. They're not a charity... they don't want to gift works back to authors, only to see those authors profit for themselves, if they can do something like this and keep any such money "in house."

Should this sort of thing be legally challenged? You bet. The clock is ticking, though, and organizations like WGA, RWA and others have until Upload Day 2011 (July 15) to get a case filed and have a judge issue a stay... because once they're uploaded, well... there's less a court would be able to do. Or likely to do.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

"I believe we could get some clarity here if our resident author/IP lawyer, Courtney Milan, were to chime in. But a 35-year maximum term isn't correct, she cited something much longer for *"corporate-owned works"* deemed "work for hire."

In the past, publishers like H/S avoided granting rights reversions by printing "just enough" copies and distributing them to small global markets... thus the book remains "in print" technically even if it's not been for sale in a major book market for over a decade or more. eBooks just give trad-pubs a new way to keep a book technically in print for the maximum term possible. (Which is usually beyond the lifespan of most authors, which is why "forever" was used.)"

*Recently Disney spearheaded a Copyright Extension (called the Sonny Bono Law or something) which extended the life of copyrights. Through their lobbying it greatly increased corporate copyrights. They did this because Mickey Mouse was soon to be in the Public Domain and they paid congress off to get the deal done...for Corps I think it's 120 years--check here:*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

The non-compete strikes me as the most absurd element here.

Rights reversion and royalty rates can be haggled over.  But the non-compete may as well be plain old serfdom.


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

tbrookside said:


> The non-compete strikes me as the most absurd element here.


What non-compete? Because I signed this contract. And there isn't one. I know the HM&B boilerplate is rough. But you guys are now into making up Bogey men.

I am obligated to let them look at my next work of a similar nature. That is, a category length historical novel. They have, I think, 90 days. That is industry standard, or close to it. The option clause.

But they own none of my other work. And since they are the only publishers currently publishing category length books, it is not that hard to get away, should I want to leave.


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

tbrookside said:


> The non-compete strikes me as the most absurd element here.
> 
> Rights reversion and royalty rates can be haggled over. But the non-compete may as well be plain old serfdom.


Whoa, non-competes are standard in a lot of industries, and they usually make sense. They're not forever; they're usually limited to a certain amount of time, and often there's compensation. It's to protect IP, usually, right?


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Just a note: I haven't commented on the non-compete because I wasn't sure it was confirmed.

I've only been commenting on Upload Day 2011... July 15.

I did comment a bit on a "rights not thought of" clause, a bit, because it seemed to be confirmed as part of the contract by people who would know.


----------



## DL Patterson (May 10, 2011)

You're discussing different issues, control of a copyright as opposed to the existence of a copyright. An author or heir can request their book back after 35 years. This doesn't mean the copyright term is over, just that a contract term is limited to this length- if the author requests it.

http://www.thepassivevoice.com/06/2011/a-get-out-of-jail-free-card-for-some-authors/

One interesting thing they bring up in the comments, if you sign an addendum granting e-rights you may be re-establishing the date of your contract.

-Denise


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> I believe we could get some clarity here if our resident author/IP lawyer, Courtney Milan, were to chime in. But a 35-year maximum term isn't correct, she cited something much longer for "corporate-owned works" deemed "work for hire."


Although I can't speak to the boilerplate contract signed by series/category authors, I am reasonably certain that the standard contract for single title and digital-only lines is very standard in that it does not give Harlequin ownership of the copyright of the work. That is what you mean you talk about corporate-owned works or work for hire.

Put another way, in my day job, I write training materials for my company. The copyright on those materials belongs not to me, the author, but to the company. By contrast, the copyright on my Spice Briefs belongs to me, Jackie Barbosa, not to Harlequin Enterprises. This means it cannot be considered corporate-owned or work-for-hire, and Harlequin would be obligated to revert my rights after 35 years if I requested it.

It's not that I don't see the broader concerns here. It's just that when we talk about how authors could be so silly as to sign a contract that included this or that provision we now deem horrifically author-unfriendly, it's important to remember that they weren't necessarily signing when there were so many other options. They signed when Harlequin was the only game in town.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> ...It's just that when we talk about how authors could be so silly as to sign a contract that included this or that provision we now deem horrifically author-unfriendly, it's important to remember that they weren't necessarily signing when there were so many other options. They signed when Harlequin was the only game in town.


You make a good point.

Harlequin and Silhouette were pubs in the 80s and 90s most willing to work with new writers. There was also Bantam Loveswept, for a while, too.

They launched a lot of careers and I don't think anyone should discount that.

This is just about their modern business decisions and trying to impose modern rights on old contracts.

Who knows how a judge would rule? I'm saying it should at least be court-tested, though, as a protection of author's rights.

But yes, there are many novelists active today who might not be where they are now if not for breaking through with Harlequin and Silhouette (and Bantam).  I don't think anyone would deny that.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Christine Merrill said:


> What non-compete? Because I signed this contract. And there isn't one. I know the HM&B boilerplate is rough. But you guys are now into making up Bogey men.
> 
> I am obligated to let them look at my next work of a similar nature. That is, a category length historical novel. They have, I think, 90 days. That is industry standard, or close to it. The option clause.
> 
> But they own none of my other work. And since they are the only publishers currently publishing category length books, it is not that hard to get away, should I want to leave.





genevieveaclark said:


> Whoa, non-competes are standard in a lot of industries, and they usually make sense. They're not forever; they're usually limited to a certain amount of time, and often there's compensation. It's to protect IP, usually, right?


I think by "non-compete", people are talking about the supposed pen-name clause, if you will - ie. If I write for Harlequin as Arkali, I can't self-publish under the same name (or some similar condition).


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Arkali said:


> I think by "non-compete", people are talking about the supposed pen-name clause, if you will - ie. If I write for Harlequin as Arkali, I can't self-publish under the same name (or some similar condition).


Whatever people are talking about, non-compete clauses are NOT a feature of Harlequin's boilerplate contracts. (See http://dearauthor.com/features/interviews/harlequins-response-to-royalty-concerns-contract-issues/.)

It would be nice if people would get their facts right before they started spreading rumors about this or that feature of a contract they have never even seen.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Jackie Barbosa said:


> It would be nice if people would get their facts right before they started spreading rumors about this or that feature of a contract they have never even seen.


Wait, what? Not spout off if you're uninformed? Never happen... pshaw... 

PS: Thanks for the link


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

1. The pen name issue hasn't been a part of Harlequin contracts for years and years. The clause was dropped from their contracts in 2002. You can look at many authors who write books for Harlequin and for other publishers to verify this. (Maya Banks springs to mind, but there are probably dozens of other examples I could find.)

2. There is no noncompete in the new contract. Angie James verified it on twitter, and she's (a) in a position to know, and (b) has always been straightforward in the past, and values her reputation as such enough that I believe her.

3. I had my doubts about what the percentage of net meant. Very grave doubts. My agent talked to Harlequin. They broke it down as best as possible this way: http://pubrants.blogspot.com/2011/06/doing-math-on-harlequins-move-to-25-of.html.

Still not hugely exciting, but better than what was there before, and there are firm statements from people in authority saying that they are trying to do their best.

They have very clearly stated that they'll be calculating net in a different way than net was calculated on the old contracts Elaine English mentioned, and there is no way they can walk away from that without facing a massive class action suit which would cost them massively more than anything they stand to gain. Given public and private pronouncements by Harlequin HQ, I believe that they've bound themselves to a fairly open, transparent definition possible. Under the circumstances, dishonesty on this point will not gain them anything.

4. Work for hire: In order for something to be "work for hire" it needs to be clearly labeled as such. Some Harlequin books are written as work for hire--those books are the continuity series, where Harlequin retains ownership of the characters/series, and I think Harlequin does the NASCAR Romance line as work for hire. Everything else, the copyright is owned by the author. If you want to know if a particular title was work for hire, look at the copyright line. If it's work for hire, it will list Harlequin Enterprises as the copyright owner. Otherwise, it will list the author.

In most situations, the author retains the copyright to her work at Harlequin. It's not work for hire unless your contract says it is.

There's a difference between being justifiably skeptical and being outright paranoid. Believing nothing gets you as close to the truth as believing everything. I am skeptical of things that I am told, but there is a point where I do believe I can trust what I hear because there is no benefit to telling lies. Harlequin's passed that point with me on these issues.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Thanks for the link and definitions, Courtney.

What I'd like to hear your take on is this:

Can old Harlequin/Silhouette contracts, when ebooks were either uninvented, not thought of, or whatnot, actually be interpreted to encapsulate eBook rights by such legally-fuzzy phrases as, "rights not yet thought of or invented," as some H/S contracts apparently did back in the 80s and 90s?

Is it correct to presume that H/S uploading thousands of 80s/90s novels on July 15 is all about cementing their "in print" status on these titles for the full life of the contract? (Thus avoiding having to grant rights reversions.)

How long would that be, maximum?

Would it be advisable for WGA, RWA and/or others to file a joint-and-several and/or class-action suit asking for a judge to place a stay on this massive upload day, until the legality of such a move can be tested in court and work its way through the appeals process?

Thanks, in advance.


----------



## Courtney Milan (Feb 27, 2011)

Craig,

I think you're perilously close to asking legal advice.

As a personal matter, if I signed a contract that gave away "rights not yet invented" I would believe that I had signed away rights not yet invented, as the contract language was unambiguous, and clearly allocated the benefit of unforeseen circumstances to Harlequin. The only valid claim under contract law would be a claim of unexpected/unforeseen circumstances, but the language of the contract, to my mind, says that if there are unforeseen circumstances, the author gives the benefit of them to Harlequin. Elaine English has said that the language Harlequin is using has been upheld many, many times, and I do not doubt that this is the case.

I have no idea why Harlequin/Silhouette are uploading thousands of novels on July 15th, and choose not to speculate beyond that they likely believe it will make them money. That is their prerogative as a publisher.

Finally, I would be furious with RWA if it did any such thing. RWA has no standing to ask a judge to stay the upload. It is not a party to the contract, and is not a beneficiary of it. I believe it would be a usurpation of the author's role in the process. If I have an objection to something my publisher is doing, *I* will object to it. If I believe it requires legal action, *I* will organize it. Nobody else may arrogate to themselves the authority to decide what I should do about my books.

I do not think there is any legitimate argument to be made that Harlequin is violating the rights of authors.

I think the legitimate argument to be made is that Harlequin made excellent use of superior bargaining power, and got concessions which will give it a temporary cash-flow boost. Those things are legal, and no court will intervene. But I also think that Harlequin is beginning to recognize that in a repeat game with the same players, when one side develops options they may very well get burned.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Courtney Milan said:


> Craig,
> 
> I think you're perilously close to asking legal advice.


The only reason I'm not? I have never written for Silhouette or Harlequin. I'm asking for the benefit of others on these boards, and just for general responses. 

Based on your above responses, I can see that there are holes in the arguments I've been making, so I'll now be able to choose to pipe down... lest I end up with egg on my face for sounding uninformed. LOL.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> The only reason I'm not? I have never written for Silhouette or Harlequin. I'm asking for the benefit of others on these boards, and just for general responses.
> 
> Based on your above responses, I can see that there are holes in the arguments I've been making, so I'll now be able to choose to pipe down... lest I end up with egg on my face for sounding uninformed. LOL.


I think what she was saying was that you were asking a question which is so specific that SHE would be giving legal advice -- which can get here into trouble.

Camille


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

Courtney Milan said:


> The only valid claim under contract law would be a claim of unexpected/unforeseen circumstances, but the language of the contract, to my mind, says that if there are unforeseen circumstances, the author gives the benefit of them to Harlequin. Elaine English has said that the language Harlequin is using has been upheld many, many times, and I do not doubt that this is the case.


I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on Tv, but isn't it the case that courts can and have thrown out contracts where they deemed the contract to simply be "unfair", inasmuch as the less powerful party had limited or no options? I used to work for a cell phone company, and I know there were cases of courts declaring their early termination fees to be unfair and simply letting the consumer off the hook. The consumers knew full well what they were signing, but the courts felt they did not have other options since all the carriers had this same stipulation, and thus, the consumer has no choice but to sign if he wants a phone (an analogous situation). I believe there have been cases of pre-nups being tossed for this same reason, but I could be wrong.

--Maria


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

1. A very good place to start is RANDOM HOUSE v ROSETTA. The decision and lots of discussion is available. The district court decision for Rosetta  is very interesting. The appeals court subsequently upheld the district court. 

2. Undefined terms in a contract are a big red flag. If "net" is not defined, it's a big problem. Give me control of the accounting system, tell me how much you want net to be, and I'll deliver using legal accounting standards. If the counter-party won't define "net" that's an even bigger problem.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

I would imagine that the "toss because of unfair" thing really depends on the nature of the contract. I know that once upon a time I recruited programmers and the company I was with tried to enforce a non-compete clause. The clause stipulated that I wouldn't recruit programmers for a year after I left said company. My lawyer sent them a very polite note that basically informed them that they were batsh!t crazy if they thought they could make that stick, because it would be depriving me of my income / livelihood. The ex-boss declined to pursue. Whether that was because they actually didn't have a leg to stand on or because I didn't roll over for them... dunno. There were several other things I went round-n-round with them about and they finally wished me the best and we went separate ways.

The experience pretty much convinced me (at the grand old age of 22) that a lot of what flies in the corporate world isn't about who's right legally, but who they can intimidate, which is also closely related to how much money they can throw at an issue. You can be 100% in the right both legally and morally but if you can't afford attorney's fees for 5 years (or longer) you're just as screwed as if the law _was_ on their side. Not something I agree with, but I also don't know what you can do about it.


----------



## Bob Mayer (Feb 20, 2011)

There is no no non-compete clause, as has been pointed out. Whether the royalties are better-- according to HQ, of course they are. There are some terms that would probably need clearer definition. Here is an agent who discusses the math also net and the effect of not having agency pricing: http://pubrants.blogspot.com/2011/06/doing-math-on-harlequins-move-to-25-of.html

Ultimately, pretty much no matter what terms HQ or any other publisher put out there, they'd still find people willing to sign a book contract and that's fine. Each writer has to walk their own path. The only people who ultimately should care about this are the authors under contract to HQ. I believe most traditional publishers are handling their backlist very poorly because they don't see the value in it. It makes me wonder how a book that Random House had out in ebook and only sold a thousand copies in six months and reverted rights to me is now in the top 10 in science fiction and how a book Berkley had is now the #2 scifi bestseller in both the US and UK Kindle. What's the difference? If HQ is going to upload a bunch of titles on the 15th, what promo plan do they have for it? Could they even have one given all the titles? Who knows? Who cares. To each their own.

It's a business.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

Bob Mayer said:


> ... publishers are handling their backlist very poorly because they don't see the value in it. It makes me wonder how a book that Random House had out in ebook and only sold a thousand copies in six months and reverted rights to me is now in the top 10 in science fiction and how a book Berkley had is now the #2 scifi bestseller in both the US and UK Kindle. What's the difference? If HQ is going to upload a bunch of titles on the 15th, what promo plan do they have for it? Could they even have one given all the titles? Who knows? Who cares. To each their own.
> 
> It's a business.


I think they have alot on their hands trying to promote their current list and to effectively also promote backlist titles is too much for them. Very seldom have they really promoted the backlist, unless an author became very big. If the title reverts back to the author the author will probably do a better job of selling the title--like you do.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

I keep checking on upcoming releases and I am still not seeing 1000's of backlist coming out on the 15th anywhere. I see about 200. Did they say anywhere they will release ALL of the 90's backlist? It just doesn't look like it to me. Unless I am missing something. 

And as a reader of romance I can tell those affected by this. If I like an author, I usually read backlist also. Or for me I prefer to start at the beginning and work my way forward. So if we like one of those older titles, chances are we'll pick up the current stuff too. So it could actually help a bit too.


----------



## Cheryl Bolen (Jun 9, 2011)

Bob Mayer said:


> I believe most traditional publishers are handling their backlist very poorly because they don't see the value in it. It makes me wonder how a book that Random House had out in ebook and only sold a thousand copies in six months and reverted rights to me is now in the top 10 in science fiction and how a book Berkley had is now the #2 scifi bestseller in both the US and UK Kindle. What's the difference? If HQ is going to upload a bunch of titles on the 15th, what promo plan do they have for it? Could they even have one given all the titles? Who knows? Who cares. To each their own.
> 
> It's a business.


Bob, I know you're smarter than the execs at the publishing houses; I'm beginning to think I may be, too. I have scratched my head at some of the things that have happened to me with my previous houses. And I will say, small royalty aside, I made more money with Harlequin than with the others.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

Courtney Milan said:


> Nobody else may arrogate to themselves the authority to decide what I should do about my books.


I believe the Supreme Court's recent rulings regarding class action suits says they would agree with you. 

A few others mentioned that they were surpised that there has been no widespread outrage. Maybe the truth is that Harlequin has treated most of their writers well and made a lot of careers, and as such those authors trust Harlequin to continue making them money? It is easy for people who WANT to self-publish to get all bent out of shape, but maybe most Harlequin authors would rather NOT deal with self-publishing and just want to collect their quarterly checks?

Those that don't like the deal will fight it in court, and Harlequin would probably just release the authors instead of spending too much money per author fighting it (cost/benefit ratios come into play).


----------



## TheSFReader (Jan 20, 2011)

The Passive Guy's latest post forwards the "findings" of attorney/agent Elaine English regarding 15 HQ contracts.
The analysis may well interest most of you HQ authors ... 
http://www.ninc.com/writers_resources/digital_rights_answers.asp


----------



## 41419 (Apr 4, 2011)

Passive Guy's post his here.

He's looking for Harlequin contracts to look over them if anyone is willing.

http://www.thepassivevoice.com/06/2011/harlequin-horrors-wanted/


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

*Quote:

RWA has no standing to ask a judge to stay the upload. It is not a party to the contract, and is not a beneficiary of it. I believe it would be a usurpation of the author's role in the process. If I have an objection to something my publisher is doing, *I* will object to it. If I believe it requires legal action, *I* will organize it. Nobody else may arrogate to themselves the authority to decide what I should do about my books.

Unquote*

Perhaps my memory has grown fuzzy over the years. But I seem to remember that the authors guild, playwrights organization, and the screenwriters organization have initiated court actions when their members were being treated unfairly. Yet the guilds or organizations did not sign the offending contracts being disputed.

Please correct me on this if my memory is wrong.

But frankly, I don't see RWA taking the big H to court.


----------



## Jackie Barbosa (Mar 23, 2011)

Okey Dokey said:


> Perhaps my memory has grown fuzzy over the years. But I seem to remember that the authors guild, playwrights organization, and the screenwriters organization have initiated court actions when their members were being treated unfairly. Yet the guilds or organizations did not sign the offending contracts being disputed.
> 
> Please correct me on this if my memory is wrong.
> 
> But frankly, I don't see RWA taking the big H to court.


I believe the organizations you mention, like Author's Guild, are more like trade associations that advocate on behalf of members. The structure of the organization basically allows them to enter into court action on behalf of their members, similar to a union. (I'm sure Courtney can clarify this.)

RWA, however, isn't a trade association and doesn't have the structural authority to initiate lawsuits on members' behalf, though it does have some power to "strong-arm" publishers into behaving under certain guidelines by, for example, refusing to allow the offending publisher to hold a spotlight or take pitches at National conference or just by warning its members away from submitting to said publisher (e.g., Dorchester).


----------



## Christine Merrill (Aug 19, 2010)

CraigInTwinCities said:


> Is it correct to presume that H/S uploading thousands of 80s/90s novels on July 15 is all about cementing their "in print" status on these titles for the full life of the contract? (Thus avoiding having to grant rights reversions.)


I can't speak for Courtney here. But I was talking with an exec from Harlequin, someone several pay grades up from my editor this morning.

The answer is, no, this isn't about locking us in forever. It's about leveraging the brand to sell books. Don't think so much about the individual author. Think about a lot of Harlequin books being made available to readers who like Harlequins. HM&B owns the backlist. They want to put it to use.

The are also hammering out a firm definition about what is 'out of print' in the digital age. They have no desire to hang onto things that don't sell, just because they can. If things take a long time, it is because big companies move slowly. Their goal as an organization is to be more nimble in response to industry changes and author needs.

Whether you like them or not, Harlequin knows how to throw their weight around in the market. That's what this is. It's not about keeping us all stabled. It's about being the biggest kid on the playground. Traditional publishing is not going to curl up and die. It adapts.

There were no drugs in my tea. Swear to God. I got straight but general answers.

And my shoes were pink Croc flats. In RWA this is called multitasking.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Christine Merrill said:


> I can't speak for Courtney here. But I was talking with an exec from Harlequin, someone several pay grades up from my editor this morning.
> 
> The answer is, no, this isn't about locking us in forever. It's about leveraging the brand to sell books. Don't think so much about the individual author. Think about a lot of Harlequin books being made available to readers who like Harlequins. HM&B owns the backlist. They want to put it to use.
> 
> ...


LMAO @ the multi-tasking 

As for the brand move - it's always been my opinion that Harlequin / Silhouette is smart, smart, smart when it comes to selling romance. Seriously. They're also one of the more nimble (large) publishing companies out there.

That said - I have about 20 books by Caroline Burnes and Penny Jordan that I've been yearning to have in eBook format. Hopefully the price will be such that I can grab a bunch of them just to have my old favorites in my Calibre library


----------



## anne_holly (Jun 5, 2011)

New tweet from HQ from the Carina spotlight at RWA:

_#Carina Spotlight announcement - like Harlequin, Carina royalty rate will be going up. Will have final details new in coming months._


----------



## Cheryl Bolen (Jun 9, 2011)

Those of you waiting for Penny Jordan's (and other old beloved Harlequin authors') books to be available on ebook WILL be seeing that happen. The 1990s books going up this summer. I predict the 1980s ones will be next.


----------



## tkreilley (Aug 4, 2010)

Cheryl Bolen said:


> I reported a week ago about Harlequin/Silhouette uploading all their 1990s titles for the first time as ebooks on July 15. I have since learned what royalty rate to expect on these, and the rate is even lower than my print royalty of 6 percent of the cover price!
> 
> Novelists Inc. commissioned a literary attorney (Elaine English, who is also an agent) to examine a representative sample of contracts from over the years, specifically to rule on ebooks and royalties and reversion of rights.
> 
> ...


That is so unfair. I suppose one could say even 3% is better than nothing, but in light of the fact those authors could release the books themselves for at least 35%, HQ's actions suck. I've dealt with them twice, and never again. Even my agent hated dealing with HQ. They are slow and take forever to process contracts, let alone payments. I'm sorry Ms. English wasn't able to find a way out for all of you. I signed my contracts in 2008 and 2009, and technology had caught up by then. Sort of, I should say. My royalty percent is the same on ebooks as it is for print books, but it's still woefully short of some of my other publishers that started out as electronic book houses (7% vs. 37.5%, for example).

Perhaps the HQ name will help boost sales enough for the authors affected so they won't get completely cheated.


----------

