Amazon, Indies, and My headaches

[R M Rowan]

"Allow me to state the obvious: if a book has been printed, no, first rights can't be brought back. If a book has been printed, no, non-exclusive rights can't be cancelled without cancelling the book."

If the first rights have not been exercised, the rights can be cancelled.
If a book has not been printed, counterparty non-exclusive rights can be cancelled.
If a book has been printed, counterparty non-exclusive print rights in the future can be cancelled.
No agreement with one counterparty affects another, so no agreement with a single counterparty makes anything exclusive. However, if all counterparty non-exclusive rights have been cancelled, then only the author holds rights.
The parties can agree to termination of non-exclusive rights and canceling the book.
Either the party can ask for and grant whatever it chooses depending on the specific situation..

Contractually speaking, that may be so, but she did ask and was told ' no'.  And I agree, there's no harm in asking.  However, at that point, she threatened a multitude of nasty things that should never happen just because you don't get your own way.  The key is, the parties have to agree, which they don't.  This is where the contract terms come in and that's why we have contracts.  Hopefully this doesn't turn into a book bashing just because a spoiled brat doesn't like the answer to the question.  

[Terrence OBrien]

"Contractually speaking, that may be so, but she did ask and was told ' no'.  And I agree, there's no harm in asking.  However, at that point, she threatened a multitude of nasty things that should never happen just because you don't get your own way.  The key is, the parties have to agree, which they don't.  This is where the contract terms come in and that's why we have contracts.  Hopefully this doesn't turn into a book bashing just because a spoiled brat doesn't like the answer to the question. "

Sure. I'm discussing the options that authors have in dealing with previously granted rights. How they behave while dong that is another matter.

[R M Rowan]

"Contractually speaking, that may be so, but she did ask and was told ' no'.  And I agree, there's no harm in asking.  However, at that point, she threatened a multitude of nasty things that should never happen just because you don't get your own way.  The key is, the parties have to agree, which they don't.  This is where the contract terms come in and that's why we have contracts.  Hopefully this doesn't turn into a book bashing just because a spoiled brat doesn't like the answer to the question. "

Sure. I'm discussing the options that authors have in dealing with previously granted rights. How they behave while dong that is another matter.

Yep.  These are murky waters we're treading in and until self-published authors understand their contract (or take the thing to their attorney to take a look at, no matter how simple) these things will continue to occur.   *Sigh*.  Kids should be taught simple law courses in high-school - especially contracts, as they'll be asked to put pen to paper ten million times before they die.

[Bards and Sages (Julie)]

This makes for an interesting dilemma. I'm planning a future anthology. Is there a way to word the contract so that authors understand this from the get go? Will you word things differently in the future? 

This is the actual standard clause that is used in my contracts:

AUTHOR understands that the BOOK in which the WORK appears may remain available for sale indefinitely.  Because of this, the AUTHOR also grants the PUBLISHER non-exclusive, perpetual rights to continue publishing the WORK in relation to the BOOK in which it appears.

I don't know how you can write it much clearer without treating your authors like idiots.  I've been doing anthologies for a long time now.  

And as others have noted, I don't think this is an issue of her not understanding.  She understood enough to have the conversation with Amazon, anyway.  She simply decided that it should not apply to her.  And when she was informed that it did in fact apply to her, she had a fit.  Asking a publisher to pull an entire anthology for three months is funny, but hey if you don't ask you don't know.  It is the behavior afterwards that is mind-boggling.  The complete blinders that she has on.  

Forget me as a publisher for a minute.  What about the other authors who use that anthology for promotions or their portfolio?  Folks who link to the book for their affiliate sites or who are just happy to have their name appear on Amazon or where ever as part of the anthology?  I can't tell you how many times I've set up a zero cost coupon at Drivethrufantasy or Smashwords for someone to give away copies at an event they are doing.  I consider it a win/win.  The author has a freebie to give away at their event, and I get a chance to introduce my brand to more people.  I just set up something last week for one of my authors who was doing a reading and wanted to be able to give away a few free ebook copies.  Imagine having to say "Sorry, Pam, but I'm not allowed to distribute any ebooks for three months while Jane has her story available through an exclusive deal with Amazon."

And these were the points I explained to her in my initial response.  It just isn't fair to me or the other authors to pull an ebook for three months so one author can hope to benefit.

[Krista D. Ball]

Imagine having to say "Sorry, Pam, but I'm not allowed to distribute any ebooks for three months while Jane has her story available through an exclusive deal with Amazon."

As someone in a B&S anthology and who has purchased copies using my author code, I would be so very angry if you said this to me. 

[MichelleR]

As someone in a B&S anthology and who has purchased copies using my author code, I would be so very angry if you said this to me.  

Right, she should at least call you Krista ... not Pam.   (Unless your name is really Pam.)

[D a l y a]

ARGH that's awful!

The problem with being small and approachable, as opposed to a big faceless corporation, is you're approachable. Yep, people can just approach on up there and say stuff like that.

I don't know much about the legal side, but if you had an agreement in place, both parties have to honor it.

[SuzanneTyrpak]

I'm sorry you received that reaction, Julie. The contract she signed with you is clear.

[BrianKittrell]

Yep.  These are murky waters we're treading in and until self-published authors understand their contract (or take the thing to their attorney to take a look at, no matter how simple) these things will continue to occur.   *Sigh*.  Kids should be taught simple law courses in high-school - especially contracts, as they'll be asked to put pen to paper ten million times before they die.

It's not even a matter of that, really. Anyone entering into a for-hire relationship, a business relationship, such as those seen between an author and a publisher, should read the contract and have a little forethought.

What happened here was she wanted the pay at the time to write the story (or to have Julie publish the already written story, whichever), but now, something's changed and she wants out. Is there a buy-back option or anything like that in the contract? Since it's not a standard contract term, I would assume no.

Just like several formerly-trad authors have complained, you can't always get the rights back when you're under contract. That's how the system works. And even despite this, the author could still publish the short story on its own and allow it as a part of Prime. That's what baffles me the most, all of this trouble and nastiness for no valid reason.