How to read a publishing contract (3)

If your book is illustrated, there may be clause covering the illustrations.

3. Illustrations The Publishers shall at their own expense reproduce any photographs, pictures, diagrams, maps or any other material in addition to the Author's illustrations which is considered necessary for the proper illustration of the Work. All photographs shall, when done with, be returned to the photographic agencies by the Publishers. Any material belonging to the Author shall be returned to him by the Publishers. The Publishers shall have the right to require such amendments or corrections by the Author to the illustrative material as they think fit.

This can look a bit scary, but don't worry - it doesn't mean you have to do anything you weren't expecting. The first bit means you don't have to pay for the licence to use any pictures. These might be pictures from a picture agency, or specially commissioned photographs or illustrations. In an academic book, you MAY have to pay for the use of illustrations, but this is a contract for a commercial fiction title and this is the standard - the publisher pays all reproduction costs.

The reference to the Author's illustrations doesn't mean you are expected to supply any illustrations - this is just a standard clause. If you are the author/illustrator of a picture book, you will already know you are providing illustrations. The book this contract relates to doesn't have any illustrations (or I don't think it does.... haven't seen the pdfs yet!) but the clause is still here. It will, of course, have a cover illustration, so that counts.

All photographs shall, when done with, be returned to the photographic agencies by the Publishers - This is an old bit, left in from the Dark Ages. Now, the photographs (if there are any) will be selected online and you will be sent thumbnails, or links to the light box on the picture agency site, or you will see them when they are in the layouts and you get a pdf. The publisher will never be in receipt of a physical copy of the photograph, they will just pay to download a high-resolution image file, so there is no returning to be done.

Long, long ago, when we had to use real physical photos, publishers would sometimes send copies of photos out to authors. This was very scary, as you could lose them, or spill coffee on them, or your child/cat could be sick on them, and then you had to pay a large fee to the picture agency. Thank God we don't have that any more.

Any material belonging to the Author shall be returned to him by the Publishers - This usually refers to any artwork roughs or reference you have sent (unless you are a real illustrator). Artwork roughs are sketches of the picture required. They are not to be reproduced in the book but passed to the illustrator so that (s)he knows what to drawn. Reference is any picture that can be used to guide the illustrator. It is an image that is more finished than a rough, but may not show exactly what to draw. For instance, if a map is needed, the reference may be a copyright image that shows exactly what is required, and the illustrator will draw something pretty similar. But reference may also be a picture of the type of hat a character in a larger picture must have, or a photograph on which a biological illustration is to be based, or almost anything else.

If you are the illustrator, you will have sent original artwork and perhaps a dummy (a small, rough, mock-up of the book showing how all the words and pictures are laid out). These should be returned to you. Never send anything without taking a copy. Obviously. Of course you weren't going to do that, were you? Even if you hand-deliver it, take a good quality copy.

The Publishers shall have the right to require such amendments or corrections by the Author to the illustrative material as they think fit - If you are the illustrator of the work, this means you have to make changes the publishers want. If you are not the illustator, don't worry about this. It basically means you might have to add annotation or suggest changes the illustrator can make. Sometimes, I do these by marking up the picture in Photoshop, but you can often do it just by giving a description. In the worst case, you can print it out, add your changes in pen and either put in the post (remember the post?) or scan it in. It doesn't mean you actually have to make the changes to the finished illustration (if you're not the illustrator) - so you can start breathing again.

How to read a publishing contract (2)

OK, clause 2. This is a short one:

Delivery of Manuscripts

2. The Author shall deliver to the Publishers a complete copy of the typescript together with the Work on disk, by the following date:

[usually a date in the past]

a complete copy of the typescript = a copy of the work printed on pieces of paper and put into an envelope

the Work on disk = a copy of the work on some kind of disc, which your computer almost certainly can't write to and theirs can't read

They don't mean this clause at all. No, really, they don't. I have only delivered one paper copy of a manuscript in the last ten years and even then I said 'Really? Do you really want a paper copy? Why?' Perhaps they didn't have a printer.

Anyway, this clause actually means 'send the work as an email attachment. It must be a Word document. We probably won't be able to open it if you use the latest version of Word because we have antiquated systems.'

Often, you get the contract after you have sent the MS. If this is not the case, check that you actually can deliver the MS by the date specified. If it is in the past, and you haven't delivered it, that's worth arguing about. If it is too soon - you won't have finished the book - argue about that. It's better to set an achievable delivery date, even if it means they get a little bit cross as this stage, than to agree to a date you can't meet and then (a) get very, very stressed and (b) make them very cross when you don't deliver on time. Really. Believe me. It is in unprofessional to let them plan their production schedule around a date you know you can't meet. If they won't budge on an unrealistic date, tear up the contract and look for another publisher. I mean it.

How to read a publishing contract (1)

Publishing contracts can be long and scary documents. It's easy to be intimidated into thinking that you just have to sign on the dotted line and go along with what the publisher wants, but you don't.

If you have an agent, your agent should be good at arguing for you, but some agents are better than others. If you are a member of the Society of Authors, they will look at the contract for you and make suggestions about clauses they consider unfair. If you are not a member of the Society of Authors, join now! You only need one published book (not self-published or vanity published), or one publishing contract, to join.

But having an agent and joining the Society of Authors doesn't let you off the hook. You still need to read the contract, you still need to understand it, and you may still object to things that SocA or your agent don't object to - or you may be happy with things they object to. Remember, it's your book, your career, your final choice. Don't be bullied. And don't be ignorant. If you are planning on being a professional writer, you need to understand your publishing contracts. And remember that to start with the publisher will send your their 'standard' contract. It's where you start negotiating from - it's not the end of the story.

Now, as they're long and scary, I'm not going to go through a whole publishing contract in one go here. We'll do it clause by clause. I will just pick my last contract, so it's a random choice. Every now and then I'll stick in a clause from a different contract so that we cover all (or most) bases. Please, people, feel free to add extra advice and, most importantly, correct any errors in the comments. What I am using here is not quite a standard contract as I have worked with this publisher before and argued with them, so my contracts are now tailored to accommodate the results of previous strops. They sometimes reinsert their favourite clauses to be argued about again, or in the hope that I won't notice them.

Note - this is a UK contract, relating to UK law and I give UK interpretations of the terminology. If you are not in the UK, your contracts will be different. Don't follow my advice and then grumble that it doesn't match your legal system and you've been strung up.

Here we go:

First the preamble:

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made this ...[insert date before you sign] day of ...[insert month] Two Thousand and ...[insert year] between Stroppy Author, c/o Stroppy Author's agent, Agent Street, London, (hereinafter called 'the Author', which expression shall, where the context admits, include Authors and Author's executors, administrators and assigns or successors in business as the case may be) of one part and Stroppy Publishers of Stroppy Publisher address (hereinafter called 'the Publishers', which expression shall, where the context admits, include the Publishers' assigns or successors in business as the case may be, whether carried on under the present or another style) of the other part

WHEREAS the Author agrees to write an original work for the [Stroppy series], at present entitled:

Stroppy's Latest Book

(hereinafter called 'the Work')
NOW IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:

OK. This is a long-winded way of saying who you are, who the publisher is, and what your book is currently called. It means that if you die, or become completely incapacitated, you aren't let off the terms of the contract, the terms just apply to your descendants. It also means that you aren't let off if the publisher goes bankrupt, changes its name, bla bla - the contract will still be in force with whoever takes over. This might mean (for you) negotiating with a liquidator. It might mean (for the publisher) negotiating with your bereft relatives. We won't get distracted into that now. We'll do 'when your publisher goes bust' another day. Let's stay optimistic for now.

So, assuming you live long enough to write the book and the publisher stays solvent long enough to publish it, what next?

In this contract, the book is 'at present entitled' which means you/the publisher might change the title of the book before it is published and the contract will still be valid. The book is now known in the contract as 'the Work' and will still be 'the [same] Work' if the title changes.

Clause 1, then I'll let you off for today:

Rights and Territory
1. In consideration of the payments hereinafter mentioned, the Author hereby grants the Publishers during the legal term of copyright the sole and exclusive right and licence to produce, publish, broadcast and perform the Work or any abridgement, portion or adaptation of it in all editions, languages and forms throughout the world. The Author grants to the Publishers electronic rights for excerpts of up to 150 words from the Work. Further electronic rights are to be mutually agreed.

In consideration of the payments hereinafter mentioned = in exchange for payment; there is a later clause about money

during the legal term of copyright = until 70 years after your death (UK law); varies by jurisdiction, but there is a full list here. If you publish in Afghanistan, there is no copyright.

sole and exclusive right and licence = you can't let another publisher do anything with the book and you can't self publish it or do anything else with it yourself

produce, publish, broadcast and perform the Work or any abridgement, portion or adaptation of it = the publisher has broadcast and performance rights; they can negotiate with the BBC to serialise the book, they can approve (or not) stage performances, readings, audiobooks. You can't do a short version, chunk or re-working of the book for another publisher or broadcaster. Think this doesn't affect you because it's not feature-film material? Think again. It means you can't do a YouTube video of yourself reading from the book without their permission. You can't produce an opera from it, or a puppet show, or a machinima movie. Even if you translate it into Tamil first.

throughout the world = you can publish it on other planets. They are being generous. I have heard of a publishing contract that claimed rights throughout the 'known and unknown universe'. Throughout the world, though, suggests that you could broadcast your work on the basis that you are aiming it at a different planet but unfortunately some people on Earth are listening to the signal when they shouldn't be. I haven't put that to the test, but it looks plausible...

The Author grants to the Publishers electronic rights for excerpts of up to 150 words from the Work = the publisher can use up to 150 words in any electronic form, such as putting it on their website, on Amazon, or including it in other e-books as a taster. This publisher is being very reasonable. (Actually, I insisted on this restriction in an earlier contract and they anticipated another strop if they didn't include it in this one). We'll come back to electronic rights properly another day, but allowing an excerpt is fine. The reason this excerpt is so short is that the book is very short; for a longer book, expect a longer excerpt - but not too long.

Further electronic rights are to be mutually agreed = If they want to make an e-book, they have to ask you first and you will arrange the terms then. I hope the wording of this clause means that electronic rights remain with the author until they are 'mutually agreed', as that's what I asked for. If any legally-expert readers would like to confirm or refute this in the comments I would be grateful. If the contract claims electronic rights here, you MUST argue about the clause. You may want to reject the contract outright if they won't change it.

So, by agreeing to this clause you give up all rights to do anything else with your book anywhere in the world in any language. This is a clause you should argue with. Why should the publisher stop you giving a reading, allowing the book to be read on radio, or make a YouTube video? Do you want your agent to be able to sell foreign rights? Don't you want to make a block-buster movie and sell plushies of your characters? What's wrong with you?

Did I strop?

No. I would have challenged the performance/adaptation part of this clause. In fact, this contract has a later clause clawing back TV, film and merchandising rights so I didn't, but if your contract doesn't have such a clause you must argue to keep some of these rights.

In this case, I didn't strop as my daughter was very ill and I just signed on the dotted line to get it over and done with. Sometimes that happens, but I would try not to do it again. I always want to keep animation rights. I will argue that YouTube and machinima are electronic rights if I want to do either of these later.

Whether you argue about this clause will depend on who your publisher is, who your agent is, and what you plan to do with your book. If your publisher is a large international and will do their own foreign editions, you may want to let them deal with foreign rights, and they may insist on it. If your agent is an expert at selling foreign rights, you might want to argue. If your book is a textbook on integral calculus, you might think the performance rights are not worth keeping. But think carefully - a video of glove puppets explaining integral calculus might be a big hit!

Right, enough for now. I'm off to make a glove puppet show about integral calculus...

Stranger danger and car-jacking fire engines

If you're in the UK, the start of the new Dr Who series will not have passed you by unless you live underground, far from the reach of TV waves.

For those of us who used to hide behind the sofa while black-and-white daleks were stumped by stairs and risked their cardboard going soggy in the London fog, the rotating Christmas decoration threatening humanity was a welcome return to 1960s Blue-Peter values. And the plot was a welcome return to the days when a young girl could invite a strange man into her bedroom without wondering whether he was actually a Catholic priest hoping she had a nice brother.

This Dr Who had everything the 1960s did so well - casual racism ('You're Scottish. Fry something.'), complete disregard for the safety of viewers (yep, get a freak with a screwdriver to come into your bedroom late at night, little girl. No harm in that), promotion of crime (nick a fire engine and talk on the phone while driving it), child neglect (where was the aunt in the middle of the night?), and even desertion of good manners (spitting out food someone has cooked for you and you've asked for). Actually, the last of those would not have been tolerated in the 1960s, at least not in my corner of the 60s.

Was there a little splinterette of a moral lesson in this Dr Who? If you let strange men into your bedroom you grow up to be a strippergram? Or was that just sound career advice? If you want to be a strippergram, let strange men into your room... (Incidentally, if you try to nick a fire engine, you get banned from the fire station. I know this as my Big Bint was banned from the fire station for 10 years. The moral of this is - make sure you are successful in nicking the fire engine and you won't be there to be banned.)

Don't get me wrong. I think a healthy spirit of adventure is to be encouraged. I'm with Arthur Ransome - 'better drowned than duffers; if not duffers, won't drown' (Swallows and Amazons). But it is a little unfair that while Mr Moffat gets to encourage children to whizz around space-time with non-CRB-checked potential paedophiles, children's writers aren't allowed to put a sword in a book because it might encourage violence. So I'm going to have a little strop about it. If we can trust children not to follow the examples of Dr Who and his side-kick, aspirational heroes for many generations (except no-one worthwhile ever wanted to be Sarah-Jane), can't we trust them not to run amok in a fourth-crusade-style sword massacre if we show them pictures of a medieval knight?

If you would like to become the Dr's assistant without risking attack by paedophiles, it's safest to do it on this BBC website instead of at home in your bedroom.

Writers as stars?

(Painting by Stuart Pearson Wright
linked from UsableMarkets)

It's a funny thing being a writer at the moment. Writers are lauded and celebrated everywhere. Reading groups have sprung up like fungus; readings and book launches are packed; the radio waves are filled with writer interviews and book programmes; famous writers are consulted on non-writing matters; literary festivals proliferate like coat-hangers left in a cupboard; celebrities think it worth their while to pretend to be writers and pay ghosts to produce books with their name on; The Reading Organisation and The Reading Agency try to bring reading to a wider constituency and promote/exploit the therapeutic benefits of literature; creative writing courses are crammed with wannabe writers - everyone loves writers, suddenly.

But not books. Libraries close, or reduce their book stock in favour of space for computers, 'mediatheque' installations, or just empty space for readings and performance. (Oh, the irony - remove the books to make space for authors giving readings from, er, books.) Geeks and moneymakers shout loudly about e-books and the potential for replacing the active role of imagination in reading text with the passive and lazy consumption of multimedia. Authors are paid less and less - very few earn even the average wage, many earn below the minimum wage. Bookshops stock more copies of fewer titles, and shun anything not guaranteed to be a bestseller. Books are commoditized in supermarkets, sold for practically nothing by Amazon re-sellers (even books that have only just come out), stolen by pirates.

How has this dichotomy arisen and where will it lead? How can society on the one hand idolise writers and on the other hand despise books and their place in our lives? It's not even as though it is different people doing the two things. The same people who promote new trends in publishing before considering how to address the financial impact on professional writers are those who turn up at readings.

I would be the last to say that society owes writers a living. I have never applied for an Arts Council grant or any other source of support for my writing. But in a market that apparently wants writers, why does no-one want to pay a sustainable amount for our work? Why are they happy to let us talk on the radio for free or virtually nothing, but not happy to pay the going rate for a book in print? It looks as though we are returning to a world in which the only people who can afford to write are those with another source of income. Some people say that's fine, you can write in your free time. But that will exclude many people - single, working parents don't have free time; people on a low wage may be struggling with more than one job to make ends meet. And we need books written by people from all parts of society, so that all parts of society can find something they want to read, that they feel speaks to them, and so that we can all, as readers, enter different worlds unfamiliar to us.

It should NOT be necessary to subsidise writing by doing literary festivals, school visits and 'personal appearances'. Nothing wrong with these as extra sources of income for those who like doing them - but they are not and should not be, an essential part of the job of being a writer. They require a completely different skill set and THEY ARE NOT WRITING, they take time away from the job of being a writer. If I wanted to be a performer, I'd have gone to RADA instead of Cambridge (oh, hang on...) - I'd have been in Footlights instead of the library.

If society really values writers and reading, can they please stop treating books so badly? Fame is all very nice (perhaps) but food on the table is more sustaining. I don't want a free glass of warm Pinot Grigio in Heffers every other week - I want my books to be sold for a fair price and to be paid a fair price for writing them.