Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Fowl Play no more...I think
An update: After 8 or 9 of the contributors to this proposed anthology, Chicken Soup for the Indian Teenager's Soul had given up hope of anyone sensible from the publisher's side taking any professional and logical steps, and taken recourse to contacting the parent companies and the press, someone did in fact contact us. At last, possibly taking cognisance of the utter disgust, anger and amusement that had built up openly, this person did not come at us talking 'take it or leave it' and 'we'll find better writers' etc. He calmly spoke to us individually, actually understood the questions we were asking, instead of behaving like we were some starving snapping creatures, and hallelujha! Westland has got back to us with an amended, more reasonable contract, and Rs 1000 instead of Rs 500 (not princely, but at least an acknowledgement that Rs 500 was laughable); and promises to pay again if the book does well beyond a point.
We're now inclined to sign, most of us. Some of us may say thanks but no thanks. But at least it will end on a non-bitter note.
Meanwhile, anyone to whom I had forwarded Raksha Bharadia's email soliciting contributions to a proposed Chicken Soup for the Indian Army Soul (or some such title), please note that I had passed it on assuming she was authorized to ask for these contributions. However, the person at Westland (the reasonable person) who spoke to me told me in as many words that she has absolutely no mandate to solicit things for any such book. I hope you guys are reading this - sorry if I passed on her mail, without realising that this was one big mess that I may get you into!
Moral of the story: always read the fine print, keep asking questions, and don’t behave as if a publisher is God himself/herself. Many of them are just muddling around, like any other organisation. And some of them will try to shout you down or sneer you down when they don’t know better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
B
Not quite so fast, Gouri (ref. ‘fowl play no more’ and the story ending 'on a non-bitter note'). The very senior and ‘sensible’ person you refer to went to great lengths to reassure us Westland were ‘responsible publishers’, that ‘any concern of an author is important to (them)’, they want to be ‘as fair as possible’ and ‘are keen to reach a mutually acceptable and amicable understanding with (us)’. We were sent two revised contracts, each with a request to ‘issue clarifications or retractions as (we) see fit’ to the ‘somewhat distorted reports that have appeared on websites, blogs and magazines which have been disturbing for (Westland)’.
I asked this very senior person to clarify what he meant by ‘distorted’ reports (which he never did) and I pointed out that even his revised contracts contained several outlandish/ ambiguous/ contradictory clauses as well as omissions which not only rendered them heavily biased in the publisher’s favour but also unfeasible and full of pitfalls for writers. I provided him with two concrete examples from his latest revised contract dated 29th May:
i) Our grant of rights to Westland for publication, printing, reprinting etc. of the anthology in English, its translation into regional Indian languages, transcription into Braille and audio recordings, first and second serial rights in newspapers and periodicals, AND its reproduction as AUDIO BOOKS AND E-BOOKS - ‘for the legal term of copyright’ . The definition of ‘LEGAL TERM OF COPYRIGHT’ it turns out, is the entire lifetime of an author plus 60 years (something Westland did not bother to define and 99% of contributors to the anthology are still blissfully unaware of)! All this against Rs. 1,000 for the first 10,000 copies/units and then Rs 500 (only) for every additional sale of 10,000 copies/units of all the aforementioned (in a bid to get us to part with e-book and audio-book rights too, which some of us wanted to hang on to). Ah, no, the publisher does not believe in giving us Royalty percentages: it’s Rs 500 till perpetuity!
ii) After first trying to grab ‘worldwide rights’ to an even longer list of items from us, Westland reduced its territorial rights to ‘the Indian Subcontinent’, Yet they include e-books in their contracts despite such a medium being unrestricted by any geographical boundaries. The fact that e-books represent mega bucks for any publisher - in which the author usually gets at least a 50% share of the proceeds - is something the publishers would rather we knew nothing of.
Confronted with these facts, Westland’s senior representative seems to have chickened out: he has not responded to my e-mail dated the 2nd of June, nor to a reminder, requesting that he incorporate my suggestions for amendments to his revised contract of the 29th of May 09. This, despite his having told me he was incorporating everybody’s suggestions in the new agreement and was ‘keen to reach a mutually acceptable and amicable understanding with (us)’. Or else one is left to conclude that the two revised contracts he sent us (exploitative as they still are) were simply a charade aimed at contradicting what he terms ‘distorted’ reports and at persuading writers to ‘issue clarifications or retractions as (they) see fit’ so that Westland can ‘reconfirm (its) reputation in the publishing world’.
Cluck! Cluck! So much for the claims of a senior executive and for the aims of a publishing house belonging to the Tata group.
Not quite so fast, Gouri (ref. ‘Fowl play no more’ and the story ending ‘on a non-bitter note’). The very senior and ‘sensible’ person you refer to went to great lengths to reassure us Westland were ‘responsible publishers’, that ‘any concern of an author is important to (them)’, they want to be ‘as fair as possible’ and ‘are keen to reach a mutually acceptable and amicable understanding with (us)’. We were sent two revised contracts, each with a request to ‘issue clarifications or retractions as (we) see fit’ to the ‘somewhat distorted reports that have appeared on websites, blogs and magazines which have been disturbing for (Westland)’.
I asked this very senior person to clarify what he meant by ‘distorted’ reports (which he never did) and I pointed out that even his revised contracts contained several outlandish/ ambiguous/ contradictory clauses as well as omissions which not only rendered them heavily biased in the publisher’s favour but also unfeasible and full of pitfalls for writers. I illustrated my point with two concrete examples from his latest revised contract dated 29th May:
i) Our grant of rights to Westland for publication, printing, reprinting etc. of the anthology in English, its translation into regional Indian languages, transcription into Braille and audio recordings, first and second serial rights in newspapers and periodicals, AND its reproduction as AUDIO BOOKS AND E-BOOKS - ‘for the legal term of copyright’ . The definition of ‘LEGAL TERM OF COPYRIGHT’ it turns out, is the entire lifetime of an author plus 60 years (something Westland did not bother to define and 99% of contributors to the anthology are still blissfully unaware of)! All this against Rs. 1,000 (only) for the first 10,000 copies/units, and then Rs 500 (only) for every additional sale of 10,000 copies/units (in a bid to get us to part with e-book and audio-book rights too, which some of us wanted to hang on to). Ah, no, the publisher does not believe in giving us percentage-based Royalties which would work out to much more than the Rs 500 they’re offering till perpetuity!
ii) After first trying to grab ‘worldwide rights’ to an even longer list of items from us, Westland reduced its territorial rights to ‘the Indian Subcontinent’, Yet they include e-books in their contracts despite such a medium being unrestricted by any geographical boundaries. The fact that e-books represent mega bucks for any publisher - in which the author usually gets at least a 50% share of the proceeds - is something the publishers would rather we contributors to their anthologies knew nothing of.
Confronted with these facts, Westland’s senior representative seems to have chickened out: he has not responded to my e-mail dated the 2nd of June (nor to a reminder), requesting that I be permitted to offer suggestions for amendments to his revised contract of the 29th of May 09. This, despite his having told me he was incorporating everybody’s suggestions in the new agreement and was ‘keen to reach a mutually acceptable and amicable understanding with (us)’.
Under the circumstances, one is left to conclude that the two revised contracts Westland sent to contributors to Chicken Soup for the Indian Teenage Soul (exploitative as they still are) were simply a charade aimed at contradicting what its representatives term ‘distorted’ reports and at persuading writers to ‘issue clarifications or retractions as (they) see fit’ so that Westland can ‘reconfirm (its) reputation in the publishing world’.
Cluck! Cluck! So much for the claims of a senior executive and the aims of a company from the Tata group.
Post a Comment