From Publisher’s Weekly: Tsaba House Press is considering legal action against the RWA after one of its authors was barred from entering the RITA because Tsaba House is not an RWA -approved publisher.
Tsaba House Press, a Christian publisher of fiction and nonfiction titles, is considering taking legal action against the Romance Writers of America for refusing to consider one of the small California press’s authors for a Rita Award, which honors inspirational romances. According to Pam Schwagerl, Tsaba House publisher, Molly Noble Bull was barred from submitting her latest release, Sanctuary, for a Rita Award, because Tsaba House is not an “RWA approved†publisher. RWA subsequently told Schwagerl that the organization considers Tsaba House to be a subsidy or vanity press, because its boilerplate contract contains such clauses as charging authors if manuscripts have to be retyped or if the press considers it necessary to add frontmatter and backmatter to the manuscript that the author didn’t provide.
Schwagerl was quoted in the article “‘I really feel that this is an affront to independent publishers to try and once again group us in the category of subsidy presses and try to take away the advances the small publishers have made in the industry,’ said Schwegerl. She founded Tsaba House in 2002 and uses a boilerplate contract she bought from self-publishing guru Dan Poynter’s Web site.”
According to the article, RWA president Allison Kelly responded that “if, in its boilerplate contract, a press can charge an author for anything, the organization considers that company to be a subsidy or vanity press, and will not consider its titles for RWA’s award program…. RWA ‘didn’t do anything but apply [our] standards. We limit what we do to non-subsidy, non-vanity’ publishers.”
The feedback to the article on the PW site is full of exclamation points, to say the least. Marion Gropen’s comment stated in part, “The RWA seems to be trying to thin out the field, so that they can handle the number of submissions. That makes sense. It looks like they are assuming that most submissions from vanity or subsidy presses will have very little chance of winning, and can safely be excluded. That makes sense. But what does NOT make sense is their failure to recognize standard language in boilerplate, and their failure to reverse themselves when the error was brought to their attention.”
So let me ask – because I actually don’t know – is it standard in a contract that fees are charged when a publisher faces retyping a manuscript or adding content? The RWA took a lot of heat for defining non-vanity/non-subsidy publishers, and in the wake of Triskelion’s folding – along with the folding of several other e-pubs, from Venus to Aphrodite’s Apples – it’s not difficult to see why those lines were drawn to begin with (especially after authors faced a long wait through legal and financial filings to find out if they could get their manuscripts back).
Graceful curtsey to Em for the link.
CORRECTIONS – UPDATES – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION – WHY IS MY WIRELESS ACTING UP NOW?!
Allison Kelley, RWA Executive Director, contacted me to set the record straight about a few pieces of misinformation in the PW article.
The article regarding Tsaba House and Romance Writers of America contained a factual error. The Tsaba House author referenced in the article was not trying to enter RWA’s RITA contest. She was interested in entering a contest sponsored by an RWA chapter. The rules governing RWA chapter contests are independently determined by each chapter. At no time did the author mention the RITA award when communicating with the RWA office. According to RWA records, the office was not contacted by the author or publisher until February 2008, several months after the RITA entry deadline, which was November 30, 2007.
Well, now that’s a whole other kettle of different! Holy misinformation, there, Batmonkey. What’s up with that?
People join or don’t join RWA for a variety of reasons. The problem, imo, comes from those who get twisted when the organization can’t or won’t align with their specific and individualized needs or wants or views.
See, this is what I don’t get. If people are so convinced that RWA is the debbil, then why are they so up in arms about not being able to compete in the contests or become members?
I was a member of the Society of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators for a year. In theory, it should’ve been a good organization for me to belong to since it incorporates young adult. In theory. In practice, I found they catered far more to those who wrote picture books, children’s chapter books and middle grade books. It didn’t have anything to offer me. So I let my membership lapse, especially since I can get answers to my YA questions from the yahoo group I belong to that’s specifically for teen literature or from Live Journal, where I’m in contact with a huge number of YA authors. From the romance side of things, RWA fulfills any other needs I may have.
Another YA author may have a different opinion. But I’m not going to go trashing SCWBI just because it didn’t meet my specific needs. I just get my needs fulfilled elsewhere.
As for the RWA Report publishing anti-erotica letters, I got my issue right here, and the letter I believe mentioned here is part of the continuing series of Madeline Baker and another author talking about how they won’t buy certain authors because their books use the word “fuck” and talk explicitly about sex.
Now, I personally don’t like the word “cock.” Not my favorite word for the male sexual appendage. I prefer “long horned trouser schmeckie.” But my preferred term does not lend itself to erotica, unless I am attempting to write erotic comedy for 12 year old boys:
Yeah, really doesn’t do it, does it?
So if I want to read erotica, which I do, I have to recognize the lexicon of that subgenre includes “cock” and I’m free to mentally substitute “long horned trouser schmeckie” any time I want. Point being: holy shitcakes, Batman, it’s my choice!
So for Baker et al to whine and gripe that they don’t like books with the word “fuck” in them and ALL romance writers should be ashamed of themselves for writing about sex in such graphic terminology is profoundly dimwitted. She can stop buying whatever books she wants. Whatever. But the ‘oh noes authors are writing the sexxoring and using the word “fuck” and “cunt” and “quim” and “jizzfest” and OMG ANAL AAAAAGH!’ tone that chastises the whole membership for their “unpleasant language?” Puh-leez.
(also: “member”ship. huh huh huh)
But is RWA to blame for printing the letter? Nah. That’s Baker’s opinion, but I don’t for one second think that it’s RWA’s opinion.
If anything my optical muscles got a great workout from all the eye rolling I did. That has to be worth 10 calories, right?
*huskily: another word I HATE.
“I give mad props to Sarah for giving RWA the opportunity to respond to weird stuff that pops up. She always gives the organization the benefit of the doubt, and from my standpoint, that makes her like the Most Fabulous One.”
Well, I’ll just fan myself with my RWA Report right now! Ahhhh, the sweet breeze of ego inflation.
Heh. Back to earth! *smack*
I’ve been a member of RWA for a long-ass time (relatively speaking), and I do some stuff for them, not the least of which is probably driving the board bananas sometimes, but on the whole, I like the RWA. I liken their mission and organizational job description to “herding cats.” Creating a venue for all romance subgenres, from erotica to inspirational, historical to futuristic, all at the same table? Dude. Here, kitty kitty. No, OVER HERE, KITTY KITTY. OK, fine, erotica, I’ll call you “pussy pussy” and could you just SIT DOWN for five minutes?!
Now I’m entertaining myself with this great image of varying cat breeds at a large Arthurian round table. Meow!
I know there are some legitimate criticisms of the organization, and I definitely increase my brain cell function reading the discussions here and elsewhere about the RWA, but the “RWA discriminates against Christian publisher” crap? I raise a “Bitch, Please” against the publisher quoted. I’m still waiting for PW to update that article, because what was originally written sounds like punk ass whining when the facts are laid alongside the claims.
TeddyPig, thank you for answering my question.
Sarah, I think part of the problem was that one of the “oh noooooes” letters was reprinted twice, once in January and again in February. (Gotta love having the RWR online these days) Then there was another follow up letter by a different author in the March issue. So I can see where people might think it’s a pileon, especially with the reprinting mistake—and for the record, I think it was a simple error, not some conspiracy.
Otherwise, totally agree with everything you said about not buying books with said objectionable language. Catch my eyes if they happen to roll past you, wouldja?
Oh, and this?
ong horned trouser schmeckie
I’m SO bogarting that in some way, shape, or form.
RWA is a not for profit org.
Not a non profit.
RWA Chapters are not for profit as well.
Not non profits.
I suspect if a concerned RWA member were to send a well-written letter in defense of variety in romance publishing (ie a rebuttal of the c*ck-haters, tee hee), it has as much chance of getting published as the original texts. If you look through RWR archives, which admittedly a non-member cannot do so you’ll have to take my word for it, you’ll see a wide range of opinions in that particular column.
As for authors being able to submit books in the RITAs in electronic form, RWA first would have to do a survey to see how many PAN members are equipped and willing to read electronic entries in the RITAs. As we have seen, many are not :). And yes, I have suggested this survey! But consider this—if authors from houses like Samhain, whose books release in print eventually, are allowed to submit ebooks, can authors from traditional houses like H/S submit ebooks as well to spare themselves the expense? Is it fair if ONLY authors from small presses get to submit ebooks? Would RITA end up being a mostly electronic contest? While greenies like myself wouldn’t mind that at all, I don’t think it would be fair at this particular juncture to volunteer judges who DO NOT WANT to read on the computer.
With allowing e-authors to print their own copies for the RITAs, it brings into question how difficult it would be to verify that every author-printed text is EXACTLY like the original publisher-issued text with no tweaks whatsoever. A signed document from the author promising she hasn’t done so might be insufficent for legal reasons. There may be other legalities I don’t even know about, but this is the most obvious one that occurs to me. I’m not saying I think many authors would tweak their books, but it does reveal a vulnerable area in the proposal. Which is, as I understand it, why publishers are required to issue the printed copies of the ebooks. They have more to lose than a single author if they choose to “tweak” a book prior to submission.
And yet, you liked my book, which has “cock” allover the place, LOL!
word: him36 (only if he’s John Holmes)
as an outsider looking in it all seemed to me that RWA was trying to keep the small, but reputable, e-published writers from getting into their oh-so-precious club.
See, this is the crux of the problem for me. It’s not a club. It’s not a family. It’s not a sorority or a club for popular girls. RWA is a professional organization. Use it for what it brings you. If it doesn’t meet any needs for you, then don’t join it. Don’t look to it for something it can’t provide. If it’s not geared toward e-pubbed writers then join an organization that is. If you need to be in RWA to join a local chapter, then use it for exactly that purpose. If the contest isn’t geared toward your writing, enter another contest. AND if you want things changed, then get active and work toward it. Nothing wrong with that either.
And by “get active” I don’t mean kvetching on the Internet, just to be clear. I mean the kind of hard work that people like Nora Roberts have invested.
Got to ask—because I’ve signed contracts with big print NY houses that had clauses requiring some payments (like if the author wanted too many changes in the galley stage, or if the publisher got sued for libel, or if the author pulled the book after work was done)—those of you who have also signed big publisher contracts, could you go back and look at them? Of course, they might not be boilerplate, but I’m a “siltsucker,” as we say (on the very bottom of the ladder) and boilerplate is about all I get, and my contracts ALWAYS have dire clauses warning that in certain circumstances (which never happen), I’ll have to pay money. I don’t like it, but it does keep me from pulling the book after the publisher’s paid for editing and cover, and I make sure not to change much in the galley stage.
So if clauses like that make a publisher a “vanity press,” does that make Random House a vanity press?
I have no problem excluding vanity presses… however, I think RWA is defining a lot of terms in a non-standard way, and if the policy were applied equally, virtually no publisher would qualify. So if they’re not applying the policy equally, what does that mean?
Stephanie said: “When we have a new President in the White House, and he/she makes changes to policy, would it be fair to bitch and moan about George W’s policies, and how unfair and heinous they are? No, it wouldn’t be fair at all – and kind of pointless, actually, because the policy no longer exists. It’s Different. Tilting at windmills is a waste of time.”
Stephanie, Congress makes policy, as I’m sure you know. And there are rules about how they make policy—they have to do it in open session, in published bills, by vote, etc. The RWA board theoretically operates the same way, right? You guys hammer out proposed policy at a meeting and then vote on it, and it’s all aboveboard and everyone’s in agreement to what it means? And policy can’t be changed without another vote?
So policy can’t be defined or reinterpreted by the office, right? If they see something wrong with the policy and want to apply it differently than the board voted, isn’t the board the one who changes the policy with another discussion and another vote?
See, the problem is, RWA’s office seems to be defining certain terms differently than they’ve conventionally been defined, and then applied the new definitions unequally—and none of this seems to be happening with the board re-examining policy and putting the new definition in there so all members can see.
You’ve been told by any number of NY-published authors here that their contracts contained the very same sort of clause that supposedly branded this small press as “vanity”. Well, think this through. If just having that clause in a contract (not all contracts) is enough to get the “vanity” label applied, doesn’t that mean, for RWA purposes, all publishers with that clause are vanity presses? Sure, it’s ridiculous to say that RH is a vanity press, but that just shows that interpreting the policy to say that ANY clause that could conceivably mean that the author might have to pay something is ridiculous. MOST publishers would make the author pay for certain things (like indexing) and that doesn’t mean it’s vanity (or else, most university presses are vanity) or for making too many changes at the galley stage—and note, they seldom actually CHARGE them; the purpose of the clause is to, duh, encourage authors to make the changes before that stage so the book doesn’t have to be re-edited and re-set.
So… has the board voted to say that the definition of “vanity press” has been redefined to say that ANY such clause (which is what the office says) makes a press a vanity press? Or did the office make that decision on its own? If so, is that what the board wants? If the policy is such that it requires interpretation beyond the normal definition of terms, could be that the policy wasn’t written well in the first place. At any rate, if the board is NOT re-voting to reinterpret, but rather just letting the office change policy, what exactly is the board for?
And is this policy being equally applied? Have you all looked at the boilerplate of the big NY publishers to see if they too have what you call a vanity press marker? What is hard to understand it… you have published writers on the board. The president must be multi-published. Do you read your own contracts? I suspect at least one of you has one of those clauses in their major-press contract, and yet I’m sure that boardmember doesn’t consider herself “vanity published”.
So can the RWA board now look into the boilerplate contracts of all publishers currently designated “non-subsidy” and see how this supposed policy applies to them? Or is that something only the office does? And has it been done recently?
There are certain common CYA clauses that all publishers include in their boilerplate contract. Industry standards are set and all tend to follow. Occasionally, a publisher attempts to change the standard, slip something in, always in their favor – and generally, that’s when an author starts yelling, along with her agent, and everyone hops to and says Hell no, we won’t go.
It isn’t industry standard for a publisher to state in a contract that they may charge the author for paper, shipping, promotion, typesetting, copying, etc. – in other words costs that are considered by industry standard to be costs borne by the publisher. When a contract stipulates that an author may be asked to pay any of those costs – the ones that are considered industry standard for the publisher to pay – that’s when a contract loses any merit of an arms length deal between a buyer and a seller. The line blurs.
This isn’t a hard concept. Only under bizarre and unusual circumstances, typically a circumstance caused by the author, should money be going from the author to the publisher.
You’ll have to forgive me for being testy – I’ve been beaten over the head with semantics the past few days and should probably stay out of this.
Those are some pretty hefty allegations, petra. I don’t feel at all comfortable discussing RWA business of this scope in a public blog.
I hoped to shed some light, and I am always a champion of RWA, but I’m not going to argue a point that essentially comes down to a question of integrity – my own, the board and the hardworking, dedicated staff.
Er, where did this happen?
What I’ve seen is a number of NY-published authors outlining the clauses that would cause them to have to pay/refund money to their publishers, and they are NOT the same as the ones listed for Tsaba. Or, to detail each clause separately: we don’t know what the hell they mean by “retyping” a manuscript (is that the same as resetting during proofs?), and we don’t get charged for frontmatter and backmatter, though occasionally (e.g. indexing for nonfiction) we’re expected to create it ourselves. What we are liable for is breaches of contract, legal ramifications (e.g. libel suits), and egregious resetting costs if we failed to make our manuscripts not suck during the eighteen steps that precede typesetting. That last one may or may not be the same as what Tsaba’s doing with the “retyping” clause; without seeing the actual contract language, we can’t tell.
As for most university presses being vanity—by the standards of commercial publishing, yeah, sometimes. But university presses are cricket, and this is rugby. I could list a bunch of other differences in procedure and contracts for you, but they aren’t relevant to a discussion of fiction publishing. So let’s leave things like indices out of this.
I don’t know that I’d agree the lines in Tsaba’s contracts make it a vanity press in the classical sense of the term—I presume they still pay their authors something for the books?—but whether the RWA could find a better way to draft that rule, and whether Tsaba’s practices are SOP for commercial publishing, are two different questions.
I agree with Marie. Unless we see the actual contract for the publishing house in question, we should not assume RWA is arbitrarily reinterpreting things to suit the mood of the day or that they inconsistently apply their own rules. According to Allison Kelley’s own email to the SBs, the PW article had definite factual errors, so taking the rest of it at face value is probably a mistake.
~You’ve been told by any number of NY-published authors here that their contracts contained the very same sort of clause that supposedly branded this small press as “vanityâ€. ~
I suggest you read the comments again, because this isn’t what I said, nor what I read from others.
You may be asked to pay for typesetting IF you make extraordinary changes at galley stage. That’s it. You would have had chances to make changes at line and copy ed, so why would you suddenly need to change a huge chunk? If so, you pay for it, as you have made the choice AFTER editing, AFTER typesetting, to substantially change the ms.
I’ve never once had to do this. I don’t know of anyone who has, but regardless this standard clause doesn’t equal vanity press by anyone terms.
If you are charged for editing, for production, for binding, for distribution for ANY step in the process of producing your book, it’s a big, bright red flag. The publisher pays. The writer does not.
I know of no one published by a major print house who has a clause in their contract which would require them to pay—and if they signed one that did, they probably need a new agent.
It’s been a long time since I signed a boilerplate, but when I did, nothing but the major changes at galley stage required payment by the author. Nothing.
Where has RWA defined terms differently than convention?
Vikki, you’re still my queen.
And no, petra, none of the NY published authors has said that what’s in our contracts equals what’s reportedly in Tsaba’s contracts (I say reportedly, since as far as I know no one on this blog as seen said contract). In fact, we’ve gone out of our way to demonstrate the exact opposite.
:
Contest Rules Specific to the RITA:
Note that nowhere in there does is say jackshit about the publisher being “RWA approved†or “RWA recognizedâ€. All it says is “non–Subsidy, non-Vanityâ€. And because I knew you’d ask:
Emphasis added is mine. These are two charges which are not industry standard for fiction. Rather than puling and threatening to sue, Tsaba House would be better off spending their money creating a contract which doesn’t, to quote SB Sarah, suck donkey-balls. If they choose not to do so, that’s their business, but I don’t see where RWA is required to make their standards conform to any and every contract out there. If they want to play in our pool, they can damn well wear the approved swimwear or they can go swim somewhere else.
End of story.
If you paid Random House to have your book edited, bound, printed, or distributed, then I’d like to see proof of that.
At this point, I don’t know how much more arguments can be made that say standard publishers don’t charge their authors for the books to appear in book form, on a shelf at a bookstore.
I have no idea what “retyped” means—whether the PW write meant typeset or made the same mistakes as she did elsewhere in the article.
Regarding charges for changes made to the book AFTER typesetting: these are AUTHOR’S CHOICE changes that can be liable for charges (I say “can be” because I have yet to hear of any author charged for them). If I look at my typeset manuscript and realize that they left out commas that are in the copyedited version, even if it’s every single comma in the book, i don’t pay for that, because it’s the typesetting error. Their problem. But, if I decide, after the book has been typeset, that I want to change the ending, that’s MY choice. the book can go to press as the publisher and I formerly agreed upon it. No one is charging me to get my book into print.
And comparing vanity publishing to being told, in a contract, that you and not the publisher are liable if something you wrote about turns into a law suit is just silly. Ditto about having to pay back the advance that the publisher paid you if you don’t ever give them a book to publish.
there is a HUGE HUGE distinction between being charged to publish your book, and the following: 1) being held responsible financially for what you’ve written in that book should a lawsuit arise, 2) being held responsible, financially,f or delivering the work you’ve been paid to produce, and 3) being held financially responsible for, at the last minute, introducing huge, editorially unnecessary changes to a manuscript that was approved by the publisher to go into print AS IS and which are not required to be made before the book reaches publication.
There’s nothing even remotely similar. No one is requiring an author to make that change. No one is saying to the author: If you want to see this in print, you have to pay for THIS.
Kalen, I think we’re looking at the very same thing. You quote RWA here:
>> “Vanity Publisher†means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote and/or sell their own books and publishers whose business model and methods of publishing and distribution are primarily directed toward sales to the author, his/her relatives and/or associates.
RWA subsequently told Schwagerl that the organization considers Tsaba House to be a subsidy or vanity press, because its boilerplate contract contains such clauses as charging authors if manuscripts have to be retyped or if the press considers it necessary to add frontmatter and backmatter to the manuscript that the author didn’t provide. >>>
In other words, RWA first defined Vanity press one way (“Vanity Publisher†means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote…) and THEN defined it as any publisher that has a clause in any contract that requires any payment at all from the author in any contingency at all. That is, RWA changed the definition. You don’t seem to think this change in definition is a problem?
And, as I said, I have signed several major publisher contracts with clauses that required author payment NOT to print or distribute the book (the standard def for subsidy press) but rather to compensate the publisher if I went out of the standard way and incurred costs—and yes, the very same sort of wording as Tsaba’s contract, because that IS the boilerplate of many publishing contracts. Maybe you haven’t ever had to sign such contracts, but as I said, I’m a “siltsucker” without an agent, and I tend to get the boilerplate… and that is, after all, what RWA is judging here, the boilerplate contract.
So my question is: If it’s true that major publishers do have in some of their boilerplate contracts clauses that might, in some contingencies, require a payment by the author (even if this actually almost never has to be paid, as one writer mentioned), then should those major publishers also be told that they’re “subsidy presses” solely on the basis of those boilerplate clauses?
Now of course, not ALL publishers or all of their contracts will have these clauses… but some do. So if we’re going to be absolutist, as the RWA office apparently was, and redefine the term “Vanity or subsidy press” to include any publisher having any contract clause in any contract which allows the pub to claim money from the author in certain circumstances, then any publisher that has those clauses is “vanity,” right?
I’m sorry to belabor the point, because it’s REALLY boring to everyone but me, I’m sure. But I just want to get it clear that I’M not the one defining those clauses as “vanity” clauses—I think they are conventional. So… if one publisher is dinged for that, shouldn’t all publishers who do that get dinged?
Now, I personally don’t like the word “cock.†Not my favorite word for the male sexual appendage. I prefer “long horned trouser schmeckie.â€
I like the word “cock”—it’s nice and visceral, and implies a state of readiness.
But, then I’ve always had a fondness for the term “one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater”, too.
Diana said: If you paid Random House to have your book edited, bound, printed, or distributed, then I’d like to see proof of that.>>>
I didn’t say that, did I? I said a RH contract I signed required me to pay them back if I got sued for libel or if I made too many changes at the galley stage so that they had to re-edit and re-set.
I am NOT saying RH is a subsidy press. Exactly the opposite. I am saying that minor compensation clauses like those that almost never come into play (I’ve never known any writer to have to ante up on any of them, though I have known one who feared that would happen when someone threatened a libel suit) are NOT the signs of a vanity publisher, and so no publisher should be defined as “subsidy” just because they have those clauses.
I am trying to be clear, but I think I’m not accomplishing it! 🙂
These are industry standard and are NOT what Tsaba House has in their contract (from what I can tell from PW). I can’t tell if you really just don’t understand the difference or if you’re being willfully obstreperous, but either way, this horse is so dead.
>>These are industry standard and are NOT what Tsaba House has in their contract (from what I can tell from PW). I can’t tell if you really just don’t understand the difference or if you’re being willfully obstreperous, but either way, this horse is so dead.>>
No need to get personal, hon. I’m with ya! I think those ARE industry standard, and thus I don’t think that a blanket prohibition against clauses that theoretically could result in author payment makes much sense. But here’s what RWA has on its website in response to the article:
>>
At RWA’s request, Ms. Schwagerl supplied a copy of the company’s boilerplate contract which listed several instances in which costs could be charged to the author. It therefore failed to meet RWA’s standards.
>>
Don’t the clauses in contracts I have signed also constitute:
“several instances in which costs could be charged to the author.”?
Maybe they’re not the same clauses, I don’t know. But maybe that’s why we need a definition IN POLICY (not ad hoc) that defines which clauses constitute vanity press action and which don’t. That’s all I’m asking for, really, terms defined clearly in policy, voted on by the board, and published so that everyone knows what they are and they can be applied equally. And this will allow presses that are branded as “vanity” for clauses they don’t actually use (most of these types of clauses never come into play, I bet) can have a chance to rewrite their contracts. And that’s good for everyone, right? Clear definition and equal application?
That’s all. We can bury the horse now, if you want!
~I didn’t say that, did I? I said a RH contract I signed required me to pay them back if I got sued for libel or if I made too many changes at the galley stage so that they had to re-edit and re-set~
Petra, I really think you’re confused. The above is industry standard. I don’t have boilerplate contracts, but I would have both these requirements in mine.
This is NOT what RWA defines as vanity or subsidary. It’s just not. The above is not payment for pubication, for editing, for publishing expenses. RWA does not say payment for ANY contingency.
have you actually seen Tsaba’s contract? Because I honestly don’t think we’re talking about the same thing.
~At RWA’s request, Ms. Schwagerl supplied a copy of the company’s boilerplate contract which listed several instances in which costs could be charged to the author. It therefore failed to meet RWA’s standards.~
Honey, read the word COSTS. It is not cost when the author turns in plagiarized or fraudulant material and then she and the publisher are sued. The author has signed off that it’s original work. If she lied, the publisher is then protected from the suit that may be brought against her.
Industry standard.
If the author decides after editing, after typesetting, after months of work to then make enormous changes, she can be required to pay for those changes—her choice. This is not cost.
Industry standard.
A publisher can’t charge an author for the costs of publishing the book. If so, this does not meet industry standards. It becomes subsidary or vanity press. And therefore, is not RWA recognized.
That’s all there is to it.
Stephanie wrote:Earn a thousand bucks from any one of those publishers, and you’re in PAN.
I hate to disagree, but this isn’t QUITE accurate. You must earn $1K on ONE published work within 18 months of release.
Not to beat a dead horse, but it’s the question of WHEN a charge to an author should be deemed a “cost of publication” that seems open to interpretation.
So far, so good. I don’t see any problems with that. But if the book is never published because the author breaches the contract, should the publisher be able to charge the author for the costs incurred in editing, typesetting, artwork, etc. up to that point? To me, this doesn’t sound like a “subsidy” of the publisher, but a reasonable clause to protect the publisher in the event of breach. Yet I know for a fact that epublishers have been forced to remove clauses of this sort because RWA deemed them “subsidy” publishers as a result of their inclusion.
I also have to respond to the contention that having a contract offer means an author should find it easy to gain agent representation. I know a fair number of authors who have gone “agentless” in negotiations (and not just with small presses and epublishers, but with large publishing houses) because, even with an offer in their hot little hands, they were unable to find a reputable agent willing to represent them. They figured no agent at all was better than a shyster, and they were probably right.
>>>>“In other words, RWA first defined Vanity press one way (“Vanity Publisher†means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote…) and THEN defined it as any publisher that has a clause in any contract that requires any payment at all from the author in any contingency at all.”
Too bad the “other words” used here don’t accurately represent what was said by RWA’s representative or what was written on RWA’s website. Ironic, that, considering much of this blog thread is about reinterpretations.
Allison Kelley was quoted in the PW article (that we know has factual errors) as saying, “if, in its boilerplate contract, a press can charge an author for anything, the organization considers that company to be a subsidy or vanity press”.
Granted, I can see how the phrase “if…a press can charge an author for anything” can be (willfully) misinterpreted; I’m sure for that reason, as well as others, RWA issued a clarification on its website, which I consider to be a more accurate summation of their position, especially considering the existence of factual errors in the PW article. The official RWA statement reads:
“in which costs could be charged to the author”
But that’s not as ambiguous as it may seem taken out of context. Why? Because prior to this sentence the word ‘costs’ appeared in the phrase “costs of production” when vanity/subsidy press was being defined. Thus, when the word ‘costs’ is used shortly thereafter in the same article, it is clear it means “costs of production” and not “any payment at all from the author in any contingency at all”.
And as (nearly) everyone has pointed out, since we cannot see the actual contract RWA had issues with, we cannot know what clauses they objected to. If the publisher had confirmed they had clauses that were clearly vanity/subsidy instead of…oh, I don’t know, reinterpreting things to suit their case, would we all be having this argument?
Well, maybe :).
[Schwagerl] founded Tsaba House in 2002 and uses a boilerplate contract she bought from self-publishing guru Dan Poynter’s Web site.
How much does one of these contracts cost? I mean, that would be the surest way of seeing the contract in question, no? Or is there perhaps a cached version floating around on the web?
>>>This is NOT what RWA defines as vanity or subsidary. It’s just not. The above is not payment for pubication, for editing, for publishing expenses. RWA does not say payment for ANY contingency. >>>
Well, how DOES RWA define vanity press? You tell me. That’s all I’m asking for, a comprehensive definition that fits industry standards and is voted on by the board and published in policy. That way both authors and publishers can read a contract and decide whether this makes them “vanity” by RWA definition. But without a definition that is voted on by the board and published in policy, how do we know? It shouldn’t be a secret, after all. It shouldn’t be a matter of guesswork. And it shouldn’t be open to misinterpretation or reinterpretation.
Is that okay? Is there some benefit to members not to know what RWA considers vanity press? So what’s the problem of putting the definition into policy so members can know ahead of time?
More information is better information, right?
Didn’t Kalen already post that here? I don’t understand.
Kalen already posted this in the thread. It’s pretty clear. It’s defined. It is RWA’s position. I really don’t know what else you could possibly want.
~At the request of members, the Board has re-visited the definitions of “Subsidy Publisher†and “Vanity Publisher.†After considering the advice of legal and industry professionals, along with suggestions by our Publisher Recognition Task Force, the Board . . . redefined the terms “Subsidy Publisher†and “Vanity Publisher†as follows:
“Subsidy Publisher†means any publisher that publishes books in which the author participates in the costs of production in any manner, including publisher assessment of a fee or other costs for editing and/or distribution. This definition includes publishers who withhold or seek full or partial payment or reimbursement of publication or distribution costs before paying royalties, including payment of paper, printing, binding, production, sales or marketing costs.
“Vanity Publisher†means any publisher whose authors exclusively promote and/or sell their own books and publishers whose business model and methods of publishing and distribution are primarily directed toward sales to the author, his/her relatives and/or associates.~
My first book was published by Tsaba House in 2004. Since then, I have had four more novels published, the last debuted at #18 in the CBA market. I have never been asked for one dime from Tsaba House for any type of production or promotion costs. I even paid for my contract from Tsaba House to be examined before I signed it. According to the negotiator I hired, the contract was completely standard. This person found nothing out of the ordinary that needed attention or raised any red flags.
I have also submitted my books to other contests like the ones coordinated by RWA. These contests only allow books by recognized CBA publishers. My books have never been turned down for acceptance into these contests. I don’‘t understand why RWA doesn’‘t want to recognize Tsaba House as a traditional publisher when no other organizations have these concerns.
I promise to shut up now. 🙂 But one more thought—the definition you quote below does NOT say what the office just said, that any publisher who has a clause in the contract that COULD result in the author paying something is a subsidy/vanity publisher. Would you have any problem with the board defining the term more precisely to include that, so that publishers and authors would know that the mere presence of such a clause = subsidy/vanity? I suspect that the publisher and its authors never have considered that such a clause would “ding” them, and so maybe a clear definition of which clauses constitute vanity/subsidy would help publishers and authors understand better and maybe even result in better contracts.
So would it be okay to have a clear definition in policy for all to read of what is and is not a “vanity or subsidy” clause?
The definition is clear to me. It’s policy. What was quoted in the PW article was in response to a question, and could easily have been misquoted or out of context or misspoken. The response in the article is not policy. It’s a response by an individual member in an interview.
RWA HAS defined its policy, clearly.
I really, really have to believe the vast majority of its members understand that policy. Agreeing with it may be a different matter, but it’s just not that hard to understand.
<
>
What RWA fails to understand is what is contained in an author’s contract. According the Authors Guild, the clause in dispute IS standard among publishing contracts. I suggest those who just take the word of the RWA go and take a look at their own contracts.
This is an award contest, presumably awards go to the best books. What ever happened to letting a book stand on its own merit? or is there something that the RWA is worried about?
A very sad day that a presumed honorable organization such as the RWA can now be considered classist. I do hope that their insults towards Tsaba House and author Molly Noble Bull will be retracted. I have to wonder how much damage, monetarily or professionally, has been done to this small publisher and one of her authors.
~I have to wonder how much damage, monetarily or professionally, has been done to this small publisher and one of her authors~
I have to wonder why a publisher or author would be damaged monetarily or professionally from being denied entry in an RWA chapter contest.
I haven’t read the contract in question, have no idea whether the clauses in it are standard or not, but it’s really reaching to speculate there would be any sort of damage because a chapter affiliated with RWA deemed the book ineligible for a contest.
The more I read about this , the less I understand it.
On what grounds would this publisher launch suit against RWA?
Sounds like a publicity ploy to me.