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?
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.
Sorry, I’m going to have to laugh here at the idea that Random House would waive all legal rights for breach of contract or libel cases in their contracts under threat that RWA “ding” them for being “a vanity publisher.”
Or the idea that losing the RWA “stamp of approval”—should the mob force RWA to be so ridiculous as to define contractual protection in that manner—would stop authors from publishing there.
It’s pretty obvious what vanity and subsidy publishing is. It’s obvious (and distinct from these contractual protection clauses) in the language of the official policy, and it’s obvious in practice.
In the instance Jackie is talking about, where a non-advance paying publisher requires authors to pay them for editing should they choose to pull their book from publication after editing but before publication, I wonder if those clauses arose because of authors who would “sell” to these small epubs with larger acceptance rates in order to get free editing work, then pull the book to sub to larger presses. I bet after a few of those, the epubs would get wary! And yet, that is still NOT “cost of production.” The book’s not being published. It’s almost like a reverse kill fee. Subsidy would be being charged for those costs IN ORDER TO SEE THE BOOK PUBLISHED.
And thank you, Teresa Slack, for sharing your experience with Tsaba House. I wonder if this whole thing is not a big misunderstanding with the wording of the contract. (I.e. “retyped” vs. “retypeset”, etc.) Does Tsaba also publish non fiction?
In the instance Jackie is talking about, where a non-advance paying publisher requires authors to pay them for editing should they choose to pull their book from publication after editing but before publication, I wonder if those clauses arose because of authors who would “sell†to these small epubs with larger acceptance rates in order to get free editing work, then pull the book to sub to larger presses. I bet after a few of those, the epubs would get wary! And yet, that is still NOT “cost of production.†The book’s not being published. It’s almost like a reverse kill fee. Subsidy would be being charged for those costs IN ORDER TO SEE THE BOOK PUBLISHED.
Exactly so, Diana. Yet RWA required the epublishers to remove these clauses from their contracts to avoid being labeled subsidy publishers.
Just sayin’…
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?
I am seriously biting my tongue here. Seriously. Your proposal is, what? That there should be no rules in a contest? If so, I think I’ll go dig out my old family videos, release them for sale on Amazon, and then enter them in the Academy Awards. Why wouldn’t they accept my entry? Are they afraid I’ll WIN? Bastards.
Look, there have to be standards, and we can disagree about what they are, but it’s a contest. With rules. Like every other contest out there. Even the ones that are only open to CBA authors, huh?
And if it is that dang important to this publisher then they’ll have to evaluate whether or not to take that line out of their boilerplate contract.
Could one of you Tsaba writers give us the paragraph, btw?
haven’t read the contract in question
I have and I would post it for people to read except that I don’t think Mr. Poyntner and his lawyer authors would appreciate me making it freely available on the internet. But, by all means go to his website and see what you can find.
have no idea whether the clauses in it are standard or not,
As I said above, according to the Writers Guild, it is a standard clause/ contract.
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.
Remember this isn’t Random House, it is a small independent press. Things deemed an annoyance by big houses, are a big deal to the little guy. Being called a subsidy or vanity ‘publisher’ is a big blow to a small publisher. With a label like that, agents will be reluctant to approach. Books will not be toured by the blog tour groups. Getting Library of Congress data will be impossible to attain except by paying a fee, large publications will not review the books, and on and on.
Really, it does matter.
But very few would have known about this incident of alleged “vanity press” designation, if the publisher hadn’t so generously made it public.
Seems to me they are the author of their own opprobrium.
I don’t get it. I thought after reading the PW aricle and this blog that the issue was whether Tsaba House had a legitimate standard industry contract. And I believe the process of legitimizing this will bear them out as such. However, I’m not sure that speculation from others who aren’t qualifed to judge is really helping matters.
Speculate all you want but if their contract isn’t industry standard, it’ll come out in the wash or perhaps on PW. 🙂
As someone published by an Indpendent publisher, I’m looking forward to that.
>>It’s pretty obvious what vanity and subsidy publishing is. It’s obvious (and distinct from these contractual protection clauses) in the language of the official policy, and it’s obvious in practice.>>
Well, yeah, and so do you think the clause that “dinged” Tsaba is actually evidence of vanity-presshood? And if it’s not, should RWA be labelling a press as “vanity” because of this clause?
If RWA’s definition of vanity press could include even ONE press that isn’t vanity if it’s equally applied, doesn’t that suggest that the definition could be modified?
Not trying to be, uh, “obstreperous” here, but I really can’t see any harm in a full and complete definition in policy of what a vanity press is, and sticking with that definition until something changes—and then the board can decide if there needs to be a change in definition voted on. Do you see a problem with a clear definition in policy, voted on by the board? Or how would you prefer it done if that doesn’t work for you?
Okay, I just went a read the article closely. I was struck by this line:
Describing Tsaba’s contract as appearing to her to be one intended for a textbook or nonfiction publisher that Tsaba “is trying to apply to fiction,â€
Isn’t it just possible that the publisher “uses a boilerplate contract she bought from self-publishing guru Dan Poynter’s Web site” and that it’s just not the best contract in the world? Isn’t it possible that the contract could, perhaps, be refined? I mean, no contract is perfect. Some of the language in contracts from big houses is strangely worded and ambiguous at best. So I have to assume that a contract written by a self-publishing guru could use some refinement as well. So refine it.
Also, what about the problem of the discrepencies? Was this really about the Rita award or was it about another contest?
~Really, it does matter.~
Okay. Someone wanted to enter a book in a contest. The contest committee—or rules or policies—said it wasn’t eligible.
Who then went to PW. Who made it public? The RWA chapter? I doubt it. So if this is considered a stigma, why publisize that a chapter of RWA deemed this book/contract/publisher ineligible for its contest?
Added to thatr RWA’s policies are not law in publishing. They’re RWA’s policies. They may very well consider this publisher subsidy. But, if as you say, the AG considers their contracts standard, where’s the damage?
~I really can’t see any harm in a full and complete definition in policy of what a vanity press is, and sticking with that definition until something changes~
How many times do you have to read the full and complete definition? It’s been copied here twice. They’ve done exactly what you’re saying. Not agreeing with it is one thing, but they’re defined and stated their policy.
I suppose haveing rules for contest AND following them doesn’t matter. But then why are the rules there to begin with?
Tsaba House enters a book in a contest they understand they qualify for. The contest says, nope, you clearly misunderstood. Tsaba House says really and the runners of the contest say, “Yes, really. You don’t qualify.”
I agree. Tsaba House should have just smiled and said, “okay.” After all this is America. Why not run a contest, make rules but then not pay any attention to them.
It’s about Tsaba House’s contract and whether it’s industry standard not about whether those who run a contest want to do things the way they said they would or maybe I’m missing something.
How many times do you have to read the full and complete definition? It’s been copied here twice. They’ve done exactly what you’re saying. Not agreeing with it is one thing, but they’re defined and stated their policy.
So, by this logic, if another publisher, say Harlequin or Penguin, has this same clause in their author contracts, then their novels would not qualify.
With rules. Like every other contest out there. Even the ones that are only open to CBA authors, huh?
Don’t even get me started on the CBA and ECPA! But since you brought up the Christian book industry . . . all will be happy to learn that the American Christian Fiction Writers (ACFW) have now adopted the same rules as RWA.
Oops, that doesn’t sound very logical when I included the bit about reading the rules as posted here. I should have left that part out as I was addressing the policy itself, not whether or not I’ve read it!
~So, by this logic, if another publisher, say Harlequin or Penguin, has this same clause in their author contracts, then their novels would not qualify.~
Yes. If the author pays for anything but what several of us have outlined in this thread as industry standard—substantial changes at galley stage, libel suits—then it’s not industry standard, according to everything I know.
Nora
When it comes out that this contract is standard in the industry, what will RWA do then?
Change the rules again?
I understand that Random House uses this identical contract with the same clause in it.
Now that’s interesting.
~I understand that Random House uses this identical contract with the same clause in it.~
Maybe this is so. I don’t have a boilerplate from RH. But I signed my first contract in 1980, and have signed many since—and some of those in the mid-80’s to early 90’s were for Bantam. I’ve never signed or been asked to sign a contract that obligated me to pay for front or back matter, or for typesetting or ‘typing’ other than contingent on my choice of making huge changes at galley stage.
Several other authors have stated the same on this thread. Maybe it’s a matter of interpretation. I don’t know as I haven’t seen the contract in question, nor do I have a RH contract to compare it to.
No, what’s interesting is the persistent desire to make statements about a clause we have yet to see quoted directly.
We don’t know whether this clause is in other contracts, because we don’t know what the Tsaba contract says. We know what a badly-written article said about it, and on that basis, most of us with major NY print publishers are saying it doesn’t sound standard. But unless I missed it somewhere in these ninety-six comments, nobody has quoted the exact contractual language for us, which means we can’t actually declare whether it’s the same as what’s in our contracts or anybody else’s.
At this point, any further debate about the standard-ness or lack thereof is so much hot air. We need actual data, or we need to drop it.
(Security word: provide32. See, even the captcha wants somebody to provide data!)
From the beginning of these responses, RWA has contended, (badly written article or not) that ONE clause from this contract got Tsaba House booted as a vanity press.
Those who are qualifed to determine whether that contract is industry standard will speak. RWA need not have to see the contract.
The contest will be run according to RWA rules. So I ask again, what happens when Tsaba House’s contract is legitimized as industry standard? Will RWA claim they still have to see it?
My guess is, yes!
Is it right for them to ask? I don’t think so.
No publisher or author is obligated to show their contract and why should they once it’s been determined by those qualified to judge, that it in fact meets the industry standard.
Again, like you said, it’s your contest. You can do anything you want and ask for anything you want despite the rules.
Those who are qualifed to determine whether that contract is industry standard will speak. RWA need not have to see the contract.
Who would this be?
~RWA need not have to see the contract. ~
So the organization that sponsers the contest, has made the rules for same need not actually see the publisher’s contract in order to determine if said publisher meets their requirements for THEIR contest?
There’s a break-down in logic in there, imo.
To Victoria: a literary lawyer or Authors Guild
To Nora: twist it any way you want, it’s one clause that brought Tsaba House under scurtiny by the contest. RWA never said anything about the rest of the contract. I’m assuming they saw it otherwise how could they get the clause and I believe it was mentioned in the article that Tsaba House sent the contract.
And as far as saying that Random House uses Dan’s contract, I meant to say they have the clause in question in their contract. Sorry about the misunderstanding. 🙂
To Victoria: a literary lawyer or Authors Guild
I don’t think RWA would depend upon a literary lawyer to decide what the contract should or should not say. In case you haven’t noticed, any one lawyer will often argue a different stance than the lawyer standing next to her. In fact, they are paid to do this in court. RWA has its own lawyers to advise them.
As to the Authors Guild… Why in the world would RWA ask another industry organization to decide what RWA should think about RWA’s recognition of a certain publisher? It’s RWA’s contest. It’s their decision. And it’s Tsaba’s option to provide the contract to RWA if they want to negotiate and/or argue the language.
And one last time… no one here has been willing to provide the exact language. If you really want to argue whether it’s standard, tell us what it says. Otherwise, leave it to RWA to hash out with Tsaba.
Oh yeah. I forgot it’s RWA’s contest. It wouldn’t hold water what anyone else says no matter how qualified they are. Sorry I forgot that.
Well, at least RWA has the contract since Tsaba House sent it to them. 🙂
Oh yeah. I forgot it’s RWA’s contest.
I’m afraid you’ve totally lost me here. It is RWA’s contest so, YES, they decide what the rules are. I can’t imagine why they would depend upon ANYBODY ELSE to tell them. It’s a bizarre argument.
Writer Beware is looking for a recent copy of the Tsaba House contract, so we can see what it actually says. All information and documentation shared with Writer Beware is held in confidence—your name and contact information will not be shared. Contact us at beware @ sfwa.org. Thanks!
That would be a bizzare arguement. 😮
Why would RWA listen to anyone else? It’s their contest. 🙂
Oh, sorry, I think we crossed wires there!!!
No, I got you the first time; there was no misunderstanding. I’m saying that you cannot state that Random House has that clause in their contract unless you’ve seen the actual wording of the Tsaba contract—which I don’t think any of us have. Without that, there’s no way to tell if “retyping the manuscript” is bad-article-speak for “resetting due to authorial alteration during page proofs” (which is standard) or something else entirely (which probably isn’t).
Sue, I haven’t twisted anything. When I read: “Those who are qualifed to determine whether that contract is industry standard will speak. RWA need not have to see the contract.” it says to me someone outside the organization will decide, and RWA will abide by that without needing to see the document in question. That doesn’t make sense to me.
Myabe that’s not what you meant.
I understand you’re angry, and you feel RWA has been unfair. It’s simply impossible for those of us who haven’t seen the contract to know if we’d agree or not. But the statement from RWA on why the contract makes the publisher ineligible for the orgaization’s approved list indicates a clause that isn’t industry standard.
Maybe they’re wrong, maybe the clause isn’t there or isn’t what it appears to be.
If, however, it is, imo RWA has a right to enforce its own rules and policies.
I’m published with Random House. Nothing that sounds even remotely like that appears in any of my contracts with them. Nor my contract with Harper Collins, nor the small publisher for which I’ve written non-fiction. (BenBella). So this isn’t the realm of small pubs, nor is this something that the “big pubs” do as well.
As Nora pointed out, the exact, clear, specific definition of what RWA considers a vanity and/or subsidy publisher has already been posted a dozen times, I’m not even going to argue the issue again.
RWA, a private organization, can set their own standards. They can set standards saying I’m not published in their eyes, because I don’t write romance. They can set standards saying you aren’t considered published until you’ve made a million dollars on a book. Or they can set standards that say if I head down to the corner Kinkos and bind my grocery list, it counts as a book. They can do anything they want.
The publishing industry will continue on apace, regardless of the standards RWA chooses to accept. Just as RWA does not have to listen to an AG literary lawyer to form a basis for its standards, the other people in publishing don’t have to listen to RWA. The Library of Congress does NOT make its decision about what books to register based on the guidelines of a private genre writing group!
Back when RWA had “publisher recognition,” there were RWA-recognized publishers that my agent would not submit to, and NON-RWA recognized publishers she would. (Again, Hyperion.) So any agent who knows her industry, and doesn’t get her info solely out of the RWR doesn’t care what RWA has to say either. They decide what would be a good publisher for their client and submit there.
Having said that, when I was a PRO Liaison of one of my RWA chapters, and was in charge of processing PRO applications for our members, we had a situation wherein the member’s OTHER chapter claimed that the National org denied her PRO application. I called the National org to discuss their policy of admitting PROs, and it was resolved. The other chapter had misrepresented the nature of the member’s manuscript.
This issue will similarly be resolved, either by an adjustment to the contract language, a clarification of the contract language (we can all agree that contracts are sometimes incredibly confusing!), a correction on the part of this article that seems to have everyone up in arms, or the acknowledgment by the publisher that they do not meet the RWA guidelines, and do not wish to change to do so.
Diana laid it out as clearly as it can be, I think.
I’ll add that I pulled out an old Putnam contract, read it, and nothing in there comes anywhere near the clause in question. Neither do my (really old) Silhouette contracts.
Specifically on the front and back matter, I’ve had those added to my books, from both of these publishers. Maps, family trees, an index. I did not pay, was never asked to pay. It was never suggested that I was contractually obligated to pay—nor is there any wording in any contract I’ve ever signed that would so oblige me.
You did misunderstand if you thought I said Random House had that clause in their contract. I should’ve added, “or at least I’ve heard.” It really doesn’t matter who has this clause in their contract, Dan Poynter’s contracts are widely used by publihser’s who meet the industry standard.
I just got caught up trying to help RWA see Tsaba House might meet industry standard. LOL But apparently they don’t need my help. It’s their contest. They have their own lawyers. It’s whatever they decide.
So it’s quite possible that a publisher whose contract meets the industry standard can’t participate in the RWA’s contest. Okay, so it takes me a while to get things. LOL
I’ll now move on.
Specifically on the front and back matter, I’ve had those added to my books, from both of these publishers. Maps, family trees, an index. I did not pay, was never asked to pay. It was never suggested that I was contractually obligated to pay—nor is there any wording in any contract I’ve ever signed that would so oblige me.
Your maps and family trees probably (I am making an educated guess here) would be under the category of Additional Materials.
This is the language from Poynter’s contract. Please be aware that it could have been altered. However, the quote in PW, I believe, stated that it seemed that a stock contract was used without modification:
If the Author fails to deliver Additional Materials, in cases where any of these have been deemed by Publisher as necessary for the Work, the Publisher shall have the right, but shall not be obligated, to cause the same to be acquired or prepared and to charge the cost of such acquisition or preparation to the Author.
Index is included under front and back matter. Again, this is from Poynter’s contract:
If, the Author has not so provided and if, in the reasonable judgment of the publisher, the Publisher feels that an index, bibliography, table of contents, foreword, introduction, preface (hereinafter referred to as “frontmatter and backmatter”) for the Work is necessary, the Publisher shall engage a skilled person to prepare such frontmatter and backmatter and the cost of such preparation shall be charged to the Author.
The other issue was re-typing. Here is that language:
A. The Author agrees to deliver to the Publisher, not later than , 20 , two (2) complete typewritten or computer generated (or on computer disk in a format acceptable to Publisher) manuscripts of the Work in the English language, approximately words in length, acceptable to the Publisher in form and substance and ready to set into type. If retyping is necessary, expense shall be charged to the Author. The Author agrees that the Author shall have retained copies of the manuscript as delivered to the Publisher.
Perhaps the term “typing” is archaic in contract language. All I know is I still refer to the act as typing! As in, “dang! I have to re-type my article.”
I hope this helps. Again, I caution that this is not copied from the actual contract of the Tsaba House author, but I have reason to believe that it is the text in question.
Do remember that companies like Tsaba House do not have the operating capital as a big house would. But, I don’t think it makes them any less a publisher. In the Christian market, they offer a valuable alternative to the Evangelical Christian Publisher Association (ECPA) houses. Fiction that won’t be touched by the ECPA members because of its “edginess” (read: may contain the word “darn” or may include a mention of drinking, smoking, marital sex, divorce, violence that is realistic and necessary to the plot—and I am not being facetious) is in demand from Christians who want their fiction “real,” and not contrived. The only way readers get this fiction is through independent houses, such as Tsaba House, who serve the greater Christian fiction market (not the demographics of the CBA). Small presses do what they have to do to survive and publish good fiction.
“They can do anything they want.”
Actually, I don’t think they can. I think that as a corporation, they have to abide by the law, and antitrust law is always a factor, I think. And as a not-for-profit designated so by the IRS, there are other rules an organization has to meet to keep its tax status. It’s not just an ad hoc group like our local critique groups. Whether we like it or not, there are laws to be factored in—the libel law, or whatever it is called when it’s a corporation being termed something defamatory.
So yes, it does matter how RWA defines things (remember last year, when they were defining vanity press as a press that sells most copies off its own website? That didn’t last), and whether it applies its decisions equally. Is the term “vanity press” pejorative? And is it fairly applied to this press on the basis of that clause?
Thanks for ferreting out that Poynter contract, Cynthia! That does sound like an archaic clause, but I think we can still use the term “typing”—we’re still applying fingers to keyboard (unless, I suppose, if we use Dragon :). I find myself still saying I have “dialed” that number, and THAT I don’t think is still true!
Sue Dent said: “I just got caught up trying to help RWA see Tsaba House might meet industry standard.”
If you want to “help RWA,” you’re probably going to have to, um, yanno, contact RWA, rather than post about it here. The Smart Bitches, while being smart and all, aren’t official representatives of Romance Writers of America.
And a
Ha! Actual data! Cynthia wins.
And you know what happens when we get actual data? We’re able to make definitive statements!
Paragraph 6.b.ii of my very first novel contract:
“If the Author fails to make timely delivery of the Related Materials [all photographs, illustrations, drawings, charts, footnotes, source notes, bibliography and any other materials as mutually agreed upon—6.b.i], any permissions or releases, satisfactory to the Publisher in form and content, the Publisher shall have the right, but not the obligation, to continue this Agreement and obtain on behalf of the Author any such Related Materials, permissions or releases and charge the cost thereof to the Author and shall also have the right to withhold sums to cover such actual or estimated costs from any payments due to the Author hereunder.”
In other words, they can take it out of my advance or royalties, or charge me to pay it back; it comes to the same thing.
So that? Appears to be normal, save on one count: it’s “mutually agreed upon” in my contract, but in Tsaba’s the Publisher gets to decide what’s necessary. Potentially sketchy, but not awful.
Next, there is nothing in my contract about retyping. I have to provide a MS and computer disk copy (yeah, right—I e-mail it to my editor, that’s all), and it has to be acceptable to them, but that’s where the contract clause stops. Nothing about retyping whatsoever. (Except in 6.e, where it says that if the Publisher leaves my Related Materials in a taxi or drops them in the spaghetti sauce, it’s THEIR responsibility to replace them, at THEIR cost.)
So. Having done that, let’s revisit the RWA rules:
(“Subsidy” and not “vanity” is the actual accusation here, I think.)
Okay. It all comes down to what you define as a cost for editing and/or distribution, and what you don’t. Does “editing” mean “getting the MS into usable shape (i.e. retyping) if the Author failed to provide it in that form”? By the terms of my contract, I have to go fix it myself, and the Publisher doesn’t have to pay me until I deliver what I promised. By the terms of Tsaba’s contract, the Publisher can take care of it themselves, and charge the Author for it. The former is pretty standard contractual operations in any field; the latter . . . .?
This is where I bow out, because I really don’t have a dog in this fight. But certainly it doesn’t work to have a blanket rule of “no money flowing from Author to Publisher,” because there ARE conditions under which the Author has to pay the Publisher money, probably in any novel contract. “Costs of editing and/or distribution” is better, but still not precise, even with the clarification later in the rule. I think the RWA could use to tighten up their language a bit, to distinguish between industry SOP and sketchy attempts to sneak in author charges.
I know it’s hard out there for small presses (and now my brain’s playing “Hard Out There for a Pimp”). But if you have to sock authors with costs to keep yourself afloat, then you’re asking authors to subsidize your business—hence “subsidy press.” That’s what the RWA is trying to prevent. There’s some dubious ambiguity in Tsaba’s clauses, that might be abused. Fixing that shouldn’t be hard at all. And in the meantime, the RWA could possibly reword their ruling to make the line just a bit clearer.
-The Smart Bitches, while being smart and all, aren’t official representatives of Romance Writers of America.-
Yeah, that’s why I decided to stop posting. LOL
But look, you made me go and post again! 🙂
Interesting note- (since you made me post again. :)) The Tsaba House author never entered the RITA award. They entered a chapter of RWA and actually finaled with their novel!
Makes one wonder how this all got started in the first place.
There’s some dubious ambiguity in Tsaba’s clauses, that might be abused. Fixing that shouldn’t be hard at all.
I agree, Marie! Which goes back to my argument that if you buy a contract from a self-publishing guru, you just might need to tweak it a bit before it’s perfect. I’m not exactly sure why Tsaba is so married to this wording if the Rita is some sort of Holy Grail for them, except as a matter of “You can’t tell me what to do to participate in YOUR contest!!!”
But one thing I’d like to point out, in regards to “RWA is mean and they don’t want me in their club!”. RWA is providing a basic line in the sand about what is acceptable, in their opinion, in a boilerplate contract. Who signs boilerplate contracts? Authors who have little choice. Authors who are just starting out, authors who have no advocate, authors who are just trying to get their foot in that very first, very heavy door.
Now, I’m no veteran. My first book was out THIS YEAR. But I have moved beyond that first contract and actually signed three more in the past few months. Each negotiation has moved to a slightly different level as far as what leverage I have. I’m no longer working from boilerplate. Each time I fight for a change, it shows up in the NEXT contract automatically. (Not that I don’t check very closely, mind you.)
RWA doesn’t give a damn what my agent and I hash out with the publisher. They are trying to keep their pre-published members from signing contracts that will tie up their rights for years with no benefit to the author. So if you step back and look at their motive with a less jaundiced eye, it might calm things down a bit.
And now I’d like to turn the question back to this: Was this really about the Rita or was it about another contest? That’s not clear to me.
Look, Sue! We’re on the same page! *g*