Random House 'Hydra' Imprint Publishing Terms

[BWFoster78]

Under what circumstance is this a better deal than the typical "fair" contract? Only if the book is more successful than $10,000 + costs, but not successful enough to do anything else with it. But even in that case, I'm not really sure what you need the publisher for - they're not really very good at promoting ebooks at the moment.

Seems like you would consider this under two circumstances:

1. You think your book is going to be a huge hit but don't have the upfront costs.

2. You can't get a traditional publishing deal.

The typical fair contract would have the publisher putting up something like:

How do you define fair? Seems to me your "fair" contract is simply the "way it's always been done."

Traditionally, the publisher assumes much more of the risk. Things are changing, though, and publishers are trying to figure out how to adjust. It's hard for me to fault them too much for trying to adapt to the times. Used to, they could afford to lose a ton of money on some books because other books made up for the loss.

I think it's hard now for them to find those moneymakers. To stay alive, they need to figure out how to shift some of the risk to the author.

As an author, why should I expect someone to assume all the financial risk for my book?

I think this gives an author another choice. Before an author considers this choice, there are questions they need answered:

1. What level of service am I getting as far as editing and cover?
2. What marketing support and expertise am I getting?

Go into it with your eyes open, but I don't see this as somehow unfair.

 

[BWFoster78]

Authors who are so desperate that let emotion trump logic.

I get where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that is the case here.

I just don't get why I should feel entitled to have someone else take all the risk.

Personally, I think it's a good idea for a publisher to provide a choice to an author: Do you want an advance with lower royalties or no advance with higher royalties?

 

[Devor]

How do you define fair? Seems to me your "fair" contract is simply the "way it's always been done."

Traditionally, the publisher assumes much more of the risk. Things are changing, though, and publishers are trying to figure out how to adjust. It's hard for me to fault them too much for trying to adapt to the times. Used to, they could afford to lose a ton of money on some books because other books made up for the loss.

I think it's hard now for them to find those moneymakers. To stay alive, they need to figure out how to shift some of the risk to the author.

As an author, why should I expect someone to assume all the financial risk for my book?

I think this gives an author another choice. Before an author considers this choice, there are questions they need answered:

1. What level of service am I getting as far as editing and cover?
2. What marketing support and expertise am I getting?

Go into it with your eyes open, but I don't see this as somehow unfair.

I don't think that's right.

Typically, they offer you an advance, invest money and absorb the costs because they know they'll eventually find a hit to make up for it. Most books turn out a loss for them, and a few successful books carry that loss. That's your basic venture capitalism model.

By hedging the risks upfront, they're no longer playing by the venture capitalist model. That means they don't think they can turn out hits in the long run to carry those costs.

The only conclusion I can make is that they have no idea how to make an ebook into a hit. So what do you need them for?

 

[BWFoster78]

The only conclusion I can make is that they have no idea how to make an ebook into a hit. So what do you need them for?

There are MILLIONS of ebooks being published.

The chances of one succeeding is small.

Good editing, good cover art, and expertise at marketing/promotion improve chances of success, but, in lieu of already having a big name, there appears to be nothing that guarantees success.

This publishing option gives you:

1. Access to expertise that you didn't otherwise have (presumably. I have no idea if Hydra can help you sell books or do a good job editing. I'm just saying that it makes sense.)
2. They take some of the personal risk from you. Some people don't have $1500 of their own money to sink into their book. (How is this not a good option for that situation?)

 

[Devor]

This publishing option gives you:

1. Access to expertise that you didn't otherwise have (presumably. I have no idea if Hydra can help you sell books or do a good job editing. I'm just saying that it makes sense.)
2. They take some of the personal risk from you. Some people don't have $1500 of their own money to sink into their book. (How is this not a good option for that situation?)

Maybe if it stopped with costs and an even split. None of that warrants the copyright issues.

 

[BWFoster78]

Maybe if it stopped with costs and an even split. None of that warrants the copyright issues.

How so? That ups the potential that they will make some kind of return on their investment.

It just seems that, when you're evaluating the concept of a "fair" contract, it's purely from the side of the author. It just seems to me that the discussion should be what is fair for both sides.

 

[Devor]

How so? That ups the potential that they will make some kind of return on their investment.

Since the author doesn't make money until the costs are covered, then after that point both the author and the publishing company are making money. If the publishing company has anything to offer, then it should get a reasonable number of authors breaking the cost threshold and not have a problem making money. That's especially true because they can control the costs as much as they want to.

So why would they need the additional revenue from a hit?

If they're a venture capitalist model, then they're investing up front and that warrants a right to a long-term share of the profits.

If they're not investing anything in you up front, why should you give them copyrights long term? You might as well get a credit card to cover the costs. There's a case for 50/50 being worth the up front costs. But not the extras.

 

[BWFoster78]

Since the author doesn't make money until the costs are covered, then after that point both the author and the publishing company are making money. If the publishing company has anything to offer, then it should get a reasonable number of authors breaking the cost threshold and not have a problem making money. That's especially true because they can control the costs as much as they want to.

So why would they need the additional revenue from a hit?

If they're a venture capitalist model, then they're investing up front and that warrants a right to a long-term share of the profits.

If they're not investing anything in you up front, why should you give them copyrights long term? You might as well get a credit card to cover the costs. There's a case for 50/50 being worth the up front costs. But not the extras.

What time frame is reasonable, then?

 

[Devor]

What time frame is reasonable, then?

If it were just through the first run or the first few years or for as long as the publisher was willing to actively promote you, or as long as the publisher was putting up costs, or list you in a promotions catalogue or so on, then 50/50 would probably be fair enough. But for the length of copyright with subsidiary rights included? No dice.

If they just want to partner with you to share some costs and profits, that's fine.

If they want to buy your work forever, they need to pay you for it.

 

[BWFoster78]

If it were just through the first run or the first few years or for as long as the publisher was willing to actively promote you, or as long as the publisher was putting up costs, or list you in a promotions catalogue or so on, then 50/50 would probably be fair enough. But for the length of copyright with subsidiary rights included? No dice.

If they just want to partner with you to share some costs and profits, that's fine.

If they want to buy your work forever, they need to pay you for it.

I can live with that thinking. The contract should be a definitive length. Forever is too long considering what they're putting into the deal.

 

[Steerpike]

I'd caution anyone against signing away rights for the life of a copyright without some good reversion language in the event things don't pan out. Imagine five years later, the book isn't selling, the publisher isn't doing anything and you can't do anything with it because you don't own it anymore. Keep in mind, too, that a copyright assignment also transfers rights to prepare derivative works. So maybe a few years later you still believe in the story but with more experience under your belt you want to rewrite it, or you want to continue with those characters and setting in a new story and go a different route with publication - a copyright assignment throws up potential roadblocks for a lot of things you might want to do with a work in the event the relationship with the current publisher doesn't work out.

 

[Kevin O. McLaughlin]

I think it's vital to remember that the author is investing quite a lot into each book, as well as the publisher.

Suppose a novel takes you 200 hours to write; that's something like a $10,000 investment by the writer. And many novels require quite a lot more hours than that. You MUST count your time as valuable, if you expect the publisher to value it.

These contracts are aimed at novices who know nothing about the industry, and are preying on the uninformed who are simply desperate to get a contract with a big publishing house, no matter the cost. It's a predatory contract, pure and simple, completely favoring the publisher and devastating to the writer.

No respectable agent will ever submit to those houses. No experienced writer will, either. These operations, much like the Author Solutions scams, are targeted at novices who simply don't know any better yet.

 

[MichaelSullivan]

I'd caution anyone against signing away rights for the life of a copyright without some good reversion language in the event things don't pan out. Imagine five years later, the book isn't selling, the publisher isn't doing anything and you can't do anything with it because you don't own it anymore.

All big-six contracts are life of copyright - period. So if you go with a small indie press, yes you can get a limited term contract (5 or 7 years most common). The reversion language in all these contracts set the bars too low (imho). Usually something like 300 sales a year, or $100 - $500 in income a year). These reversion levels aren't at this time highly negotiable. I've talked to a lot of agents who have tried and the best they get is to get them raised $50 or $100. To get them to even what I would call "marginally acceptable" ($1,500 a year) is...at this point out of the question.

Keep in mind, too, that a copyright assignment also transfers rights to prepare derivative works.

I know of no legitimate publisher who would take an author's copyright. They are all licensing the right to sell the work in certain territories in certain formats and languages for a certain amount of time. If they want copyright - don't sign.

So maybe a few years later you still believe in the story but with more experience under your belt you want to rewrite it, or you want to continue with those characters and setting in a new story and go a different route with publication - a copyright assignment throws up potential roadblocks for a lot of things you might want to do with a work in the event the relationship with the current publisher doesn't work out.

You can't rewrite a story with an active contract in place. You can continue those characters in a new story as long as your non-compete clause doesn't restrict such. The non-compete is probably the clause you need to watch the hardest of all the contract languages because it extends beyond just "this" contract and effects future works.

 

[MichaelSullivan]

It's a predatory contract, pure and simple, completely favoring the publisher and devastating to the writer.

Unfortunately, ALL publishing contracts favor the publisher...even those not deemed as "predatory" or "egregious."

 

[Steerpike]

I know of no legitimate publisher who would take an author's copyright. They are all licensing the right to sell the work in certain territories in certain formats and languages for a certain amount of time. If they want copyright - don't sign.

Good points. I read a blog post about Hydra's initial contract that said they 'took' copyright, which I interpreted as assignment and not license. That wasn't correct. I'd be leery of any publisher who wanted an assignment as well. It's too bad the reversion language is generally so disfavorable to the author. I wonder if any of that will change as the publishing industry landscape continues to change.

 

[Mindfire]

Wow. Why are publishing contracts worth it again? I don't mean to be a defeatist, but if this is the way things are... wow. From what I''ve seen on this thread, it looks like I'd actually get more out of giving my books away to friends for free. At least then I'd know for sure people were reading it.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Wow. Why are publishing contracts worth it again? I don't mean to be a defeatist, but if this is the way things are... wow.

History. Until the last few years, publishers had the market locked up. It was essentially impossible to self-publish and achieve widespread success.

When you've got a monopoly (or a big piece of one -- for all practical purposes the Big Six were a cartel), you can do whatever the hell you want. I frankly don't know why the government never threw the Sherman Act at them.

 

[MichaelSullivan]

Good points. I read a blog post about Hydra's initial contract that said they 'took' copyright, which I interpreted as assignment and not license. That wasn't correct. I'd be leery of any publisher who wanted an assignment as well.

Yeah, the original Hydra contract was bad...but not even they would go that far. If they had, the gnashing of teeth would have been so much louder than it was.

It's too bad the reversion language is generally so disfavorable to the author. I wonder if any of that will change as the publishing industry landscape continues to change.

I hope so too - But I'm not holding my breath. I know I tried, and my agent has tied with other contracts with other author. She was telling me about a seven-figure deal that the publisher was willing to pull because of not wanting to budge on the reversion threshold. In the end, on that particular contract it moved from $500 a year to $600 a year.

 

[MichaelSullivan]

Wow. Why are publishing contracts worth it again? I don't mean to be a defeatist, but if this is the way things are... wow. From what I''ve seen on this thread, it looks like I'd actually get more out of giving my books away to friends for free. At least then I'd know for sure people were reading it.

The contracts suck...being traditionally published - actually is pretty darn good. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that signing traditional REALLY helped out my career. As with all things there are compromises that have to be made - I could have walked, almost did...but in the end I got a contract I could "live with." These days, unless you are selling at huge volumes (like Hugh Howey) that's all you can hope for.

 

[MichaelSullivan]

When you've got a monopoly (or a big piece of one -- for all practical purposes the Big Six were a cartel), you can do whatever the hell you want. I frankly don't know why the government never threw the Sherman Act at them.

I agree...anyone who looked at the publishing contracts from all of the big-six (five) knows that they all walk the same party line and there is collusion to keep the terms universal. The DoJ went after them about ebook pricing - I'm hoping someday they will do the same for authors.