Publishenanigans
Nov. 10th, 2009 12:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
desperanceUm.
I was on the edge, the very edge of writing "Sale!" in the subject line, bragging of a short story accepted, and thereby making someone else very happy.
But then the contract came through, and everything went on hold; indeed I was on the edge, the very edge of turning them down. Which I have done once in my life and once only (when a South African government-approved publication wanted to reprint a story of mine, back in the days of apartheid and the cultural boycott; I spoke to the ANC, and said no).
All names and titles redacted for obvious reasons, but in brief: I have worked for these people before without anxiety, but they have changed the terms of their contract, such that it now assigns copyright in the work irrevocably to them.
In practice it probably wouldn't matter (not to get technical, but the difference between my licensing them to reprint at will - the old terms - and their licensing me to do the same thing is probably negligible at the point of delivery), but the principle matters hugely.
So I hesitated for a moment there, and then e-mailed the editor. Who blinked, wondered if I'd misread the contract, promised to look into it.
I sent him the relevant clause, which I was not misreading.
He says: "Chaz - this is clearly bonkers. I shall look into this even further."
Heh. I'll let you know. And leave the cork in the champagne for now.
I was on the edge, the very edge of writing "Sale!" in the subject line, bragging of a short story accepted, and thereby making someone else very happy.
But then the contract came through, and everything went on hold; indeed I was on the edge, the very edge of turning them down. Which I have done once in my life and once only (when a South African government-approved publication wanted to reprint a story of mine, back in the days of apartheid and the cultural boycott; I spoke to the ANC, and said no).
All names and titles redacted for obvious reasons, but in brief: I have worked for these people before without anxiety, but they have changed the terms of their contract, such that it now assigns copyright in the work irrevocably to them.
In practice it probably wouldn't matter (not to get technical, but the difference between my licensing them to reprint at will - the old terms - and their licensing me to do the same thing is probably negligible at the point of delivery), but the principle matters hugely.
So I hesitated for a moment there, and then e-mailed the editor. Who blinked, wondered if I'd misread the contract, promised to look into it.
I sent him the relevant clause, which I was not misreading.
He says: "Chaz - this is clearly bonkers. I shall look into this even further."
Heh. I'll let you know. And leave the cork in the champagne for now.