A few weeks ago, John Scalzi, author and president of Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA), published this article on his blog:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/03/06/note-to-sff-writers-random-houses-hydra-imprint-has-appallingly-bad-contract-terms/
Basically, he rails against Random House's digital imprint, Hydra, for not providing an advance against royalties and for having other poor terms in their contract.
He wasn't the only one. Victoria Strauss at Writer Beware had this to say on the subject:
http://accrispin.blogspot.com.es/2013/02/second-class-contracts-deal-terms-at.html
It didn't end there. Random House responded in an open letter, attempting to explain the terms of their contract:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/56244-rh-responds-to-sfwa-slamming-its-hydra-imprint.html#path/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/56244-rh-responds-to-sfwa-slamming-its-hydra-imprint.html
To which SFWA replied:
http://www.sfwa.org/2013/03/sfwa-response-to-hydra-letter/
And Victoria Strauss:
http://www.sfwa.org/2013/03/sfwa-de-lists-hydra-random-house-responds/
And, somehow, John Scalzi got ahold of an Alibi contract, which he goes through here:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/03/06/a-contract-from-alibi/
Random House ended up offering a contract closer to traditional publishing, but still offers the original 'profit-sharing' option for authors who prefer to go that route. Here's what they have to say:
http://www.atrandom.com/eoriginals/index.php
John Scalzi responded, calling this an open discussion with no winners or losers:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/03/12/a-brief-note-on-recent-events/
And Victoria Strauss said the changes are a significant improvement:
http://accrispin.blogspot.com/2013/03/random-house-announces-new-terms-at.html
Truly, it has been a dizzying month. :)
Personally, I find the new kind of contract intriguing. I'm not sure I would go for it as is, but this 'experiment' from a traditional publisher is quite interesting. I'm curious to see what comes of it.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/03/06/note-to-sff-writers-random-houses-hydra-imprint-has-appallingly-bad-contract-terms/
Basically, he rails against Random House's digital imprint, Hydra, for not providing an advance against royalties and for having other poor terms in their contract.
He wasn't the only one. Victoria Strauss at Writer Beware had this to say on the subject:
http://accrispin.blogspot.com.es/2013/02/second-class-contracts-deal-terms-at.html
It didn't end there. Random House responded in an open letter, attempting to explain the terms of their contract:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/56244-rh-responds-to-sfwa-slamming-its-hydra-imprint.html#path/pw/by-topic/digital/content-and-e-books/article/56244-rh-responds-to-sfwa-slamming-its-hydra-imprint.html
To which SFWA replied:
http://www.sfwa.org/2013/03/sfwa-response-to-hydra-letter/
And Victoria Strauss:
http://www.sfwa.org/2013/03/sfwa-de-lists-hydra-random-house-responds/
And, somehow, John Scalzi got ahold of an Alibi contract, which he goes through here:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/03/06/a-contract-from-alibi/
Random House ended up offering a contract closer to traditional publishing, but still offers the original 'profit-sharing' option for authors who prefer to go that route. Here's what they have to say:
http://www.atrandom.com/eoriginals/index.php
John Scalzi responded, calling this an open discussion with no winners or losers:
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/03/12/a-brief-note-on-recent-events/
And Victoria Strauss said the changes are a significant improvement:
http://accrispin.blogspot.com/2013/03/random-house-announces-new-terms-at.html
Truly, it has been a dizzying month. :)
Personally, I find the new kind of contract intriguing. I'm not sure I would go for it as is, but this 'experiment' from a traditional publisher is quite interesting. I'm curious to see what comes of it.