The buzz about the S&S decision at the moment has been that this move will cause the author’s works to languish in some immense database unseen while the writer him/herself slides into poverty and obscurity. This seems like a lot of alarmism to me. Given the amount of books that are currently either out of print or unpublished, I would predict that this type of move by publishers will lead to a boost in revenue for authors on the whole. Publishers like to make money. They will not allow a text to disappear if they think it has potential for mass market distribution.
One aspect of this removal of the ‘reversion of rights’ clause that could (and I’m sure soon will) be improved upon is the fact that it seems to give permanent copyright to the publisher. By removing a clause that gives authors an option to change publishers at a point that is mutually beneficial, the publishers are asking authors to take a big risk. I am sure that the agents who have done such a good job of protecting authors’ rights to date will ensure that their clients receive fair contracts under the long tail.
Perhaps a ‘buy-out clause’ could be inserted for such works, allowing publishers who believe a book in another publishers’ backlist could be promoted widely to put their money where their mouth is. Or maybe contracts could come up for review every few years once sales have sunk below a certain threshold.
I will be watching how this issue develops over the next few months, as I’m certain that S&S will soon be joined by other major publishers, none of whom will want to risk scaring their major authors away.
Follow up:
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story3266.shtml this article explains why this change to a standard contract may become more common.
