Publisher Redefines Terms of Business; Publishing World Not Amused

/media/news/21397/1.jpg

So here's a story that's blowing up the literature blogosphere right now: it seems the powers-that-be at publishing conglomerate Simon & Schuster decided to just up and redefine the meaning of the phrase "out-of-print." It's a small contractual parsing of terminology that seems nitpicky at first, and even gives the company a very technologically righteous and forward-minded appearance; when you really get down to it, however, it looks an awful lot like a way for the publishing company to tie writers up in legal tape, which is very far from righteous.

Motoko Rich of the New York Times breaks down the old definition for you:

Traditionally, if a book falls out of print, authors are contractually allowed to ask their publishers for their rights back so that the author can try to have the book republished somewhere else.

Until recently, that has meant that if a book was not available in at least one format — hardback, trade paperback or mass market paperback being the most common — or if sales fell below a minimum annual threshold, it was deemed out of print.
Now, however, in our sophisticated world of Print-On-Demand, there doesn't really need to be a backlog of the books in a warehouse somewhere waiting to be sold -- when you run out, you can just print more. With that considered, Simon & Schuster decided to simply remove that minimum annual threshold. Thus, as long as a book can be ordered on demand, the brand will still consider it "in print."

The Authors Guild is up in arms about this development, calling for Simon & Schuster to be excluded from upcoming book auctions, and it's hard to understand why if you're not clear on what it all means, especially when the publisher's spokespeople are making it sound super-nifty.

Adam Rothberg, a spokesman for Simon & Schuster, said that the publisher was acknowledging advances in technology that made it easier for readers to order books on demand. “We’re anticipating that it’s only going to get better and that this is the best way to make our authors’ books available for consumers on a large-scale basis over the long haul,” Mr. Rothberg said.
It's a tricky matter though, this whole book-selling business, and others in the trade have some ideas of how this could all go very well for some people and very wrong for others. Authors Guild executive director Paul Aiken cites cases in the past where authors with books out of print were able to take back their rights, sell the manuscripts to another publisher, and revive their careers. Meanwhile, a literary agent explains the reality of printing-on-demand.

Agent David Black said, however, that in reality, if a book is available only through print-on-demand, “an author’s book is going to be available in dribs and drabs.”

He added: “If there is the possibility that I can take this book and place it somewhere else where somebody is going to publish it more aggressively than on a print-on-demand basis, shouldn’t I have the opportunity to do that?”
Meanwhile, Simon & Schuster's Rothberg would like to assure everyone that nothing will really change, it's just some minor little contract words that don't really mean anything, they just thought they'd mix it up a little for fun. 'Cause, you know, that's what lawyers do. Change things around to no effect.

“We’ve always been willing to have the discussions with agents and authors if there comes a time when they feel they need to have a book reverted to them and they can make a compelling case to us that it should be so,” he said.
Sounds good, pal. At least this it doesn't seem like this has started a chain reaction among other publishers. So far, spokesmen for Random House and Grand Central Publishing have come out to say that their old threshold policies will remain unchanged. I certainly hope so.

web address: http://suicidegirls.com/news/all/21397/Publisher-Redefines-Terms-of-Business-Publishing-World-Not-Amused/