Do you let authors know once contract is up?

Do you let authors know once contract is up?
Here's a quickie - do editors/publishers typically contact their authors to let them know when their book is out of contract, and the rights have reverted? Or do you leave it to the author to spot that the book's no longer available on your catalogue?

I've always been notified and offered a renewal contract--although sometimes at the last minute. Oh, and once just notified with a non-renewal. I've never had one just lapse.

That's what I'd have expected. Couple of mine have just lapsed and I was surprised enough to ask the question. :)

If you don't renew with the same publisher (either by your choice or theirs) what transfers over to the new publisher (assuming you find one)? Do you revert back to the org subbed MS or does it remain as published? Do you keep the artwork? Come to think of it, I have no clue how anything works in regards to this.

It's always going to be a pubbed manuscript if it's been pubbed, but the rights should revert back to you at the end of the contract, provided a proper contract saying so was signed. As for cover art, rights to use it usually belong to the publisher. Unless you own the cover art, if you republish, you must have new art provided by the next publisher. Editing changes, I believe, are not considered copyrightable to a publisher or a particular editor. Besides, proper editing doesn't mean the editor does the author's work. It means the editor targets weak areas and suggests the changes that the author should make. The author should be doing the work of any revisions, not the editor. If an editor is having to personally make a lot of changes to a manuscript on an author's behalf, the editor has become an author/ghost writer of the story, and this isn't fair to the editor or the author. I writer should do the majority of manuscript fixing him/herself.

It's always going to be a pubbed manuscript if it's been pubbed, but the rights should revert back to you at the end of the contract, provided a proper contract saying so was signed. As for cover art, rights to use it usually belong to the publisher. Unless you own the cover art, if you republish, you must have new art provided by the next publisher. Editing changes, I believe, are not considered copyrightable to a publisher or a particular editor. Besides, proper editing doesn't mean the editor does the author's work. It means the editor targets weak areas and suggests the changes that the author should make. The author should be doing the work of any revisions, not the editor. If an editor is having to personally make a lot of changes to a manuscript on an author's behalf, the editor has become an author/ghost writer of the story, and this isn't fair to the editor or the author. I writer should do the majority of manuscript fixing him/herself. I totally agree with you that the editor shouldn't be doing the author's work. It's just that something doesn't seem right that an author can take a title (granted it is THEIR title) to another publisher when the publishing rights revert back and not compensate the editor who worked on the title. Yes, editors shouldn't do the author's work, but the editors work does deserve compensation. So, do the edits "belong" to the title and thus would carry over if the publishing rights are changed to a different publisher? I think about how the editors I've worked with have guided me and they've all lived up to the concept of an editor's job being to help the author write the best novel the author can. The editors I've worked with have been invaluable in teaching me and guiding me. It doesn't seem right that if I ever get the publishing rights reverted back to me that I can take that work, publish it elsewhere, and get royalites while they don't. I know I'm new and there must be something I'm missing. I guess this means I need to read my contracts again. I'm sure this is covered in there. I know that I'd get the rights back if my publisher decides to no longer carry the book, but I'm not sure how to compensate the editors and proofreaders if I ever have to do that. Oh dear...I hope I never have to face this. It's all so confusing. How to be fair and legal? Thanks for the information on the artwork. I figured the artist owned it while the publisher had the publishing rights and that wouldn't carry over, but I wanted to make sure.

The best thing you can do in the case of wanting to show appreciation to your editor is just tell people what a great job they did on your manuscript when it was first subbed. :-) As for monetary compensation, well, that won't amount to much unless an author working under that editor gets a super seller and the editor has a contract involving percentage of sales rather than finite sums (per word payment).

I totally agree with you that the editor shouldn't be doing the author's work. It's just that something doesn't seem right that an author can take a title (granted it is THEIR title) to another publisher when the publishing rights revert back and not compensate the editor who worked on the title. Yes, editors shouldn't do the author's work, but the editors work does deserve compensation. So, do the edits "belong" to the title and thus would carry over if the publishing rights are changed to a different publisher? I think about how the editors I've worked with have guided me and they've all lived up to the concept of an editor's job being to help the author write the best novel the author can. The editors I've worked with have been invaluable in teaching me and guiding me. It doesn't seem right that if I ever get the publishing rights reverted back to me that I can take that work, publish it elsewhere, and get royalites while they don't. I know I'm new and there must be something I'm missing. I guess this means I need to read my contracts again. I'm sure this is covered in there. I know that I'd get the rights back if my publisher decides to no longer carry the book, but I'm not sure how to compensate the editors and proofreaders if I ever have to do that. Oh dear...I hope I never have to face this. It's all so confusing. How to be fair and legal? You don't need to worry about it, Cup, the editor got compensated. They earn a salary for the work they do, and the publisher earned their money from the profits on the book; it's not like the editor worked for free, unless it was someone who volunteered to help you.

So basically I'm fretting over something I need not fret over. Gotcha. Focusing too much on what REALLY is the ETHICAL way of doing things (to the point of talking myself into circles) is a side effect of too many philosophy classes. Or lack of sleep. Or maybe the drinking I did the other night. Nah, I'm gonna go with the philosophy classes. LOL!

I suppose an editor of a big publishing outfit could be considered to have gotten compensated for their work, but when it comes to small, on-line pubs, I'd rethink that, Marguerite. An author's appreciation that I'm helping is often all that keeps me going.

The book is dropped when its earning potential there is over. If the publisher didn't earn enough to cover what they paid the editor there is the risk of doing business. Although technically the publisher still owns the edits many will allow their use if asked. However it does pay to keep a raw copy of each work just in case.

The book is dropped when its earning potential there is over. If the publisher didn't earn enough to cover what they paid the editor there is the risk of doing business. Although technically the publisher still owns the edits many will allow their use if asked. However it does pay to keep a raw copy of each work just in case. Thanks for the info. I keep everything associated with a title.

I wasn't aware a publisher owned the edits. If it's not in the author's contract that edits become publisher property, I wouldn't believe this to be the case. Besides, if the author was the one doing the work of the revision, technically the work is still the author's. This is a good topic you brought up, Cup. I'm on the side of the author in this. Edits of a work should belong to the author after a work is released back to the author. Who's to say an author wouldn't just edit the novel the same way anyhow, once that author learned more about the writing craft. I think anyone holding edits against the future publishing of a novel is a bit like saying, "I'm keeping your kids hostage forever so you can't leave me." It seems odd to me any publishing house would do that or have such a contract with an author.

I guess I'm assuming editors for companies are paid professionals, and that it's a career where you make a living. I'd be interested to know more about your arrangement with Freya's Bower. Are online pubs so small that they don't have full time employees? It's hard to tell the scale of these enterprises from their web pages.

Regardless of my payscale, I'm a professional when it comes to how I go about editing, lol. I'm with Freya's Bower and Wild Child because I believe the quality of work published through them will lead to better things for them and for me. I'm banking on the future, not banking what I make in the way of money right now. Anyhow, you've got to know that since I've pretty much said I don't make much, I don't do this for the money so I don't frig about with the editing and do a crappy job just to make a quick buck. Besides, pay has nothing to do with how well a manuscript turns out.

View Full Version: Do you let authors know once contract is up?