Self-Publishing Review

Trad Author Goes Indie and Back

scottnicholson — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:26:35 +0000

There is a lot of passionate discussion about whether self-publishing is a valid career move. I’ve learned that instead of wasting time trying to win converts, I’ll simply follow what I believe, based on the evidence I have at this point.

To wit:
1) I will make more on my backlist first novel THE RED CHURCH this year than I did from its original advance. In other words, in the year it took the book to get through “traditional production.” And I can do whatever I want with it, forever.

2) My later publishing contracts tied up my rights for seven years even though the books were left for dead after a couple of years, therefore I am losing five years of potential income. In other words, I’ve actually lost money instead of earned money by publishing midlist books.

3) Many agents and publishers generally only want you to write one book a year, for their own reasons. You can sneak around it with a pen name, but unless you are JA Konrath/Joe Kimball/Jack Kilborn and display all the names, you have to work to get name rec for each. Now, NY won’t COMPENSATE you for the books they don’t want you to write. But you can certainly compensate yourself.

4) You are generally expected to write only one type of book and stick with it. Look how long it took Joe to break out as Jack Kilborn.

5) Instead of wondering about hundreds of elements beyond my control that will affect my career as a writer, I can now see the daily income and projected revenues and weigh that against the investment of time and passion. I can hope my NY lottery ticket gets plucked or I can publish 10 books and be making more than I do in my day job. I can do simple math. If I had the rights to my published books and released those I am shopping, I would have more than 10 books. And don’t think I ain’t thinking about it.

6) Any ebooks I publish on my own will give me 100 percent of net. Any book I publish through a major publisher will give me 50 percent net at best, 15 percent at worst, and that’s even assuming an advance earns out. Giving away 85 percent for virtually an entire career doesn’t inspire me.

7) Now that I know I can find whatever audience I deserve, judged on nothing but quality and talent and my willingness to connect with my audience, I am more inspired than I have ever been–to take chances, to try new things, to strive for art, to write without thought of what one or two people in New York will think. Working-class fiction is an idea I can get behind.

While I believe those who publish through traditional means will still fare the best overall, I can’t help but wonder if getting published was the worst thing I ever did for my writing career.

9) I’ll still sell in New York if I can.

10) I will still self-publish even if I sell in New York.

11) I care not one bit about stigma or what other writers, agents, and publishers think of me–I care only about what’s best for my career and how best to reach my audience.

The Real Source of Self-Publishing Stigma

Zoe Winters — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:05:25 +0000

So here is the thing…

There is a lot of talk about the “stigma” of self-publishing. But for the most part this stigma is rather contained. For example:

Mainstream Publishers/Agents: They don’t really care whether you self-publish or not. I mean think about this for a moment. If you’re self-publishing, you’re one less manuscript in their slush pile. If you fail, they don’t have to deal with you. If you succeed, then you are a proven quantity to them… a sure thing, which is something publishers like. So exactly why would they care? Publishers and agents reject bad writing all the time. They don’t remember the bad writing because they see so much of it, it all bleeds together (from one of the horses’ mouths.)

Agents DO discourage self-publishing very often on their blogs and such, but the stigma doesn’t really flow from them. More about that in a minute…

And while there is much talk about how if you self-publish you’ll ruin your future chances at a career because bookstores won’t order your books from a publisher because your self-pubbed books sold so poorly, that’s not a very strong argument and I’d like someone to bring in an actual bookstore book purchaser to confirm this. BOOKS are all returnable inside the brick and mortar bookstore system. They don’t HAVE to assess risk with a major publisher.

Chances are really good they NEVER stocked your book. So… if you’ve got bad sales, and since everyone claims brick and mortar distribution is Distribution Mecca, then… oh gee, maybe they’ll “get” that it may be a distribution issue and not that the book isn’t good. The double standards out there are astounding. Either way though, with a major publisher backing a book and taking their sales people around, do you really think bookstores are doing intensive background checks? Who cares if you self-pubbed a book?

Bookstores: With bookstores the stigma isn’t so much stigma as shelf-space. While it’s a common belief that self-published books can’t get shelved on brick and mortar bookstore shelves, this is BS. There is a vetting process whereby small press and self-published authors can get their books vetted and into the store, even the MAJOR chains. I know of many self-pubbed authors whose books are sitting on major bookstore shelves.

But if you WANT that, you have to do the legwork necessary. You have to produce a quality book and you have to get into Ingram and Baker and Taylor (the primary distributors of the book trade), but it can be done. At the end of the day it isn’t “stigma” that keeps a self-pubbed book off a bookstore shelf… it is the self-publishing author’s lack of education about the process to do it or willingness to do it, or the quality of their book. Plain as that.

Also, even if you can’t get on bookstore shelves, you should ask yourself whether or not this is something that’s necessary for you. The bookstore returns system can cannibalize your sales and for a small operator, that might not be the place you want to be at. Especially not in the beginning as an indie. Though your mileage may vary.

So far we’ve established that agents, publishers, and bookstores don’t really “care” whether or not you self-publish. If you’ll note bookstores don’t start big blogs ranting and whining about self-publishing. Neither do publishers. In fact, many are open to the idea of finding authors to sign among those who are successfully self-publishing. They understand due to distribution issues that it’s still hard for an indie to sell a lot of books and they adjust their expectations accordingly. While agents may discourage writers from self-publishing… it would kind of be contradictory to their business model to do anything else. It’s called self-interest, folks, not empirical reality.

If an author self-publishes and THEN gets picked up by a publisher, the agent wasn’t needed to scout out and find the talent. The author is then the one in the power chair. And that author is unlikely to call up that agent for representation. They may call AN agent, or they may call an intellectual property lawyer to handle their contract. But the important part in this scenario is that the author has the power, not the agent… more about that in a minute.

Now granted, the odds of succeeding as an indie are slim (but the odds of succeeding ANYWAY are slim.) If you’ve got the goods, you’ve got them, no matter how you publish. Agents have to wade through a lot of crap to find gems but right now their job is still necessary. If all hopefuls were to start self-publishing, or even if ENOUGH of them did, that publishers got all the work they needed from successfully self-published books, then the agents’ job description all but disappears.

Most of the “self-publishing stigma” hinges on the idea that all self-published books are bad and written by deluded morons who can’t really write. The moment enough truly GOOD writers buck the system and self-publish, this stops being true. In order for the stigma to continue, it must remain a self-fulfilling prophecy. And in order for THAT to happen, everyone WITHIN the system must heavily discourage anyone working outside it by appealing to their vanity and their fear of being ostracized from the community.

And if the agent’s job doesn’t completely disappear (i.e. they could go back to just doing what they were supposed to be doing: contract negotiation), their perceived power among writers does, because then their position in the system as the writer’s employee, is reinforced. I believe many of the agents out there on the Internet who verbally abuse the writer community every change they get, enjoy this false power they’ve been temporarily granted. But, if there is an easier and more drama-free way for publishers to find talent, besides the slush pile and agents, then agents go back to being employees and not a second round of gatekeeper.

I find it insane that while many in traditional publishing will pontificate about how indie authors aren’t “vetted,” GUESS WHAT? Agents aren’t vetted. Anyone can call themselves an agent and a bad agent is worse than no agent at all. Most top agents aren’t taking on new clients because they don’t have to. They’ve got enough good authors making them plenty of money.

Reviewers: What about all the review sources who won’t review your book? Another myth. There ARE self-pubbed books that are reviewed in major sources. If you do things the right way the issue of whether or not your book is self-published shouldn’t even come up. i.e. You have an imprint that isn’t YOUR name (like not Sally’s Books), you have a professional-quality book, and you’re presenting yourself as a professional.

You may still not get reviewed, but… it’s not because of the stigma of self-publishing. It’s because of ALL the books out there and how competitive it is. Most trad published books don’t get reviewed in major sources either. Also, most major sources for reviews are drying up and being replaced by the voice of readers on book reviewer blogs that gain a following. It is a WHOLE different landscape out there, and yet many are still functioning as if it’s 1999.

Readers: I don’t care what anyone says, readers are why writers write. There is no other reason. If you want to make money you can find something that will pay you far better than writing. Writing is what you do because you have something to express and share with the world. So reader opinions? The buck stops with them I’m afraid.

You just can’t delete readers from the equation no matter how much the industry seems to want to. They are the end consumer of the book. And the more the traditional publishing system abuses and disregards the wants and needs of the readers, the more readers will shrug and go find other entertainment options, whether it be small press and indie books, or reality TV. Either way, they’ll get tired of the shit eventually.

So what do readers think? Well, for the most part, since most of them aren’t exposed to bad self pubbed work, since crap doesn’t rise to the top, they don’t care. They don’t know who your publisher is and they don’t care who your publisher is. While there are SOME readers who have either somehow been exposed to a lot of bad self-pubbed work and got a bad taste in their mouth over it, or who are plugged in enough to the pulse of the publishing industry that they have become influenced by the “stigma”, most readers don’t know about all this bullshit politics. Nor do they really care one way or the other.

You don’t have to overcome reader objections to your method of publication if you produce a quality book. The reason you don’t is that publishers never branded THEMSELVES. No one knows who Dan Brown or Stephen King’s publisher is… or not average readers anyway. They don’t know the different imprint names or publisher names for most mainstream-produced book. They can’t tell a small press imprint, from a division of a larger well-known publisher. SOME of them, can’t even tell AuthorHouse from Random House (This one is Henry Baum’s brilliance, not my own.)

So you don’t have to overcome reader issues. In fact, if I didn’t interact at all with the writing community on the Internet, and just went about my business self-publishing, I’d never run into any drama whatsoever about my method of publication. I choose, for better or worse, to get into the debates that I do, because while I know I won’t change the pig-headed views of the person I’m talking with most likely, I *may* influence the view of someone reading who hasn’t made up their mind yet. And that, to me, is worth it.

Okay… so if the source of the stigma isn’t “really” agents, publishers, bookstores, reviewers, or readers, what is it?

OTHER WRITERS.

Traditionally published authors who get bent out of shape about self-publishing, may, in fact, have a partly altruistic motive of protecting authors from making bad business decisions, though I think the better alternative is to teach a writer how to assess business risk, rather than making up asinine rules like “money always flows to the author.”

However, don’t ever be led to believe it is merely altruism that causes a traditionally published author to rail against self-publishing. Self-publishing is a threat. It doesn’t matter that a lot of self-published work is bad… many trad pubbed authors suffered through years of rejection to get “accepted.” They have been validated by a certain system.

If it becomes socially acceptable to work outside that system, then where does their validation go? It becomes less valuable because readers already don’t care. Bookstores already don’t care. The only people who REALLY care are other writers. And so it’s important to set up this “cult of truth” for writers and make everyone goose step and ostracize those who don’t.

If someone won’t march in line like the rest, you attack the quality of their writing, their character, and their mental state or capacity. They aren’t good enough, they haven’t been validated, they are lazy or taking a shortcut. They are delusional. They are naive. And if none of that works, you define them as “the exception” and say they shouldn’t encourage anyone else to do what you’re doing. Writers are so desperate for validation that often they will ignore their own will in favor of being accepted by their peers.

But guess what? Indies have their OWN peers.

Unpublished writers generally want to be accepted by those they look up to. And so because the self-published author is the only one “beneath them” on the food chain, they join in the mob to attack as well.

So let’s sum up… in a really competitive industry the stigma against going outside the system is your competition.

Have a different view about that stigma now? The moment you stop associating with these people and focus on the readers, they just fall off your radar. I’ve chosen under this name, to be loud and out there about being indie and to confront stupid arguments head on because I know for many it’s too hard to stand up to the people who have either been elevated or elevated themselves to grand high potentates of publishing.

Though now I need to probably take a bit of a break from arguing, so I can get something worthwhile accomplished… like I don’t know… publishing.

Cross-posted from zoewinters.wordpress.com.

American Apocalypse by Nova

Henry Baum — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:54:42 +0000

The apocalypse no doubt is a huge subject right now in movies and literature, but for the most part apocalypse narratives are the result of war, environmental catastrophe, or disease. American Apocalypse takes a different, and unique, approach – the financial crisis, where the crisis turns into all-out catastrophe.

The novel is similar to Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, in the sense that there is no detailed explanation about how the crisis occurred – it is centered mostly around how people survive the crisis. One of the haunting things about The Road is not understanding just why the apocalypse has occurred – it creates a kind of existential, Kafka-esque sense of doom and mystery. American Apocalypse does not obscure the cause of the meltdown to that degree. Nor should it, because the reasons for the financial crisis are as intriguing a topic as how people would survive an economic calamity. For example, the novel references Wal-Mart ’s eventual collapse because China stops exporting discounted items to the chain due to America’s increased debt, totally collapsing Wal-Mart’s business model. As the state of the economy is on everyone’s mind, the novel is aided by some real prescience.

That said, the novel may have been more effective with some more detail about how the crisis occurred – perhaps offering some prescription about how we can avoid it. What adds some confusion to the mix is that the entire world isn’t in collapse – a lucky few still have jobs and homes, there’s still a government, police force, TV programming, etc. So this juxtaposition could have used further investigation – a macro view of what has happened to the country, as opposed to the micro view of those who have been most-deeply affected.

The problem with offering this type of detail is that the novel could turn into a veiled work of non-fiction or polemic and the book reads very much like a novel with the plights of the characters pushing the book forward. The novel smartly doesn’t take any political stance one way or the other. If people are suddenly thrust into homelessness, political affiliation doesn’t really matter. They just need a place to sleep and something to eat.

The main focus is how everyday people, including rich people, must fend for themselves by any means necessary. The “by any means necessary” means, at times, a wild-west kind of violence. There is a fear in novel like this that it becomes a kind of survivalist revenge fantasy. The novel does veer into that territory, but only slightly – and the violence has more of a Tarantino flair (involving swords) than it does for the type of violence fantasized by the readers of Soldier of Fortune.

What’s particularly refreshing is that the novel doesn’t shy away from the anger a person might feel when thrust into this situation. Often apocalypse stories cover the tragedy, the sadness, and sense of isolation, but do not cover the sense of outrage and indignation, which is why American Apocalypse is a unique addition to the genre. The narrator can be crude – not the writing, which is clean and concise (though there are few typos), but the narrator’s voice – and this is wholly appropriate given the crudeness of his situation.

Overall, American Apocalypse is a page turner, and a great addition to apocalypse lit, covering ground that is not covered by most other apocalyptic fiction. If you love this genre, or you’re at all worried about where the world could be heading, this novel offers both catharsis and a warning.

I asked the author a few questions about the genesis of the novel:

SPR: This novel started out on the site Calculated Risk. What is Calculated Risk and how did this project come to be?

Steve Campbell: Calculated Risk is an economics blog. A very good one too. I started posting on the topics and began writing short, two or three paragraph stories about the topic. One of the stories took on a life of its own. I started writing four or five paragraphs at a time. It was suggested that I just do an excerpt and link to them. I was offered guest posting rights on a new blog and started posting there. Eventually the stories migrated to where they are now.

SPR: How was a work of fiction received on the site?

SC: It was well received. Most of my readers originally were people who read them on Calculated Risk. Many of them have followed the story, offered comments, and stayed with it since it began almost three years ago.

What gave the book a huge initial push was Bill, the owner of CR, who did a review of the book. I think of him as the Oprah of economics blogs.

SPR: The book is more about surviving the new environment than reporting about what led to the crash. Do you see this inevitable or preventable? What’s your prescription for the American Apocalypse to not occur?

SC: I am not an economics major by any means. The story is more about exploring an economic collapse, and how regular people trying to survive one would live in America. It is also a way to explore how society might fracture under extreme stress and what cults or religions might arise.

I also wanted to explore the cowboy archetype and mythology in general. The book is different from most in that I am not suggesting the only way to survive is with guns, God, and hate. If it should happen then self sustaining communities will be the best place to be.

SPR: Why the pen name Nova? Did you want to keep this separate from your other published books?

SC: The pen name came about because that was my user name on Calculated Risk. People associated the story with that name and it was easier to stay with it.

My other books are about the Holocaust in the east during WWII. Especially the role of the German security forces. I have written about 220 pages so far on a book about the role of the German security forces, especially the Schutzpolizei, in the Baltic that I hope to finish someday. Very different subjects, but in many ways, at least for the story I am writing, there are some common threads.

SPR: Did you try to get this book traditionally published, or consider it?

SC: I was rejected by almost every agent listed on the Internet. Sometimes twice.

SPR: American Apocalypse is called Book One. What’s coming in Book Two?

SC: I think Book Two is a lot better book. The characters are trying to build a community in West Virgina as the economy becomes progressively worse. The federal government is fighting to maintain its grip as different religions, the old and new, try to establish new power groups. Local services continue to fail due to the loss of tax revenue to fund them at minimum levels. The social safety net, shredded by previous administrations, fails to cushion the fall of people who were previously middle class. America continues its descent to third world squalor.

Check out theamericanapocalypse.blogspot.com.

Note: the author and I traded books, as we both write apocalyptic fiction.

Serious day? Check out the IWS (”Inside the Writers’ Studio”) Blooper Reel

Kristen Tsetsi — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:06:56 +0000

Non-blooper version here.

Good to be Back!

Carol Buchanan — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:03:53 +0000

I’ve been away from Self-Publishing Review for several months, but now that I’ve fulfilled some of the obligations that kept me away, it’s good to be back. The biggest task was judging one of the Spur categories. Two other judges and I read about 30 Western novels, most of which were self-published.

Between a few of the self-published and the traditionally published novels, there was not much difference in quality. That argues against the prejudice that might linger against self-published novels as a category, despite Joseph Wideman’s well-publicized decision that Henry Baum discusses on the front page. The other two judges and I were unanimous in our final recommendations, which will become public by the end of March.

It was fun to participate in the judging because all three of us are passionate about Western literature. We care very much about the future of the Western and how it reflects Westerners’ experience. I thoroughly enjoyed discussing the relative merits of each book. We were all seeking works of literary excellence worthy of receiving the greatest honor Western Writers of America can bestow.

The audience for the traditional Westerns is definitely dwindling, though, the late Robert B. Parker’s Appaloosa notwithstanding. Yet an audience exists for stories laid West of the Mississippi at any time during our history or today. We were pleased to identify fresh approaches to the experience of being a Westerner.

Craig Lancaster’s 600 Hours of a Life, originally self-published as 600 Hours of Edward, is a case in point. Set in Billings, MT, in the present day, it was named an Honor Book by the 2010 Montana Book Awards.

It was a great honor to be asked to help judge a category for the Spur Award by the Western Writers of America. I was always conscious of participating in a tradition that goes back to 1953.

Thank you for the opportunity, WWA.

Happy Read an E-Book Week

Henry Baum — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 19:25:48 +0000

Read an E-book Week is here. Some info:

History – Read an E-Book Week was first registered with Chase’s Calendar of Events in 2004. Chase’s is a day by day directory of special days, weeks and months used by event planners or anyone looking for a reason to celebrate. By having the week officially recognized, e-book authors and publishers acquired a certain extra “legitimacy” during that week to promote the new technology of e-books. The public and media were initially wary of e-books and many doors were closed to promotion. With the week officially recognized by Chase’s, authors reported they now had access to television morning chat shows and were allowed to set up library displays during the week-long event.

Purpose – Read an E-Book Week educates and informs the public about the pleasures and advantages of reading electronically. Authors, publishers, vendors, the media and readers world-wide are welcome to join in the effort. We encourage you to promote electronic reading with any event. These could include: public readings, library displays, reading challenges, school visits, newspaper and blog articles, chat show appearances, internet radio interviews, e-book give-ways, and banners on your website.

I like Cheryl Anne Gardner’s idea over at Pod Peep. Write a comment about your ebook if it’s free or you’ve made it free for the week. The hardworking Peeps’ books:

Journey’s End by Emily Veinglory
The Mars Run by Chris Gerrib
The Kissing Room by Cheryl Anne Gardner

My self-published novels are free (”You set the price”) at Smashwords everyday. So is the PDF for my first novel published by Another Sky Press.

A few of my fellow Backwordians are also offering their books for free:

Carol’s Aquarium and Homefront by Kristen Tsetsi
Waiting for Spring by R.J. Keller
Broken Bulbs by Eddie Wright

Additions:

The Principle of Ultimate Indivisibility by Brent Robison

Sid Valentine by R. Van Saint

Anyone else?

A Literary Author Self-Publishes

Henry Baum — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:34:23 +0000

It’s always been my contention that for self-publishing really to enter the mainstream and be taken seriously as an avenue for all writers, it would have to gain popularity as a medium for literary fiction. That would lend it instant respect and credibility. After all, The Shack has sold two million copies and Still Alice has spent many weeks on the NY Times bestseller list – but still there are some of the same old arguments about self-publishing being a good or bad outlet.

Today there was a really interesting development where two-time winner of the Faulkner Award for fiction, John Edgar Wideman, has chosen to publish his next work with Lulu. From his press release:

Wideman decided against a traditional publishing contract — and royalty advance — for Briefs because he wanted more control over the publishing process and to develop a more direct connection with his readers. He also wanted to experiment at a time when the publishing industry is undergoing more revolution than evolution.

“I’ve been thinking about alternatives for a long time,” said Wideman, whose works of fiction and non-fiction include the award-winning Brothers and Keepers, Philadelphia Fire and Fanon. “Lulu seems to represent a very live possibility as the publishing industry mutates. I like the idea of being in charge. I have more control over what happens to my book. And I have more control over whom I reach.

“I have a very personal distaste for the blockbuster syndrome,” Wideman continued. “The blockbuster syndrome is a feature of our social landscape that has gotten out of hand. Unless you become a blockbuster, your book disappears quickly. It becomes not only publish or perish, but sell or perish.”

Sounds like something written here – or by Lulu’s PR department. The latter issue is what makes this particularly interesting. One gets the sense looking at his Lulu page is that perhaps a very detailed cross-promotional agreement was set up ahead of time. Indeed, Wideman is “the first client of a new Lulu VIP service that is highly customizable and takes care of most pre- and post-production work, including design, media outreach and marketing.”

What’s so interesting is that Wideman could very well get a lot more attention being a self-publishing pioneer than he might otherwise get for his literary collection of micro stories. So it’s not just that he’s self-publishing, but that by self-publishing he can actually get himself more attention, so that’s why he chose to go this route. That’s the vibe I’m getting about this set-up, especially considering the press release comes from Lulu, and not the author himself.

Eventually, situations like this will be less of an anomaly and so won’t get the same kind of attention (see the Publisher’s Weekly article). But by that point, self-publishing will be so commonplace for all types of writers that self-publishers will be able to get attention at a place like Publisher’s Weekly without having to call attention to how the book was published. Of course, by that time there will also be a lot more competition, so people will need to look for new ways to be a pioneer.

Whatever the elements of the agreement between Wideman and Lulu, it’s a serious shot in the arm for self-publishing. Sure, you can still make the argument that it’s hard to sell a self-published book, but you cannot make the argument that it’s only for second-rate writers.

Steal My Sh*t

Jenn Topper — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:00:10 +0000

I had a conversation today with a copyright lawyer, not about anything to copyright, but we were just chatting in general. She asked how my book signing went last week, and that’s how we got to chatting about books. Her husband is a writer, and she mentioned that he’s frustrated. I reveled in my independence and claimed that it’s so much better writing for readers than for contest judges, editors, publishers, and agents. Then I remembered that I’m not earning any money from my creative writing and that may be his objective, thus the frustration. She was stymied when I said I post my content online, in as many places that will have it, for free, rather than waiting for some literary journal to accept it and see it published months later in truncated form, before an audience of 3.

“So how do you protect your stuff?”

“I don’t,” I responded.

“What if someone just distributes it then?”

“God bless ‘em,” I responded.

She was horrified.

“I want as many people to read my stuff as possible, so I hope someone prints it out and posts it everywhere.”

“Oh,” she said, quickly realizing she wasn’t dealing with a copyright portfolio client. “But what about stealing?”

“Shit, I never really thought about that.”

So here are a few things that I started to think about after that conversation:

(1) No one will steal my shit and call it their own. Right? RIGHT? I mean, I write kind of stylized stuff, not totally experimental, but most of it clearly has my creative signature. It’s not genre stuff, either, which I would think may be more commoditized. With a bigger market for commoditized writing, genre fiction has a greater chance of being plagiarized that literary fiction. (Really? I am clearly talking out of my ass right now.)

(2) Does it really matter–in a bad way–if someone steals my shit and makes money off of it? Of course. But let’s get real: it ain’t happening. This came up in a different conversation today I had on twitter with Mark @Ditchwalk about pitching my work to film producers. His quote–and I love this–”…pitching to film producers” = dangling bloody leg in shark pool. Now they WILL steal my shit, and anyone else’s they get their hands on. But THIS is where I want to be. This is where I need to be. I have to take my chances. But really, at this point, no one will make any money off my work. I’d like to think there is some commercial value, but until I get famouser, the last thing I need to worry about is DRM, plagiarism, untamed distribution of my work.

So I registered by manuscripts with the WGA website and will hope for the best [protection] in the event I actually get a major meeting with a producer or some connected so-and-so. I’ll refrain from randomly sending a pitch letter or excerpt to any more ICM agents.

(3) On the issue of pitching, whether to agents/publishers or journals, how much potentially amazing work is out there that we-the-readers-at-large haven’t and most probably won’t see because of these artificial barriers to entry? And what the fuck reason is there for a barrier to entry, anyway? It’s readers, for pete’s sake, people who READ. Oh, right, commerce. *Ahem*. So imagine all of those interesting and creative manuscripts; or experimental novellas; or short fiction; life-changing breakthroughs; or pragmatic how-to books and articles that won’t ever see the light of day because the authors haven’t liberated themselves from the tyranny of the mainstream publishing industry? Fuck, man, that’s depressing. Get your shit out there, any way you can. What can you lose? It’s not like if you’ve published something yourself, or serialized your book in a blog, that the publishers will look at you like a 14-year old tainted virgin.

Or will they, the fuckers?

DIY till death. (Unless of course you’re talking about major motion picture options.)

When a CC License Becomes a PITA, or worse, a Pain in Your Bottom Line…

Cheryl Anne Gardner — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:51:37 +0000

Last week I entered into an unfortunate discussion regarding Creative Commons licensing, free content, and intellectual property theft to the tune of Copyright Hijacking. See the discussion over on Tele-read with author Piotr Kowolcyzk titled: I have a Ghost Publisher at Amazon … Please Help!:

I’ve self-published my two books Password Incorrect and Failure Confirmed through Kindle Digital Text Platform in mid-January, a couple of days after Amazon opened a system to authors from outside USA.

Last Friday I’ve noticed that there is another edition of Password Incorrect, published on Feb 15 – by somebody else. The link to this book is here (I hope it’ll be removed soon). It uses a cover of a free edition, which I’ve published at many places including Feedbooks, Manybooks, Kobo and Wattpad.

I’ve downloaded a free sample – enough to check who originated this edition. A publisher calls himself Sugar Land Press (link to a site is here). I’ve never heard of them before. They have never contacted me referring to this book or anything else. After checking their site and other links they provided in an intro of a book, it looks like thy live on Google ads and affiliate programs, including Amazon Associates. This book, available for free everywhere else, costs $11 ($14,95 outside USA), is terribly formatted and full of other mistakes. I analysed the content and I’m almost sure it was downloaded either from Wattpad or Manybooks.

In light of this, I wanted to talk about Creative Commons licensing because, frankly, this can happen anywhere in any country when authors use file sharing sites like Scribd and Wattpad among others to publish their work for free. Let me clarify a bit, giving away free content and file-sharing are two completely different things. CC Licensing and Free Content are not mutually exclusive. You can allow free downloads of your work and still maintain your standard copyright “all rights reserved.” However, some file share sites like Scribd automatically default to a Creative Commons License, and if the author is not aware of this, they may find themselves in a bit of a pickle. Yes, that share button means “share.”

Readers who frequent file sharing sites often get confused between standard Copyright and Creative Commons Licensing. They assume that because the title is a free to read that it was posted intentionally by the author using a Creative Commons license, which grants the end user license to post and re-distribute the work without permission from the author. But there are many different types of CC licenses and they are also used to allow the creation of derivative works as well allow the sale of the work by third parties not affiliated with the copyright holder. Unfortunately, this is the gamble an author takes when they choose to use file share sites and CC licensing. You have to read the fine print about licensing before you post your work. You also need to know how CC licensing works. The worst case scenario with CC licensing is that, on occasion, the end user assumes they are free to do what they will with the content.

In the case of Mr. Kowolcyzk’s work, the end-user listed the title for sale on Kindle alongside the author’s original. The listing appeared under the Sugar Land Press name and even went so far as to slap a standard copyright notice “all rights reserved” on the work, which is illegal, since creative commons work can only be re-distributed and used under the same license it was originally obtained.

So is it illegal for the end user to sell someone else’s content? Well, it depends on the creative commons license that was used when the material was published on the file share site. Authors should be sure that the same licenses are being used consistently no matter the publication location. Unless the license specifically was an: Attribution/Non Commercial (By-NC) then the end user can turn around and sell it — legally. However, they have to attribute you as the author, and while they can sell it, they cannot claim themselves as the copyright holder, as the nature of a CC license is that it is non-exclusive and irrevocable.

From CreativeCommons.org

Work licensed under a Creative Commons License is protected by applicable copyright law. This allows Creative Commons licenses to be applied to all work protected by copyright law, including: books, plays, movies, music, articles, photographs, blogs, and websites. However, the license may not modify the rights allowed by fair use or fair dealing or exert restrictions which violate copyright exceptions. Furthermore, Creative Commons Licenses are non-exclusive and non-revocable. Any work or copies of the work obtained under a Creative Commons license may continue to be used under that license. In the case of works protected by multiple Creative Common Licenses, the user may choose either.

So to recap, once you CC a work, you cannot take it back. This is why I strongly advise authors against a CC-BY or a CC-BY-SA license if they plan to sell the work commercially at a later time. Actually, you can use a standard copyright license and still give your work away for free. It eliminates this problem entirely. But watch those file share sites, some of them default to a CC license only and once you are in, you cannot revoke it.

There are six major licenses of the Creative Commons:

Attribution (CC-BY)
Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA)
Attribution No Derivatives (CC-BY-ND)
Attribution Non-Commercial (CC-BY-NC)
Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike (CC-BY-NC-SA)
Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND)

There are four major conditions of the Creative Commons: Attribution (BY), requiring attribution to the original author; Share Alike (SA), allowing derivative works under the same or a similar license (later or jurisdiction version); Non-Commercial (NC), requiring the work is not used for commercial purposes; and No Derivative Works (ND), allowing only the original work, without derivatives.[12]

As of the current versions, all Creative Commons licenses allow the “core right” to redistribute a work for non-commercial purposes without modification. The NC and ND options will make a work non-free.

As of 2010, all current licenses require attribution of the original author. The attribution must be given to “the best of [one's] ability using the information available”. Generally this implies the following:

Include any copyright notices (if applicable). If the work itself contains any copyright notices placed there by the copyright holder, those notices must be left intact, or reproduced them in a way that is reasonable to the medium in which the work is being re-published.

Cite the author’s name, screen name, or user ID, etc. If the work is being published on the Internet, it is nice to link that name to the person’s profile page, if such a page exists.

Cite the work’s title or name (if applicable), if such a thing exists. If the work is being published on the Internet, it is nice to link the name or title directly to the original work.

Cite the specific CC license the work is under (optional). If the work is being published on the Internet, it is nice if the license citation links to the license on the CC website.

Mention if the work is a derivative work or adaptation, in addition to the above, one needs to identify that their work is a derivative work i.e., “This is a Finnish translation of the [original work] by [author].” or “Screenplay based on [original work] by [author].”

Walt Gordon Jones explains everything nicely on his site in simple terms, and he has some suggestions for attacking the issue of license violations. The author will always remain the legal copyright owner. CC doesn’t replace Copyright. The author does lose the “all rights reserved” clause, but the end user does not gain them.

On a final note: I remember researching Feedbooks.com for a blog post last year when I was deciding myself if I was going to ebook my work, if my memory serves me, and in the end I had decided not to list my work with them because of a oddly worded clause in their terms of service, which states:

4. Intellectual Property Rights
FeedBooks being registered in France, the content of the Website is subject to the French legislation on copyrights and other intellectual property rights. However, the electronic books offered for reading are free from copyrights as, in accordance with the legislation of France, the said books fall in the public domain.

The wording here gives the impression that any/all the electronic books listed on their site are in the public domain. This can be very confusing and lead to issues with copyright infringement. So always check your file share site for ambiguous language.

I think the Creative Commons has its place in the world. Some authors have had a lot of success getting the word out by allowing file-sharing and derivative works. I just think authors need to be careful with CC licensing and make sure they choose the right license for the right work. Not to mention most readers are just as uneducated about CC licensing, and the ones that understand it know exactly what they can get away with and how to exploit it. If an end user violates your license, they lose it, and you can pursue for infringement. That’s the bottom line. So don’t let your work get away from you.

Zoe Winters shares her frustration with CC licensing as well.

Cross posted by Cheryl Anne Gardner from the PodPeople Blog

Writers and grandiose delusional disorder

Kristen Tsetsi — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:14:06 +0000

The American Psychological Association estimates that each year thousands of writers suffer from delusions of inflated worth, knowledge, and identity. In our latest episode of “Inside The Writers’ Studio,” we visit one such author, R.J. Keller, as she is interviewed by a hair-obsessed reporter.