SFWA warning on Perpetual License for Derivative Rights

Brian G Turner

Fantasist & Futurist
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Messages
26,711
Location
UK
SFWA has warned that some small magazines in particular are sending out contracts which include a Perpetual License for Derivative Rights:
Writer Beware®: The Blog: Contract Red Flag Alert: Perpetual License for Derivative Rights

To quote:

The risks of signing such contracts can be serious. To give examples of some of the negative impact of these rights grabs.

1) Dramatic rights are compromised, limiting the author's ability to sell works for TV and film use because the author can no longer offer exclusive rights to the story, which means movie or TV producers who want exclusive dramatic rights are not likely to be interested in the work. The best case scenario is that the author may end up having to give the publisher of the magazine a cut of any income.

2) Marketing rights are compromised, in that any marketing deal could be undercut by the publisher, who would also have the ability to market those rights.

3) The ability of the author to publish sequels is compromised. The Publisher could commission sequels to the work from another writer, in competition with the author. Even if the Publisher were required pay a fee to the author for a sequel written by another writer, the existence of such competitive sequels would likely seriously hurt the author's own sequels.

4) The author would have a de facto business partner for the rest of the author's life and beyond for the life of copyright. Whether or not a clueless publisher would even realize what they've acquired or have any idea how to exploit it, the specter would hover over the author's further use of any elements in the original story. In addition, if the publisher files for bankruptcy, any rights the publisher held would likely become part of its assets sold during the bankruptcy process. The author would then end up with a completely unknown business partner.

5) Even with a perfectly drafted contract, which seems unlikely with a publisher who would propose such a contract in the first place, it could easily take years of legal action to unscramble the competing rights.
 
To me this highlights why things like reading contracts should be something taught in schools.

Companies always write contracts to benefit themselves and we live in a world where we are so heavily brought up to accept what companies say we should that we don't pause to consider actually reading (or understanding if one does read it); nor to even consider haggling or countering the offered contract.

It's something that has sneaked in and has a very strong hold now; retail wise I've grown up with price labels; barcodes and the internet. All three of which basically discourage any form of bartering; to say nothing of the fact that in the highstreet many staff are not empowered to do deals or haggle (does anyone haggle at Tesco's for their weeks shopping)
Contracts are another; most of us sign many of them for a variety of things, but we never stop to pause to consider making a counter-offer on, say, an electric bill contract. Of course sometimes its not practical to do so, but it subtly teaches us to simply accept a contract at face value - if that's what it says then that is what we "have" to accept if we want to do business with that entity.

I'm actually reminded of an amusing case that made it to the TV News of someone who did send back a counter-offer contract to a major firm who simply approved without reading to see the edited changes. If I recall the changed conditions were heavily in favour of the client and possibly might have been a little over the top (ergo it was more to prove a point).



We get worse in photography where many "competitions" are basically a huge rights grab. Not just wanting a licence to distribute for a year or such, but a perpetual "any reason" "any medium" licence for all submissions. The company knowing that they will then harvest a whole load of entrants and hand out a very modest prize that is nothing like what they'd pay for the photos if paying proper fees.
Of course sometimes its also that the legal team hired just sends out a heavily biased contract when asked "hey draft up a legal thingy for this" and the company goes with it (because that's what legal/lawyers approved) without appreciating what they are actually getting (ergo they grab the rights but don't actually realise they have).
 
I'm actually reminded of an amusing case that made it to the TV News of someone who did send back a counter-offer contract to a major firm who simply approved without reading to see the edited changes. If I recall the changed conditions were heavily in favour of the client and possibly might have been a little over the top (ergo it was more to prove a point).

An amusing case, I'd like to be entertained - and possibly educated. Can you share it? Might be instructive for the rest of us :)
 
Bagpuss that's basically all I can remember. It was one of those "short news fill-in stories" so it wasn't super detailed nor containing great revelations. Chances are googling the concept will throw up many examples of people who have done it in a variety of ways.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top