Longer online version: print version here

Children’s non-fiction publishers easing off on rights grabs

PUBLISHERS of children's non-fiction (CNF) books have long insisted on authors assigning all rights - and the authors have equally long complained that this is not necessary. If a publisher wants to pay a flat fee rather than royalties, fine, negotiate the size of the fee - but don't deprive the author of, er, authorship.

Indeed, in a discussion among authors of such books one recently wrote: "It is absolutely routine for publishers to refuse to let authors keep copyright. No amount of being insistent works and we've mostly given up asking as there's no way it's going to happen."

But - wait! Another came back: "To offer a glimmer of hope: I know that a lot of CNF publishers are now paying royalties - and allowing authors to keep the copyright (not the same thing, as I am frequently reminded).

"I haven't managed to negotiate it yet myself but I know from occasionally still being on the other side that it's far more usual than it was say 10 years ago, and not just for projects that are entirely the author's idea. I wonder whether the fact that the current fashion is so very much in favour of books entirely illustrated by one illustrator, which further underlines the inherent unfairness of illustrators retaining rights and getting royalties while authors don't. So really I'm just saying, keep pushing, every time."

She expands: "I'm told it's down to the burgeoning foreign markets - where I get virtually all my sales. Having said that there are still many fee-only all-rights-to-the-publisher projects and we writers say yes to these because we need to pay our bills, develop our craft and get our name out there. I see no shame in it provided writers agree to a good fee."

Yet another confirmed that: "having worked for many years as a fee-only author - losing copyright - I now only work on royalty projects and do fine. The market has changed and there are more opportunities for CNF royalties. Having said that, the blatant copying of creative ideas is still rife."