We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)
authorsguild.org
We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)
1–10 of 62 posts
Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)
#2More accurate would be saying that they oppose vague morals clauses.
Which is quite reasonable to do, otherwise in the age of twitter shitstorms this is free "get out of contract" card.
Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)
#3More accurate would be saying that they oppose vague morals clauses. Which is quite reasonable to do, otherwise in the age of twitter shitstorms this is free "get out of contract" card.
That's very similar to the reasons why I oppose codes of ethics. There's nothing wrong with being ethical and moral - but in these cases, it's just a pretext used by bureaucrats to attain even more power.
Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)
#4Nicely timed to post this on the day of the Weinstein conviction.
Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)
#5See also, the BBC's radioshow on cancel culture and purity spirals, particularly the second half which details the progressive hollowing out of YA fiction publishing by sensitivity readers and the arcane rules of cultural appropriation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000d70h
Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)
#6Nicely timed to post this on the day of the Weinstein conviction.
Isn’t it rather about the Woody Allen contract?
Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)
#7I would go so far as to say that these clauses aren't even slimy, they're just lazy. If the publishers are truly scared that the author's behavior could lose them substantial amounts of money, then there have existed for decades far more terrestrial constructs for them to use - tying compensation to total sales numbers, tying compensation to milestones, or even just lowballing them. To tie their compensation to what is essentially a form of censorship hands disproportional power to the publishers, is subject to lawsuit, and is entirely asinine.
Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)
#8Nicely timed to post this on the day of the Weinstein conviction.
Isn’t it rather about the Woody Allen contract?
This raises an interesting question as to whether authors should be able to have "publisher morals clauses" in book contracts.
If an author feels that their publisher is demonstrating moral turpitude (by for example, publishing Woody Allen's memoir), in a way that will harm sales of the author's book, should the author be able to get out of the contract?
At the very least, I think the author's guild has a strong claim that asymmetric morals clauses are bad. A publisher shouldn't be able to hold authors to a standard that they themselves are not beholden too.
Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)
#9I would go so far as to say that these clauses aren't even slimy, they're just lazy. If the publishers are truly scared that the author's behavior could lose them substantial amounts of money, then there have existed for decades far more terrestrial constructs for them to use - tying compensation to total sales numbers, tying compensation to milestones, or even just lowballing them. To tie their compensation to what…
Publishers front nearly all of the deelopment costs of the book --- e.g., the advance, the printing costs, whatever editing work that gets done, etc. Publishers don't have to pay all of these costs; they could make the authors front all of those costs, which reduces their risk. There is a name for that sort of arrangement; it's called a "vanity press".
But funny thing, most authors don't want to use vanity press, and most writer's guilds don't consider publication by a vanity press to be a valid criteria for membership in the Author's Guild, Science Fiction Writer's Association, Romance Writer's Association, etc.
Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)
#10Good on them.
I don’t know what the hell is happening but I don’t understand how people who support the ACLU and every other 90s liberal who supported free speech unencumbered can now get on board with this censorship which shamelessly hides behind “private cos are not the gov, so it’s not real censorship.
You don’t have to like the people, you can hate them, despise them, shame them whatever, but people should not be silenced.
We’re going to regret this short sighted spiral into self imposed censorship.