Live data from Hacker News

We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

authorsguild.org

11–20 of 62 posts

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#11
post #7

I 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…

> tying compensation to total sales numbers, tying compensation to milestones, or even just lowballing them.

Author contracts already do all of those things. Advances have gotten lower and lower over the years ("lowballing them"), and typically pay out incrementally at various phases of completion ("compensation to milestones"). Once the book is done, most of the author's compensation comes from royalties ("tying compensation to total sales numbers").

Authors are already highly incentivized not to commit "moral turpitude" because doing so will tank sales of their book and thus their royalties.

Publishers aren't adding morals clauses to incentivize authors. It's just another example of the classic move a large corporation in a position of power trying to grab even more power. If they could get away with it, publishers would add a clause to every contract saying, "We can demand your advance back at any time for any reason or no reason at all, just because we feel like it."

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#12
post #10

Good 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 b…

Humans of all kinds are bad about seeing beyond their own noses.

Having principles is hard when it might apply to / benefit someone you don't like.

That's not applicable to any particular group, it's a human problem.

I often wonder when talking to folks who I agree with:

How much does this person really think about this topic... and how much do they just think that this bad thing we don't like is bad because that guy did it? And would they be dismissive if someone we agreed with generally did the exact same thing?

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#13
post #10

Good 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 b…

The most disappointing is the XKCD comic, which people still wave around. Being shouted down by the mob on a private platform isn't something to be applauded. And it isn't just "showing someone the door", as the comic puts it.

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#14
I worked for an electronics manufacturer that had a morality clause that extended to personal behavior outside of work that is legal. this is the classic “fired because bachelorette party pics on fb” situation. it was long enough ago, and i was young enough not to understand the implications

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#15
post #6
post #4

Nicely timed to post this on the day of the Weinstein conviction.

Isn’t it rather about the Woody Allen contract?

Yes, I suspect that brought it to the fore.

Of course I'm sure if you looked over the back catalog of many publishers you'd see a huge number of (successful) books with highly questionable authors and they didn't mind publishing those. Howard Marks and "Mad" Frankie Fraser spring to mind.

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#16
post #7

I 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…

>If the publishers are truly scared that the author's behavior could lose them substantial amounts of money

The risk is not recouping their investment, but rather degrading the overall enterprise value of their entire publishing business through bad PR. Unless the author agrees to tie their pay to the performance of the entire enterprise (which why would you), something like a morality clause is a better option.

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#17
The goal of a publisher is to make money selling books. There are many books that publishers do not publish because of concerns that the book will not be a net positive to profits. Authors are free to self-publish, and it has never been easier to do so. Authors with no name recognition have been very successful at reaching large audiences. Woody Allen is already famous and could easily self-publish.

It seems like Woody Allen prefers the legitimacy that comes along with being published by a publishing company. Woody Allen can self-publish his book like many other authors do. I think the issue is less about "freedom of speech" (which Woody Allen has) and more about "legitimacy of an author's writings" (which I think is what Woody Allen is actually seeking given the claims that he sexually abused his daughter). If a publisher chooses not to publish because they don't want their brand used to legitamize an author's claims, is that a violation of free speech when the author is free to publish it elsewhere?

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#18
post #9
post #7

I 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…

> Publishers front nearly all of the deelopment costs of the book

The largest development cost for a book is the labor to write the book, and the training required to be able to do so, and that is fronted entirely by the author.

Advances tend to be very small and are a loan from the publisher to the author. Printing costs have been going down for decades. Print on demand now means that publishers have complete control over choosing a printing cost that minimizes their risk and matches their projected sales. Editing is a cost, but is relatively small compared to writing the book.

> There is a name for that sort of arrangement; it's called a "vanity press".

That term arose in the time before print-on-demand where an author really did have to sink significant capital into printing their own book. Likewise, before digital distribution, a vanity press author was unlikely to be able to get their book in many stores. Choosing to self-publish a book that couldn't get picked up by a traditional publisher was an indication that the author was doing something for their own enrichment more than for good financial reasons because they were unlikely to recoup those costs.

But self-publishing today requires little capital investment and it's trivial for a self-published book to be widely distributed. That means it's much more possible for an author to be making a sound financial choice to self publish.

> 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.

The Author's guild says:

> Regular Membership: Traditionally published authors with at least 1 published book in the U.S.; self-published authors who have made at least $5,000 in the past 18 months from their writing; and freelance writers who have published 3+ pieces or made $5,000 in the past 18 months.

SFWA says:

> A published work of fiction of a minimum of 40,000 words either sold to a small press or self-published for which the author can demonstrate net income of at least $3,000 over the course of a year since January 1, 2013. Income can be in the form of advance, royalties, or some combination thereof or;

RWA just says:

> Per RWA policy, all prospective members must provide proof that they are seriously pursuing a career in romance writing in order to qualify for General membership. Either of the following serve as proof: One complete original work of romance fiction of at least 20,000 words. Multiple complete original works of romance fiction* which combine for a total of at least 20,000 words.

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#19
As someone that has grown to have a more moderate view over free speech over time, I think morals clauses truly do have two sides.

There are behaviors that most everyone finds reprehensible, and when someone commits them we want to be able to shun them, to remove our connection.

There are many times in the past when this shunning has been abused to censor or otherwise oppress others.

Generally people feel like they believe the latter part is the most important part...until something occurs in the former part.

As a solution to this dilemma, some advocate strong "non-moral" stances (ala "free speech") where everyone can do as they want, unrestricted. That used to be my answer. But I've come around to believing that if society doesn't apply a means of guidance/restriction/social repercussions the void will be filled with emergent results (i.e. ugliness). Abused rules are abusive, but a lack of a set of rules doesn't lead to peace, it leads to warlords and those least willing to restrain their own actions in the name of empathy gaining the most power.

I don't have the right answers, but I'm confident that walking away from the questions is not the right answer.

Re: We oppose morals clauses in book contracts (2019)

#20

The goal of a publisher is to make money selling books. There are many books that publishers do not publish because of concerns that the book will not be a net positive to profits. Authors are free to self-publish, and it has never been easier to do so. Authors with no name recognition have been very successful at reaching large audiences. Woody Allen is already famous and could easily self-publish. It seems like Woo…

While what you say is true, the book publisher would already be covered if the clause merely covered illegal acts. Also, it's not as if the book publisher didn't know about Woody Allen's issues before they took the contract.

More fundamentally, everything you mention could as well be turned around the other way. What if, after signing the contract, the author decided they didn't like the publisher's reputation, and wanted to terminate the contract and self-publish? I expect the publisher would say something like, "hey, we have a contract! that's an obligation on your part!" If the author wanted an equally vague "morals clause" regarding the publisher, which gave the author an out to cancel the contract whenever they deemed it advisable, the publisher would not agree to such a clause.

Post reply on HN