N THE BUSINESS OF CREATION
| ||
| BOOKWISE | ||
Under the proposed amendment to the Indian Copyright Act, it has been suggested by the powerful music lobby that all creative artists — including composers, musicians, writers and others — be paid a royalty for a fixed period instead of being fobbed off with a one-off deal. The period will be fixed after final discussions between the respective lobbies and the Copyright Board, but the usual rule is that the copyright shall invest with the artist or his successors for “50 years after the author’s death.” Hitherto, the practice has been to pay off the creators once and for all, with no royalties payable thereafter, notwithstanding the fact that their works have had long shelf lives after being put into the market.
Hence the question: are creative artists strong enough to resist the advances offered, without which they may not be able to complete the work to their satisfaction? Also, more importantly, do they stand to lose or to gain if they surrender their royalties against the fees they are given? Of course, the ideal solution for them would be to get both the advance fees (that could be adjusted against their future royalty earnings) and royalties for the period that the book or the work remains alive.
But publishers have not been known to be generous, especially with authors who are still breaking into the market: they have the mistaken notion that they can buy off creative artists at any price — because they know how the market behaves whereas the author doesn’t. For most authors, it is a buyer’s market and there is precious little that can be done if they want their work in print.
As far as authors are concerned, the basic questions are: what is the quantum of the one-off fee and do they have the financial stamina to ward off the advances that might be offered? There is no fixed formula with publishers: they play it by the ear, figuring out the number of copies they could sell at a given price and over a period of time.
It is really a matter of the throw of the dice, but over time, publishers have acquired a gut feeling as to how much the market would take. With this ball-park figure, they work out how much they might safely offer after hedging their bets. It is as much a tough call for them as it is for the author to accept what is offered to him. But for new authors who have not yet become celebrities, it is really small change — ‘take it or leave it.’ Invariably, authors who rely on their writings alone take it by signing off all their rights to the publisher.
What options does an author have if he still wants to have his work published and earn some royalties for his work? First, he must not be totally dependent on royalties from his book that are spread out over the year; he must also be a part-time journalist or a teacher with a fixed income. No publisher takes a full-time writer (unless he is a celebrity) seriously; he knows how helpless such an author is and has no compunctions buying him off at the lowest bargain price.
Second, authors don’t have to go for the big publishers; in fact, it is best to keep away from them because even if they accept the work for publication (and then take a long time deciding whether to publish it or not), they would offer a measly sum as advance and then do a rotten job at distribution. There are a number of smaller publishing houses, run by ex-professionals, that would offer a modest advance and do a much better job of getting the book to the people who matter. And that’s what matters for a writer breaking ground.
| ||
| RAVI VYAS | ||
Article Link
No comments:
Post a Comment