Should Ronin Arts Submit to Monte Cook's "Year's Best?"

[Monte At Home]

For what it's worth, Spectrum is our main model, because Spectrum requires submissions. Spectrum doesn't pay, and in fact requires a submission fee .

I like the Spectrum-style submissions system (fiction collections don't usually use that method) for this book because I don't want to use anything that someone doesn't want me to use. It would have been far more straightforward to just scour everyone's OGC and use that without telling anyone ahead of time (or paying anything), but that doesn't appeal to me for Golden Rule type reasons.

One of the main reasons we chose not to give a nominal payment (and lets be honest, this is the game industry--it would have to be only nominal) is that the nominal payment wouldn't even be going to the actual designer. 99% of the work in the game industry is work for hire with the publisher gaining all rights. Lets say we pay 4 cents a word--which is more than many publishers pay for all rights, for original material, neither of which we're getting in this instance. If we use your 100 word feat, that's $4. As a publisher, is that kind of money really making or breaking this for you? I doubt it.

Honestly, the way our industry works, as opposed to say the fiction industry, makes doing this hard. We want to reward the creators, but it's the publishers we have to appeal to because they own the copyright. I suspect Spectrum found themselves in a similar situation, because of the way art rights work (but I could be wrong).

So we decided to handle this by giving the publisher a copy of the finished book, and physical awards (certificates) for the publisher and the author.

Edit: And, to answer your question, Phil, you know I like a lot of your stuff, and I've said so publicly. Of course I think you should submit something.

 

[C. Baize]

So really, whether the lack of a fee is a deal-breaker should depend on where you an author sees himself in the industry right now. If you see yourself as a name in your own right, you can reasonably be expected to be paid in something other than exposure. If not, not.

If Monte were doing a book with contributions from Sean K. Reynolds, Bruce Cordell, Chris Pramas, and Gary Gygax, no doubt they'd all be getting paid for their work. They don't need any exposure. Whether you do is up to you.

You should be paid for your content. He will be.

For your first point... Skarka's point is rebuttal, enough. If Monte is making money on someone else's work, that someone else SHOULD be paid for it. That's just a matter of ethics. Saying, "Hey... *I* am putting my name with your product... that should be payment enough." is egomania at its worst, and it needs to be quashed with maximum prejudice. I don't care who the person is... that's belittling patronization at best.

For your second point... I don't care if they're Chris Pramas, or Gary Gygax, or Dave Arneson, or Odin himself... they're no more "deserving" of payment for their work than any other contributor.

 

[GMSkarka]

More on the topic:

"Years Best" compilations that Monte mentions in his essay all pay their contributors.

The "billions of poetry books" you mention that don't are well-known scams done as efforts to get the contributors to buy copies for themselves and their families. Check out the "writer beware" pages of sites like the SFWA for more info.

Even IF you were going to allow the argument that somebody who needs exposure shouldn't be paid (which makes zero sense, since even brand new amateur writers get paid for contributions they make to published works)...we're not talking about amateur writers here...he's specifically asking for material from PUBLISHERS. I wouldn't call somebody who is ALREADY in the publishing business an amateur.

Will it generate exposure? Sure.

Is that exposure worth signing over the rights to your Product Identity materials, with zero pay?

Only if you're either incredibly naive, or just don't understand what it is that you're doing.

 

[C. Baize]

For what it's worth, Spectrum is our main model, because Spectrum requires submissions. Spectrum doesn't pay, and in fact requires a submission fee.

That's interesting... do they use those submission fees to go towards some monetary award?

Otherwise, I don't see the point.

 

[GMSkarka]

For what it's worth, Spectrum is our main model, because Spectrum requires submissions. Spectrum doesn't pay, and in fact requires a submission fee .

I stand corrected on that, then. I thought they did pay for single-use.

One of the main reasons we chose not to give a nominal payment (and lets be honest, this is the game industry--it would have to be only nominal) is that the nominal payment wouldn't even be going to the actual designer. 99% of the work in the game industry is work for hire with the publisher gaining all rights. Lets say we pay 4 cents a word--which is more than many publishers pay for all rights, for original material, neither of which we're getting in this instance. If we use your 100 word feat, that's $4. As a publisher, is that kind of money really making or breaking this for you? I doubt it.

No, that kind of money doesn't really make or break a publisher...however, as it stands you're also getting PI out of the deal. That's a whole 'nother ball of wax, and one in which getting even a nominal fee would make more sense.

We want to reward the creators, but it's the publishers we have to appeal to because they own the copyright. I suspect Spectrum found themselves in a similar situation, because of the way art rights work (but I could be wrong).

So we decided to handle this by giving the publisher a copy of the finished book, and physical awards (certificates) for the publisher and the author.

Fine--you want to reward the creators.

Then make it so that YOU'RE not seeing a profit on it, since you're not paying anyone.

Pledge, right here, to donate all income above costs of production and shipping to a charity. That way, Malhavoc isn't simply making sales from other people's unpaid work, you still get to reward the creators, and you get to do something nice for a charity that most likely needs all the help it can get.

What do you say?

 

[philreed]

Edit: And, to answer your question, Phil, you know I like a lot of your stuff, and I've said so publicly. Of course I think you should submit something.

Thanks, man. I'm seriously considering sending some stuff in. I just thought I'd get some input from those that buy and use the stuff.

And, for the record, I love Spectrum. (Lots of copies on my shelves.)

 

[Berandor]

The "billions of poetry books" you mention that don't are well-known scams done as efforts to get the contributors to buy copies for themselves and their families. Check out the "writer beware" pages of sites like the SFWA for more info.

Well, I'm sorry, but while there are the scams you mentioned, there are also anthologies published that do not pay for stories except with complementary copies. And these anthologies are not scams but real, normal books (for example this one) by a major publisher in Germany.

How do I know? I have been published in some of these anthologies. The fact is, whether I like it or not, that this has become a standard business model for anthologies that use a well-known series/publisher and upcoming authors.
It's not all a scam.

 

[Rasyr]

For the record, I think the project is a good idea. I was just trying to determine if any of the material we've released is something that could be considered "the year's best."

Yes, the idea of "The year's Best" IS a good idea. However, for it to be done in the manner that those submission guidelines present IS NOT.

 

[Tiew]

I think it's important to remember that Mr. Cooke isn't forcing anyone to submit to this project, so I'm not sure why you would say he is ethically in the wrong. He's offering a deal that may or not be good for people and they have to evaluate it themselves when they decide whether or not to take him up on it. You might suggest to people that this isn't a good deal, but since there is no cohersion or trickery involved I don't see how you can accuse him of being morally in the wrong.

To put it another way, if you're in a market where people are willing to give their material away then you don't have a moral right to be paid. It seems kind of rude to accuse someone of acting unethically in this situation.

 

[GMSkarka]

this has become a standard business model for anthologies that use a well-known series/publisher and upcoming authors.

No, it's not standard.

But it does exist--and will for as long as there are authors naive enough to submit material for free.