When should the option period for my next book start?

Posted on August 20, 2012July 8, 2018 by Mark Levine Leave a comment

Q. I’m okay with the provision in my new contract giving the publisher 60 days to tell me if it’s interested in publishing my next (as yet unwritten) book. I’m not sure, however, when it’s appropriate for this 60-day option period to start. What do you suggest?

A. Many (if not most) publishers’ standard contracts provide that the option period begins when 1) the author has submitted a complete manuscript of the new book to the publisher for its consideration, and 2) the book covered by the current contract has been published and on sale for a specified period, often a month or two.

Both criteria overreach. Authors should change them as follows:

Instead of a full manuscript, you are only required to submit an outline and one chapter (or two).
Instead of having to wait until the book has been published, change this to x weeks (four is reasonable) after your current manuscript is accepted by the publisher. (Those contracts which say that the manuscript is considered accepted if the publisher hasn’t rejected it or given comments, suggesting how it should be revised, within a specified time period should add “(or deemed accepted)” after “accepted”.)

Most publishers will readily agree to these changes.

Your publisher shouldn’t have to wait until it sees how reviewers and the marketplace receive the book to decide whether you’re a good writer or not; it should rely on its own judgment. Besides, how the marketplace receives the book is dependent to a large extent on how the publisher markets your book, and we all know how good most publishers are at that. And the book’s publication date is essentially in the publisher’s control, not yours. You have to eat in the meantime, and I’m betting that whatever advance the publisher gave you did not cover your living expenses during the time you wrote the first book, let alone the year or so after you submitted the manuscript that it generally takes for the publisher to ready the book for publication.

Since most publishers will make these suggested changes if the author or agent simply knows enough to ask, it’s disappointing that so many persist in retaining these criteria in their standard form. It simply means that the authors principally subject to these stringent conditions are the ignorant or the naïve. While the editors and even the business people at publishing companies are not the kind of people who would place stones in a blind person’s path, I often think the same cannot also be said of their corporate employers.

Note that these recommended changes are only two of many that should be made in the typical option clause; others will be discussed in future columns.

(Originally published in the Summer 2011 issue of the Authors Guild Bulletin. © Mark L. Levine)

Answers to questions on this site are general in nature only. You should consult a lawyer for information about a particular situation. For more information about book publishing contracts and issues, see Levine’s book.

Are e-books sold or licensed when bought online?

Posted on August 20, 2012 by Mark Levine Leave a comment

Q. My publisher wants to include this sentence in my new contract: ”Sales of e-books, whether by Publisher or by a licensee, shall be considered sales by Publisher for purposes of the royalty provisions of this Agreement.” It’s not in my earlier contract. Is it okay to include?

A. While I am sympathetic to a publisher wanting to include this or similar language in new contracts and would likely recommend to a client that, as a business matter, he or she accept it, I would definitely not recommend that you or anyone else amend any previous contracts to include the provision.

But before you agree to include the requested language in your new contract, be sure the contract requires your publisher, whenever it increases its standard e-book royalty rate, to automatically increase your e-book royalty rate to that higher rate. This is important because the so-called “standard” rate that most of the major publishers are paying now is half of what most author advocates believe it should be.

The reason your publisher wants to include the new language is likely because of a September 2010 California case. In F.B.T. Productions v Aftermath Records, a federal appeals court ruled that the rap artist Eminem should have received royalties on iTunes downloads of his songs equal to 50 percent of what his music company received from iTunes rather than the far smaller “per recording” royalty payable on sales of his recordings (e.g., as CDs).

The court ruled this way on the grounds that the arrangement between his music company and iTunes was a license of the right to duplicate and distribute his songs (which it was) and that, accordingly, the subsidiary rights provisions of his contract – which provided for a 50/50 split of all licensing revenue — applied. It said that the “per copy” royalty based on the price of the song applied only when the song was sold by the publisher, not by a licensee.

Although the application of this case to any particular contract (book or music) is uncertain—much depends on the exact language in several different sections of that contract and how those provisions interrelate—the reasoning clearly applies to book publishing contracts and e-books.

Unlike print-on-paper books, e-books are not individually sold by publishers to online booksellers which in turn sell the book to their own customers. The transaction is essentially accomplished through a license between the publisher and the online seller whereby the online bookseller gets a master copy of the e-book and duplicates it for transmission to its customer. As a license by the book publisher, it should be treated the way other licenses are treated under your earlier contracts (assuming they even have the right to publish and license e-books), which is a division of the proceeds received by the publisher between author and publisher. Except for movies and foreign translations, this split is generally 50/50. Many contracts even have a clause in the subsidiary rights section, “For all other rights: 50 percent to author and 50 percent to publisher.” No wonder your publisher wants to put the clause you mention into its new contracts.

For new contracts, where you and the publisher are agreeing in advance that sales by third-parties under e-book licenses will be treated as sales of individual copies by the publisher for royalty purposes, that reflects the current commercial reality in book publishing; most authors wishing to sign with traditional publishers have little leeway here. That said, there is no reason to let the publisher off the hook on prior contracts. For one thing, there may well be a question of whether the publisher has e-book rights at all. For another, the e-book royalty offered by most major publishers today is half what author advocates believe it should be. Third, the publisher drew up the original contract and, under a general rule of contract law, ambiguities in a contract are resolved against the drafter. So don’t agree to any suggestion from your publisher to amend earlier contracts and make sure that it doesn’t sneak a clause to that effect into your new contract, amending the prior ones without you even being aware of it. You’re entitled to a 50 percent royalty on e-book contracts, and if the law will give it to you on existing contracts despite publishers’ obstinacy, you shouldn’t sign that right away.

(Interestingly, the “agency model” for e-book sales being used by Apple with major publishers could undercut this argument on sales made through Apple since that business structure treats the publisher as the seller and Apple merely as its agent. Whether a court would look through that arrangement and say that, in practice, it is nonetheless a license is a separate issue, and not for today or this column.)

(Originally published in the Spring 2011 issue of the Authors Guild Bulletin. © Mark L. Levine)

Can my publisher cheat me of my royalties by selling my book through its subsidiaries?

Posted on August 20, 2012July 8, 2018 by Mark Levine Leave a comment

Q. Royalties on two textbooks I wrote are being watered down because my 1980s contracts didn’t anticipate sales of e-textbooks or rentals of my textbooks in regular and digital formats. More importantly, the contracts didn’t anticipate that my publisher would own or control the companies that handle its digital and rental copies. As a result, my royalties are calculated based on the revenue my publisher receives from these captive companies rather than the larger amount those companies received from the students who bought the book. How can I avoid this outrageous situation in the future?

A. Presumably you and other authors entitled to royalties from the same publisher have banded together to hire a good lawyer to deal with the existing publisher. Although I’m not a litigator, I believe the courts would frown on shenanigans like that. You should also consider publicizing the situation without omitting the name of the offending publisher(s). Even if a court finds the practice legal, in my opinion it’s clearly unethical. Good reputations are important to textbook publishers, and if they can be embarrassed by accurate recitations of the facts and circumstances, publicity is certainly a weapon to brandish.

As to your future contracts, here are two versions of the type of clause you’ll want to include.

The first is one that authors should already be including in all their contracts and isn’t specific to e-books or electronic rights, viz.,

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement, any license granted, or copies of any version of the Work sold or rented, by Publisher under this Agreement to an Affiliate shall be granted, sold or rented on financial and other terms which are no less favorable to Publisher than the terms upon which Publisher would have granted such license, or sold or rented such copies, to an unrelated or unaffiliated person or entity.

Even better would be adding “in an arms-length transaction and” after “rented” but many publishers won’t agree to that.

The second, which has the benefit of being more specific and eliminates the question implicit in the prior one of what terms are “no less favorable,” would be:

For purposes of the provisions in this Agreement providing for payments by Publisher to Author (as royalties or otherwise) computed based on amounts received by Publisher, those amounts shall instead be computed based on amounts received by the relevant Affiliate of Publisher in those situations where Publisher has directly or indirectly provided the relevant version of the Work to an Affiliate (by sale or otherwise) and the amount received by the Affiliate from its customer or the end user is greater than that received by Publisher from such Affiliate.

If using this version, a similar paragraph should be added to cover subsidiary rights licenses, where the author’s share is a specified percentage (never less than 50 percent) of what the publisher – or its affiliate — gets from the ultimate licensee.

In either case, the following definitions should be included in the contract:

As used herein, “Affiliate” means a Person that directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries or otherwise, controls, or is controlled by, or is in or under common control with, Publisher. “Person” includes any individual, firm, division, corporation, limited liability company, joint venture, partnership, trust or other unincorporated organization or association or other enterprise.

Before using either of the two suggested clauses, of course, you should check with your own lawyer to make sure it interfaces correctly with the other provisions in the publisher’s proposed contract and does what you intend.

(Originally published in the Spring 2011 issue of the Authors Guild Bulletin. © Mark L. Levine)

Is there a standard definition of “electronic rights”?

Posted on August 20, 2012April 4, 2013 by Mark Levine Leave a comment

Q. Is there a standard definition of “electronic rights”?

A. No, not for “electronic rights” nor for the many different rights encompassed in that term. (Some contracts use “multimedia rights” instead of “electronic rights,” but there is no agreement on what that term means either.)

Most electronic rights definitions used in publishers’ contracts are too vague or too broad or both. As a result, authors and agents must negotiate appropriate definitions for these subsidiary rights on a case-by-case basis.

Authors should define each electronic right they are granting narrowly and specifically. Properly done, this will enable authors to know precisely what rights they are granting to their book publishers and which they are free to license to software companies, electronics and games companies, apps and educational developers, and other non-book companies in order to exploit non-e-book electronic rights to their work.

If, despite negotiations, the contract you sign with your publisher still contains broader definitions than you’d like, be sure to add a provision that any rights not exercised by your publisher or one of its licensees (as to any language, medium, format or territory) within x years after initial publication of your manuscript (in any form) shall revert to you upon written notice to your publisher. Such a reversion clause should always be included by authors when agented rights (e.g., translations and movie rights) have been granted to the publisher. But it is particularly important when dealing with broad electronic rights clauses because no one—not the publisher, the author or the agent – can anticipate all the possible uses of rights granted in such broad clauses. As recent history suggests, many have yet to be invented.

(Originally published in the Spring 2011 issue of the Authors Guild Bulletin. © Mark L. Levine)

What kind of hyperlinks can my publisher insert in my e-book?

Posted on August 20, 2012July 8, 2018 by Mark Levine Leave a comment

Q. I’m granting e-book rights, but not other electronic rights, to my publisher and I have been very specific in saying that the publisher can’t make any changes to the text or illustrations. The publisher is insisting on a clause that clearly states it has the right to insert hyperlinks, which makes sense to me since I know a lot of e-book programs allow the reader to click on a word to learn its definition. Is there any reason why I shouldn’t agree to the publisher’s clause?

A. The publisher’s request makes sense but, to protect yourself, you should include provisions covering the following:

The hyperlinks will be added by the publisher and at its expense, and no cost incurred in connection with the hyperlinks will be charged to you.
Publisher will remove, at its expense, any links to which you at any time object.
If any hyperlinks are to a site that result in a transaction by the user and the publisher receives revenue from that transaction, you will be entitled to a percentage of that revenue. This percentage should be specified in the contract.

(Originally published in the Fall 2010/Winter 2011 issue of the Authors Guild Bulletin. © Mark L. Levine)

Why is my book being published only as an e-book?

Posted on August 20, 2012 by Mark Levine Leave a comment

Q. I have licensed both print and e-book rights to my publisher. Are they obligated to publish the book in both editions?

A. Only if your contract says so. Prudent authors will provide that simply publishing the book in an e-book edition (which will be far less costly for publishers) is not sufficient, and that the contract will terminate and all rights revert if no print-on-paper edition is published by a specified date. Alternatively, you could provide that no e-book edition may be published until after the print-on-paper edition is published. In either situation, if it is important to you that the print edition be in hardcover, you need to say that in your contract and also provide that publication in a print-on-demand edition does not satisfy that requirement. You may also want to specify a minimum initial print run (in the thousands) to assure that there is no attempt by a less than scrupulous publisher to technically fulfill the requirement by a nominal printing.

(Originally published in the Fall 2010/Winter 2011 issue of the Authors Guild Bulletin. © Mark L. Levine)

What does “net” mean in the royalties and subsidiary rights sections?

Posted on August 20, 2012 by Mark Levine Leave a comment

Q. My publishing contract doesn’t define “net.” It’s used in both the royalties and subsidiary rights sections. What does it mean?

A. “Net” is one of the worst terms for authors to leave undefined in a contract.
“Net” – more typically, “net proceeds” or “net receipts” – is what is left after various expenses are deducted from a larger amount, e.g., the book’s list price (in the royalties section, for those royalties not based on list) or the total amount paid to your publisher by a licensee (in the subsidiary rights section). Since the amount an author will receive in such situations is a percentage of the reduced amount, it is important to specify exactly what the expenses are that may be deducted in computing net. If not specified, authors may discover that the publisher’s understanding differs from theirs.

In particular, with many publishers now paying authors a royalty of 25 percent of net on e-book sales, your contract should specify that the only permissible deduction from the e-book’s price is the commission to the online bookseller (typically 30 percent at the moment). Smart authors will also provide that if the commission to the online bookseller is at any time increased, then the royalty will still be computed as if the commission was only 30 percent.

(Originally published in the Fall 2010/Winter 2011 issue of the Authors Guild Bulletin. © Mark L. Levine)

What is an “earn-out bonus”?

Posted on August 20, 2012August 20, 2012 by Mark Levine Leave a comment

Q. What is an “earn-out bonus”?

A. An “earn-out bonus” is an additional advance against royalties that is paid only if the total amount of royalties and subsidiary rights income payable to the author equals or exceeds the original advance. It is generally the result of a compromise between publisher and author on the amount of the advance when they are unable to agree with finality on a specific amount. Under this arrangement, the advance is set at the amount insisted on by the publisher (e.g., $75,000) but the contract provides that if and when that advance earns out, the author will promptly be given an additional advance in an agreed-upon amount (e.g., $25,000), which is also stated in the contract.

(Originally published in the Summer 2010 issue of the Authors Guild Bulletin. © Mark L. Levine)

Should I set up a corporation?

Posted on August 20, 2012August 20, 2012 by Mark Levine Leave a comment

Q. I recently set up a one-person corporation and assigned all my copyrights to it. Can the corporation sign my next publishing contract so I could avoid personal liability in the event of a lawsuit against the publisher involving my new book or a breach of any of the representations in the contract?

A. Doing that will not help if your publisher has even a modicum of business sense or, if lacking that, at least knows enough to consult a lawyer, either professionally or at a cocktail party. Although having a corporation or limited liability corporation (LLC) can be very helpful in insulating a person from personal liability if all the corporate and LLC formalities are observed, any knowledgeable publisher that permits the corporation or LLC to sign will also require you to personally guarantee all of its obligations under the publishing contract so you won’t be avoiding the problem. Anyone who sues because of something in the book would undoubtedly sue the publisher too and your guarantee would require you to personally reimburse the publisher if liability was found. In addition, people suing would likely sue both you and your corporation (or LLC) also and, since you wrote the book, it’s unlikely that you would avoid liability if liability exists.

There may be good reasons to establish a one-person corporation or LLC—e.g., income tax, investing for retirement or health care coverage—but you should check with your accountant, financial adviser or a tax lawyer to find out about those.

(Originally published in the Summer 2010 issue of the Authors Guild Bulletin. © Mark L. Levine)

What are “derivative rights”? Should I grant them to my publisher?

Posted on August 20, 2012April 4, 2013 by Mark Levine Leave a comment

Q. My publisher just sent me its new contract for my next book. Among the rights I’m being asked to grant are “derivative rights” in my book. The term is not defined in the contract but my editor tells me that it is defined in the copyright law. Is that okay?

A. Definitions are a crucial part of contracts and can be negotiated like everything else. If “derivative rights” are included in the grant of rights, the term should certainly be defined. Unfortunately, the most accurate lay definition I can suggest, and one which is consistent with the copyright law, is “everything under the sun.”

I don’t recommend that any author include “derivative rights” — with or without a proper definition — in the grant of rights section, subsidiary rights section or anywhere else in a contract. It’s as bad as saying you’re granting “all rights” in your work to the publisher. That’s what Murray Burnett and Joan Alison, the authors of the unpublished play Everybody Comes to Rick’s, did in 1942 and, as a result, they were never able to write a sequel or any other work containing the characters that Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Paul Henreid portrayed in Casablanca (as it was retitled). If your publisher wants certain rights (derivative or not), it should specify what each one is, and provide clear definitions. You can then decide which rights to grant and, for those you do, what the appropriate royalties (if the publisher exercises the specified right directly) and subsidiary rights splits (if it intends to license them) should be. You can also decide whether you should have any approval rights for the new work and what the appropriate reversion period should be if the publisher doesn’t exercise them within an agreed-upon time.

Movie rights, dramatizations and translations are traditional examples of derivative rights and are even listed as examples in the term’s definition in the copyright law, viz. “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a … dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version … or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” The definition is broad enough to cover interactive video games, mobile phone “apps” and a host of other derivative works, including ones yet to be invented or even thought of. Just as parents shouldn’t send their children to camp without knowing what activities the camp provides, authors should not license their works without knowing what will happen to them when the rights leave their control.

(Originally published in the Summer 2010 issue of the Authors Guild Bulletin. © Mark L. Levine)

Do “Print-on-Demand” Editions Keep a Book in Print Forever?

Posted on December 5, 2010August 8, 2012 by Mark Levine Leave a comment

Q. Is a book out of print if it is available only in a POD (print-on-demand) edition?

A. Unfortunately, the answer to your question in large part depends on how “out of print” or “in print” is defined in your contract (assuming it is defined at all). Some contracts, even from 20 years ago, specify that the book will not be considered in print simply because of the publisher’s ability to reproduce single copies of the book. Others state that copies only have to be “available” or “offered for sale” which, if the literal words of the contract are to be given a contemporary meaning, may well be satisfied by the mere availability of a POD edition. (Discussions about the proper way to interpret certain language in old contracts in light of subsequent technological changes can easily mirror those between followers of Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Ginsburg about how to properly interpret the United States Constitution.)

I believe authors should be able to argue successfully, at least for many contracts signed in pre-electronic days, that neither publisher nor author ever intended that a book be considered in print solely because future technology made it possible to intermittently print single copies upon a customer’s request and that “out-of-print” clauses in those contracts should be construed that way. The argument should be even stronger when the contract also contains a clause stating that “all rights not granted to the publisher are reserved to the author.” A court could well differ, however. Authors whose publishers assert that a book is in print solely because of the availability of a POD edition should contact the Authors Guild Legal Service Department.

If your publisher is taking that position, emphasize to it that the section in virtually all publishing contracts giving the publisher 6-12 months to put the book back in print would be meaningless if a book could simply and quickly be put into print at minimal cost (and no risk) via POD. Also investigate whether the publisher has separately notified booksellers that the traditional editions of the book are out of print. Virtually all publishers do this, frequently by publishing a notice in Publishers Weekly, to advise booksellers that they have a limited time to return unsold copies for credit. Publishers will find it difficult to legitimately assert that your book is still in print when it has sent a notice to the book trade that it is out of print. You can check on the status of a publisher’s editions of your book in R. R. Bowker’s Books in Print, available in many libraries.

Note that, increasingly, publishing contracts now avoid “in print” definitions that relate to a book’s availability. They focus instead either on (i) the amount of royalties paid to an author during the most recent royalty period or two, or (ii) the number of copies of the book (regardless of format) sold during the last one or two royalty periods, in each case setting a specific dollar amount or number as the sole criterion. Whichever criterion is used, make sure that it relates only to English-language editions of the book sold in the United States (or the United States and Canada). If using one of the older versions of the clause (relating to the book’s availability, e.g.) in a new contract, however, make sure to have a sentence specifically stating that the book will not be considered in print solely because of the availability of e-book editions or because of POD or other technology enabling single copies of the book to be produced.

What Does “Coupled with an Interest” Mean?

Posted on December 5, 2010August 8, 2012 by Mark Levine 1 Comment

Q. What does “coupled with an interest” mean? The phrase is used in the agency section of my contract.

A. This phrase is a confusing one, and I’m willing to wager that most agents who have it in their agency clause understand neither its meaning nor its purpose and included it only because someone suggested that they “should” have it.

The typical purpose of the phrase is to assure that the agent’s appointment will be irrevocable. Under the law governing relationships between agents and the people appointing them, an agent’s appointment will be irrevocable — and continue after the death or insanity of the person who appointed the agent — only when the agent has a legal interest (as part-owner, for example) in the “subject matter” for which the agent was appointed. Saying in a contract that the agent’s appointment is “coupled with an interest” is intended to be an acknowledgement by both parties to the contract that the agent has that requisite legal interest.

Unfortunately, the phrase’s use in publishing contracts is not only confusing but also generally ineffective to accomplish the intended purpose. There are two reasons for this.

One, the concept that an agent’s appointment can never be revoked is contrary to a basic provision of the law of agency. Second, the interest that the agent must possess in the “subject matter” – which, in a publishing contract, is the manuscript — has to be something other than the right to receive part of the proceeds derived from exercising its authority as the agent (i.e., something other than its commission). Thus the phrase cannot be validly used in the typical author-agent relationship since, absent special circumstances (e.g., if the author and agent were co-authors), the agent lacks the requisite legal interest in the author’s manuscript.

The effect intended by use of the phrase can be better achieved by deleting any reference to “coupled with an interest” and using the word “irrevocable” in the right places in the agency clause. Although your agent’s right to receive its commission for monies paid under the contract is properly characterized as irrevocable, nothing else in the section should be characterized that way except for your agent’s right to receive its share of each check from the publisher, its right to receive royalty statements and the percentage designated as its commission. If “irrevocable” or “irrevocably” is used to modify any other right or grant in this section, delete the word. Among the matters that should not be irrevocable are the appointment of your agent, the agent’s right to receive a single check for the full amount and (if included in the section) the agent’s right to bind you or act on your behalf.

Can I Get Approval Rights for the Cover’s Design?

Posted on December 5, 2010August 8, 2012 by Mark Levine Leave a comment

Q. How typical is it to get approval in a contract for the design of the book’s cover?

A. It is extremely difficult—generally nigh to impossible—to get a provision in your contract giving you approval over design of the book’s cover or dust jacket. The best way to handle this situation, in practical terms, is to be in constant touch with your editor and be aware of the production schedule for your book, especially the dates when someone will be assigned to design the cover and the deadlines for its submission, approval and printing. This will enable you to ask the editor if you can see sketches of the design, cover proofs, etc. If asked properly (i.e., not as a demand or as a matter of right), many if not most editors will allow you to see them, though some reluctantly.

To make this more than an informal arrangement, there are provisions that many publishers will insert in their contracts that will give you the right to see the design and comment on it. Though this will (properly, in my opinion) not give you the right to substitute your judgment for that of your publisher’s marketing department, it will enable you to express your viewpoint and, in most cases, to hear the design and marketing reasons for their decision. Doing this also enables the publisher to get your input and particular knowledge of a subject to avoid gaffes (e.g., the use of the color orange in a book about Ireland—unless the subject is Orangemen— or the depiction of angels with wings in a book directed to Southern Baptists).

An example of the type of clause often accepted is the following:

“Cover Consultation. Publisher agrees to show Author the sketches and designs for the Work’s cover, as well as the proofs thereof, in time for Author’s suggestions and responses to be incorporated if Publisher agrees with them. Publisher shall use its best efforts to include the same or a substantially similar clause in any license for English language reprint editions of the Work, for publication primarily in the United States, which Publisher is permitted to license under this Agreement.”

Should My Royalties Be Reduced When E-Books are Sold at Large Discounts?

Posted on December 5, 2010August 8, 2012 by Mark Levine Leave a comment

Q. Should the typical provisions about reduced royalties on copies sold at high discounts apply to e-books?

Answer: No. Unlike print-on-paper books, where each copy sold at a deep discount represents significant expenses incurred by the publisher which pertain specifically to the copy sold (paper, printing and binding costs and, sometimes, shipping and warehouse charges), the cost of creating and transmitting additional copies of e-books sold at a deep discount is negligible or non-existent.

One way to handle this easily in your contract is to simply add the following at the end of the section dealing with reduced royalties if the point was not covered in the section:

“None of the reduced royalty provisions in this section will apply to any e-book or other electronic editions of the Work.”

Why Didn’t My Publisher List the Titles of My Other Books in My New Book?

Posted on December 5, 2010August 8, 2012 by Mark Levine Leave a comment

Q. I notice that the listing in books of other books by the same author often includes only other books published by the same publisher. Is there a way to avoid that?

A. If you want to make sure that all your previous books are listed under “Other Books by the Author” in your new book, and not just those published by the publisher you are about to sign a contract with, insert a sentence like the following in your contract:

“Publisher will include in the Work a list of all books previously written by Author, whether published by Publisher or another publisher.”