Do publishers ever get books written for a flat fee, rather than for
royalties?  If not, why not?

I would think that the publisher could just specify the quality level
they expect and only pay when its up to standard.  Then if a book
becomes a big seller, they reap the benefits, not the author.

As an alterative, I am also interested in how this may apply to the
music industry, and any other industry where content that is normally
created based on a royalty agreement, is sometimes created based on a
flat fee payment.

Instead of paying the next Britney Spears or boy band based on
royalties - why not just pay them flat fees?  Its pretty much the
power and grooming of the record industry that makes these kinds of
artists successful, right?

So far I can't really find any examples of flat rate driven
publishing, except for stock music and photography.  Your insight and
comments are most welcome.

---

Clarification of Question by adrianb-ga on 22 Mar 2005 12:21 PST

What I am primarily looking for are concrete examples of flat rate
driven publishing, either now, or historically.  Documentation/links
to books on Amazon/wikipedia is a big help.  I specifically want to
understand WHY the publishing is/was flat rate.

jimbo333-ga - your comments on the old hollywood studio system are
helpful, and I will research that further.

Does anyone know if the music industry was ever flat rate in the past?
 Or the publishing industry?  If you have documented examples from
other countries (outside US), that is also great.

So far jimbo333-ga's example about the studio system was the most helpful.

I do want to pay the "bounty" for this question, so if someone can
help a little further I'd be very grateful.

Greetings,
Book publishers  - at least -  in Germany do pay just a flat fee for
the text for some books, I believe.  The instance I heard of was the
text for a book on model trains that was part of a series of books
that the publisher had  - obviously not a potential best seller, and
the author did it as a sideline.

In the case  of recognized authors, market competition is what forces
the  publisher to let the author have a piece of the profits; he could
go elsewhere.

I don't know how true this is for the performing arts:  Movie stars,
yes, but one hears that great singers get so-and-so-much for a
performance ...
I have heard first hand that music groups  - again, in Germany -  get
paid half the contracted flat fee just before the performance, for
appearing; and the rest immediately after the performance.
Sounds sort of primitive and distrustful - from both sides -  but I
imagine the system developed from practical experience.
If Britney gets royalties on records, it's like in the publishing industry.
The "next boy band" probably won't get royalties until it becomes
popular enough to threaten to find another producer.

Mills and Boon I think

- I heard that they use established and reputable authors.
Both parties are only too keen to keep quiet.

I am an author, and I have been paid both ways--a flat fee for some
books, royalties on others.  Generally, I prefer royalties.  If I am
asked to work on a book project on which I do not anticipate good
sales, I may prefer a flat fee.  However, even on project with
questionable sales prospects, my first choice would be a royalty
contract with a nonrefundable advance against royalty.  In other
words, I would receive a flat fee for writing the book which would be
subtracted from future royalties.  If the royalties never exceed the
amount of the advance, the advance is all I receive.

Eddy points to an important fact above. Many books do not earn out
their advance, so this is basically publishing for a flat fee.

But more to the point:

The idea behind royalties is that the "artists" generally own the
copyright to their works, and sell only "rights" to use the copyright
- i.e. publish the book in hardcover in north america. In exchange for
using these rights (which the artist has loaned out) the publisher
usually pays a royalty on sales.

Foreign rights, ancilliary rights (like merchandising) etc. are often
handled separately. It's sort of like owning an office building and
renting it out to various tenants for as long as they pay the rent.

Doing artistic work for a flat fee (where the client / production
company owns the copyright)is more common in some artistic areas than
others - such as graphic arts/design, architecture and advertising.

The thing is as an artist if you don't own the rights to your art,
then in many ways you are operating like an employee or at best
independant contractor. Some would say you are prone to being taken
advantage of, like in the old hollywood studio system where studios
"owned" stars.

This "work for hire" culture can lead to an all too common situation
where very talented artists are payed meager salaries for their
creative work (like in the website design field).

Royalties are more fair to artists, and a better incentive for creativity.

I think artists like Britney Spears or Jaylo deserve all the royalties
they get, since what they are often selling is their music *PLUS*
their persona and personality that they were born with or spent years
developing, which is more about "them" than the packaging /
advertising tools that record and film companies use to sell this
persona.

Just my two cents : )

Yes, publishers sometimes do this. But most writers prefer to earn a
royalty, rather than do "work for hire" (which is what you're
describing), since they have the potential of earning more.

Kriswrite

I am an author of fiction and non fiction. The fiction is done through
an agent and I'd never give the royalties away!! But many non fiction
books are 'flat fee' where you sign away all your rights. Quite often
the ideas come from the publishers who do marketing tests, even
mock-up pages of books that don't exist for the international book
fairs, if they get enough interest they'll commission an author to
write it. I see this as a jobbing part of writing.
Amanda Mann Confessions of An Author www.fessingauthor.blogspot.com