Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware®

Two issues involving Audible's ACX have come across my desk recently.

Rights Fraud

I've heard from several self- and small press-pubbed authors who report that they've found their books listed on ACX as open to narrator auditions...except that they, or their publishers, didn't put them there. This appears to be an attempt to steal authors' audio rights.

Below is one listing. Here's another and another and another. (All of these listings have been invalidated by ACX.)


See "Comments from the Rights Holder" at the bottom. The purported company, Publishing D LLC, does not show up on any searches.

The fraud seems pretty elaborate. Here's what one of the authors who contacted me told me:


These comments from a freelance audiobook narrator illustrate that "Publishing D" is not an isolated incidence.

Promotional Code Shenanigans

Multiple authors have contacted me to report that they've received an email from ACX withdrawing their promotional codes. The cited reason: "unusual activity," with no explanation of what that means.

The authors say that they have not used the codes improperly or violated ACX guidelines; in some cases, they've used the codes only a handful of times or not at all. See, for instance, blog posts by authors G. Michael Vasey and Adam Piggott. Per discussions on the KBoards and Reddit, a lot of authors seem to be affected.

Is this one of Amazon's (Audible's parent company) periodic crackdowns on misuse or fraud that has inadvertently ensnared innocent authors? According to author and self-publishing expert David Gaughran, ACX promo code scamming is a major problem, and Amazon's anti-abuse sweeps often involve a lot of collateral damage. Or could it be an error--a glitch or rogue algorithm?

So far, authors' efforts to get a fuller explanation have run up against the black box that is Amazon:


If I hear anything further, I'll update this post.

UPDATE 11/27/19: One of the authors who alerted me to the promo code withdrawal has received a notice saying that their codes are reinstated--however, they say that the promo code tab has yet to appear in their dashboard.


UPDATE 2/25/29: More about ACX scams, from a comment left by a narrator:

About the ACX thing...I was contacted by ACX to narrate three books, however, the person who offered the contracts kept emailing and frantically telling me to send them my book codes. I got leary and called ACX. They said unfortunately there are many scams taking place where if a book is "unclaimed" in their system, someone may grab it and offer it as an audiobook contract. Then they keep the codes and blackmarket sell them. They do not pay the narrators. Many other authors are experiencing it, they said, but they have no way to regulate it.

I declined the offers and got a nasty note from the contract holder. I was also told that since I corresponded with them, they had my email that is associated with Amazon..the same one. So, ACX said I had to go change my email on Amazon or they would have access there too. Geez.

In mid-2016, I wrote about YA publisher Month9 Books' abrupt decision to scale back its list, reverting rights to as many as 50 authors across all its imprints. Explaining the culling, Month9 founder and CEO Georgia McBride cited her own health problems, along with staffing issues and the company's "substantial growing pains" over the past six to nine months.

McBride's announcement triggered a surge of complaints from Month9 authors, who described a host of serious problems at the company, including late or missing payments (for staff as well as authors), problems with royalty accounting, delayed pub dates, broken marketing promises, overcrowded publication schedules, communications breakdowns, and harsh treatment and bullying by McBride.

According to authors and staff, these problems were not new or even recent, but had been ongoing for a long time. Why had authors kept silent? Almost every writer who contacted me mentioned their fear of retaliation--along with the draconian NDA included in Month9's contracts. I've rarely encountered a situation where authors seemed so fearful of their publisher.

Things quieted down after the initial flood of revelations, as they often do. Month9 survived and kept on publishing, though its list continued to shrink: between a high point in 2016 and now, the number of titles appears to have fallen about 50%. Apart from a handful of additional complaints in late 2016 and early 2017 (similar to this one), I didn't hear much about Month9 in the years following.

Until now. Over the past few weeks, I've been contacted by multiple writers who say they are still suffering from the same problems that surfaced in 2016: primarily, late (sometimes very late) royalty and subrights advance payments and statements (in many cases received only after persistent prodding by authors and their agents), and allegations of irregularities in royalty reporting.

The intimidation level, too, seems not to have changed. Most of the authors told me that they feared reprisal for coming forward, and asked me specifically not to mention their names or book titles. (Writer Beware never reveals names or other unique identifying information, unless we receive specific permission from the individual. That disclaimer is included on our website and in our correspondence.)

If you've been following the recent ChiZine scandal, you may be feeling some deja vu--notably, in the alleged existence of a toxic culture within the publisher that makes authors fearful and and helps to keep them silent. It's disappointing to learn that even if the issues that thrust Month9 into the spotlight three years ago have gone quiet, they don't seem to have eased. Writers be warned.


I wrote about Black Rose Writing in 2009, in connection with its requirement that authors buy their own books. Writers who submitted were asked how many of their own books they planned to buy; their response was then written into their contracts. (Book purchase requirements are back-end vanity publishing: even if writers aren't being asked to pay for production and distribution, they still must hand over money in order to see their work in print.)

Black Rose got rid of the book purchase requirement a few years later, and claimed to be a completely fee-free publisher. I had my suspicions that money might still somehow be involved, though...and as it turns out, I wasn't wrong.

I've recently learned that new Black Rose authors receive a Cooperative Marketing Catalog that sells a range of pay-to-play marketing and promotional services, with costs ranging from a few hundred dollars to four figures. For instance:


It's true that purchase is optional (though I would guess that authors are heavily solicited to buy). But reputable publishers don't sell marketing services to their authors--and in any case, much of what's on offer are things that other publishers, even very small ones, do for their authors free of charge, as part of the publication process.

That's not the only way in which Black Rose authors are encouraged to pay their publisher. Owner Reagan Rothe is a self-described "financial partner" in two additional businesses: the Maxy Awards, a high entry fee book competition that donates "a large part of every entry" to a charity (how large? No idea; that information is not provided); and Sublime Book Review, a paid review service.

Though Mr. Rothe's financial interest in these businesses is not disclosed on the business's websites, both businesses are clearly energetically promoted to Black Rose authors. On Sublime's website, nineteen of the first 20 book reviews are for Black Rose books. There's also this, from the marketing catalog (note the lack of disclaimer):


As for the Maxys, thirteen of the 17 winners and runners-up for 2019 are Black Rose books.

Mr. Rothe does admit his relationship with the businesses in this recent email to Black Rose authors--though only to afford them yet another opportunity to give him money:

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware®

On Sunday morning, I woke up (late, I admit) to a flurry of emails about an website I'd never heard of before: Pressfuls.

The writers who contacted me reported that they'd entered a free short story contest this past September.


As you can see, pretty minimal information. At the end of October, they received a mass email (which, curiously, cc'd all the recipients instead of bcc'ing them, so that all email addresses were visible to everyone), announcing the winner:


Although the contest entry info hadn't mentioned that the winner would be published, the writers thought they were done and moved on. Some submitted their contest stories elsewhere. Some of those stories got accepted.

Then, just a few days ago, on December 19--surprise!

Writers were shocked. As far as they knew, they had never granted permission for their stories to be published or turned into audio versions--much less made part of some sort of pay-per-view subscription service. As for the request for PayPal information, that sounded really scammy. Writers who emailed Pressfuls to ask questions or emphasize that they hadn't granted publication rights received a non-responsive response reiterating that their story was going to be published, and that "We will give you more details about it in short time [sic]."

So what is Pressfuls? With a web domain registered just six months ago, its current website (which writers tell me has been overhauled since the contest) presents as a short fiction subscription service, with a bizarrely large variety of paid subscription plans. There is no information whatever about staff, owners, the company, or, on the submission page, payment structure and publishing rights.

There's also a couple of new short story contests with 2020 entry deadlines. And that brings me to my main reason for writing this post. Beyond the questionable happenings in this particular case, Pressfuls is like an archetypal object lesson on the kinds of contests you want to avoid.

Count the red flags:

- No rules or guidelines. The page for the September contest is gone, but writers who contacted me say that there were no posted rules or guidelines--and certainly there are none for the current contests. Bad contest rules are a red flag...but no rules at all is a giant, klaxon-blaring, run-away-now warning sign. Pressfuls' attempt to monetize entries it was never authorized to publish in the first place illustrates why.

Never, never, NEVER enter a contest if you can't find, read, and/or understand the rules.

- No information about rights or payment. Plenty of contests have unfriendly rights demands. For instance, you may have to grant publication rights simply by entering, and the contest sponsor may never release them. At least when that info is present on the sponsor's website, you can't say you weren't warned. But if there's no rights or payment information whatsoever, you are really setting yourself up for the possibility of a nasty surprise...like finding out your entry has been included in a subscription service with a sketchy payment plan.

- No information about the company. Do you seriously want to enter a contest whose organizers or sponsors you know absolutely nothing about--not even where they're located or how long they've been around? I'll give you a hint: No. If you can't confirm who's running the contest, don't enter.

- No information about judges. Part of the prestige of a contest (if it has any--and most contests don't) depends on who is doing the judging. Reputable contests disclose their judges.Otherwise, you have no guarantee the contest isn't just pulling names out of a hat.

- English-language errors. Sure, anyone can make mistakes or typos (although you have to wonder about the professionalism of a contest sponsor that isn't capable of proofing its own website). But if it's an English-language contest, and you see errors or odd syntax that suggest the website has been created by people whose first language is not English, be wary. A lot of scams these days are coming from overseas. The Pressfuls website isn't as bad as many I've seen, but there are enough lapses (dropped plurals, missing articles, mis-spellings--for instance, in several locations "Fantasy" is spelled "Fanstasy") to prompt caution. (Pressfuls' emails provide much clearer examples.)

So what is Pressfuls, really? A phishing scheme? A sleazy way to acquire and monetize content? A clueless would-be publisher with no idea how things should be done? I really can't tell. But none of these possibilities are good ones.

A couple of the writers who contacted me told me that Pressfuls complied (though without any acknowledgment) when they demanded that their stories be taken down. However, another writer said that they tried several times and their story is still online.

Since Pressfuls has no real "contact us" option on its website, my suggestion is to send a DMCA takedown notice to its email address (shortstorycontest@pressfuls.com) or, if that yields no response, to the email address of its web host (abuse@in2net.com). You can find out more about DMCA notices (which are legal notices demanding removal of infringed material from the internet) here. SFWA offers a handy DMCA notice generator.

For more information and cautions about contests, see Writer Beware's Contests and Awards page. I've also written a blog post that covers some of the same ground: Some Tips on Evaluating Writing Contests.

UPDATE 12/24/19: Since I put this post online yesterday, Pressfuls has amended the descriptions on its contests. Originally they looked like the description for the original contest (see above). Now they look like this:


This is not an improvement, since there's still nothing about publication or rights. Also, the copyright info is ignorant on multiple levels. WGA and WGC registrations (which are primarily for screenwriters) are not legally equivalent to US copyright registration--and they don't prove anything anyway, since the author already owns copyright, by law, as soon as the words are written down.

I shouldn't need to say that you really want your publisher to have an accurate understanding of copyright.

Writers tell me that Pressfuls sent out another mass email with instructions on how to have content removed, so it seems they're paying attention. We shall see.

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware®

On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. It's a familiar meme...which can be turned around. On the internet, nobody knows you're not a dog.

I can claim, for instance, to be a well-known literary dog...er, agent, and as long as I put a little effort into the subterfuge, and only make the claim to people who are likely to want to hear from someone like who I'm pretending to be, at least a few of my targets will take me at face value.

One of the most common tactics used by scammers is solicitation, by phone and email. To make themselves seem more reputable and attractive, scammers often masquerade as dogs...that is, they try to impersonate real, reputable companies and individuals.

Sometimes the impersonation is just a vague (and therefore unverifiable) claim of industry expertise.


Sometimes it's a claim to be working with reputable companies (the scammer in this case is the little logo on the left):


Sometimes it's a claim to actually be a reputable company. Note the strategic use of the Hachette Book Group logo (the scammer is the supposed partner):


And sometimes the deception is more elaborate. Last week, Donald Maass of the Donald Maass Literary Agency posted this warning:


Don was kind enough to share the solicitations with me. Here's the first. The English is passable, but note the typo. Also note "Jennifer Jackson's" email address, which on a websearch doesn't match anything connected to the real Jennifer Jackson.


Here's the second solicitation, received after the author responded. The grammatical and other errors are much more obvious here, and if that's not enough to prompt caution, the next to last paragraph, with its demand for money, should be:


Techbooks Media, whose domain name was only registered a few weeks ago on January 15, sells a range of junk marketing at insanely inflated prices (for instance, placement in PW Select, which actually costs $149, for $699; or a Kirkus Indie review, which actually costs $575, for $1,699). Putting this together with the blatant deception, the ESL mistakes on the website and in the emails, and inside info from one of my confidential sources, Techbooks Media is certainly another of the Philippines-based marketing scams listed in the sidebar. Accordingly, I've added it.

Some tips for seeing through scams like this:

1. Proceed from a point of skepticism. An unsolicited contact from a real, reputable agent or publisher isn't automatically suspect, but it's rare. Out-of-the-blue contacts are far more likely to be illegitimate. Caution is definitely in order.

2. Mistrust--and verify. Google all the individuals and/or companies that are mentioned (are there complaints? Have they shown up on this blog?) If someone claims to have worked for a major publisher or agency, or a company claims to have placed books with reputable publishers or to have sold film or other subsidiary rights, see if you can verify the claim. If you can't, or if there are no checkable details (such as names or book titles) attached to the claim, be wary.

3. Use your common sense. Anyone can make an occasional typo, but professionals communicate professionally (no reputable agent would send out grammar-challenged emails like the ones from "Jennifer Jackson"). Check the email address and any links--do they match the person or company claiming to be contacting you? (There's nothing to connect Ms. Jackson with anything called Techbooks Media.) If there's a demand for upfront money, be sure it's a service or company that customarily charges such fees (reputable agents and publishers don't).

4. Contact Writer Beware. Always a good default if you aren't sure about an individual or company. We may have heard something, or received complaints, and if we have, we'll let you know.

UPDATE: According to additional documentation I've received, Techbooks Media is also doing business as Chapters Media & Advertising. Payments are made to Chapters, and Chapters' name is on the service agreement that Techbooks victims sign.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Jennifer Jackson (the real one) responds.

A surreal and ghastly experience. Someone has been contacting authors and taking my name (and my agency's name) in vain. Some details of what's been happening (and more): https://t.co/0M2HXf9E9V

— Jennifer Jackson (@arcaedia) February 7, 2020

I've personally been in contact with many of the authors that have reached out to DMLA. They've been generous and understanding. It's just broken my heart to hear them recount having an opportunity like this extended under false pretenses.

— Jennifer Jackson (@arcaedia) February 7, 2020

The more I've heard, the more horrid I've felt. While these authors are the targets, this person is also using me and my agency to exploit their hopes. Part of me feels like a victim too.

— Jennifer Jackson (@arcaedia) February 7, 2020

One of these authors told me they were sick of the corruption in publishing. Our whole industry gets hurt by things like this.

— Jennifer Jackson (@arcaedia) February 7, 2020

Offers of rep are exciting - for both authors and agents. It can be heady and wonderful. It's okay to pause. It's okay to ask questions. People who really believe in you will give you time to do that.

— Jennifer Jackson (@arcaedia) February 7, 2020

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware®

Beginning on Friday, February 8, dozens of authors with mystery publisher Henery Press received some version of this email.

Dear ________,

Before entering 2020, we felt it prudent to review future projections for _______ series, taking into consideration recent releases and overall performance. To provide an unbiased professional opinion and guidance in our 3-year strategic plan, we hired a consulting firm with experience in the industry. This allowed us to analyze not only your specific series, but also the competitive landscape and industry as a whole.

Unfortunately the sales of _______ series do not justify the publication of future titles beyond 2020. We know this is disappointing. The market has become beyond saturated (especially in mystery fiction), with all leading indicators pointing to even more intense competition for consumer dollars in the next cycle and beyond....

Although we don’t have a pathway forward with your new titles, we will continue to sell and support your backlist titles as usual under the terms of our original publishing agreement. To be clear, we will not be reverting the rights on any of your already published title(s), only future titles specifically outlined in the addendum to follow in the next week.

A number of the cancellations affected books that had been completed, turned in, and scheduled for publication, with some authors having already made promotional plans. Others interrupted series whose first installment hadn't yet been published--with Henery holding on to the yet-to-be-published book and reverting rights to the rest. Cancellation of a series before it's completed can be tough--another publisher may not want to buy into a series mid-stream, and while followup titles can be self-published, it's difficult to promote a series when it's split up like this.

The cancellations came out of the blue (nothing had been said about any strategic plan or consulting firm). But while some writers were blindsided, others weren't hugely surprised. Although they have praise for the company's early days, Henery authors say that problems have been increasing for some time, with staff departures (interns are reportedly used to do a lot of the editing, with sometimes substandard results), late royalty checks and reports (several authors told me that they feel there are discrepancies in their sales figures), diminishing marketing (according to multiple writers, virtually no promotional support is provided), ordering problems (writers cite non-returnability and nonstandard discounts), and difficulty with communications.

"Over time," one author told me, "Henery Press’s business model started to look more like a company that assists with self-publishing and less like a real publisher." (In fact, Henery uses CreateSpace for printing, and Barnes & Noble lists Henery ebooks as "indie".)

I've gotten a variety of additional complaints, which I'm not able to share here because they could compromise confidentiality. There seems to be considerable fear among Henery authors that they will be penalized for speaking out--which may be why almost no word of the cancellations has escaped. There's also the gag clause in the rights reversion addendum that authors are receiving:


One writer told me, "HP payback tactics (they're so vindictive) are hell. [Authors are] afraid if HP even suspects they've contributed, the books they have will go down." I truly wish this weren't such a common component of publisher implosions.

So is Henery imploding? Mass cancellations are never a good sign, and often indicate financial distress. Some Henery authors don't feel that's the issue, though, or not the only issue: they speculate that the owners intend to retire, and are keeping the company alive in order to retain the income stream from existing titles.

I emailed Henery's owner, Art Molinares, for comment. As of this writing, he hasn't responded.

Mystery Writers of America (where Henery is listed as an Approved Publisher) is aware of the situation, and is monitoring it. If you've been affected, you can contact MWA here. Be sure to put "Henery Press" in the subject line. All communications are confidential.

I will post updates as I receive them.

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware®

The internet and social media have transformed writer/agent/publisher interactions in many ways, one of which is the proliferation of Twitter pitch events, such as #PitMad, #DVPit, and others.

While no online innovation has (so far) managed to supplant the traditional query-and request route, these events do attract plenty of reputable agents and publishers--unlike other purported shortcuts (*cough*Publishizer*cough*). However, inevitably, they are also stalked by marginals, amateurs, and even scammers.

For instance, Eliezer Tristan Publishing, which charged a $500 fee and went out of business just months after opening up, haunted #PitMad. Ditto for GenZ publishing, which charges authors $2,500. Burchette and Ferguson, a brand-new publisher staffed by people with zero relevant experience, participated in pitch events before they even launched (and went out of business shortly thereafter).

Then there's this:


I've gotten many, many other questions about approaches by dubious companies and individuals as a result of pitch events. All in all, therefore, it pays to be careful, and if you haven't heard of an individual or publisher who approaches you, to research them before responding. (You can contact me; I may have heard something.)

Which leads me to the subject of today's post. I might not normally devote an entire blog post to one marginal agent, but this one is such an egregious example, and seems to be so active on social media--including #PitMad--that I think she's worth a special feature.

Pigeon House Literary Agency launched just this past February. It's run by Druella Burhan, whose resume includes none (zero, zip) of the relevant background experience you typically want to see from a new literary agent--such as a professional writing resume, or having previously worked for a reputable agency or publisher.


The lofty claims Burhan does make are either unverifiable, or provably false. For instance, here's Harvard Medical's publication on its 2011 MD-PhD graduates. Surprise! There's no mention of Druella Burhan.

Here's some of Burhan's agenting philosophy:


The logo (for lack of a better word) at the top of this post provides a preview of the rest of the Pigeon House site (a Wix freebie), which is amateurishly formatted and clearly not proofread (several pages have fully-justified text, with words cut off at the end of lines--I mean, it's a Wix freebie, it's not like you have to be an expert to get it right) and rife with typos, grammatical errors, and bizarre word use. For instance,


That's bad, but here's what it originally looked like. Burhan changed it shortly after I tweeted about it:


There's more: the Who We Are page, which bafflingly proclaims that the agency will "strive to bring a supreme appealingness and picturesque style of books from darkness to life"; the Foreign Rights page, which erroneously cautions writers that "If a literary agent does not agree to take you on as an international client/author, you will not be able to sell books overseas"; the Referrals page, where Burhan bizarrely invites other agents to send her clients. And here's the contract she is sending out, which includes the same formatting/proofreading errors as her website, and is really just an embarrassment.

It's a perfect carnival of amateurism.

Am I being mean here? Maybe, but before you whip out the "everyone has to start somewhere" argument, consider Burhan's false claims about herself and her aggressive use of social media to recruit clients despite her obvious ignorance and complete lack of relevant qualifications (I first heard of her because she was trolling on Reddit, and she is actively inviting queries on her Twitter feed).

The damage an amateur agent can do is considerable--squandering clients' chances with substandard submissions, submitting to disreputable or incompetent publishers, inadequately understanding publishing contract language and therefore not capable of effectively negotiating it. An amateur agent may not drain a writer's bank account the way a scammer would, but the bottom line isn't that different: no sale, and lots of wasted time.

Writer Beware.

My home office, with feline assistant.

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware®

I rarely make personal posts on this blog. But, as I don't need to remind anyone, these are scary times.

My husband and I are physically fit and in general good health, but we are both 64 and he has an underlying health condition. Based on everything we're seeing and reading, we've concluded that our best covid-19 strategy is either a) not to get sick, or b) to delay getting sick as long as possible in hopes of more treatment options or at least less hospital crush.

Our social distancing began last weekend. We've completely withdrawn from face-to-face social interaction, and are ordering non-perishables and household items online. No more routine doctor or dentist visits. No more stores, library, restaurants, or gym (we're in Massachusetts, where a lot of things are shut down anyway). I'm still on the fence about careful, non-peak hour grocery shopping for fresh produce--but I certainly won't be going while shelves are bare from people's absurd panic buying (some of the same people, probably, who are still having parties and crowding into bars *eyeroll*).

Sarah, my other assistant. Kittehs are a comfort.

We're acutely aware that this is MUCH easier for us than it is for most. We both already work from home. We have decent financial resources. We don't have kids. Elderly relatives are all dead. Family and many friends are geographically distant, so we're already socially distanced there. We can still go out for walks and runs. I can still garden (one of my major passions).

So the changes to our routine are relatively small, compared to many. It's tougher for my husband than for me--the majority of my social life is online, but he is a gregarious person with a wide circle of friends, colleagues, and peers. But there's always Zoom and Skype, and he's making use of both.

For us as for many, stress and fear are daily companions. This is not the zombie apocalypse; there will be a vaccine eventually, and civilization will survive, as it survived the flu pandemic of 1918. But...how bad will it get? How long will it last--will we have to live this way for a year? More? What will happen to friends and family? What will happen to the people who are thrown out of work by widespread (and, I'm guessing, soon nationwide) business closures? The people who have no insurance? The people in prisons and ICE jails, the immigrants packed together at the border? And what about the election? I didn't think, back in innocent December, that that could become more crucial. But, as I stand in horror before the shitshow happening in Washington, it's clear to me that it has.

These and other questions haunt me on a daily, sometimes an hourly, basis. I suffer from depression--have done since childhood--and one of my fears is that I'll sink into a clinical episode. I can feel that possibility stalking around the edges of everything now. I am doing my best to resist. My husband, thank goodness, is more resilient. We work to keep each other's spirits up.

At a time like this, ordinary activities--like maintaining this blog--start to feel irrelevant. But they're not. Life goes on, even in the face of catastrophe. I seriously doubt that covid-19 will put a dent in the volume of schemes and scams that target writers who will still be writing, still seeking agents, still publishing. And one of the most important strategies for resisting helplessness and depression is work, for those of us who are still lucky enough to be able to do it.

Emily: Why are you taking my picture _again_?

So Writer Beware will go on. I'll continue to be active on Facebook and Twitter. As much as possible, I'll post here as I usually do--not always weekly, but as often as I find things to write about. And I urge you to continue to email me with your questions, concerns, reports, and complaints. Please, keep the emails coming.

And: wash your hands.

Don't touch your face.

Cough or sneeze into your elbow,.

Keep your distance: 6 feet is optimal.

Stay home if you can, especially if you're sick (I know this is tough for many to do).

Check on your elderly neighbors (from a distance).

Resist panic buying.

Don't share health information unless you're sure it comes from a reputable source (Facebook, oh my God).

Be safe.

I'll be seeing you.

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware®

The enormous digital archive that is the Internet Archive encompasses many different initiatives and projects. One of these is the Open Library Project, a huge repository of scanned print books available for borrowing in various digital formats.

Unlike a regular library, the IA does not purchase these books, but relies on donations to build the collection. Nor are permissions sought from copyright holders before creating the new digital editions. And although the IA claims that the project includes primarily 20th century books that are no longer widely available either physically or digitally, the collection in fact includes large numbers of 21st century books that are in-copyright and commercially available--and whose sales the Open Library's unpermissioned versions have the potential to harm.

Most professional writers' groups consider the Open Library to be not library lending, but massive copyright violation. Many have issued alerts and warnings (you can see SFWA's alert here), and many authors have contacted the IA with takedown requests (to which the IA was not always terrific at responding; you can see my account of my own frustrating experience here).

In the fall of 2018, a novel (and disputed) legal theory was created to justify the Open Library and similar initiatives, called Controlled Digital Lending (CDL). CDL's adherents present it as "a good faith interpretation of US copyright law for American libraries" seeking to conduct mass digitization projects, and invoke as support the "exhaustion" principle of the first sale doctrine (the idea that an authorized transfer of a copyrighted work "exhausts" a copyright holder's ability to subsequently control the use and distribution of  that copy; this is what allows used book sales, for example) and the fair use doctrine (a complex principle that permits the copying of a copyrighted work as long as the copying is limited and transformative). As long as the library restricts its lending in ways similar to restrictions on the lending of physical books (for instance, allowing only one user at a time to access each digital format), CDL holds that creating new digital editions of in-copyright books and lending them out is fair use, and copyright holders' permission isn't necessary.

Libraries in particular have embraced CDL. Publishers' and writers' groups...not so much, especially in light of a recent legal decision that rejected both the first sale doctrine and fair use as basis for re-selling digital content. Here's the Authors Guild:

CDL relies on an incorrect interpretation of copyright’s “fair use” doctrine to give legal cover to Open Library and potentially other CDL users’ outright piracy—scanning books without permission and lending those copies via the internet. By restricting access to one user at a time for each copy that the library owns, the proponents analogize scanning and creating digital copies to physically lending a legally purchased book. Although it sounds like an appealing argument, the CDL concept is based on a faulty legal argument that has already been rejected by the U.S. courts.

In Capitol Records v. ReDigi, the Second Circuit held that reselling a digital file without the copyright holder’s permission is not fair use because the resales competed with the legitimate copyright holder’s sales. It found that market harm was likely because the lower-priced resales were sold to the same customers who would have otherwise purchased new licenses. In this regard, the court emphasized a crucial distinction between resales of physical media and resales of digital content, noting that unlike physical copies, digital content does not deteriorate from use and thus directly substitutes new licensed digital copies.

The same rationale applies to the unauthorized resale or lending of ebooks. Allowing libraries to digitize and circulate copies made from physical books in their collection without authorization, when the same books are available or potentially available on the market, directly competes with the market for legitimate ebook licenses, ultimately usurping a valuable piece of the market from authors and copyright holders.

For a more detailed deconstruction of CDL's arguments, see this statement from the Association of American Publishers.

Flash forward to 2020, and the coronavirus pandemic crisis. Last week, the IA announced the debut of the National Emergency Library--really just the Open Library, but with some new provisions.

To address our unprecedented global and immediate need for access to reading and research materials, as of today, March 24, 2020, the Internet Archive will suspend waitlists for the 1.4 million (and growing) books in our lending library by creating a National Emergency Library to serve the nation’s displaced learners. This suspension will run through June 30, 2020, or the end of the US national emergency, whichever is later.

During the waitlist suspension, users will be able to borrow books from the National Emergency Library without joining a waitlist, ensuring that students will have access to assigned readings and library materials that the Internet Archive has digitized for the remainder of the US academic calendar, and that people who cannot physically access their local libraries because of closure or self-quarantine can continue to read and thrive during this time of crisis, keeping themselves and others safe.

What this boils down to, under all the high-flying verbiage: the IA is ditching the one-user-at-a-time restriction that is one of the key justifications for the theory of controlled digital lending, and allowing unlimited numbers of users to access any digitized book in its collection.

The Authors Guild again, on how this harms authors:

IA is using a global crisis to advance a copyright ideology that violates current federal law and hurts most authors. It has misrepresented the nature and legality of the project through a deceptive publicity campaign. Despite giving off the impression that it is expanding access to older and public domain books, a large proportion of the books on Open Library are in fact recent in-copyright books that publishers and authors rely on for critical revenue. Acting as a piracy site—of which there already are too many—the Internet Archive tramples on authors’ rights by giving away their books to the world.

Here's just one concrete example. Katherine Harbour's Nettle King is available for borrowing in the National Emergency Library as a scan, an EPUB, and a PDF (the IA's EPUB versions are OCR conversions full of errors). Published in 2016, it's also "in print" and available on Amazon and other online retailers as an ebook, in addition to other formats. The IA, which never bought a digital license to Ms. Harbour's book and scanned and uploaded it without permission, now is proposing to allow unlimited numbers of users to access it, potentially impacting her sales. How is this any different from a pirate site?

Announcement of the National Emergency Library has been greeted rapturously by the press and by libraries. Less regarded has been the flood of protest and criticism from authors and professional groups. In situations like these, authors and publishers tend to be dismissed as greedy money-grubbers who are putting profits ahead of the march of progress and the noble dream of universal access to content...despite the fact that authors' right to make money from their work--and, just as important, to control the use of it--springs directly from the US Constitution, and has been enshrined in law since 1790.

In response to the outcry over the National Emergency Library, the IA has issued a justification of it, citing the "tremendous and historic outage" of COVID-19-related library closures, with "books that tax-paying citizens have paid to access...sitting on shelves in closed libraries, inaccessible to them." This noble-sounding purpose conveniently ignores the fact that those libraries' (legally-acquired and paid-for) digital collections are still fully available.

If your book is included in the National Emergency Library, and you don't want it there, the IA will graciously allow you to opt out (another inversion of copyright, which is an opt-in system).


Hopefully they'll be more responsive than they were in 2018, when I sent them DMCA notices that they ignored. Or later, when they began rejecting writers' takedown requests by claiming that the IA "operates consistently with the Controlled Digital Lending protocol.”


I've covered this question above, but I want to highlight it again, because it's such a persistent objection when this kind of infringement occurs: Brick-and-mortar libraries lend out books for free, so how are the IA's "library" projects any different?

A few reasons.

- Brick-and-mortar libraries buy the books they lend, a separate purchase for each format (hardcover, paperback, ebook, audiobook, etc.). The author gets a royalty on these purchases. The IA seeks donations, and lends those. Authors get nothing.

- Brick-and-mortar libraries lend only the books they purchase. They don't use those books to create new or additional, un-permissioned lending formats. That's exactly what the IA does. Moreover, one of its additional lending formats is riddled with OCR errors that make them a chore to read. Apart from permission issues, this is not how authors want their books to be represented to the public.

- People who advocate for looser copyright laws often paint copyright defenders as greedy or mercenary, as if defending copyright were only about money. It's worth remembering another important principle of copyright: control. Copyright gives authors not just the right to profit from their intellectual property, but to control its use. That, as much as or even more than money, is the principle the IA is violating with its library projects.

UPDATE: It appears that the IA--on its own initiative--is removing not just illegally-created digital editions in response to authors' takedown requests, but legally-created DAISY editions as well, even where authors don't ask for this (DAISY is a format for the visually impaired, and like Braille, is an exception in copyright law and is also permissioned in publishing contracts).


It did the same thing in 2018, even where the takedown requests specifically exempted DAISY editions. I don't know if the current removals reflect expediency or possibly are just a kind of FU to writers (and, indirectly, to disabled readers), but if you send a removal request to the IA, you might consider specifically asking them not to remove any editions for the blind and disabled (which, again, are legal for the IA to distribute).

UPDATE 4/2/20: The Authors Guild has issued a statement encouraging writers to demand that the Internet Archive remove their books from its National Emergency Library. The statement includes instructions on what to do, along with a sample DMCA notice in the proper legal form.

UPDATE 4/8/20: SFWA has issued a statement on the National Emergency Library, describing the legal theory of Controlled Digital Lending as "unproven and dubious". (A link to SFWA's DMCA notice generator is included.)

[U]sing the Coronavirus pandemic as an excuse, the Archive has created the “National Emergency Library” and removed virtually all controls from the digital copies so that they can be viewed and downloaded by an infinite number of readers. The uncontrolled distribution of copyrighted material is an additional blow to authors who are already facing long-term disruption of their income because of the pandemic. Uncontrolled Digital Lending lacks any legal argument or justification.

UPDATE 4/9/20: The Chairman of the US Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Thom Tillis, has sent a letter to the Internet Archive, pointing out the many voluntary initiatives by authors, publishers, and libraries to expand access to copyrighted materials, and expressing concern that this be done within the law. 

I am not aware of any measure under copyright law that permits a user of copyrighted works to unilaterally create an emergency copyright act. Indeed, I am deeply concerned that your "Library" is operating outside the boundaries of the copyright law that Congress has enacted and alone has the jurisdiction to amend.

The letter ends by punting "discussion" until "some point when the global pandemic is behind us." So, basically, carry on and maybe at some point we'll talk.

UPDATE 4/15/20: Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle has responded to Sen. Tillis's letter, claiming that the National Library is needed because "the entire physical library system is offline and unavailable" (even though libaries' legally acquired digital collections are still fully available) and that "the fair use doctrine, codified in the Copyright Act, provides flexibility to libraries and others to adjust to changing circumstances" (there's no such language in the actual Fair Use statute).

Kahle also notes:

In an early analysis of the use we are seeing what we expected: 90% of the books borrowed were published more than ten years ago, two-thirds were published during the twentieth century. The number of books being checked out and read is comparable to that of a town of about 30,000 people. Further, about 90% of people borrowing the book only looked at it for 30 minutes. These usage patterns suggest that perhaps that patrons may be using the checked-out book for fact checking or research, but we suspect a large number of people are browsing the book in a way similar to browsing library shelves.

But this is hardly a compelling argument. Large numbers of these books are certainly still in copyright, and many are likely still "in print" and commercially available (in digital form as well as hardcopy). Just because a book was published more than ten years ago or prior to 2000 doesn't magically cause it to become so hard to find it must be digitized without permission in order to save it. "But they're older books" sidesteps, rather than addresses, the thorny copyright issues raised by the IA's unpermissioned scanning and digitizing.

This passage also tacitly confirms the IA's abandonment of the one-user-at-a-time restriction that is a key feature of the rationale for the Controlled Digital Lending theory. If the basis for your enterprise is a legal theory whose strictures can be jettisoned at will, how credible is that theory really?

Kahle also claims that "No books published in the last five years are in the National Emergency Library". As it happens, the example I provide above (Katherine Harbour's Nettle King) handily disproves this statement: it was published in 2016, and was digitized by the IA in 2018 (you can see the scan here). I seriously doubt it's the only instance. Either Kahle is being disingenuous, or he doesn't know his own collection.

As a sop to creators, Kahle reiterates that concerned authors "need only to send us an email" and their books will be removed. As I've pointed out above, this is yet another inversion of copyright law, which explicitly gives creators control over the use of their work. In other words, it's the IA, not authors, who should be the petitioners here.

UPDATE 4/16/20: This terrific, comprehensive article from the NWU's Edward Hasbrouck examines the multiple ways the Internet Archive is distributing the page images from its unpermissioned scanning of print books--"[o]nly one of [which] fits the Internet Archive’s and its supporters’ description of so-called Controlled Digital Lending (CDL)."

Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware®

When is a literary contest not a literary contest?

When its purpose is to make money for the contest sponsor. Alternatively: when its purpose is to assemble a list of likely customers.

Take the online book competition (or book literary contest, or books competition--it doesn't seem to have an actual name) recently announced by Legaia Books, a publishing and marketing scam I've featured on this blog. Here's one of the solicitation emails that are going out:


Sound tempting? Here are all the reasons to kick this "contest" to the curb.

1. Legaia is a scam. This company--which claims a North Carolina address but really operates out of the Philippines--exists to rip off authors. That's really all the reason you need to give this contest a miss...but let's move on.

2. It's a scam within a scam. Legaia's contest has all the elements of a profiteering awards program--a different kind of scam, whose template Legaia is borrowing as a way to make some quick bucks and boost its customer list. Here are the markers:

• Solicitation. See the email above.
• A fat entry fee. You have to dig into the contest guidelines to find this: $40 for entries now, $70 for entries after May 11.
• Policies designed to maximize entries. Most profiteering awards programs offer dozens or scores of entry categories, in order to attract the largest number of entrants and thus the biggest pot of entry fees. Legaia's contest doesn't have categories--but it's "open to all aspiring and established authors", which, combined with what is doubtless a sizeable email solicitation campaign (Legaia is a prolific spammer), is basically the same thing.
• Mystery judging. The prestige of a literary competition is tied, in part, to the reputability of its judges. If the judges' identities aren't revealed, you have no way to know whether they have any credits or experience that would qualify them to be judges. They could be just the contest sponsor's own staff--or no one at all. Legaia's guidelines include multiple mentions of "judges" but, in true scam contest style, no names.
• Opportunities to spend more money. This is where entrants' email addresses--which are required for entry--come in handy; non-winners will almost certainly be solicited to buy Legaia's publishing packages and other services. (Contest guidelines also invite entrants without a book cover to "call us for a professional book cover.")
• Worthless prizes. Profiteering contest sponsors avoid cutting into entry fee income by offering "prizes" that cost them little or nothing to provide. Legaia is no exception. Given that its services are overpriced and substandard, a "Free Book Publication Coupon" is more like a lump of coal than a Christmas present. The "Seal Awards" aren't actual seals--just digital images. Winners are promised a "pitch program" that will expose them to "literary offices and film productions"--despite the fact that Legaia can't cite a single "literary office" or film studio that has ever picked up a book thanks to its (likely nonexistent) efforts. As for the "Marketing Platform worth $15,000"...Legaia offers only junk marketing ("marketing" that's cheap to provide, can be sold for giant markups, and is not effective for book promotion), so the actual worth is closer to zero. 

3. You have to work. In addition to submitting "your (a) manuscript, (b) synopsis, (c) book cover (front and full)" the contest guidelines indicate that there will be a public voting phase (see #7 and #8), which means you will have to bug your friends and family and annoy your social media followers with multiple vote-grubbing posts and announcements. Additionally, you must create a "pitch to the judges" which is "one of the criteria in the second phase of the contest as indicated in Rule 8". You have the option of making a video or using Legaia's "Free Pitch Template," whatever that is; the guidelines offer no guidance on length, content, or anything else.

4. Nobody has heard of it. The supposed benefits of a contest win or placement are often touted by sketchy contests or awards as one of the benefits of entering (not to mention a justification of a big entry fee). You'll be able to tag your book as an "award-winning book" and yourself as an "award-winning author". It'll impress agents and editors! It'll bring visibility to your work! It'll increase sales!

Most contests, however, don't have the prestige or name recognition to accomplish any of that. Agents and editors are well aware of how many dodgy contests are out there competing for writers' money; "I won Grand Prize in this contest you never heard of!" is unlikely to impress them. As for readers and book buyers, how much they care about award and contest wins is an open question--especially, again, where they've never heard of the award or contest. Is it worth $40 (or $70) to you to test that question?

5. A serious lack of literacy. Both the email solicitation reproduced above and the contest pages on the Legaia website are littered with grammatical and other errors (like its many brethren--see the sidebar--Legaia is based overseas). This really shouldn't need saying, but the sponsors of an English-language contest for English-language books should be able to demonstrate a good command of English.

Any one of these factors should be enough to at least cause you to give this contest the side-eye. Taken all together, they add up to a giant, screaming red flag.

My own feeling about literary contests is that they are mostly a waste of time (even if not of money). Scams and exploitation abound in this space (if you're a regular reader of this blog, you know how many posts I write about problem contests). Even where the contest is legit and doesn't have "gotchas" in its guidelines, those that can genuinely benefit your writing resume are a tiny minority. Again in my opinion, writers' time is better spent on publishing or submitting for publication.

That said...if you still are attracted by contests, there are resources on the Contests and Awards page of Writer Beware to help you research ones that won't rip you off. Also be sure to use the search box in the sidebar to search this blog for any contests I may have written about, and feel free to email me with questions.

Here’s a new holiday card design for this year! I have only a limited supply of them, but the choices on offer for Wondermark holiday cards are myriad. This year, I am not making a printed 2020 calendar. What I have done, though, is re-issued four of my previous calendars (from 2013, 2014, 2015, and […]

Above: A new sticker to accompany my new pin! For worthwhile and obvious reasons, Emerald City Comic Con was cancelled this past week. (It’s been tentatively rescheduled for August.) So, like many folks for whom that convention is a tentpole of their business year, I did all the usual prep for the show, but didn’t […]

Kamilita “Can U” The last time I wrote about this artist she was a mysterious and extremely prolific Bandcamp artist called Zizi Raimondi, but sometime recently she eliminated all her Bandcamp presence and rebranded as Kamilita. She’s still prolific, has put a lot of energy into her visual aesthetic on Instagram and YouTube, and is […]

Orion Sun “Lightning” “Lightning” is built around a one chord drone that blinks on and off in slow motion so it feels like falling into a meditative trance but then snapping out of it when you become aware of the trance. Tiffany Majette sings with emotive, soulful inflections but keeps with the drowsy and dreamy […]

Bec Plexus “Busy Making Steps” “Busy Making Steps” seems to convulse in harsh, jagged zigzag motions, like the music is having an allergic response to the song’s candid and angst-ridden lyrics. Bec Plexus’ vocal performance is the most straight forward part of the song – theatrical and arch, but within the boundaries of mainstream pop. […]

Knxwledge “amansloveislife_keepon” Knxwledge has an incredible ear for small moments in songs that can stand up to repetition, and take on a very different character when shaped into an indefinite loop. This cut is essentially a remix of the Patrice Rushen song “Remind Me” that zeroes in on its core keyboard riff and jettisons its […]

Setiap orang pasti akan mengikuti suatu kebiasaan yang memang dari dulu sudah tercipta di negaranya tersebut. Misalnya saja kebiasaan orang Indonesia, yang dimana sering kali mengejar layangan yang sudah putus (kaum anak kecil, secara turun temurun masih menggunakan kebiasaan ini ), lalu kebiasaan melakukan tindakan seperti ” Salim..” setiap hari ke Orang yang lebih tua […]

The post Indonesia Mah Lewat, Kebiasaan Ini Cuma Ada Di Rusia!! appeared first on anni-sanni.com.

Walking down the hallway at school, an administrator stopped me in my tracks. I felt her eyes glare from the top of my head, past my torso and down my legs. She told me that my shorts were too short and that she didn’t want to see me wearing them ever again. I felt embarrassed […]

Last month marked the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that affirmed the constitutional right to safe, legal abortion. Almost fifty years later, despite near constant attacks on abortion access, and a largely anti-reproductive health SCOTUS and White House, Americans still overwhelmingly support the decision and an individual’s right to […]

(via)

It occurs to me that, if I were better at marketing myself, I’d be writing and sending out press releases titled, “New York Times Number One Best Selling Audiobook Narrator […]

A Modest Proposal is brilliant, biting, hilarious satire, that is as horrifyingly relevant in 2020 as it was in 1729. This reads like one of those brilliant editorials from The […]

Cartoons from the March 9, 2020, Issue

Cartoons from the March 16, 2020, Issue

Cartoons from the March 23, 2020, Issue

Cartoons from the March 30, 2020, Issue

Cartoons from the April 6, 2020, Issue

Cartoons from the April 13, 2020, Issue

Cartoons from the April 20, 2020, Issue

Cartoons from the April 27, 2020, Issue

Cartoons from the May 4, 2020, Issue

Cartoons from the May 11, 2020, Issue

eyyy

Doraaaa

WHAT IS LOVE

Hi May