2.16.2007

Electronic releases


Dear Miss Snark

I was intrigued to come across this website with a detailed list of terms and conditions for submissions (can't get link to work here)


A little over the top? I'm not good at reading legalese so it kind of puts me off submitting in case there's something weird in there and I'm accidentally signing over my firstborn. Or maybe I just need a good whack with the clue stick.


I have no idea what prompted Inkwell to put that on their website but I bet it's a pretty good story. That list is only for electronic submissions. If it troubles you (and I read it and it seemed ok to me) send your submission by mail. They don't ask you to print it out, sign and notarize it, and include it with your submission.

Inkwell is one of the most respected agencies in town. They're not trying to pull a fast one. I think it's more that they are protecting their own clients many of whom could be targets for "you made a lot of money and I want some of it" lawsuits.

24 comments:

Rachel Starr Thomson said...

Have you seen this morning's "Squirrel Conspiracy" post on www.inkygirl.com?

Heather said...

The link, as originally posted, had one too many http sections and an extraneous period at the end. Try:
0036686.netsolhost.com/submissions.html instead

Heather

Ryan Field said...

There's either a very good reason for posting that, or a perfect example of over-kill.

Torrey Meeks said...

I'M IN UR INKWELL, STEALING ALL UR PROSE.

December Quinn said...

I'm guessing there's a very good reason.

Anonymous said...

Actually, Miss Snark, it applies to all submissions. But I agree it seems okay.

There's at least one dumb typo ("of the of the") & if I'd written it I'd have pointed out that all submissions are already copyrighted by the person who wrote them.

Some lawyers get like this--they protect their clients, but introduce overly-scary language in the process. It's not really all that much more effort to give the appearance of fair play as well as its substance. Too bad they didn't bother.

writtenwyrdd said...

http://www.snopes.com/critters/gnus/squirrel.asp

Here's a link I thought you might like to try, MS, it's got squirrels.

sandyg said...

I'm sorry, but I have looked and searched and changed browsers but I cannot find Miss Snark's email address in her profile so that I can ask a question. Help?

Linda said...

They also literally just did a 100% site update. Their site was very different last week.

Heather Janes said...

sandyg, her email address is:

miss (dot) snark (at) gmail (dot) com

sandyg said...

Thank you whoever put the email link back in the profile .... even if it was the internet Gods.

minnie bittertiddof said...

miss.snark@gmail.com

Copied and pasted from the profile page. (hope it's okay to give that out)I guess you'll screen it if it's not.

KRStagliano said...

Their site looks great! It was sort of a quill pen style I believe - this version is fresh and inviting. I got a fanstastic reader report from Kim Witherspoon - a rejection, yes, but with much welcomed input. I think people look for reasons to dislike an agent or agency to soften the "blow of the no." Which is not the same as the "no of the blow." Ask my husband....

Anonymous said...

sandyg --

MS's email addy is on the complete profile (linked from the front page of the blog as "View Complete Profile") as a link that says "Email" (left-hand side, in a dialogue box marked "Contact.") Just click on "email" and the address will autopopulate.

Anonymous said...

Not to worry. Inkwell is not interested in this e-mailer's crap anyway. Their site makes it clear they want people who can write and be successful.

Anonymous said...

Thank heavens someone else couldn't find the email address for Miss S. Had me worried there for a minute. Is it me? The gin? Dementia?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous #3 said...
"Not to worry. Inkwell is not interested in this e-mailer's crap anyway. Their site makes it clear they want people who can write and be successful."

So glad you decided to become the spokesperson for Inkwell.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous "not to worry"--WTF with the obnoxiousness?

Anonymous said...

Is Miss Snark on vacation? Or am I lost in some electronic back-eddy?

kd

Irrational Exuberance said...

"Actually, Miss Snark, it applies to all submissions."

No it doesn't. They would like it to apply to electonically submitted manuscripts. And just because it says so, doesn't mean whatever they ask is valid or enforceable.

To say the least, their disclaimer is off-putting. Why can't they have normal business relations without a legal document? Are they in the habit of suing people? Is that one of their sources of income? If you have a simple disagreement with them, does it imply a potential lawsuit?

On the flip side, the only rational people who could risk dealing with this agency are those who can afford legal counsel. And, no matter how big of an author someone may be, that's not a relationship one would want to have.

Maybe it's paranoia. Maybe they got sold a package deal of legal services and this was one included.

Whatever the case, the disclaimer makes them look litigious in nature or not quite competent.

Anonymous said...

I'd say since she's updated the posts that need approval she's just on hiatus due to the long weekend. Probably up to her neck in gin!

Anonymous said...

I'm guessing vacation. The Queen Mary docked in Sydney this morning with the QE2 expected tonight. That's a lot of bars to work over...

Auntie Penultimate said...

Irrational Exuberance: to me, it actually sounds like the opposite. I read it as "Don't you dare try to sue us for 'stealing your idea' when we get plenty of ideas from our other authors, and guess what, some of them may even be similar to yours. People get similar ideas all the time, so live with it."

Too many people are quick to say "Hey, I sent you this idea two weeks ago, and now this famous author is making a million bucks a week on it. I'm gonna SUE!" these days. Sure, in some cases there's a legitimate concern, but in many others, it's just someone trying to cash in on the big bucks somehow.

Anonymous said...

What auntie penultimate said. I'm going to make a wild guess that some disgruntled querier did try to sue them. Once the lawyers are involved, they tend to prescribe long blocks of legalese as a preventative measure. No malice need be assumed.