I suppose it was only a matter of time:
EDIT: Thanks to
lyth for pointing out that they've changed the rules.
Here at SFX magazine we know that everybody has a story inside them. So if you're a previously unpublished author, send your words to us for entry in our inaugural writing competition! Yep, we're planning a book that will be given away with a future issue of SFX, a book called Pulp Idol – see what we did there? It’s a collection we’re publishing in association with the good people at Gollancz.Hard to object, except to the fact that
All entries will become the property of Future Publishing Limited on its receipt of them and will not be returned. Upon submission of their stories to the address set out at rule 2, entrants irrevocably assign to Future Publishing Limited all intellectual property rights that they have in any part of the world in their stories and waive all their moral rights. Future Publishing Limited reserves the right to edit any story as it sees fit for the purpose of publishing the story in the SFX short story compilation.Isn't that a bit restrictive? I also can't see anything that prohibits already-published authors from entering (although equally I can't think of a reason why they'd want to enter).
EDIT: Thanks to
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 11:55 am (UTC)That's a total screw job - you assign them the copyright of your story for the joy of entering their competition?
And the winner just gets published and some contributor copies but no money?
Eesh.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 12:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 12:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 12:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 12:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 12:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 12:26 pm (UTC)They'll get entries.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 12:34 pm (UTC)What did you expect from them? They suck.
*Hides copy of magazine under bed* Damn their crack
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 12:49 pm (UTC)Whoa! What this means is that if you submit a story and then ever publish another story with any of the same characters or setting, Future Publishing could sue you.
Or it other words, if Larry Niven had sent one of his early stories into a competition like this, the publisher would have owned the rights to Known Space.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 12:53 pm (UTC)That's legal? Oh dear.
No material other than that which the entrant has created himself
or herself, without using or being influenced by any other material (particularly no
material owned or created by third parties), may be used.
And what is this supposed to mean? 'Using or being influenced by any other material'? Using - so if a character quotes Homer, or Dante, or Churchill, or whoever, is that therefore illegal by the rules of the competition? I shudder to think what these people made of Dan Simmons.
And 'being influenced by'???????????????
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 01:08 pm (UTC)I think the obvious retaliation is to flood them with entries which are classic SF works and see how long it takes them to weed them out.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 01:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 01:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 01:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 01:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 01:21 pm (UTC)I'm sure they'll get entries, even so, but it's kind of depressing...
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 01:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 01:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 01:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 01:39 pm (UTC)I also note they're looking for stories of between 1000-2000 words: crazily restrictive. I know prejudgment is bad and wrong, but this is going to be a *really* bad book.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 01:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 01:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 01:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 02:01 pm (UTC)It's still a bit excessive, but not quite in the "...and your first born unto the fifth generation" sense that I took it to be.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 02:29 pm (UTC)Why on earth are they preventing people from resubmitting non-winning stories elsewhere - stories they aren't even going to use themselves?
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 03:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 03:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 03:12 pm (UTC)Of course this is bollocks - I'd guess, though I have no knowledge, that a well written ultra-short story would be more financially viable than almost any other form of short fiction as it has more potential markets.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 03:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 03:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 03:37 pm (UTC)Oh, I gave up on them years ago and let my sub lapse. They then pursued me, with phone calls and all, for a year or more, begging me to renew my subscription. Of course, it might have helped if they had not kept writing to/ringing up Mr Brisingamen, even though they had my forename in writing in front of them, and I had filled in my title as Ms, and was fairly confident that despite their insistence that no, it must be my husband they wanted, the sub was mine, and I had been of sound mind when I let it lapse. Which to my mind said rather a lot about their expectation of their reading demographic, as well as infinitely more about their intelligence, not to mention their inability to read the damn form properly, and listen to the irate lady they were annoying.
But I digress. It will be a cold day in hell before I either read SFX again, or work for them once more (that after the incident when they pursued me for months to fill in some bloody form without which I could not work for them, to which I was obliged to point out that I had already filled in this 'one-off' form three times, had not worked for them for eighteen months anyway because the new reviews editor had entirely trashed the reviewers database and didn't know who any of the previous reviewers had been, and I didn't intend to work for them again until they'd paid me for the last three reviews I'd written and had published, and did they have a problem with that, because, on the whole, I did. Amazingly, the money finally turned up.)
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 03:45 pm (UTC)This Magazine. Bunch of Arsecandles. That is all.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 04:48 pm (UTC)Obviously if it came to court the court would interpret any ambiguities against Future, because they wrote the thing, and would tend to be more sympathetic towards the competitors because of the unequal bargaining power, but there doesn't seem to be anything inherently problematic in there from a legal standpoint.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 05:02 pm (UTC)Under US law, that kind of condition is clearly improper. Without a signed writing agreeing to the transfer, no part of a copyright may be transferred, and it must explicitly so state. That includes agreements to publish. So, unless there's a signed entry form that one must include along with the entry that agrees to these conditions—the site is down at the moment, so I can't check—under US law it's improper.
But I'd forgotten he goes on to say:
However, it's under UK law. And, unfortunately, the relevant UK law is not in the Copyright, Patent and Design Act. Instead, there is a specific provision in the "contests of skills" statute that allows for this.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 05:11 pm (UTC)Let's hope it wasn't written by whoever is going to judge the quality of the entrants' writing.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 05:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 07:48 pm (UTC)I would say the limit is understandable if you are going to receive thousands of pieces of badly written crap to sift through - which is what I suspect will happen. Sadly, I think we are going to see a lot more of this sort of thing - Richard and Judy, for example, have been running a 'ghost writing' competition on the back of the success of that 'Gem Squash Tokoloshe'(???) story. Some one I know from my MA course (who dropped out, as it happens) got through to a second round on that. She used to go to one of my writing groups, but stopped attending. I think she entered the competition because she is so unsure about her writing competence, and I would suspect that there are lots of people like her.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-22 08:07 pm (UTC)A proto lawyer writes: Anyway, the key fact to remember is that under English law (no such thing as UK law since I'm being pedantic) contracts do not have to be in writing unless they involve the sale of land (there may be other obscure exceptions, but copyright transfer isn't one of them). They can be concluded by nod, wink, handshake or whatever you like - although you may have a pig of a job proving their existence in practice if you haven't got any physical evidence to back you up.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 07:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 08:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-23 09:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-24 06:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-28 02:11 am (UTC)AWESOME.
-- tom
no subject
Date: 2006-01-28 02:16 am (UTC)SRSLY.
-- tom