I write a lot about publishing contracts on this blog, and questions about publishing contract terms make up a large portion of my Writer Beware correspondence. Unfair and even outrageous contract terms are a major problem in the publishing industry, whether they stem from a traditionally one-sided relationship that's being challenged by developing technology (Big Publishing) or the plague of ignorance, inexperience, and greed that afflicts the small press world.

Last year, the US-based Authors Guild announced its Fair Contract Initiative, whose goal is "to shine a bright light on the one-sided contract terms that publishers typically offer authors and to spur publishers to offer more equitable deals."

Why do publishers insist on offering their newest partners more than a hundred conditions so dubious that they’ll quickly back down on them if asked? It largely boils down to unequal bargaining power and historic lethargy. Anxious to get their works published, authors may wrongly believe that the contract their editors assure them is “standard” is the only deal available, take it or leave it. And much of that “standard” language has been around for years thanks to institutional inertia; as long as somebody signs an unfair clause that favors the publisher, the firm has no interest in modifying it.