(If you're a regular reader and are feeling some deja vu at the title of this post, it's because I've published it before, in a slightly different form. I'm updating and re-running it because I've gotten so many questions about these issues over the past few months.)
Several years ago, a now-defunct literary magazine called The Toast gained notoriety by demanding that its writers surrender copyright. In the widespread discussion that followed exposure of this author-unfriendly policy, I was struck by the number of comments from writers who seemed to think that a bad contract clause was not so very awful if (pick one) the publication was great; the people who run it were great; the bad contract clause was not always enforced.
That's all very well. But this kind of thinking is exactly how writers get screwed: by making assumptions about a publisher's intentions, by letting their emotions overrule their business sense, and by forgetting that, in the author-publisher relationship, the publishing contract is the bottom line.
