I hope that this is a cure for blinding greed.

Posted August 9, 2006 11:02 AM by Fragano Ledgister

God bless Miss Snark, and the folks at Writer Beware, because otherwise young whippersnapper writers like me would go broke. ^_^

Posted August 9, 2006 11:46 AM by AnimeJune

Le mot juste might be liable as: AuthorHouse found liable.

Posted August 9, 2006 1:29 PM by Clark E Myers

If Brock had gone to Lulu, could they have been held liable?

Posted August 9, 2006 2:39 PM by colin roald

where are the lines drawn for liability between publisher and author? I thought publishers were exempt from getting sued if their bomb-building book contained an incorrect formula and a reader blew their arm off. Did I miss something?

Posted August 9, 2006 2:42 PM by Greg London

I'm sure that Patrick and Teresa can tell us more than anyone needs to know about the liability of US publishers for defamation, but it seems to me that Autrhorhouse walked right into this one, in what might almost be a Wile E. Coyote moment. Publishing a book the author tells you another publisher suspected of being libellous is like strapping JATO rockets to your roller skates.

Posted August 9, 2006 3:44 PM by Dave Bell

Yup. We can't be sued for giving bad advice, as Greg London observes; but it's easy to make a case for libel. Cases have been successfully pursued when all the house did was send out a half-dozen copies of the manuscript to solicit advice about whether the contents were actionable.

The law hasn't yet gotten around to addressing the fact that it's now possible to publish a book without reading it. I don't believe printers and binders are liable for the content of the books they manufacture. I find it very amusing that the basis of AuthorHouse's liability (and possibly PA's as well) is their claim that they're real publishers.

Posted August 9, 2006 4:06 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Loath though I be to contradict our hostess (and willing though I be to contradict everybody else) one of the leading cases is Chilton - once upon a time Chilton Books as publisher advised using a screwdriver as a prybar to remove freeze plugs. Of course it was held out to be a book of expert advice by experts on how to do things with substantial puffery. Still I'd expect the precedent to be solid where applicable.

As I trust everyone knows a screwdriver should never be used as a prybar - ranks right up there with hitting one hammer face against another hammer face as hardened parts are more brittle. Chilton lost

See also Paladin Press on how to be sued for selling a book on how to be a hitman.

The Poor Man's James Bond is of course full of bad advice - I'm pretty sure the whole question of whether some authority sought to poison anarchists with the Anarchist's Cookbook has been discussed hereabouts.

Posted August 9, 2006 5:17 PM by Clark E Myers

Man, talk about the best of all worlds. You get money for being the victim of libel, AND the libel is vanity-press published, so nobody's actually even seen it.

Posted August 9, 2006 8:07 PM by Mike Kozlowski

This is a bad precedent that threatens First Amendment rights.

You may not like vanity publishers. Still, if a publisher's business model is that they will print whatever someone wants as long as they get paid the materials cost, distribution cost, plus a profit, then shouldn't they be treated as a common carrier? Do you think an ISP should be able to get sued for libel because of statements made by one of its subscribers? I don't see how this is any different. The law should not encourage people to be spies, especially where it would have a chilling effect on free speech.

I'd just as soon junk libel laws entirely. It's so difficult to win a libel judgment in most cases that it's virtually a crap shoot. Rush Limbaugh has the dirtiest mouth on radio - how many times has he been sued for libel? Most libel cases I see involve rich and powerful people who want to shut up their critics.

Posted August 9, 2006 10:18 PM by Firebug

Firebug, the business model you describe isn't publishing, it's printing. If AuthorHouse hadn't claimed to be a publisher, they wouldn't be liable for issues related to content. My understanding is that AuthorHouse's mistake (legally) was in purporting to be a publisher - i.e., to exercise some selection about the content printed - while behaving as a printer.

Rush Limbaugh hasn't been sued for libel because libel is only written slander.

I think that, so long as we have free speech, we have to allow people to seek redress for speech that is false and harmful.

Posted August 9, 2006 10:27 PM by RiceVermicelli

Many of those individuals do get sued for libel or slander as the case may be. Many of them lose or settle out of court. The problem is that the damage has already been done by the time the courts get involved. If there were no libel or slander laws, the media would be safe for virtually no one.

Posted August 9, 2006 10:47 PM by Dave Kuzminski

I love Ms. Brandewyne's name, it suggests whole realms of possible pen names. I shall be Gwathló Lune, or perhaps Ringló Morthond.

Posted August 10, 2006 6:47 AM by Niall McAuley

Niall McAuley: How about Tharbad Greyflood?

Posted August 10, 2006 9:36 AM by Fragano Ledgister

Tinfang Warble?

Posted August 10, 2006 12:42 PM by Teresa Nielsen Hayden

/*I thought publishers were exempt from getting sued if their bomb-building book contained an incorrect formula and a reader blew their arm off. Did I miss something?
*/

the hitman affair

Posted August 11, 2006 12:26 PM by vlorbik

*splrt*

When Teresa jests, keyboards die.

Posted August 11, 2006 4:00 PM by Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

Martini deWinter
(Sophisticated tales of the poorly imagined rich, like "Footballers' Wives" but, you know, hot.)

Maxine Ginsling
(Exoticish-locale adventures featuring two-bit Bogarts, one-bit Bacalls, and debituated Lorres.)

Danvers* Fabrique-Chaudiere
(Decadent stories set, as the cover says, "on the very fin of the siècle," in a Paris as real as any in Nevada. Phantoms optional.)

Scrumpy Manderley
(Clean but honest peasants doing clean but honest things amid the manicured fiefs of the suburban Middle Ages. Magic depending on which way the wind is blowing.)

*pron. "Dahn-VAIR."

Posted August 11, 2006 5:33 PM by John M. Ford

Nicole: Does this mean you hadn't heard of Tinfang Warble before?

Posted August 12, 2006 5:57 AM by Paul A.

AuthorHouse is nothing BUT a bunch of Predators and they deserve every lawsuit against them that anyone could EVER file. I had one book with them mistakingly once. They were TRULY all about getting the money. They lied to me about having read mine before publishing it, although mine contained nothing that would hurt anyone in a lawsuit, but it was selling just a FRACTION of what it sells now. Authorhouse cancelled my contract on a DIME, when I questioned them about my royalties in 2005. I had sold over 1,000 books this one week when a school ordered them. The books were $26.00 a pop, and Authorhouse sent me a check for only $98.00. When I asked them where was the REST of my money, their story was that Authorhouse was NOT set up to pay me what I was "supposed" to get when it was supposed to. They cancelled my contract, send me an additional $100.00, and I never heard from the assholes again. I am GLAD to hear that they lost $200,000.00 to that writer JUST last year. Happy for "everyone" who has the opportunity to sue this messed up place. They have hid under more names than the law allow. I have NEVER received the full royalty checks that I were due. I have a different Vendor that puts my books out there now, and I am making ten times the amount that I was with Authorhouse. I recommend these VAMPIRES to No One. As a matter of fact, I spend my days telling this story and advising everyone I come across NOT to utilize these people. That woman sued the right people. Sue them again, and bring their asses down!

Posted October 8, 2007 6:15 AM by A D.C. Author

Sounds as if the DC author did not understand the agreement. I have published with Authorhouse and they have been very dependable for me. ALL publishers are in business to make money. If not why would they still be in business?
At the end of the day you find that many authors on these sites that complain about their book NOT selling is typically because of 3 reasons:

1. The book is crap.
2. There is not a marketing plan in place.
3. Lack of funding for marketing.

Unless you are able to show you have a market for your book you will never receive substantial support of any publisher.
Also I hate it when folks say that Authorhouse is not a publisher, because it is and it is NOT a printer. If you look at the definition of both terms you would be pressed to define them as a printer.

I have not read the case notes from the judge....has anyone? I do know that Kansas has an odd tort law in place about libel. So if the case was not in Kansas would the outcome be different.

Posted November 15, 2007 8:11 PM by Move on

Re. 21: You know how when you wash a bunch of socks and the number you take out of the dryer at the end is never equal to the number that went into the machine at the start?

I think I've figured out where they go.

In case Move on isn't some kind of footware, if condition 1 is the reason the book isn't selling, the publisher needs to hire a better editor either to reject the crap or to improve the manuscript before it becomes a book. In cases 2 and 3, they just aren't doing their job. So if we accept your assertion that AuthorHouse is a publisher, they clearly are not a very good one.

Posted November 15, 2007 8:57 PM by Paul Duncanson

I agree with the last person, AuthorHouse is actually one of the few publishing houses that is not just a printer, they are run by authors, who understand the writing business.

Posted January 30, 2008 9:17 PM by Tyler