McGraw Hill Publisher charging illustrators a fee to get paid
-
@Kim-Hunter This is an interesting take. I imagine the response from McGH would be: "You agreed to this in the contract". I would be very surprised if this payment method isn't specified in the contract. Perhaps someone with first hand experience can clarify this?
The next question to be raised is: Given the size of McGH does a children's book freelancer have a reasonable choice NOT to work with McGH?
I would say "Yes. A freelance illustrator does have the choice not to work with McGH" -- as I don't happen to work with McGH.
But I can easily see other illustrators saying "No. I HAVE to work with McGH. They are my biggest client. Therefore I HAVE to agree to this new fee." This of course is a slippery slope because agreeing to this new company practice makes it easier for other publishers to adopt the same practice, or for McGH to pass on yet another operational cost to freelance illustrators in the future.
-
I think it could be argued that a business does not have a right to pass on their cost of doing business to an entity that is not their customer. The freelancer is not their customer. MGH is the customer of the freelancer. This would be like me demanding a 2.2% rebate before I hand my crumpled dollars to the cashier and, if they didn't comply, walking out the door with a full shopping cart without paying a cent.
-
As a freelancer it'd be tempting to return the contract with a change charging McGraw Hill my OWN administrative fee, bringing the contract back up to the original amount.
-
@Braden-Hallett You could absolutely do that!
BUT both you and McGH would have to sign (i.e. agree to) the change otherwise it's not binding. -
@davidhohn Yeah, I'm not arguing that it's a good thing by any means. I was just trying to get an idea of where it fit in in the scheme of service charges and knew about the 3% because my sister owned a gift store.
It would probably take a really famous illustrator going elsewhere to get their attention, or like you said, maybe they would listen if all of us said something together. It certainly does feel like a huge power imbalance, and as someone still trying to break in, it's yet one more hurdle in a field that already has so many. We may argue that this is capitalistic freedom, but when a company is so big that it wields disproportionate power (and most publishers are now part of conglomerates), it hardly feels like a free choice.
And it's not just publishers. This conglomerating thing and the getting nibbled to death by fees thing are everywhere right now.
-
@davidhohn said in McGraw Hill Publisher charging illustrators a fee to get paid:
@Braden-Hallett You could absolutely do that!
BUT both you and McGH would have to sign (i.e. agree to) the change otherwise it's not binding.Oh for sure! I don't think I'd ever expect them to sign it (unless the sign it accidentally). This is just another way to say to them 'I don't like this'.
If I say "I don't like this clause" they'll laugh and say "well then lick my unmentionables first illustrator of a long list! You'll sign it and like it or we'll go with the next person!" Well, they probably won't say THAT, they'll be perfectly polite, but still!
But If I say "I made some changes. Please review the contract" then there MIGHT be a little bit of back and forth where I get to tell them the administrative fee is predatory garbage. Honestly enough though, come to think of it, they'll STILL probably just chortle as they toss the contract in the shredder and give me the boot out the door.
Unless they don't read the change and sign it anyway, in which case they'll probably ignore MY 'administrative fee' and it'll be an uphill battle to get my two point whatever percent back... at which point I'll never be able to work for them again, even if I'm interested.
So I suppose in the end there wouldn't really be much point in doing any of this, but for some reason it'd feel satisfying? If they're gonna charge an administrative fee I'm gonna make 'em work fer it, gosh darnit!
Seriously though, that fee is bull*&^%.
-
@Braden-Hallett I see where you are coming from now!
It's a little passive aggressive but fundamentally I'm on board for it.
Heres why:
It will make things a bit harder and more difficult for the AD's you are actually in contact with. Now, these are fundamentally good people who don't make these kinds of policies. They do have contact with those policy makers though! And if word gets around that it's this new payment method that is sucking up time negotiating AND that their preferred illustrator said "I'm sorry but I can't agree to this project" BECAUSE of this new company policy -- well that has a cumulative effect.
The people McGH who are perfectly fine with a fee like this aren't the ones working directly with the freelance illustrators and authors.
-
@LauraA I knew you weren't arguing in favor. And I could see how a comparison to what is currently "normal" could be made to this new McGH policy/fee.
Your post simply encouraged me clarify my own thoughts as to why this both "feels" and is fundamentally different.
I apologize if it seemed I was making you advocate for a position you don't hold.
-
@davidhohn said in McGraw Hill Publisher charging illustrators a fee to get paid:
It's a little passive aggressive
Oh, it's COMPLETELY passive aggressive
-
@davidhohn No problem! I was doing the same.
-
Here's a lawsuit against them from 2012, Another class action lawsuit was filed in January 2021 by authors over unpaid royalties after MGH re-defined electronic books.
https://www.courthousenews.com/author-says-mcgraw-hill-cheats-on-royalties/
-
-
@Lee-White posted this to FB today. I'll be signing this petition. Hope others will join.
-
@davidhohn Oh I'm so in. I don't have a big following but I can reach out to some kidlit peeps on Twitter too.
-
@BradAYoo Every person you discuss this with makes a difference!
-
Add an admin charge to your invoice - 20% processing fee to deal with their crap. Ridiculous.
-
@davidhohn Thank you so much for sharing! I just signed and will share this petition on my socials!
-
Has anyone here worked for this publisher? If so, will you refuse work in the future because of it? The owners of this site are quite successful, where is their opinion and thoughts on this?
It seems like it is easy for unpublished or small publisher artists to get workedup over something like this- what are the experienced artists thoughts who have worked with this publisher or large publishers thoughts?
(edited to change my wording)
-
@jimsz as an illustrator who works for small independent artists, I don’t know how I feel about the implication that unless you have worked with these large publishers you’re not a “real” pro. I produce professional work, and get paid for my services. In my book that qualifies me, and other illustrators like me, as pros. Do we have as much experience as Jake or Lee or Will? No, but we are still professionals
It’s an unfair practice regardless. As a community, there really is no downside to banding together on this and demanding fair pay for services offered
-
Poor choice of words by me, I was thinking experienced with large publishers.
Large companies make their own rules because they can and those rules benefit them.
There is little difference with this and Adobe going to a rental model for their software (which costs more artists more I would think).
As I asked, how many would refuse to work for this publisher if they came knocking? it may stink to have to pay the extra fee but many, if not most would swallow it as the cost of doing business.
It costs nothing to complain and start petitions when you are outside looking in (as I am!) but once you're in it will come at a cost.
