Simon & Schuster Improperly Drew Revenue From Author's E-Books, Says Suit
Simon & Schuster took career and business management titles it published by author Martin Yate and turned them into collections, without the knowledge of the author and without paying royalties, said Yate’s Wednesday copyright infringement complaint (docket 1:23-cv-12896) in U.S. District Court for Massachusetts in Boston.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The Hardeeville, South Carolina, resident has 15 copyrighted titles published by Simon & Schuster’s Adams Media imprint, dating back to 1985, the complaint said. The publisher took three of the titles and “turned them into a collection,” and then “repeated this” in three separate collections -- one print and two e-book collections -- each featuring three of Yate’s titles, it said. None was reported to Yate, and no royalties were "ever paid,” it said.
“Upon information and belief,” the complaint said, Simon & Schuster and Adams use an accounting system that “tracks two sets of data”: one provided to Yate and a second that’s maintained internally. The accounting system allows the defendants to “incrementally siphon royalties from Yate” in such a way that the “scheme went undetected for years," it said.
In contracts from 1985 to 2017, Adams Media -- and then Simon & Schuster and Adams, following Simon’s purchase of Adams in 2016 -- requested that Yate produce material for publication, the complaint said. Two of the books have gone through 12 editions; one is in its 29th edition, it said, and all were copyrighted by Yate since publication. The three books were part of settlements in 1995 and 2012, after Yate accused Adams Media of “improper accounting and fraudulently withholding royalties,” it said.
Yate "discovered" in 2011 that Adams was publishing seven titles in e-book version without his permission, the complaint said. The publisher was paying Yate “only 10% royalties” on the e-book sales, when the “publishing norm” for e-books is 50%, said the complaint. Adams agreed to arbitrate further issues at its expense up to $10,000, it said. “This shows a pattern of conduct of defrauding Yate over the course of decades,” it said. Adams “earned substantial sums” from Yate’s works through 2016, it said.
Yate referenced another lawsuit, Argov v. Simon & Schuster (docket 1:20-cv-11284), in which author Sherry Argov alleged that the defendants “knew, and recklessly disregarded” essential terms of their publishing agreements. Argov alleged that the defendants distributed free copies of her e-books but refused to provide any information regarding the scope of the activities, said Yate’s complaint. Similarly, Yate’s complaint said, Simon & Schuster distributed the e-book of the 29th edition of his Knock ’Em Dead - Job Search Guide “free on Amazon since the date of publication in September 2017” until August 2023.
All agreements between the defendants and Yate are terminated, except for print titles and an e-book version of Knock ’Em Dead 29th edition, the complaint said. The defendants assured Yate that they had withdrawn from sale all e-books not under license and that they would no longer sell any of his copyrighted e-books, the complaint said. The statement was “untrue” and was a “misrepresentation” meant to allow the defendants to continue to gain revenue from his works, it said. Five e-book titles of Yate’s works have been for sale as recently as this year, the complaint said.
Over six and a half years, defendants “manipulated unearned balances to improperly retain a running balance of over $100,000 of royalties that were rightfully Yate’s,” said the complaint, referring to balances generated when an author obtains advances to write a work. The defendants “improperly utilized unearned balances to improperly retain earnings from Yate,” the complaint said. They “improperly asserted that Yate owed money made from several titles on which advances were paid in full years earlier,” it said.
Simon & Schuster was aware of Adams Media's conduct and “knowingly allowed” or “actively conspired with Adams Media to infringe Yate’s copyrights and to withhold royalties from Yate,” the complaint said. Yate asserts claims of copyright infringement, fraud, violation of chapter 93A of Massachusetts General Laws, breach of contract and unjust enrichment, said the complaint. He seeks an order permanently enjoining defendants from further fraudulent conduct, orders awarding damages to Yate and trebling them pursuant to the M.G.L. 93A, plus legal fees and costs.
A Simon & Schuster spokesperson emailed Thursday: "The suit is without merit. We take our responsibility to pay our authors seriously, and we do not owe Mr. Yate royalties."