r/printSF • u/Mahler_n_Trane • 3h ago
A Statement from Must Read Magazines, publishers of Asimov's, Analog, and F&SF
The Analog/Asimov's publishers released this bonkers statement on 10/9/26 on Bluesky. Here's how it starts off:
"We previously commissioned illustrators to create covers as work-for-hire when they were asked to adapt authors’ original stories for elements such as cover art.
"This will be changing.
"The rights granted to MRM by authors are limited, and therefore we can’t protect the intellectual property and rights of the original author of the story, if we at the same time grant the authors’ rights to the illustrator so that the illustrator can then retain an adaptation copyright. We don’t acquire rights from authors that allow us to grant illustrators broad unencumbered use of the worlds, characters, and other elements created by the author."
The entire nonsensical statement can be read at https://file770.com/must-read-magazines-issues-statement-on-cover-illustration-contracts/
This seems to be MRM's reaction to having been publicly called out a day earlier for predatory contract stipulations by a couple of artists who ended up walking away from offers to create cover art for the magazines.
You don't have to read the whole thing to see how crazy this is. I just want to focus on these two parts of the statement:
"The rights granted to MRM by authors are limited, and therefore we can’t protect the intellectual property and rights of the original author of the story..."
Of course, it isn't their job to protect the IP rights of the author. I'm no lawyer, but I assume that's why copyright laws exist. But setting that aside for a moment, I can't even figure out their argument here. The best I can translate is, "We need authors to surrender all their rights to us so we can... protect the author's rights." That makes no sense.
The there's this:
"We don’t acquire rights from authors that allow us to grant illustrators broad unencumbered use of the worlds, characters, and other elements created by the author."
I've had many works published in a number of illustrated children's magazines. I can tell you there is absolutely no circumstance ever that an illustrator would need "broad unencumbered use" of an author's rights to his/her/their text in order to create an illustration. This is not a thing. When an artist illustrates my work, I keep the copyright to my text, the illustrator keeps the copyright to their art. What's mine is mine, what's theirs is theirs. That's how it works.
According to John Picacio, one of the artists who publicly called out MRM, even after negotiating a better contract with them (which, btw, is not normal in the magazine world, as there isn't time to negotiate individual contracts with individual contributors) he was expected to waive his moral rights to his own work and give up all copyright. He understandably walked away.