Still, the exercise of bringing together some of the things I’ve discussed in isolation about SSWs was extremely helpful, and I was humbled by the reaction of the audience and the great questions they posed. If I can make the time, perhaps I’ll do what a few of them suggested and write a book…!

In addition to the presentation, I handed out copies of the design questions to help people follow along and perhaps even make notes. Below is the presentation and a link to download the .pdf of design questions.

My suspicion was that in a digital era where self-publishing is taking an increasingly larger piece of the traditional publishing’s pie, writers are valuing the worth of their intellectual property a bit more than they were twenty years ago. Or, to be more precise, writers have more and easier options to independently extract value from their intellectual property (e.g., online self-publishing).

But, unless you have the means to extract that value on your own (i.e., the time and knowledge to successfully self-publish, which includes marketing, technical, and other considerations), money may still be the priority. Someone’s got to make the cheese sandwiches, right?

Responses on twitter were mixed: @HoppingFun and @vforvoice came down on the rights/it depends side, while @davisac1 and @jchutchins opted for more money.

So, writers, I put it to you: which do you prefer? More money or more rights? More importantly, why or under what conditions?

UPDATE!

I moved some of the twitter responses over here so they wouldn’t be lost. Reviews are mixed, but “depends” seems to be the front runner so far…

@jchutchins: More money, less rights.

@vforvoice: More rights, less money. Media is too expansive to not retain rights for derivatives of original material.

@davisac1: I’d totally sell more rights for more money. That’s what I’d be trying to do with them anyway.

@HoppingFun: Depends on the biz plan and people involved. If I have creative freedom, I’d likely go for a split.

@BFree63: It’s a short term vs long term choice. With more rights comes more money down the road. I call it “investing in yourself”.

@chrisw10: With regards to writing, I think it depends entirely on the long tail. For my 1st story, I want more rights, less money for it, cause I think its too good to let someone tie up rights to it. But for anything I’m doing career-wise, more money, less rights.

[I then asked @chrisw10: "So, career/professional project= money, personal project = rights?"]

@chrisw10: For me, that’s probably how it breaks down. Though any commerical book that I think may be big I’d want to keep e-book rights. Unless giving them up will get me more in the long-run. It’s all about the long run. :)

@JolleySezStuff: Depends — is this a project I’m passionate about? Or did my car just die?

@gmskarka: For most writers, that’s a false dichotomy — More RIghts EQUALS More Money (in the long run).

@floerianthebard: Depends on the piece of work. If I want to do more with it b/c I see potential, I’d take less pay. If it’s a one-off, more pay.

@andrhia: More money, less rights.

@simon_staffans: Best of worlds? More $ first with a buy-back-in-option in the future. Likelihood of happening? Will there ever be world peace?

A lot of ground is covered, including the philosophy behind Brain Candy, LLC’s projects, my thoughts on bridging creatives and audiences, and how publishers can benefit from embracing a transmedia approach to content and intellectual property rights.

http://publishingperspectives.com/2011/01/rethinking-rights-in-a-transmedia-world/

The panel was moderated by Emily Williams and also featured Richard Curtis of E-Reads and David Marlett of enkHouse.

So, I’m hitting the Big Apple again, after a far too-long absence. Very much looking forward to the conference and the chance to connect with friends in NYC.

Ping me if you’d like to meet up!

While the concept is built on the influences of countless books, blogs, and articles, it was directly inspired by the following two posts:

Guy Gonzalez’s “The Ideal 21st Century Publisher”

and

Simon Pulman’s “The Future of Publishing”

(best viewed in full-screen mode directly at slideshare.net).

http://www.digitalbookworld.com/2010/life-at-the-bleeding-edge-of-collaboration/

This part focuses on Brain Candy, LLC‘s first collaborative commercial entertainment property, Runes of Gallidon. Thanks to Emily and the DBW team for highlighting new models of entertainment creation!

You can read part one of the interview here.

I’m more intrigued by the possibilities of what I call ‘Transmedia 2.0,’ where creatives invite audience participation and contribution of content. It’s a collaboration of content, a co-creation of value, supported by the rich, pervasive structure of transmedia 1.0. It’s the Holy Grail of an entertainment property:

The presentation below explores transmedia as it’s typically implemented and its future possibilities for formally acknowledging fandom and finding ways to incorporate audience participation into the building of an entertainment property.

Also, be sure to check out “The Making of Martin Aggett” project over at Wreck a Movie: http://www.wreckamovie.com/themakingofmartinaggett.