Bad Contract Alert: Stary (aka Dreame)
Posted by Victoria Strauss for Writer Beware®
This is another in my series of blog posts about serial reading/writing app contracts (you can see all of them here).
This time the subject is Stary (official name: Stary Pte Ltd, based in Singapore), one of the largest and most well-established of such companies. At least sixteen apps operate under the Stary umbrella, of which Dreame is probably the best-known. Most cater to English-language readers, but there are several for readers of other languages, including Spanish, Russian, and Portuguese, and one specifically for Filipino writers.
Procedurally, the Stary apps are much like the others I’ve written about. You must sign up for the app and publish at least three chapters, with a minimum of 3,000 words, before you can apply for a contract. (You could also be invited to apply–like other serial reading/writing apps, Stary aggressively solicits for content.)
If offered, the contract may be exclusive or non-exclusive. “Writer benefits” for authors with exclusive contracts include signing bonuses, completion bonuses–both paid once per story–and a Daily Update Bonus, which can be received monthly but requires authors to adhere to punishing schedules and word counts, and after three months is only available if the work is pay-to-read (no guarantees on that–see below) and earnings are more than $20 during the month.
Writers also receive an advance (the amount wasn’t specified in the contract I obtained, but based on what I’ve seen from other apps, I would guess it’s few hundred dollars), and additional revenue may be available based on reader activity and rights exploitation or licensing (see below). Also promised are “upgraded promotions”–social media features, advertising, and more–although only selected writers receive these extra perks.
I’ve long wanted to get my hands on a Stary contract, not only because the company is so dominant in the serial reading/writing app space, but because of the rumors of its author-unfriendliness. And it does indeed have some really problematic clauses–although in some aspects, it’s a bit less awful than others I’ve seen…