anyone else freelance for newspapers or magazines? work for hire question

[katilac]

Our local paper is now part of Big Corporate Media, ugh.

 

I have freelanced for them for over ten years, with a one-page contract. The pay is very low but it's very flexible and I figure it keeps my skills and resume somewhat up-to-date.

 

We have all been sent new contracts, which specify that everything we submit is now work-for-hire (meaning they own the copyright). w-f-h is supposed to apply only to employees and very specific instances, unless of course one signs a contract saying, yes, by all means, I will act like an empoyee without any employee benefits :tongue_smilie:

 

This contract is unbelievably bad. I could rant for ages, but basically it boils down to them saying they own everything, and don't even think about writing even a NEW article if the subject is somewhat similar to something you wrote for us, or if the font is the same, or if it's a day ending in y, and so on.

 

Mostly, I am wondering if any freelancers have had experience with the new push for w-f-h. How bad is it out there?

[funmamacita]

This may be an obvious question, but did you ask about amending the contract to be less grabby? I sometimes think they throw the most terrible contract they have out first just because they know some people will sign it without trying to negotiate. I've had good luck just asking for modifications to rights-grabby contracts. I don't think I've ever had a bad contract that I wasn't able to get some concession on, even if it was just a rate bump.

I write mostly for magazines, but I haven't noticed a big work-for-hire push. Definitely people have wanted more rights in the last couple of decades, though. I remember when you could negotiate a separate contract (and an additional rate!) for online publication, and now publishers generally lump that in with the general contract.

[katilac]

I'm definitely going to try that - won't sign without some changes! I was mostly curious as to how widespread the pillaging - er, changes, were.

 

This may be an obvious question, but did you ask about amending the contract to be less grabby? I sometimes think they throw the most terrible contract they have out first just because they know some people will sign it without trying to negotiate. I've had good luck just asking for modifications to rights-grabby contracts. I don't think I've ever had a bad contract that I wasn't able to get some concession on, even if it was just a rate bump.

I write mostly for magazines, but I haven't noticed a big work-for-hire push. Definitely people have wanted more rights in the last couple of decades, though. I remember when you could negotiate a separate contract (and an additional rate!) for online publication, and now publishers generally lump that in with the general contract.

[funmamacita]

Do you belong to Freelance Success? It's always been the best place for me to find out who's grabbing what rights, how people have managed to negotiate better ones, and — of course! — how much everybody is paying.

[katilac]

Do you belong to Freelance Success? It's always been the best place for me to find out who's grabbing what rights, how people have managed to negotiate better ones, and — of course! — how much everybody is paying.

 

No, I do not, but I will check them out! Thanks.

[LMA]

I freelance but not for newspapers. However, a work for hire does not automatically mean that your give the copyright right over to the buyer. There has to be specific circumstances for each piece of work. However, the buyer still may use your work and publish it.

 

I would not sign anything I did not agree with and, generally as a freelancer, you don't have much negotiating room with these kinds of contracts. I have to sign one for every job I have so they are not new for freelancing. Maybe not for your industry, but in my field, it is standard to sign one. The rule of thumb for my field is if you don't agree to the terms, don't do the job.

Edited September 20, 2012 by LMA

[katilac]

I freelance but not for newspapers. However, a work for hire does not automatically mean that your give the copyright right over to the buyer. There has to be specific circumstances for each piece of work. However, the buyer still may use your work and publish it.

 

I would not sign anything I did not agree with and, generally as a freelancer, you don't have much negotiating room with these kinds of contracts. I have to sign one for every job I have so they are not new for freelancing. Maybe not for your industry, but in my field, it is standard to sign one. The rule of thumb for my field is if you don't agree to the terms, don't do the job.

 

Yes, I've had a contract with them for years already (a reasonable one), but there's a new one since they've been bought out. Not reasonable. It specifies that contributors are giving up copyright for all time, in all media, and that's just for starters. I don't plan to sign it - it's unreasonable from beginning to end. If there were one or two troublesome clauses, maybe we could negotiate, but I can't see them rewriting the entire contract.

[Joshin]

Quite a few newspapers and magazines are becoming grabby. I know the reasoning, but I don't like it. It's because so much is now also published online. They want the online revenue but they also don't want the same piece they bought published on another site, too, and taking views from them.

 

The part that would raise the biggest raised flag for me would be you can't write on the same subject for someone else. Um, no. I have a few certain niches I write in. Heck, I've published books on those subjects!

 

Try to negotiate. If they want all rights in perpetuity then they need to pay for them. Otherwise, they can be happy having limited one-time use or one-year use rights before it reverts back to me. I would also give them absolutely no control over what subjects I write about for other publishers and clients.