More Writers Losing Their Rights

May 2, 2011

heidit Business, Writing , , , , , , , 8 Comments

I’m back after a long, unexpected break. I got busy and the blog was pushed to the side while I focused on other things. I meant for this post to be a light-hearted look at being a freelance writer, but something I read today erased any feelings of humour I had about freelancing. The issue: the Halifax Herald has come out with a new rights-grabbing contract–no increase in pay to compensate for the loss of rights, of course–and the deadline for writers to sign it has now passed.

I’ll give the details here, but I encourage everyone to read the full account at a blog about the freelancers’ ordeals, called HoweNow. Meanwhile, a post by Silver David Cameron, writer for the Herald, can be found at The Green Interview. Please read it, as well. The comparison he makes between the rights-grabbing contract and selling apples is brilliant. Although I don’t know his writing well, after reading this post I’d imagine readers of the Herald will dearly miss his columns.

In a nutshell, the Herald has reportedly demanded that its freelance writers sign a contract that takes all their rights, allows the Herald to modify the work in any way they see fit, allows the Herald to reassign the rights without restriction, prevents writers from discussing their financial dealings with the Herald with anyone other than lawyers and accountants, and allows the Herald to decide not to publish the work but prevents the writer from withdrawing the work or publishing it elsewhere, even if the Herald does not publish it.

According to HoweNow, the Herald agreed to change the contract somewhat, but refused to change clauses involving rights. The blog notes that the Canadian Freelance Union called the Herald’s contract the “worst contract in Canada.”

Essentially, the Herald gets more from the writers, in terms of free content, but doesn’t have to pay them more money. And the attitude is one of “we’re a business, we have to survive.” Apparently, newspapers have to survive, freelance writers don’t. The situation is sickening, and even more so because so many publications are turning to this sort of rights-grabbing contract.

According to the Professional Writers’ Association of Canada (PWAC), writers have not seen a substantial increase in the per-word pay for articles since the 1970s. It’s one of the sad facts of being a freelance writer. How we get around that is by taking articles we’ve written and repackaging them for other markets.

For example: You could write an article about a new local hotel that uses only environmentally friendly products and publish that in a local newspaper. You could then take that article, use the same interviews but rewrite the story as a travel article for a newspaper in a city on the other side of the country. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s a way to take work already done (usually for a pittance) and make extra money.

But with rights-grabbing contracts, writers no longer have the ability to do that. Publishers say it’s because they “aren’t running a charity.” Apparently, freelance writers are running charities. I had no idea–I should have applied for charity status a long time ago.

This is terrible for freelance writers, but it also affects the public. Because really, what these publishers are saying is that their readers aren’t worth the cost of experienced, knowledgeable writers. They’re saying it isn’t worth it to them to ensure that readers continue to read the same writers they’ve come to know and love over the years.

To the publishers, nothing is worth it. The writers aren’t worth the money and the readers aren’t worth the cost. I’m sure the publishers won’t have any trouble finding writers to sign the new contracts. They’ll find younger writers who don’t really understand the contract or who just want to get their foot in the door. And the new writers aren’t bad people–they just don’t understand that the contracts they’re signing are helping to devalue the writing profession as a whole.

But what makes me so angry is that writers are portrayed as not being “team players” because they want to protect their rights and their futures. Somehow, everyone else is allowed to want to make money, except for writers. Apparently, when we agreed to become freelance writers, we agreed to live like the monks who’ve taken a vow of poverty.

I wonder how many of these higher ups at newspapers and magazines have agreed to take a salary decrease to ensure their newspaper survives.

To read more about writing contracts, visit Bad Writing Contracts. Meanwhile, if you want to tell the Herald what you think of how they treat freelancers, you can do so at their Facebook page (thank heavens for social media). You have to “Like” the page first, but then feel free to leave your comments.

Protecting Your Moral Rights

June 3, 2010

heidit Business, Writing , , , , 2 Comments

Often when writers think about their rights they think about copyright. Obviously, copyright is important. After all, it affects how much a writer will be paid in the future for a particular work and how the work can be republished.

Another set of rights that writers must protect, however, is their moral rights. Although these do not have the same economic impact as copyrights, they still have a huge impact on the writer. Unfortunately, some publishers are now making a grab for the moral rights to a work.

Moral rights refer to the right to attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously, and the right to the work’s integrity. Although it doesn’t sound like much on paper, moral rights are incredibly important.

Right of attribution (or paternity) means that your name cannot be taken off your work without your permission. As the writer, you have the right to claim authorship of a work, either under your own name or a pen name.

Right to publish anonymously means you have the right to publish a work anonymously. If you have indicated you don’t want your name to appear on a work, your name can’t appear without your permission.

Right of integrity has to do with the body of the work. The idea behind it is that the work is an expression of the author (or painter, sculptor, etc…). Any unauthorized changes to the work are a violation of the right of integrity. It doesn’t matter if those changes improve the work. If they were not made or authorized by the author, they are a violation of her rights.

Waiving your moral rights allows the publisher to make changes to your work. I’ll give a basic example.

You review a movie for a newspaper. You hated the movie and used strong language, such as “This movie is a sign of the upcoming apocalypse,” “The actors are not believable as human beings,” and “People would be further ahead to burn their $12 than go to this movie.” You really, really hate this movie.

The newspaper in which your review is to appear is owned by a company that has a financial stake in the movie. So, the newspaper changes your review to make it seem positive. But, your name still appears as the reviewer, indicating that it’s a legitimate review.

If you’ve waived your moral rights, the newspaper can do this, and readers will believe you genuinely liked the movie. The readers will then send you hate mail when they spend $12 on it, thinking you recommended it. After that fiasco, your reviews won’t have as much credibility with the readers. Your reputation has been harmed because you waived your moral rights.

It’s not just movie reviews. If you’ve waived your moral rights, the publisher can essentially change whatever he wants in any type of work. If there’s a scene in a book he considers offensive, he can cut it, even if it’s vital to the plot. If he feels your article is too negative or paints a politician he likes in a bad light, the article can be changed. If he doesn’t like the end of a story, it can be altered to have the characters wake up and realize the events of the story were all a dream (you may be accused of being a hack if this change is made to your story).

A further infringement on your moral rights is if your work is used in association with a product, service, cause or institution without your permission.

Moral rights can’t be assigned. The publisher can’t say he has the moral rights to your work. But, moral rights can be waived, which is what some publishers want writers to do.

In Canada, moral rights are valid for 50 years beyond the life of the author.

The next time you’re reading a contract from a client or publisher, check to see if there’s anything asking you to waive your moral rights (it might also be referred to in its original French as Droit moral) and make sure you fully understand the clause before you sign it. Better yet, don’t sign it. Because many publishers that expect moral rights to a work aren’t going to pay you anything extra for those rights. So why sign them away?

Cross the clause out, or e-mail the publisher and explain why moral rights are important. Some publishers may not realize the clause is in there or may assume it’s a standard clause. If you explain it to them, they may be willing drop the clause. If they’re not willing to drop it, then you have to decide how important it is to you. But I think most writers would tell you that moral rights are worth fighting for, and each time you waive them you make it easier for more publishers to demand they be waived.

If you waive your moral rights, your credibility could be on the line. And credibility is vital for writers.

Please note: The above is not intended to be legal advice. If you have questions or concerns about a clause in a contract, you should contact a lawyer who is familiar with artists’ contracts.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 141 other followers