Forum Moderators: not2easy
If you have worked with such agreements before I'd appreciate you sharing either the broad outline of such an agreement or particular clauses/provisions that you deem essential to the agreements effectiveness, clarity or enforceablity.
My immediate concerns include 1) scope of ownershiop of the work; 2) right to replublish or include in derivative works; 3) attribution; 4) right to modify, summarize, etc.; 5) limits on the authors rights to republish (if I'm paying for the work I will seek exclusive use).
Others?
How do you word the provisions? (A little cut and paste would be helpful, if you could include entire paragraphs of a form agreement.)
Is there any 'standard form' or 'industry accepted agreement' - promulgated by any industry authority?
What have you signed off on that you specifically had modified? Why?
What turned you off, in what circumstance, from contributing content? Specifically, did someone insist on terms that killed the deal? Why?
Hello? You all mean that you've never signed one or asked someone to sign one?
If you are in the content publication or content writing business how can you have so little to say, so few observations, so little to offer on the subject of "the essential elements of a content contribution (writing for publication, expecting to be paid or receive a benefit) agreement"?
Is this just too elemental for you all, or do you write or solicit or accept writings/content from others without ever bothering to define expectations, limitations, acceptable use, etc?
Fascinating.
Non-oozing sarcasm apart, I can think of a number of reasons.
Firstly, a lot of content is produced on a trust basis between people who work happily together and who are happy with the basic structure of a contract (where I live that is Formal Offer + Formal Acceptance = Legal Contract).
Secondly, content is often poorly-recompensed. Thus the urge to involve a lawyer or legal contract on either side is not necessarily a compelling one. A few deep breaths and it just goes away again...
Thirdly, an amount of content work is done internationally, where the problems of enforcement and jurisdiction add to the disincentive of the second point.
As someone who regularly sold content to national newspapers, it was always done without a contract and without the mention or necessity of one on either side.
From a content-provider's point of view, I might look sceptically and cynically at a potential contract that wanted me to sign away rights to this and that - it would make me more wary about being taken for a ride. It would certainly lead me to consider raising my rates.
I think the kind of thing that you are looking at might be necessary for articles by Larry King or Jacob Nielson - but not for 2000 words on widgets by Jakob King or Larry Nielson.
Normally copyright transfer (however limited) is for something already written. If you are hiring someone to actually write something especially for you including in the employment services contract that all work becomes yours on payment may be sufficient.
I suggest you do a search for: "copyright transfer" and read several of the example forms listed. I also recommend you get proper legal advice.
Ya. Trust is enough and there's too many lawyers. There have been a few changes, however, with the advent of distribution by WWW that tend to have an impact on the non-issues, all those things handled by trust.
Here's a real life 'for instance': What happens when the company that purchased the work for hire no longer exists, is dissolved, defunct, bankrupt? Does that make your works for hire public domain OR do you think you - the author - may have some residual rights?
What about when your name is on the work for hire and some sleazeball co-opts the work, modifies it, posts it on his/her "I love X = nasty thing" website and you sit there in horror at your affiliation with X. Do you have a right to enforcement of any kind? What is your purchaser sold your article (since they have all the rights) to sleazy website, and it now looks like you write for sleazy websites?
Is anyone thinking? Is anyone concerned?
Has anyone ever signed an agreement of any kind?
P.S. Note to self: Advise self of legalities.
The advice about 'talk to a lawyer' is actually very sound advice, even for those who think a handshake is enough - and I think a handshake is enough - and the contract just spells out people's expectations and understanding about who is doing or not doing exactly what in what time frame for what money paid how, etc.
Webwork, Esq. (my other job)
Ever wonder who is in the chain of publication if someone is really annoyed and intends to seek retribution on everyone who released the writing 'to the world'?
If you are helping to craft, host and publish to a webserver articles do you ever bother to ask "do you have all rights to that which I am about to launch to a global presence"? "Is this stuff true that I'm about to publish to my server?"
What if there was something in there that was libelous or a trade secret or xyz? Do you - who publishes it - have an indemnification agreement?
My defense: Ummm, I don't know anything. I just FTP'ed it to a server, altered the layout a bit, coded in some html . . .
This thread is about starting to think. Remember - in large measure this WWW stuff is still new. People are scrambling to catch up. Do you want to be surprised or do you want to anticipate the issues?
[zdnet.com.com...]
Note: State court decisions do not bind other state courts. U.S. District Courts aren't bound by other U.S. District Courts. Ditto U.S. Courts of Appeal.
I have cut several contracts to pieces and pasted the "quoted" section together. Note: some references apply to print not Web publishing but the points are similar in both.
<Disclaimer>The following is meant as a general outline of copyright transfer concerns and is not to be considered legal advice. Please consult an attorney regarding a specific instance or contract.</Disclaimer>
Copyright Made Simple: If you write it it is yours. No registration or jumping through hoops required (although you can if you wish). You may need to show proof of date of composition in a case of dispute of originality.
You may transfer permanently or temporarily any or all portions of a copyright. Courts like written and signed contracts specifying exactly who is transferring what to whom for how long and for how much. That is basically it. The mess is in the permutations.
The common areas of transfer:
Consent To Publish
- The author retains all rights under copyright laws granting Publisher exclusive license for the first formal publication of the Work and non-exclusive rights for some purposes i.e. republication, reformatted publication, and creating derivative works for the duration of its copyright in all languages, throughout the world, in all media, etc.
- The author transfers exclusively or non-exclusively to Publisher copyright (including all rights thereunder) in the Work for the duration of copyright and all extensions and renewals thereof, including all subsidiary rights, in all languages, throughout the world, and in any form or medium now known or hereafter developed. The author to retain i.e. the right to make copies for the author's own use and/or the right of republication in in future publications of the author, provided acknowledgment is made of the Works's initial Publisher and/or the right to re-use data and tables in future publications of the author, provided acknowledgment is made of Publisher, and/or etc.
- Any and all rights transfered may or may not have time limits.
Subsidiary Rights And Compensation
The author will receive Amount monetary return from Publisher for the use of this material, and shall receive Amount free copies of the published Work. Publisher will obtain the author's approval for requests to reprint or translate part or all of the author's Work. All monies received will be Division Formula between the author and Publisher.
Previous Publication
- The author guarantees that the Work has never been published.
- The author will provide an assignment of copyright if the Work has been previously published in whole or in part.
Page Proof Correction
The author will have opportunity to read and correct the edited page proofs. Production and publication of the Work may proceed without the author's approval if the author fails to return corrected pages to Publisher by the date specified by Publisher.
There are variations of the variations depending on the author, the Work, the publisher, and the medium.
From the Author's Point of View:
Let The Fight Begin!
Both the author and the publisher have to understand copyright and decide the minimum transfer necessary to satisfy both. There is a lot of copyright information (including all the laws and conventions) available online.
I strongly recommend reading and making notes and understanding copyright. I also strongly recommend hiring a lawyer to review and explain any and all contracts.
What happens when the company that purchased the work for hire no longer exists, is dissolved, defunct, bankrupt? Does that make your works for hire public domain OR do you think you - the author - may have some residual rights?
What about when your name is on the work for hire and some sleazeball co-opts the work, modifies it, posts it on his/her "I love X = nasty thing" website and you sit there in horror at your affiliation with X. Do you have a right to enforcement of any kind?
What is your purchaser sold your article (since they have all the rights) to sleazy website, and it now looks like you write for sleazy websites?
If you are selling a product normally once it is sold you no longer have any control of its use or misuse. Copyright allows you to retain as much control as contractually agreed. If you sold all rights then you sold all rights. Period. Do it differently next time.
Is anyone thinking? Is anyone concerned?Has anyone ever signed an agreement of any kind?
I learned the hard way over 40 years ago: sold a photo for $20 (big money to a kid then) that became a postcard and made thousands for the (new) copyright holder.
I am continually amazed at the lack of contract use by many of WebmasterWorld members.
Background Check + Research + Contract + Quality Work + On Schedule = Good Business
Note the "contract" glue in the middle? Don't do work without it.
On the "purchase" of copy - the goals are somewhat different: ensure that the work is from originator and all copyright transfer is appropriate and covered.
What if there was something in there that was libelous or a trade secret or xyz? Do you - who publishes it - have an indemnification agreement?
Remember that consult your legal advisor bit?
No.
>>"Is this stuff true that I'm about to publish to my server?"
Gee, I hope so!
>>What if there was something in there that was libelous or a trade secret or xyz?
I would never do that! ;)
>>Do you - who publishes it - have an indemnification agreement?
Uhhh...OK
I'm just saying that many people here aren't writing for hire on a grand scale and the question you posted initially, doesn't apply.
Rather than beat us all over the head becasue we're not obsessed with the legal ramifications of our writings on everything from "fuzzy blue widgets" to choosing a good domain name, consider who you're talking to.
If I have a client whose in pet supplies, and they want me to write something for a page (at $60/hour) about the pros and cons of using choke chains for the sake of having useful content for the shoppers to read, where's the legal issue? OK, I won't plagarize.
Am I going to get upset about whose name is on the 200-500 word article? What if they get another designer 6 months from now? Do I still have ownership, or does it transfer to the client? Who cares!?
IMO, this is the level of involvment that many of us write at. Web designeres make their money on creating web sites. The clients can keep the articles!
If you need legal advise, talk to a lawyer!
You want to say "It was a work for hire?" Says you, if you don't have a written agreement. I only agreed that you would publish once, give me credit and that it wouldn't be modified without my consent. Now, prove that it was otherwise. You paid me for a license to publish my writing one time in one location. Now, without a writing prove it otherwise.
Want to nip issues in the bud? Why not have a handy-dandy all purpose agreement? Better to have something than nothing. No kidding.
What if we didn't really discuss all the details? Then our 'understanding' about what a work for hire is is what, exactly? What you say? What if a jury likes me a lot more than you? What if you're a sophisticated businessman and I'm just a starving artist?
Hit you over the head? I may not be the devil's advocate but I don't mind playing the devil's advocate if it gets you to think, gets some eyes to open and starts a dialogue..
So, any more contributions about "what an agreement should contain"?
-- ONE-TIME RIGHTS: The magazine has the right to publish the work one time, and there is no exclusivity, either in time or geography. This non committal statement makes no reference to previous publication history, if any. It's a favorite of writers selling reprints, who like to get more money yet keep their legal skirts clean. THIS IS THE DEFAULT RIGHTS OFFER BY COPYRIGHT LAW: in the absence of any signed contract to the contrary, this is what you are selling.
More discussions of writers' rights:
[writersweekly.com...]
[writers.ca...]
[writing-world.com...]
[nwu.org...]
As an attorney who sometimes comments back here and in other threads raising legal issues I will sometimes make it my (unpleasant) job of jostling people from their slumber. I know I can't satisfy people's drive/desire to 'have an answer' because I know from many years in the profession that each situation will often differ and therefore there's no 'answer'. This frustrates people, a circumstance I wish I could avoid, but I'd be putting people into a false state of confidence if I ever said 'this is the answer, bet on it'. I'd much prefer to see people aroused and on alert to 'potential issues' than to have them driving down the business highway thinking there's no reason to check the mirrors ;-)
