|
Added a couple of new resources to the OP on  Freelance WritingWho Pays Writers? - "A place to list whether, and how much, magazines and websites pay their writers. We'll post 'em as you report 'em. Intended to be informational, not judgmental. " http://whopays.tumblr.com/ Money talks "How to find out what other writers are paid so you know how to set your own rates" Article by Ann Friedman (of editorrealtalk) http://www.cjr.org/realtalk/money_talk.php quote:“I gotta say,” says Martin, who isn’t a freelancer and has no plans to quit her job to pursue writing full time, “y’all got some serious hustle.” Defenestration fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Dec 13, 2012 |
#
?
Dec 13, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
I am a masters student in puppetry. Having just found this thread I am excited to follow it and possibly contribute. I am currently developing a workshop for undergrads to help them find work using my experience starting a house cleaning business and the commonalities between being self employed in a service industry and being an artistic business entity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Added a couple of new resources to the OP on Yup, they still write cheques. It's funny sitting around watching the business manager write out a stack of cheques for the writers. Kids, if you want to make money, move to where everyone is and write for niche mags, public broadcasters or online.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
I have several 9x12 commission drawings that people outside the US want shipped to them. The UK and Australia in particular. What's the best/least-expensive way to get them to them? Both in how it's shipped (either a tube or flat...one of them can't be rolled the other can) and what service(s) should I use to mail them? Thankfully they both will be covering the shipping charges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 07:22
|
|
|
The OP was very informative, but I want to see if I understand copyrights and fair use correctly. It says in the OP that fair use means I can draw a mustache on the Mona Lisa, so does that mean I've created a new work and can copyright it and sell it? Say I draw a picture of Darth Vader using my own unique style. It's obviously Darth Vader, but it's drawn using my vision and style. Can I copyright that drawing and sell it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
Dead Blue Sky posted:The OP was very informative, but I want to see if I understand copyrights and fair use correctly. Thus, companies like Disney and Lucasfilm have their characters copyrighted, and on a pretty severe lockdown. If they see that you are profiting from a mustache parody of Mickey Mouse, they will definitely sue your rear end. Depending on how much money you have to lawyer up (lol), and whether the court decides that your version is covered under fair use (heavily dependent on how similar your character is to the original and the intent of your version--to critique Disney, or to make profit?) then you MIGHT win. Mickey Mouse and Darth Vader are still under copyright (see: The Mickey Mouse curve), whereas Mona Lisa is not. Photographs others have taken of the Mona Lisa ARE still copyrighted to the owner though, so it's not just that any picture of the Mona Lisa is public domain. You can get away with a lot more, fair use wise, if you're not profiting
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
Also, using the Mona Lisa wouldn't fall under fair use. Fair use governs the use of works under copyright; the Mona Lisa is public domain, and thus can be used however you please for whatever purpose and you can make any money you like off of it. The caveat above applies though; any given photograph of the Mona Lisa will be copyright the photographer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
Exactly the info I needed and then some. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
It's going to be interesting to see how Disney responds to the cottage industry of t-shirts, art, etc. featuring stylized Star Wars stuff, Lucas always seemed pretty hands-off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:If someone produces an unlicensed product to bank on a Disney character's popularity, that's a serious threat to Disney's profits (and potentially their brand, if you're making unlicensed Little Mermaid dildos or whatever) Just a note about a common misconception, it doesn't really matter if you're making a profit or not. The point is you're still infringing on THEIR ability to profit off of it. Your giving it away for free doesn't change the fact. I'm sure you've heard the infamous story about Disney suing that day-care center for painting images of Mickey on their walls. "It's perfectly legal because I'm not making money" has just as much legal basis as "it's perfectly legal to distribute pirated MP3s as long as I include a notice saying to delete them within 24 hours." Fair use generally means stuff like parodies or critiques or educational use. It doesn't have anything to do with whether you're making money. In your mustache-Mickey example, the issue isn't whether your interest is artistic or commercial. Parody for profit is OK. The issue is whether the point of your usage of Mickey is to parody Disney, or if it's to basically springboard off of Mickey's built-in familiarity. There have been parodies that were judged to be infringing on that basis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
I'm in a bit of an ethical conundrum, and I'm hoping those of you who are professionals can give me some guidance on to what the appropriate response would be in this situation. I do illustrations and comics purely as a hobby, but I've gotten enough interest (and requests for a website) that I finally bought a domain name and hosting this year. I'm pretty excited about having an "official" online presence for the first time. One of my friends is going into design and website building as a career, and he's been giving me some advice on how to present a digital portfolio; however, I know nothing about coding, and eventually he suggested that he might build it for me as a gift. His rationale is that it will be good to have a live website in his own portfolio, so it benefits us both. He's hard up for work right now, but even if that weren't the case I feel conflicted about having him put in so much time for free. Unfortunately I can't afford to pay him what a custom site is truly worth, and I was also hoping to teach myself about web design in the process of putting this up, though I suppose it's unrealistic to expect to go from complete ignorance to a really professional product. Am I overreacting? Is there some way we can both get what we want without me taking advantage of his friendship?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:When you start talking about Darth Vader, Mickey Mouse, etc. you're into the area of licensed characters. When you sub-license a character out, that means you sell the rights to use that character's image to a toy company, a lunchbox company, etc. As you can imagine, depending on the character, this is very profitable. If someone produces an unlicensed product to bank on a Disney character's popularity, that's a serious threat to Disney's profits (and potentially their brand, if you're making unlicensed Little Mermaid dildos or whatever) To add an anecdote to this, there is a guy who got nailed for a ton of money when he did a chiptune re-imagining tribute to Miles Davis' "Some Kind of Blue" and he also re-imagined the original cover photo. The photographer of the photo for the album cover went after the tribute organizer for infringement. The tribute organizer claimed he had altered it, fair use because everyone else did it why can't he, etc. but still got nailed. http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
Hi, I'm an aussie photographer working freelance, hope you don't mind me putting up a few things & ideas for Orstrayan photographers... some of this will apply to artists etc, and you may already know this but I've found a hell of a lot of my peers don't. Firstly: the legals. You MUST have an ABN unless you're an employee. If you're working under a name that isn't your name, you need to register the business name with ASIC. This means your full legal name is ok, anything added to that or different to that is not. 'Jane Doe' is ok, 'J Doe' is ok, but 'Jane Doe Photography' or 'Say Cheese' or whatever other corny name you use to pull clients will need to be registered. You can earn up to $18,000 now without needing to pay tax, and until your business turns over 50,000 (that's total incoming funds, not profit) you don't have to register for GST. Here are some links: ABN & GST registration; [http://www.business.gov.au/Pages/default.aspx] don't pay for anyone to do this, it's basic, and those companies are sharks. Business name registration; [http://www.asic.gov.au/asic/ASIC.NSF/byHeadline/Business%20names%20services] until this year it was state run and cost $125 annually, now it's federal and costs $30, so no excuses! Secondly: Copyright. Rule number one: You own everything you produce. No-one else (model, MUA, hairdresser) owns copyright of your images, although people do have rights over their own image, so get a proper model release and get it signed. A verbal agreement isn't enough; if your model's new boyfriend doesn't like her lingerie pics on your website, and she hasn't signed a MR, she can take you to court over it. Be careful of buildings and brand names; brand names is obvious but a lot of the new developments are copyrighted to the corporation/architect and you leave yourself open to legal nasties if you publish photos of them, even on your own website, without their written permission. More info on copyright here: [http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/get-the-right-ip/copyright/] Now, how to get work paid for!! A lot of the photographers/artists/writers etc I know in Brisbane say to me that there 'just isn't the work' here, and use that as the excuse for doing $30 photoshoots or free work. Clients continue to tell me this will be 'great exposure' or 'great for my portfolio.' Magazines continue to tell me they 'can't afford to pay me,' while demanding exclusive publication rights, even down to me displaying my image on my own website. This is all an absolute load of fragrant, rotting bullshit. All the reasons you use to explain why you don't deserve to get paid properly are bullshit. Start charging people properly, stop doing freelance work and your business will grow. There is work for competent, professional, easy to work with, flexible photographers everywhere, even in small boring country towns. People need and want photography. Especially if they go and buy an SLR and try to do it themselves. Those people very quickly realise the difference between a photographer and a person holding a camera. When you finally start charging people, expect these things to happen. The people who you've done free work for lots will get lovely at you for saying no. Keep saying no, and they will go away eventually. They don't value or appreciate your work, and are most likely bad mouthing it to others they know because NOBODY appreciates something that's worthless. And by working for free, you're telling them you are worth nothing. Then put your prices up more. Then, the people you've done cheap work for will get lovely at you. Who the hell do you think you are? Better than them or something? They'll take that $30 they were going to pay you and buy the family Maccas for dinner. Because that's all your work was worth to them. And again, they have probably been bitching about how you suck at photography to all their friends. So, after about six months where you kick yourself, because you could have really used that $30, you'll start to get Real Work. Because people who take photography seriously, will not waste a moment on $30 photographers. And your Real Work will keep coming in, and slowly growing, until you realise you are actually making this thing work. Happy Dance! Now, here's a few insider tips: Good websites are worth every dollar you put into them, [http://www.zenfolio.com] is worth every penny. Best business cards for artist/designers/photographers ever, basically a mini portfolio in your pocket: [http://www.moo.com] and go out and goon the internet. Screw google, make blogs, facebook pages, Pinterest, twitter, even if you only put a few things up on each thing, IF YOU TAG THEM correctly, they will add to your exposure immeasurably. The internet now has the importance print media used to have when it comes to finding a photographer to do a job. It's free, use it. And finally, ALWAYS have insurance, public liability at the very least. 5 million is sufficient for most things, but Government won't employ you unless you have 20mill; however this can be upgraded in 1 phone-call, so if you go for a job, lie and say you've got the 20, and when you land the job give your broker/agent a ring and upgrade it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
I recently got in touch with a relative of a relative who is an intern for a major national print publication. They're interviewing people with rabbits for a special separate pet guide magazine, so I said I'd gladly let her interview me for the publication. I asked if she'd need photos, and she said she would need hi-res photos of rabbits, though she didn't think I could produce them myself, thinking (rightfully) that I'm not a photographer. I do have some hi-res photos of them though. I didn't start thinking about it until someone else mentioned it, but should I be charging this publication for pictures of my bunnies? My friend took them for fun and is not a professional photographer and lives in another country and might not even care, but even if she doesn't, should I be asking for money for her/us anyway? Would I be entitled to any of it, or would it be solely for the benefit of my friend? That would be 100% fine with me either way. To that end, should I be paid for the interview? I was fine doing it for free but now, thinking of how much they can make distributing this nationwide, I'm not sure what's appropriate and what's not. If it's not them, it'll be pictures of other bunnies and mine are way cuter 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
blinkeve1826 posted:I recently got in touch with a relative of a relative who is an intern for a major national print publication. They're interviewing people with rabbits for a special separate pet guide magazine, so I said I'd gladly let her interview me for the publication. I asked if she'd need photos, and she said she would need hi-res photos of rabbits, though she didn't think I could produce them myself, thinking (rightfully) that I'm not a photographer. I do have some hi-res photos of them though. I didn't start thinking about it until someone else mentioned it, but should I be charging this publication for pictures of my bunnies? My friend took them for fun and is not a professional photographer and lives in another country and might not even care, but even if she doesn't, should I be asking for money for her/us anyway? Would I be entitled to any of it, or would it be solely for the benefit of my friend? That would be 100% fine with me either way. To that end, should I be paid for the interview? I was fine doing it for free but now, thinking of how much they can make distributing this nationwide, I'm not sure what's appropriate and what's not. Since they're a national magazine it can't hurt to ask if they'll pay an honorarium for the usage. But again, since they're not your photos, it's up to your friend who took them whether she wants to press for compensation or not
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Monstera posted:You can earn up to $18,000 now without needing to pay tax, and until your business turns over 50,000 (that's total incoming funds, not profit) you don't have to register for GST. Turnover cutoff is now 75k I believe
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 12:00
|
|
|
Thanks for this thread, the OP is great. I was wondering if there's some sort of language I'm missing... I have been asked quite a few times to "contribute" an illustration or comic to a publication. When I respond with my interest and rate, I either get no responses or they say "sorry we have no budget." Don't worry, I don't take up these offers. My question is, have I been a total dummy responding with my rates when the lingo "contribution" means "give us work for free"? Should I start just ignoring these emails if I see that word? I am getting annoyed being asked to create new work, for free, aside other quality artists who I am sure are NOT working for free on the very same project.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
RetroVirus posted:Thanks for this thread, the OP is great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Nope, because even though it's pretty obvious that by using the word "contribution" they're fishing for free stuff, replying with rates is a good way to remind them that your work isn't just a favor, it is a valuable commodity. Good point. It's gonna suck to turn down another one of these, I'd love to see my work in this anthology next to people I admire.  If only gratification paid the bills!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
I had a book cover art commission pay out today, and it was glorious. I was very lucky to have been working with a legit, honest design firm that ultimately paid me quite handsomely for the use of my art, but for the love of god, don't dive into working without at least getting a rough estimate of how much they intend to pay you. A designer at a firm contacted me via DeviantArt about the use of one of my pieces for a book cover, that they would like to license it and compensate me. We corresponded over email, and I offered to rework the piece for print, as the original file was too small for print and not that good technically (it was one of my first digital paintings ever), and the designer agreed. I did all this epic work before realizing that I had no idea if they'd try to lowball me because I was just some dumb kid they found on DA, or if they'd pay realistically like my last commercial cover art job. I got down to negotiating, and started really high, with NO idea of what they were expecting to pay and half-expecting them to balk, but I got the amount I wanted, so it was a giant relief. On the flipside, they were really happy that I was able to deliver work on time and was familiar with terms like 'CYMK' and 'invoice'. So yeah, if I were doing that project again, I'd talk about payment expectations before committing to anything. DA artists are just too easy to take advantage of and many of them would probably think $75 for use of their fantasy art on print book cover is totally awesome. RetroVirus posted:I was wondering if there's some sort of language I'm missing... I have been asked quite a few times to "contribute" an illustration or comic to a publication. When I respond with my interest and rate, I either get no responses or they say "sorry we have no budget." Don't worry, I don't take up these offers. Ha, I've gotten this too, namely in the form of inquiries to my DA account. Someone asked me if they could use one of my pieces as an album cover for a self-produced single or something, and I said I'd be happy to license the piece's use. Never heard back. It seems like people think that if it's already been created, they should be able to use it for free if they just get permission. Wait, artists want money for the use of their IP, too? Wtf! I've also replied to art and design contests on Craigslist with just my portfolio (and not the desired spec entry). my reply rate on those isn't too good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Authentic You posted:DA artists are just too easy to take advantage of and many of them would probably think $75 for use of their fantasy art on print book cover is totally awesome. Glad you got good compensation and had a good experience
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 03:27
|
|
|
Yay! As I guessed, they could not pay for comic work however they do want to pay me for a promotional illustration. Authentic You posted:Ha, I've gotten this too, namely in the form of inquiries to my DA account. Someone asked me if they could use one of my pieces as an album cover for a self-produced single or something, and I said I'd be happy to license the piece's use. Never heard back. It seems like people think that if it's already been created, they should be able to use it for free if they just get permission. Wait, artists want money for the use of their IP, too? Wtf! I've also replied to art and design contests on Craigslist with just my portfolio (and not the desired spec entry). my reply rate on those isn't too good. Oh I hate that! I've been asked if this or that could be used for album art, a flyer, etc. and yup never hear back after I let them know I am flattered but I'd like to be paid too. I am not sure why there is this idea that visual artists are happy to work for free. There's also this mentality among some artists themselves that they do it for "pure pleasure" and monetary value doesn't matter. The compassion for art making is admirable, but don't bullshit me that you don't want to make money. It's like some artists almost feel guilty about wanting to make money. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
RetroVirus posted:
Yeah, there are some weird forces at work sometimes. Years ago a group of artists displayed at a gallery I co-owned, and in place of prices, one of the artists had a little card that said something like "God allows me to make art only as long as I never make any money from it". which kind of made her sound like a holier-than-thou rear end in a top hat. And her art really wasn't that good, so maybe it was a defensive move? I know that probably sounds harsh, but I really don't like how that sort of thing feeds into the public perception of the "suffering artist" as holy man/woman. You should be able to earn a living on what you're talented at, whether it's banking or painting pictures.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Pheeets posted:Yeah, there are some weird forces at work sometimes. Years ago a group of artists displayed at a gallery I co-owned, and in place of prices, one of the artists had a little card that said something like "God allows me to make art only as long as I never make any money from it". which kind of made her sound like a holier-than-thou rear end in a top hat. And her art really wasn't that good, so maybe it was a defensive move? I know that probably sounds harsh, but I really don't like how that sort of thing feeds into the public perception of the "suffering artist" as holy man/woman. You should be able to earn a living on what you're talented at, whether it's banking or painting pictures. It's also possible that that person found that when they were making art for money, all of a sudden it turned into a terrible burden, or it soured the emotional/spiritual mojo they needed to make their work. Some people are "pros" and thrive when they're getting paid. Other people can't stand associating their creative process with money. Obviously everyone's got to eat, but I wouldn't automatically assume that the person you saw was acting superior.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 13:58
|
|
|
neonnoodle posted:It's also possible that that person found that when they were making art for money, all of a sudden it turned into a terrible burden, or it soured the emotional/spiritual mojo they needed to make their work. Some people are "pros" and thrive when they're getting paid. Other people can't stand associating their creative process with money. Obviously everyone's got to eat, but I wouldn't automatically assume that the person you saw was acting superior. That's a more charitable way of looking at it, and I agree that people have different motivations, but I didn't automatically assume anything, really. I wasn't specific in my previous post, but here are the more telling details: She had never made any money from her work; it was a student show and the reason they got it was because we knew the teacher. The students were all adults; I met all of them, and this particular person was from a very priveleged background, and spoke and acted like she was really above all "commercial" stuff. I wouldn't have had a problem with that, but she insisted on being in the show even though she didn't want to sell anything (which i didn't find out until the day the art arrived), thereby, because of limited space, depriving other artists of wall space, artists who DID want to sell and needed the money. The teacher curated the show and for some reason he backed her up, and because of who he was I didn't have any choice. So in this case I was left with a bad impression of her. I know there are artists who are as you describe them above, but she was not one of them. I myself started university-level art school at age 14, and swore I would never become a "mere" illustrator or god forbid a graphic artist, and was sure my work would be in major galleries by at least age 25. The reality is that by age 21 I was working in the art department of a chain of record stores, doing the dreaded "commercial" art, and I've made a living as a graphic artist on and off ever since. At age 14 I suppose it's okay to be a little idealistic, and life has a way of teaching the teachable by the time they become adults, but some people never have to face reality and it can cause problems for other people just trying to make a living.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Hey all, I'm super new to the whole freelancing thing - so far my "freelancing" has been doing hourly work for my husband's LLC (formed with a good friend), which has been kind of a "we trust you to not over report your hours, go nuts" type deal. Probably not the best model for future freelancing, but on the plus side I got to basically design this company's brand from the ground up. Now, people associated with the company are asking me to do some work for them - a salesperson wants me to make a logo for the LLC she formed. When is the right time to bring up being paid for it? We've already discussed what she wants for a logo, should I do up the contract while I'm still working on ideas? Should I show her some initial ideas and then insist on a contract and pricing before I deliver a finished product? I want to be accommodating and not be like "show me money or go away," but on the flip side I don't want to give my work away. On the plus side, given her association with my husband's company I can offend her and not suffer for it (yay nepotism), or have a little extra peer pressure on my side should she not want to pay me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 03:53
|
|
|
Lyz posted:Hey all, I'm super new to the whole freelancing thing - so far my "freelancing" has been doing hourly work for my husband's LLC (formed with a good friend), which has been kind of a "we trust you to not over report your hours, go nuts" type deal. Probably not the best model for future freelancing, but on the plus side I got to basically design this company's brand from the ground up. Designers, any more specific advice?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:It is good to have a contract ASAP! Like I said in the OP, it doesn't need to be anything super complex, and you can talk to her about what your/her expectations are before you present her with a document. That way you will both be on the same page. I don't move a pixel without a contract and a deposit. and a contract is: the name of the 2 parties the scope of work to be covered the price the expected delivery time or workback schedule. signatures and dates. it can be that simple.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 06:47
|
|
|
This is all really great. I've found that when most people give freelance advice, they always stop short of saying "THIS IS HOW MUCH YOU SHOULD CHARGE" - when that's usually what people want to know most.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
I've just been contacted for freelance work by an ad agency for both commercial and content work. They asked me what my rate is. Before now, I've only ever done journalism work. What should my rate for advertising be?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
GiveUpNed posted:I've just been contacted for freelance work by an ad agency for both commercial and content work. They asked me what my rate is. Before now, I've only ever done journalism work. What should my rate for advertising be? Qoute high, lower if they balk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Oh My Science posted:Qoute high, lower if they balk. I said I charge 0.35 cents a world, but it's negotiable depending on what I do. If it's image heavy, I charge more. If it's text heavy, I charge the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
Random House's Hydra imprint gives a great example of what contract NOT TO SIGN, EVER, HOLY poo poo THIS IS BAD http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/03/06/note-to-sff-writers-random-houses-hydra-imprint-has-appallingly-bad-contract-terms/ quote:Note to SF/F Writers: Random House’s Hydra Imprint Has Appallingly Bad Contract Terms There's a lot more in Scalzi's article, but the main takeaway is this: A publishing contract is supposed to be an agreement for MUTUAL benefit between both parties. If a place like Random House won't pay, or assume any of the standard risk (while making billions of $$ in profits) then they are scamming and abusing you. Do not enter into agreements where publishers pay nothing and you pay for their publishing "services."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Random House's Hydra imprint gives a great example of what contract NOT TO SIGN, EVER, HOLY poo poo THIS IS BAD I'm of the mind that these moves are a direct response to Amazon's massively disruptive Kindle Direct Publishing, which lets independent authors just upload their Word doc and JPG cover to the Amazon Kindle store for free, take advantage of Amazon's amazing e-distribution infrastructure (trusted Amazon shopping cart that already knows your credit card info + Whispernet) for free, and take home 70% of the cover price. That's $2.08 in your pocket per $2.99 short story. There's definitely been a paradigm shift, and don't NEED some lovely e-book publisher to distribute your fantasy story for you (especially with such a lovely contract), when you can just have Amazon be your publisher/distributor. I don't think the old guard publishing houses want you to know that, though, and are happy to expand their efforts to capture all those wanna-be authors who are all too willing to sign lovely contracts so that they can be 'published'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:Random House's Hydra imprint gives a great example of what contract NOT TO SIGN, EVER, HOLY poo poo THIS IS BAD I used to know the woman who started Writer Beware (Anne Crispin), mentioned in this post; she's written a lot of Stars Wars books and makes a decent living at it. She's also been an advocate for writers for a long time, I highly reccomend her blog: http://accrispin.blogspot.com/ (Writer Beware) for those looking to publish, actually make money and avoid scams. This contract really shows how rapacious corporations have gotten in seeking profits above all. The fact that this is Random House putting forth this bullshit is really disheartening - not that publishers have ever been on the side of writers, but this is just downright evil of them. Random House responded to Scalzi's post, but I won't quote it here because it just steams me that they're trying to justify their machinations with convoluted "explanations". . Pheeets fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Mar 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Pheeets posted:Random House responded to Scalzi's post, but I won't quote it here because it just steams me that they're trying to justify their machinations with convoluted "explanations. Also: John Scalzi posted:3. Author copies? You get one copy, on your preferred platform. Sorry, mom! Gotta pay Amazon! Seriously, that’s just a dick move.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Authentic You posted:They replied directly to Scalzi's post too? They addressed their reply in part to him, yes. He's the president of SFWA. Pheeets fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Mar 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
Pheeets posted:They addressed their reply in part to him, yes. He's the president of SFWA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Hilariously, those have been the standard terms for a record deal for quite some time now. Looks like publishing is finally catching up to the levels of scummy BS the declining music industry has been up to since the nineties!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 04:56 |
|
|
Chitin posted:Hilariously, those have been the standard terms for a record deal for quite some time now. Looks like publishing is finally catching up to the levels of scummy BS the declining music industry has been up to since the nineties! This is actually something Scalzi pointed out early on. Anyway, Random House has decided to modify the contracts for these imprints after all the backlash. Victory I guess...
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2013 22:36
|
|
