|
I wrote a self-published book, and it was a hit! I'm now a respected expert in the field, go on telly, get paid to do talks, etc. Somewhat shocked to finally discover I'm good at something this far into middle age, but hey. So there's a new (online) magazine in this field of interest, which I won't name in a public forum. They are paying writers, and paying well! The editor and I had a call and got on well and want to work together. I got the contract, aaaaand it's an egregious land grab. e.g., Para 7 says I own my copyright - but Para 8 claims perpetual, irrevocable, exclusive, licensable, subtransferable rights for them to do anything with said copyright, enumerating all manner of exclusive rights forever - "including all copyrights and other intellectual property rights therein". Para 9 does the same for derivative works. Para 17 says you pay any of their taxes related to the publication of this work (?!). Para 20 is a mandatory arbitration clause. Also, you agree to keep this contract secret forever. Not surprising, I'd be ashamed too. Also, the contract is presented as images only (not text) on a click-through site, hellosign.com. The parent company is in the media industries, and I suspect someone there wrote an "exploit the naive aspiring movie star" contract and thought "that'll do." So - I'm not sigining this thing in a pink fit. But they're offering enough money that I'd like to see if they're amenable to any form of reason. Does anyone know of reasonable sample contracts for nonfiction writing for an online magazine? Basically that they have the right to keep it on their site indefinitely, but I do in fact own it and can reuse it without asking, after a reasonable exclusivity period.
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2018 09:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
yeah, I'm pretty sure the editor had no control over the content of this contract. But I did write him an email just now saying that this contract is unacceptable, detailing clause by clause why it's unacceptable - doing line-by-line takedowns of stupid documents is a lot of my writing - and ending with setting out what I know they need (first serial electronic rights and an exclusivity period) and what I need (not to sign over my copyrights), and to enumerate the limited rights they have actual uses for. I expect his bosses to veto it and this to go nowhere. If I wanted to I could screw them good and hard just posting the contract, but I actually don't want to do that - the editor seems a good guy and I'm assured he is. (Also, nuking the bridge that hard could have fallout.) OTOH, I do know what sort of people he's working for, so they're very much my threat model.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
double-post UPDATE: the editor wrote back. He swears I'm the only freelancer who's uttered a peep of objection! (I literally predicted he'd say something like this.) He's responded, now this evening I work on responding. And of course on the actual piece, which I can use myself if we can't come to an agreement. His argument for the rights grab is that they pay really well. $1000 for 1000 words is glossy magazine rates, after all. This is in fact an argument, and will get a few concessions from me. In entirely coincidental news, a publication called Breaker have their official launch soon. They have posted a press release listing me as one of their freelance writers! Apparently they were REALLY keen to work with me! This is slightly premature, in that the contract hasn't been signed yet. But there's just a few minor details to work out, I'm sure it'll likely be a happener. Great guys to work with, the greatest! Looking forward to it!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
kedo posted:Yeesh. I'm not sure how many more red flags they could raise. no poo poo. The press release also lists another freelancer - who is actually a famous person with a Wikipedia entry and stuff - and I happen to know they haven't signed their contract yet either. They hadn't read it either, until I sent a copy of mine ... honestly, if they weren't offering dump trucks full of money ...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:edit: i hope you're savoring the irony of the fact that the whole reason they hired you is because you're good at deconstructing scammy corporate poo poo wrapped up in buzzwords. The implicit threat in the letter I sent back was "see how the bit where I go through your contract is formatted just like one of my blog posts?" otoh, these mumbleflippers, I don't think they understand text, let alone subtext
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
Tax question! As a good statist, I give lots of money to HMRC so that they may oppress bitcoiners and so forth beneath their jackboots. So, I'm in the UK, and I'm about to start freelancing for a US-based publication without a UK office. So they'll be paying me from there. What is the tax situation in 2019? Does anyone here happen to know? I know in 2010 it was: US withholds tax, you claim that on your UK return. Not sure what it is now tho.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
divabot posted:Tax question! As a good statist, I give lots of money to HMRC so that they may oppress bitcoiners and so forth beneath their jackboots. The answer appears to be either: 1. our dear old friend W-8BEN, then they send your $$ and don't withhold anything 2. they just go "lol" and send your $$ and don't withhold anything either way I tell HMRC in the proper manner and all is well from my end
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
divabot posted:double-post UPDATE: the editor wrote back. He swears I'm the only freelancer who's uttered a peep of objection! (I literally predicted he'd say something like this.) He's responded, now this evening I work on responding. And of course on the actual piece, which I can use myself if we can't come to an agreement. the end of the above tale: Breaker was a pretty cool publication to read, at least - "Four Days Trapped at Sea With Crypto’s Nouveau Riche" is the best thing ever written about Bitcoin - and they got shut down by their corporate patron a few months ago. I blogged about it here, and the subtext of that post is "hey, writers - see those guys' names? BEWARE." If you're gonna nuke your bridges ... you should read the contract, it's great. I think it's that way because the parent company is TV/film people, and this is a contract to ruthlessly exploit a newbie who wants to be a star. They may have been disconcerted that I was in a position to say "yeah, no." the correspondence where the writer's lawyer literally had to explain the concept of contractual assumption of good faith to Breaker was  I assure you
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 10:04
|
|