ASJA recommends not accepting an all-rights or work-made-for-hire agreements for magazine and newspaper work, except in very special cases. Remember, as an independent professional writer, you do not "sell" an article. You license specific uses of it. A license to cover electronic rights, like licenses for any extra rights, should be based on this principle:
All uses beyond first print publication must be separately licensed and separately compensated.
Electronic uses are not like ordinary print uses. If your article is in a printed magazine, it's part of a publication typically sold on newsstands for a week or a month. Then it's gone, and you may exercise your right to do other things with it. Articles published or republished electronically are very different:
They're available for individual purchase; the reader/viewer does not have to buy the whole issue.
They're available indefinitely, not just while the publication is on the newsstand.
In the case of online articles, money changes hands for each sale. The reader/viewer pays a fee per article; the computer service, the publisher and, often, a middleman all take a piece of the fee.
The question isn't whether you will ever resell your piece. The question is: Should others resell your work for their profit alone? Writers shouldn't let publishers and others profit perpetually from their property while they--the creators of that property--get nothing.
The preferred compensation for electronic rights is a share in the income derived from such use. Splitting revenue is routine with other secondary rights, such as anthology, reprint and syndication. The split may range from 85-15 (when the publisher is merely acting as your agent) to 50-50 (when you and the publisher have equal interests). Such arrangements require specific tracking of article use in electronic forms and the advanced bookkeeping necessary for author-by-author division of income.
Overall, our industry isn't quite tooled up for this. But a system is coming fast. As a temporary measure, a flat fee for electronic licenses is acceptable, so long as it is a separate fee attributed to the electronic license.
It is not acceptable to take a higher overall fee to surrender electronic rights with print rights.
Why not? Because even if extra dollars are paid to induce you to sign, a deal like that establishes that electronic rights are included with other rights for freeþexactly the wrong precedent. And watch out for this: On a revenue-share basis, it may be OK to grant a broad license that covers many different types of electronic republication. But when a flat fee is proposed, the electronic license should require separate payment for each deal made by the publisher. It's best then to limit the duration of the license (for example, $100 for the right to use an article on America Online for one year) or establish payments to be made for any renewals of the license.
If there are problems reaching agreement on an electronic license, an option may be written to allow terms to be negotiated if and when the publisher wishes to use or sublicense the material electronically. Or, failing that, the electronic provision often may be deleted and the publisher must agree to keep your article out of any electronic compilations of its material. Don't accept the line, "We must have every article cleared for online use"; arrangements for electronic product routinely allow publishers to delete articles as required.
Standard practices in our industry are being established now. Do not think you can sit this one out while waiting for others to take a stand and protect your interests.
In the area of electronic rights, there is no "sitting it out."
A year or two ago someone posted the full text of what we are supposed to read when we sign on as a member of eons. In it it had a clause giving eons all rights to publish what we post on this board in essence wherever they want -- full ownership rights to our writings on here.
There was quite a flurry of posts back and forth and inquiries on this agreement. The computer on which I saved the information suffered a catastrophic crash -- all data lost, so I don't have the thread to post here.
But it behooves us to inquire wherever we post what rights, if any, the site claims to our posts.
Remembering that thread has kept me from posting things I am working on, even for critique.
Has anyone investigated eons' policy on rights to publish what we post?
During that same period and as a direct result of members' queries and lots of discussions, the Terms of Use with respect to copyright was changed. Here is the new and revised version under the headings Copyright, and Content and Comments Posted by Eons Members
view link
Thanks for posting the link to revised policy. There are certain parts that raise my eyebrows, though, and make me want to ask some questions. When I post here, it's for this site only and not to be used elsewhere -- at least that is my intention and wish. Yet when I read this I interpret as granting to Eons the right to distribute to "affilates and subcontractors" and who else. To modify it, create derivative works from it, ad nauseum.
Does anyone else get a different interpretation?
"By sending Member Content to Eons or posting it on the website, you expressly grant Eons a worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license to publicly display, use, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from and distribute the Member Content in any form, solely in connection with the Eons website or other affiliated or related Eons ventures. This license is sublicensable (so that Eons is able to use its affiliates and subcontractors such as Internet content delivery networks to provide the Eons website and any other Eons services). This license will continue perpetually unless and until you remove your Member Content from the Eons website. If you choose to remove your Member Content, the license granted here will automatically expire; however, you acknowledge that Eons may retain archived copies of your Member Content. In addition, nothing is deemed to prevent Eons from posting or otherwise using or continuing to use at any time any non-copyrightable material that may have been included in Member Content."
I think the "solely in connection with Eons website" somewhat limits it compared to what AARP does to its users. It suggests that Eons is primarily interested in being able to display and provide the content within the Eons "world", whereas the AARP takes "proprietary" rights not only to the users' content, but also takes the right to connect that content to other info they may have such as the user's real identity, and they keep the right to publish it in books and other formats far beyond what exists within the community.
The AARP clause:
When you submit or post material, you grant to us the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display it (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology. This grant shall include the right to exploit any proprietary rights in any such material. You also grant us, and anyone authorized by us, the right to identify you as the author of any of your postings or submissions by name, email address or Membername, as we deem appropriate.
Eons at least has the provision that by removing your content, you remove your permission to them to use it, thus leaving the actual ownership in your hands. And doesn't also have a whole lot of other tentacles in your insurance and health and retirement and related records along with your soc sec # and family data!!!
