Should an online edition mean more money for the writer?
Should journos who write for print publications that also have a web version get paid more for their work to appear online? That's an old debate, I know. What's your view?
And here, to seed the discussion, is the piece of news that brought the issue to mind.
Fourteen New Zealand Herald columnists (no, that one is not a relative) suddenly found themselves behind the "premium content" section of the paper's site.
Do come back and let us know what you think.
¶ zigzackly | Friday, November 04, 2005 | And here, to seed the discussion, is the piece of news that brought the issue to mind.
Fourteen New Zealand Herald columnists (no, that one is not a relative) suddenly found themselves behind the "premium content" section of the paper's site.
They have been negotiating with APN management, initially for the columns to return to free access and subsequently for a share of the additional revenue reaped by the Herald from their work and/or new contracts in which the copyright of their work would rest with them. They have had no success in those talks and have chosen to release the statement to explain their position.You can read the whole thing here.
Do come back and let us know what you think.
Comments:
<< Home
Personally, I'd be happy if the web version retained the para breaks as they were in the original, instead of following that dubious "online reader can't deal with long paragraphs" theory.
All freelance work should be contractual, so both the publisher and the journo know exactly what the terms are. When I started writing for WSJ, for example, I got a long form I had to sign and send back that laid down all the terms of my writing for them for all subsequent pieces, including usage, copyright and so on. Everything utterly explicit, so no party was under an illusion and nothing was left vague. I think all MSM sites should follow a policy like that.
In India, of course, it is sort of understood that anything you do for a paper goes on their site. So you could say an implicit contract does exist, and the journo knows his piddly fee can cover the web as well.
The problem, I suppose, comes in the context of old content, written and sold before the internet existed or became popular. What of that?
In India, of course, it is sort of understood that anything you do for a paper goes on their site. So you could say an implicit contract does exist, and the journo knows his piddly fee can cover the web as well.
The problem, I suppose, comes in the context of old content, written and sold before the internet existed or became popular. What of that?
In India, of course, it is sort of understood that anything you do for a paper goes on their site. So you could say an implicit contract does exist, and the journo knows his piddly fee can cover the web as well.
I agree with this and would have to say that this itself is the problem too. While the initial understanding is for the print version only, putting it online would qualify like using it for another format (edition, if you like). There is a different revenue model for the publisher here. The writer should also get his/her due.
Another problem is since the copyright has passed on to the publishing entity and no longer rests with the writer, the writer can't use the same piece anywhere else. Meaning loss of potential earning.
Post a Comment
I agree with this and would have to say that this itself is the problem too. While the initial understanding is for the print version only, putting it online would qualify like using it for another format (edition, if you like). There is a different revenue model for the publisher here. The writer should also get his/her due.
Another problem is since the copyright has passed on to the publishing entity and no longer rests with the writer, the writer can't use the same piece anywhere else. Meaning loss of potential earning.
<< Home
