| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: One contract, one magazine, several articles |
Topic: One contract, one magazine, several articles
| Author | Message |
| pentup | Posted 1/18/2005 1:39:20 PM | show profile I've started doing some work for a new magazine and rather than give me individual contracts for each piece I do for them, they'd like me to sign one contract that applies to all the work I do for them. Does this seem strange to anyone? I'm concerned because the one contract stipulates that the magazine gets ''all rights.'' While I'm not particularly concerned about the FOB stuff I'm currently working on for them, in the future -- if I write longer pieces for them -- I'm not sure I want them to have all rights. Any thoughts? |
| whosays | Posted 1/18/2005 1:49:21 PM | show profile Is it strange? No. In the recent past, I had a blanket contract like that with the LA Times, and currently have one with another newspaper and a monthly magazine. See what you can do to get ''all rights'' stricken from the contract. If the magazine won't do htat, then maybe they'd be happy with holding the rights for only 30 days after publication? Negotiate. Even if you don't care about the FOB stuff, it's extremely cool to keep your right to resell it anyway. |
| Lotus665 | Posted 1/18/2005 2:39:21 PM | show profile You might ask instead for a ''Non exclusive'' all-rights contract, which lets them reprint what they want whenever wherever but also allows you to resell elsewhere too. It's a compromise/share situation but if they won't settle for limited rights this may work. ------ Lotus665 |
| JimmyG | Posted 1/18/2005 4:27:48 PM | show profile I agree with Lotus, though ''all'' rights is different from ''exclusive'' rights. (''All'' usually encompasses Web site posting, reprints, syndication and such, whereas ''exclusive'' means it's theirs and theirs alone.) Probably good to have it spelled out in the contract at any rate. Also, be thankful you have this arrangement--I do a short regular FOB column for a magazine and have to send in a new contract every month. |
| pentup | Posted 1/18/2005 5:09:29 PM | show profile Thanks for all your responses. Just curious -- what do you think are the benefits of having some rights or all rights to FOB pieces? It doesn't seem likely that they will ever be re-printed by the magazine, and usually (at least in my case) FOB pieces are so specific to a magazine in style and tone that I can't envision any other magazine/publisher would want to reprint them either. |
| Lotus665 | Posted 1/18/2005 6:30:02 PM | show profile Well, you just never know. Isn't it better to keep your rights and not need them than to need them and not have them anymore? I do agree that you have to pick your battles. I'd be more likely to give in to selling all rights/exclusive rights for a FOB piece such as you describe than I would a 2,500-word investigative feature or profile, for example. One last thought: the global contract stating that they own all rights to everything you every WILL write for them is kind of creepy, and closes the door to alot of lucrative possibilities for you. I am not sure your contract applies ad infinitum but it's better just to go year to year or something rather than commit that far into the future.... ------ Lotus665 |
| limericks4all | Posted 1/19/2005 2:16:01 AM | show profile Rights issues are contentious. Honestly, I'll sell any rights for enough money. In theory, there's nothing for you to sign the all-rights contract today and then renegotiate the terms later for another article -- as long as you get the changes in writing. In practicality, though, if you sign an all-rights contract today, it would probably be very difficult to get them to change the deal for longer, future pieces. |
| pentup | Posted 1/19/2005 9:33:01 AM | show profile Exclusive vs. All Thanks again for all the responses. I'm now confused about exclusive rights vs. all rights. Can someone define it for me? Thanks! |
| JimmyG | Posted 1/19/2005 11:22:51 AM | show profile At the magazine I worked for the contract stipulated all rights, which covered our Web site and whatever syndication or reprints the publication could garner, which was slim at best. Still, we usually paid writers a few bucks the odd time or two something was reprinted, just to be fair about it, though this wasn't a contract stipulation. The contract also allowed the writer to sell the work elsewhere after 30 days, which is what made it ''non-exclusive,'' and there was no restrictive language about subsequently writing on the same topic elsewhere. Generally speaking, FOB stuff grows stale almost immediately, so this is not an issue. On the other hand, if you were to write a feature on, say, how to buy a motorcycle, the publication could well update it in-house and re-run it a couple years later, maybe even without your byline. Exclusive means you can't sell the same article, as written, elsewhere, period. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so I can't say for sure, but I suppose some tight-assed publications might use this clause to prevent you from writing on the same specific topic for anyone else, also. Somehow I wouldn't think that would be enforceable, but I've seen editors and publishers get bent out of shape when one of their writers has a byline elsewhere for even a vaguely related story. Based on my experience on both sides of the office door, I don't get hung up on contracts as much as some in this business. This isn't like the music or movie business where an article you wrote on widgets could wind up generating significant money for a publishers years after it was written. I've seen writers and artists get stiffed well into five figures, even with contracts--and judgements--in hand. I've also seen editors blacklist contributors for doing things that were permitted in their contracts, or for not doing things that were not otherwise stipulated in them. This is still, for the most part, a business built on mutual trust. |
| pentup | Posted 1/20/2005 4:44:42 PM | show profile Thanks Jimmy G! |





