Time Inc. Rights Agreement

[J Neeves]

Dylan made the point, if you pay for a plumber to fix your tap you pay for his services (usually by the hour) and you expect to use the result of those services for years to come - the plumber does not ask if you want to use for a year + extra for subsequent years. Why is there an expectation to be paid twice for the same work - and given this agreement is American are there many cases of American articles being published in the UK, Australia or Germany. If you sit back and consider that your work might be published a number of times you can choose not to submit that work - if you do not think your remuneration is sufficient.

Its surely about return - if you were paid Stg1,000 per page you would not bat an eyelid over the Times document, if you were paid Stg20 you would tell them what to do with the document - its all about money, forget about moral rights. Basically moral rights disappear out of the window when Stg1,000 per page is on offer (its simply that Stg100 looks a bit paltry (however you look at it)).

The concern that Vyv expresses is real, but surely simply overcome. You have a set of images for Time and a completely different set of images for the website and lectures, you can take them at the same time, simply different angle, different backdrop. You might need to walk further along the beach for the second set of images. You have a spread sheet for the website and a different spreadsheet for Time (you provide a Bar Graph for Time and a Pie Chart for the website). Its a bit of extra work but not impossible.

Some authors have a number of identities, not me, they write for different magazines under different names - the basic articles are different, because the images are different, the illustrations are different and the prose is different - but its the same author (and they write for, or did write for, YM or YW).

 

[Lakesailor]

If they were paying £1000 per page I would let them borrow my camera at the weekends.
£100 per page hardly makes it worth charging the batteries.

 

[dombuckley]

As one who advertises regularly in PBO, I was also sent a similar contract to sign. I very quickly picked up the implication that I would effectively be signing away my right to use the advert, or even my own company logo, in another publication.

So utterly barmy, I actually thought it was just a bizarre bit of spam until I read this thread.

 

[cryan]

Dylan made the point, if you pay for a plumber to fix your tap you pay for his services (usually by the hour) and you expect to use the result of those services for years to come - the plumber does not ask if you want to use for a year + extra for subsequent years. Why is there an expectation to be paid twice for the same work.

Because what you are actually doing when you have an article/photograph published is renting the publisher the right to use the article/photograph once. You are not selling him the thing. Try suggesting to Eurocar or Hertz that since you have paid them for the use of one of their vehicles once that you should be able to use said vehicle anytime you want in the future and see what they say about the idea?
If the publisher wants to now buy the intellectual rights to a piece of work I would suggest that the price raises to cover this and that the contract should specify EXACTLY what is for sale and what's not.

 

[J Neeves]

Because what you are actually doing when you have an article/photograph published is renting the publisher the right to use the article/photograph once. You are not selling him the thing. Try suggesting to Eurocar or Hertz that since you have paid them for the use of one of their vehicles once that you should be able to use said vehicle anytime you want in the future and see what they say about the idea?
If the publisher wants to now buy the intellectual rights to a piece of work I would suggest that the price raises to cover this and that the contract should specify EXACTLY what is for sale and what's not.

Surely that is the point - its all about money, not moral rights or intellectual rights, nor even renting or buying - if they were more generous, there would be minimal discussion but as they are parsimonious the argument is wrapped up in moral and intellectual fervour.

Jonathan

 

[macd]

Surely that is the point - its all about money, not moral rights or intellectual rights, nor even renting or buying.

Of course it is. When EMAP tried the same thing in the late 90s, I was in the business of syndicating articles to various publications. I'd have been happy to sell them greater rights than basic copyright law granted them...I was in the business, after all, of selling. But they wanted them for nothing. My, how we laughed.

Dylan's point about the relative futility of clinging to copyright in the digital age is of course well-made. But I see the Time (and EMAP) situation as distinct from the general issue of enforcing copyright. Time is a discreet entity, not some indeterminate tentacle of the web. Time already pays for stuff. Now it wants more stuff (or the same stuff for longer, or more completely). Sellers of that stuff are entitled to put a higher price on that. Whether Time goes along with that, we shall see. The likelihood is that they won't, except in the case of contributors who are seen as particularly enhancing their products.

 

[vyv_cox]

T

The concern that Vyv expresses is real, but surely simply overcome. You have a set of images for Time and a completely different set of images for the website and lectures, you can take them at the same time, simply different angle, different backdrop. You might need to walk further along the beach for the second set of images. You have a spread sheet for the website and a different spreadsheet for Time (you provide a Bar Graph for Time and a Pie Chart for the website). Its a bit of extra work but not impossible.

In a perfect world! The reality is that in many cases I might take half a dozen photos of, say an anchor. Two will be out of focus, one in the shadow of the camera, one with a leaf blowing across it and the final one might be good enough. Underwater anchor photos are in the lap of the gods.

 

[jwilson]

Because what you are actually doing when you have an article/photograph published is renting the publisher the right to use the article/photograph once. You are not selling him the thing. Try suggesting to Eurocar or Hertz that since you have paid them for the use of one of their vehicles once that you should be able to use said vehicle anytime you want in the future and see what they say about the idea?
If the publisher wants to now buy the intellectual rights to a piece of work I would suggest that the price raises to cover this and that the contract should specify EXACTLY what is for sale and what's not.

Agreed entirely: I have had articles and quite a few photos published, and for yachting stuff now normally get the publisher to pay my fee to the RNLI, but certainly I don't and won't give them absolute right to use the words or photo forever, just for one specific usage. The comparison with car rental is valid. You can buy a car if you want to use one forever and in any way you wish, but it will cost a bit more than a weeks rental.

You see similar scams (for that is what this sounds like) in many amateur photo competitions - by entering you give the competition-runner all rights to everything submitted, in return for a small chance of a trivial cash prize. Similarly if you take a photo or video of a major news story don't just send it straight to the BBC without checking their T&C VERY carefully.

The most famous "sold all rights" story is the creators of the 'Superman' character, who sold all rights to it for $130.....

 

[macd]

The most famous "sold all rights" story is the creators of the 'Superman' character, who sold all rights to it for $130.....

OK, time out from the earnest stuff.
Most celebrated breach of copyright: Happy Birthday to You. Yes, repeatedly aired in films, soap operas, you name it, but quickly followed by a letter from m'learned friends demanding money. Over 100 years old but still under a copyright which is steadfastly protected (although a current US legal action may change that).

Up there with Superman, if not quite so peppered with $$, are the London Underground map [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Beck], and this famous photo of the London Blitz: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stpaulsblitz.jpg
The photo was taken by Herbert Mason, the uncle of a dear friend of mine, Nev, who died a couple of years ago. Herbert was a photographer for the Daily Mail, but was off-duty on the Mail roof when he pointed his camera (either fire-watching, having a cig*, or possibly both: I can't remember). Anyway, he sold the photo rights to his employer for something like five bob. Nev always thought that was good for an ironic laff.

* I originally typed 'f*g' but the forum's one-eyed censor blanked it out. Is denying me the use of harmless British slang a violation of my civil rights? Or uncivil rights, come to that?

 

[J Neeves]

There was a nice compliment on another thread for Vyv. The comment was that YM and PBO were being dumbed down and that Vyv could not carry the magazines alone. The suggestion was, maybe unkindly to some other authors, that Vyv's work lifted the calibre of the magazine and the persons making the comment thought Vyv's work meritorious (of which I agree - his work is meritorious and he does lift the calibre of an issue).

Its not quite relevant but I thought I'd raise another comment

If I write up a 'cruising' or 'destination' story then all the research was actually being there, and the images were taken at the time. The background is from the various cruising guides or pilot books. Basically I can sit at my computer and write the story comparatively easily. I did not visit the location in order to research a story - I just happened to be there, maybe it was on the way to somewhere else.

I'm thinking of some of Vyv's stories, where he collects 'equipment' and travels to far flung places in the UK to test. He then might develop tests in his own workshop (and I'm guessing a bit of trial and error). He then needs to take images (and he needs to invest in anew camera now with better autofocus - see post #27), in both workshop and places he might visit to conduct testing (and workshops and labs etc are not the best places to take glamorous, attractive, images). Vyv then needs to write it up but has no access to 'location shots' should he need them but his own (though location shots of most cruising destinations can be found on the internet).

Vyv gets paid the same as the author of the destination story (sorry this is a guess).

Is it any wonder that stories of the calibre of Vyv's are few and far between.

If more articles of the calibre of Vyv's are desired - maybe the readers should be more vocal

Jonathan

 

[dom]

If more articles of the calibre of Vyv's are desired - maybe the readers should be more vocal

Jonathan

That's a damn good point and very generous from a fellow writer who is not short of a bit of talent himself if I may say so.

Well written, information heavy and carefully researched topics are definitely getting a bit thin on the ground.

 

[J Neeves]

Thanks Don, it was not looking, nor fishing for compliments - it was in support of what Vyv does (and to encourage him to do more!). It is discouraging to write an article (say Vyv's on chain), at say stg100/page, alongside someone who cooked dinner, took a picture and wrote it up as a recipe, and also received stg100/page. I am in no way criticising the chef, but its does seem disproportionate - though I'm not sure what can be done. But currently anyone writing anything technical needs to be really motivated - and its certainly not by money - so introducing onerous contracts looks like a nail in the coffin.

But if Vyv does not do the work - who will? and without the Vyv's of the world, where will YM and PBO be in the future?

 

[dgadee]

copyright is all but dead

If that's true, why do publishers want these rights assigned to them?

 

[Joker]

So they can sue for large sums of money when they see the material appearing elsewhere.

 

[vyv_cox]

There was a nice compliment on another thread for Vyv. The comment was that YM and PBO were being dumbed down and that Vyv could not carry the magazines alone. The suggestion was, maybe unkindly to some other authors, that Vyv's work lifted the calibre of the magazine and the persons making the comment thought Vyv's work meritorious (of which I agree - his work is meritorious and he does lift the calibre of an issue).

Its not quite relevant but I thought I'd raise another comment

If I write up a 'cruising' or 'destination' story then all the research was actually being there, and the images were taken at the time. The background is from the various cruising guides or pilot books. Basically I can sit at my computer and write the story comparatively easily. I did not visit the location in order to research a story - I just happened to be there, maybe it was on the way to somewhere else.

I'm thinking of some of Vyv's stories, where he collects 'equipment' and travels to far flung places in the UK to test. He then might develop tests in his own workshop (and I'm guessing a bit of trial and error). He then needs to take images (and he needs to invest in anew camera now with better autofocus - see post #27), in both workshop and places he might visit to conduct testing (and workshops and labs etc are not the best places to take glamorous, attractive, images). Vyv then needs to write it up but has no access to 'location shots' should he need them but his own (though location shots of most cruising destinations can be found on the internet).

Vyv gets paid the same as the author of the destination story (sorry this is a guess).

Is it any wonder that stories of the calibre of Vyv's are few and far between.

If more articles of the calibre of Vyv's are desired - maybe the readers should be more vocal

Jonathan

Wow! Thanks very much for the astonishing praise, and coincidentally on my birthday! I did not see the other thread you mention but thanks for that too.

The 'out of focus' words should have had a smiley with them but it is true that no matter how many photos I take of a subject there is rarely more than one that I consider worth using. For underwater shots I now use a tip given by noelex, to use the 'rapid fire' setting, which I do find gives better results.

 

[Alfie168]

Rewrite the contract to suit you, but make it look like the one they sent you. Sign it and send it back along witha rewuest for a signed copy to be returned to you. I bet nobody goes through it and somebody signs it

Job done...... And I've seen it done too.

Tim

 

[dgadee]

Rewrite the contract to suit you, but make it look like the one they sent you. Sign it and send it back along witha rewuest for a signed copy to be returned to you. I bet nobody goes through it and somebody signs it

Job done...... And I've seen it done too.

Tim

That's usually what I do - cross out 'assign' and write in 'non-exclusive license'. A relatively low level admin person will sometimes get back but it never causes a problem.

Copyright is supposed to be an author's right, but digital publishing has made it ever more a publisher's right. And - contrary to what Dylan says - it does have economic value.

 

[photodog]

So, time are doing rights grab 101.... Nothing new in that. Every publisher in the UK has tried this on several occasions in the past decade... Whats especially nice is its being done at xmas!!

Some frankly evil **** has observed that small contributors are at their most vulnerable at this time of year, and is seeking to exploit that... And guess what?? It's been done before....By none other than the Guardian!

So folks, nothing new in this.

So what to be done.... Well... If we get asked for these rights... We won't sign. The reasons is very simple... If we sign... We have no business... As Dylan has found out and illustrates... He used to make money in TV, now he doesn't... Yet bizarelly he's willing to sign anything going...

People should note this. Whilst some say that copyright is for beans and should be abandoned... It's not a coincidence that this leads to a failure to generate any income... Now, this is a problem, not just for the supplier, but for the publisher as well... The publisher looks at the cost of IP and thinks he needs to get this down, or grab all the rights to better exploit it.... In reality.. The rights grab is the first step... There will also be a cut in rates... (Of course the excuse for this will be because people didn't sign... If they don't... And if you do sign... It will help the publisher justify cutting rates cause you have in effect agreed that the market is so weak he needs to cut costs...) But this destroys the income base for the supplier... So... He loses suppliers.... And then becuase he is outputing shite... He loses market share.... And then he seeks to cut costs more... Etc etc..

Now, here is another revelation for you guys... The publisher will only be doing this to the little guy. Time probably sources the majority of their material from agencies... PA, ALamy, etc.... And they will not be asked for all rights... Largley because of course they will not grant all rights.... So as a small supplier your a easy target....

And there are more issues that these guys haven't thought about... Employment . Right now as a contributor your not a employee... But if for instance you generated the majority of your income from Time... And make no mistake this is potentially quiet high odds for some retired or cruising folks... And time commissions this work .. And then obtains all the rights... Ie they own the IP.... Guess what??? Your not freelance... Your an employee. What time is doing is having all the advantages of employees generating the IP.... But not haveing to pay the NI contributions.. Or worry about any of your rights if they should choose to stop using you... So, current Time employees also need to think about this and the implications for their contracts in the future....

By going down this route there is the potential that the contributors could be entering into a illegal contract of emplyment and colluding to deprive the tax man of his bit...

So, smart contributors don't sign. There is no future income stream potential from his material if he does... His library becomes worthless.... So he loses capitol ... And he becomes complicit in a dodgy employment practice... There really is zero profit in this for the contributor.

The ones who do sign are the ones who are weak, or frankly really not very good. And in the end the magazine as well as the contributors suffer... Because readers are NOT stupid... And the quality of the product (which is the writing and articles btw...) suffers.... And circulation suffers... And then advertising suffers..

A rights grab is exactly the opposite of what Time should be doiing.. It's entirely self destructive and counter productive. But executives at media outlets across the world continue to do this becuase they are weak and lack vision and dont actually understand what it is that they do... They don't undertand the value of their brand.

My advice then to the small contributors.... Don't sign.

What have you got to lose??? If you sign... Your screwed anyways... If you don't... You have the ability to stand up and say that you didn't cave into some plank who tried to screw you at xmas.... And frankly... It's this strength which will see you better off.

Weak and stupid people let themselves get bullied.

In reality, With most of these grabs, the publisher backs down. If you don't sign.... They will more than likely do so in this case.

Or you can be like Dylan... Sign everything going... End up broke.

We never sign. We are still makings a good living, and paying for my yacht by adapting and caring about what we produce... If customers want our copyright,,. They pay properly for it... The material we sell to the likes of time and news international we own...

There are other solutions for Time... They could offer a syndication deal... We have several in place and it works well... They get more from the material... And so do you.. And because your getting more your motivated to produce better material..

In the end the guardian had to back down from their xmas grab as they lost so may contributors... Ourselves included..

Don't sign... It's bad for you, and it's bad for them.

And on that note I will probably be banned... So au revoir.

 

[sailorman]

You might just get a "personalized message" instead

 

[dom]

Copyright is supposed to be an author's right, but digital publishing has made it ever more a publisher's right. And - contrary to what Dylan says - it does have economic value.

"Supposed to", "moral" and "intellectual" arguments are really only relevant to the pre-contract phase. The ultimate level of copyright protection is overwhelmingly a function of the eventual signed agreement between the two parties. Once a contract is in place it is best to think of the negotiation phase as fading away to a level just one step closer than outer space.

I fully agree with what you say about the commercial value of copyright. Enforceability in a digital world is of course another matter, but the big publishing companies want to own it for a reason. Now it is true that during the pre-contract phase publishing companies routinely lament the "fact" that the true economic value of copyright is almost zero; the kind of thing we all might say to the man in the Kasbah about the leather bag he is attempting to sell us ...but we don't expect him to actually believe it!