As a freelance writer, I’ve signed some contracts that consist of a couple simple paragraphs, and others that had tangles of legal language in dozens of enumerated paragraphs. I’ve signed contracts that I understand better than the organization on the other end: Once, I tried to tell a bunch of editors that I had signed over to them my right to relicense a photo I had taken—that the 50 bucks being offered for it belonged to their publication, not to me—and a few days later, I was on the receiving end of an email chain that ended with the publication telling the would-be licensee that they had no idea who owned the picture in question.
Every freelancer has her own rules about what rights she’ll sign away to get paid. But in today’s journalism market, where a glossy publication might want the same story to appear in print, online, in the iPad addition, and in whatever innovative archive-mining form dreamed up in the future and where, once posted online, that same story might appear chopped up, aggregated, or reproduced wholesale across the great wide Web, it is common for publications to ask for all the things that copyright protects to be signed over.
Often this request comes in the form of a “work-for-hire” or “work-made-for-hire” contract, a form of labor agreement in which, according to the US Copyright Office “an employer is considered the author even if an employee actually created the work.” The employer’s rights over the work extend so far that the employee’s name can be taken off the work.
This is standard enough in a relationship between a traditional employer and employee, in which the employer offers other benefits like, for starters, steady pay, an office, and healthcare. But as it becomes common as an agreement governing less formal employment situations, like daily blogging gigs and permalance arrangements, writers are getting a worse deal while publishers can make out like bandits. No matter what the situation, though, as Todd Pitock, a longtime freelancer, sees it: “They get the benefits of being an employer without having the pay any of the cost of being an employer.”
Blame the Internet. Or at least, digital media. Anyone who’s been following this issue will trace the infiltration of work-for-hire contracts into freelance journalism to The New York Times v. Tasini. The Supreme Court decided, in 2001, that the Times could not republish the work of freelancers—represented here by the then-president of the National Writers Union, Jonathan Tasini—in an online database without asking permission and offering compensation. (Tasini more recently tried to sue The Huffington Post over its treatment of unpaid bloggers.) In response to the Supreme Court decision, publishers started more routinely asking writers to hand over all rights to their work “in any media now known or hereafter developed” or to sign work-for-hire contracts.
In a print-based world, it is not an easy choice for a writer to give up all rights to a story. Work-for-hire contracts mean that requests and, more importantly, fees for reprints go to the publisher.
“Work-made-for-hire is a very risky contract to sign, so people don’t do it lightly,” says Alexandra Cantor Owens, the executive director of the American Society of Journalists and Authors. “And for anything that might have any resale value, they don’t consider that unless it’s a high fee.”
But for online-only content, not all writers find work-for-hire, or even all-rights contracts, as objectionable. “We should probably let this one go on Web content specifically,” Kim Kavin, the chairwoman of ASJA’s contracts committee, wrote in an email. Her reasoning: Once content is online, few outlets would want to pay to reprint it, anyway.
It does happen that online content gets reprinted—sometimes even in print publications. These request might not be worth the thousands of dollars that reselling a print-only story might. But just as every freelancer has her own rules about what rights to give away, every freelancer has her own threshold for what might count as money worth collecting.