Tuesday, 26 June 2018

Please, please, please!

I know it can seem boring, and I know I go on about it, but PLEASE ensure you fully understand and agree with any contract BEFORE you sign it. If there's anything you don't understand, ask for an explanation. No reputable business will want you to sign a contract you don't understand.

If there's anything you don't like, you can ask for it to be amended. In the case of a contract with the publishers of a womag, the chances of this being agreed to are slim, but you can ask – and if you don't get the response you want you can, and in my opinion should, refuse to sign.

Just a reminder 'All rights' doesn't just mean the magazine can use the story online or in another publication, as well as where it was submitted. Giving up all rights means exactly that. You can't submit the story elsewhere, enter it in a competition, offer it for a charity anthology, publish it eleswhere, not on your blog, or claim ALCS – because those things can only done by the copyright holder. If you've sold all rights, that isn't you. It's no longer your story.

Womags don't need to take all rights. They can offer contracts which give them the right to use the story when and where they wish, yet allowing the author to also re-use their story once it has been published and any exclusivity period has passed. This is what most of them currently do, at least for most of their authors. I've heard of new (to them) authors being offered only all rights contracts. You can imagine what might happen if some of those are signed.

UPDATE – I've had a response from ACLS. "If you don’t hold copyright, you need to have an agreement in place with your publisher in order to claim. ALCS does not pay out to publishers (they claim through ) so if they hold the rights, they can’t claim for the article through us."

They provide more information on copyright here.

74 comments:

  1. I've just had an email about one of my stories and it looks like Woman's Weekly are going to be buying stories on an All Rights basis from now on. It's a real blow because I don't think I can afford to just give away all rights - but love being published in the magazine. Have other people heard this news? Any views?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Taking all rights is just greedy and disrespectful to the writers! No way would I agree to this. ST.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just in case I wasn't clear ... I don't think all rights contracts are fair to writers and I'm not willing to sign one, unless I'm offered considerably more than the amount any of the womags pay.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was very disappointed to hear about the WW changes, especially as there are a number of stories already accepted that won't be published unless under the new basis. I have never signed one before but I love writing for WW so am torn. I may decide to let them publish the ones they have accepted and then not sub any more. What a blow.

    Anon1

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh No! Thank you for explaining so clearly the significance of All Rights, Patsy. For many of us ALCS is income we rely upon as part of our writing. I hope all writers take your warning seriously and that we stick together.

    Our rights as professional writers are being slowly eroded.

    There's concern too about the more recent phrasing of Woman's Weekly offers which may not mention a fee and, which in turn, means this may not be a contract as such. I wonder if anyone can shed any light on this?

    A (very) concerned writer

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous and Anon1 - please don't sign yet. They're not going to reject your story if you take a little time to think about it – and there's a slim chance that if they realise a lot of writers are unhappy with this 'deal' then they'll have a rethink.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's very unfair and I can't see what the magazines have to gain from it. Surely they should value their writers more than this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It would be great to hear from an Editor about this?
    So, WW are moving the goalposts following an acceptance some time ago? Have I understood that correctly? Is it legal?

    ReplyDelete
  9. So, if we can't claim ALCS for our stories, can Woman's Weekly claim it instead? That's a good bit of extra income. For them. A cut. For us.

    ReplyDelete
  10. WW made me an offer for a story yesterday - only £100, and they wanted all rights. I said I wouldn't be happy to sell all rights, and I was disappointed that the pay rate had gone down so much. I asked if they could make me a better offer, and they said they were unable to do so. I refused the offer.

    Tara Westgate

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is so disappointing to read. I've always loved writing for Woman's Weekly (I've loved writing for all the magazines - such a satisfying job) but if this is all true, and it seems like there's no reason to believe it isn't, where does it leave us writers - both previously accepted and new? Not being able to register with ALCS is a big blow, along with the other opportunities lost.

    May I ask why this has come about? Does anyone know? Why a magazine would want all rights?

    Is there any chance of re-considering? Like you say Patsy, it feels unfair.

    Fran

    ReplyDelete
  12. If WW can in fact in future claim the ALCS for themselves from all the stories they publish on an all rights basis, then they're going to have a mega payday every March from what should be our money.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Is it too much to hope it's a misunderstanding?

    Fran

    ReplyDelete
  14. I haven't sent anything to WW for a while because I wanted to see how the changes panned out and felt uneasy at the switch to payment after publication and general lack of feedback or guidance for authors. Up till then they were my second main market after PF, and I'm genuinely proud of the stories I've had published with them.
    With their higher rates of pay I could possibly have bitten the bullet, especially as ALCS payments seem to have been a lot lower the last couple of years, but I've noticed some comments about acceptances without any mention of the amount of payment - and I've just seen Tara's comment about only being offered £100.
    Tawdry treatment, to say the least.
    Good on you for refusing their offer, Tara. They're slipping down the league.

    Lilian B (Rebecca Holmes)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Is anyone actually putting their head above the parapet and saying anything to WW? How do they know how unhappy we all are about this? Ive been saying for ages that Womag writers need a Union, Im not kidding. Ginny

    ReplyDelete
  16. Extremely disappointed WW have gone this way.

    I've spoken to Patsy about posting the following links, the All Party Parliamentary Group for writers has launched an inquiry into authors earnings- this is writers of all types not just novels. They are open to receive written evidence, so please consider telling them about your experience.

    https://www.alcs.co.uk/news/the-all-party-parliamentary-group-for-writers-launches-an-inquiry-on-authors-earnings?platform=hootsuite

    And the background information from the Bookseller a few weeks ago.
    https://www.thebookseller.com/news/appgw-calls-evidence-authors-earnings-808056

    ReplyDelete
  17. I really hope this is all just a mis-understanding. A double whammy with the paycut and losing ALCS. I sell a few stories to Sweden so would lose this too. And any chance of self publishing an anthology in the future. Add all that up and it's a serious hit to a writer's income. For what? What are the magazines ever going to do with the rights?
    J

    ReplyDelete
  18. That's interesting Carol. Thank you. So there's plenty relevant to womagwriters, there, isn't there? With matters like shifts to payment on or after publication. To name but one of many!

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm shocked to rad this news but in a way I have seen this coming for a very long time. So many short story writers just give up and accept the agreements put in front of them whereas those who pitch and have articles commissioned do haggle - and are always paid more. In part this comes about because fiction writers may only ever write a few stories and it is treated as a hobby/pin money (no offence to those who do treat this as a job).
    If push comes to shove change the title, setting and names and sell the story elsewhere but not without haggling and making it clear we are not monkeys working for peanuts and neither are we puppets having out strings pulled by the wealthy publishers.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I heard about this today as well. I decided I wasn't too bothered as I've never tried to sell any published stories again - however, now you've explained about ALCS I'm really horrified. I rely on this payment to keep the wolves at bay and not only that but the payment from the magazine is apparently to be reduced as well! I love Woman's Weekly, but the thought of them pinching my ALCS cash is awful. I'll keep checking here, Patsy, to see what others are doing.
    This is no misunderstanding.

    AngieM

    ReplyDelete
  21. Payment for new AND regular writers AngieM?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not disagreeing with anything you say, Elaine, but sometimes that pin or hobby money is what makes the difference between a household managing and not managing, so even for very part-time writers it can make a big difference. This is especially true for anyone who might otherwise struggle to find work - those juggling caring responsibilities or who have their own disabilities, etc.

    It's been a gradual downhill slide, hasn't it, ever since the world rights contracts came in a few years ago. People - except for a few of us - said everything was fine and there was no need to worry, whereas in fact that was just the start of a very slippery slope.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If this is true then it's just plain mean! As others have said, why do they need all rights. And if they're making such big changes why not contact us all at the same time. Is it because they think if they do it individually it will slip by unchallenged, but by telling us all together we might take a united front. Really disappointed as I love the stories in WW.
    Elizabeth McKay

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous, re your comment to me.
    A part time writer is a writer and it would say this on their tax return - even if they sent earn enough to pay tax. This makes it their profession and as such they would be working as part of the womag community. By definition someone treating it a hobby would make a one off (or occassional) submission with them not pitching their work regularly. It would be, if not fun, and yes, a welcome addition to their income - just like someone knitting a jumper and getting paid for it.
    Any money, however it is earned, helps the household. However, it is these people who mainly do not join in with forums and writing groups and do not help when we have problems like this. They simply take the money offered and do not think of the consequence. All my students know that when sending off a submission to a mag they are joining a profession and must treat it as they would any other job.
    Many people take to freelance writing because of home commitments or illness that prevents them from going into a 'normal' workplace. I count myself amongst these people and it was these circumstances that led to me becoming a freelance writers in 1997. However, I made sure I knew the rules regardless of my personal situation.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am appalled at this latest WW strike on taking full rights and moving the goal posts. It just isn't fair. Like Fran said, why would a magazine ask for full rights? Is it because of ALCS? And is it just new writers with WW getting the new contract or is it going to everyone? Life can be hard enough without ppl getting greedy.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanks to Beatrice Charles, who tweeted a link them a link to this post, ALCS are looking into how this impacts on making claims through them, and who will benefit if it's not the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ (very) concerned writer – did you read Simon Whaley's post on here last Friday? https://womagwriter.blogspot.com/2018/06/when-is-commission-not-commission-by.html

    ReplyDelete
  28. Unless we all strike, I don't see what we can do. And even if we did strike, there are plenty more writers who would take the money, however low it was, with all rights too. I am in the unenviable position of of relying totally on short story writing for my income thanks to the pension age being hiked up. I am now sending stories to F Feast first, then PF, then maybe WW. I'm still waiting for publication dates for a story accepted in December...

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ Linda – if we give in to this, what's to stop all the other mags following suit?

    ReplyDelete
  30. I have been writing for WW for more than a decade and the stories that have been accepted but not published yet are at the same rate I always got. However, whether this will remain for any new acceptances (if I continue to sub) will remain to be seen.

    I also hadn't thought about ALCS - just about other publications and the overall principles. It is not clear if a translation would count as the same work so this needs to be clarified.

    I doubt there is anything deliberately designed to deprive authors of ALCS money. I suspect it is to bring all purchases of written work in line with each other as non-fiction has always been treated differently. But we will see.

    I'll let you know anything I find out.

    Anon1 (again)

    ReplyDelete
  31. I am very concerned to hear this especially if it's a double whammy of lower payments and losing ALCS income. As I am not eligible to submit to FF or My Weekly, WW and The PF are my go-to. In practice (apart from the possible collection of ALCS payments) what would WW do with all these stories? It's mean!

    ReplyDelete
  32. So are all rights always taken for non-fiction? I never write it, so have no idea. Is it often sold on?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thanks for putting this discussion out there Patsy. I must admit it's changed my opinion on the situation. Not that I've sold to WW but I am on their preferred list. Your discussion has clarified my understanding of other magazines contracts though and for that I'm grateful to you and other contributors here.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This is the company that now owns TimeInc Uk and so WW. Wouldn't hurt to email, would it?

    https://www.epiris.co.uk/contact/

    RR

    ReplyDelete
  35. Maybe ALCS can do something to help us, or is that too much to hope for?

    AngieM

    ReplyDelete
  36. This is a sad state of affairs, if they are asking for all rights. Fiction is so much more difficult to 'rewrite'. With an article if I sell all rights (and I try not to) there's nothing stopping me from rewriting the basic facts of the article and giving it a different slant. It's just so much more difficult to do that with fiction.

    Creative people need to retain as many rights as possible in order to be able to exploit them. It's much more difficult to earn a living otherwise. If you're running a writing business, you need to think with a business head about whether it's financially worth signing away all rights.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thank you for this post. I've not yet had story accepted by any womag, although I live in dwindling hope. I have a story out there at present which potentially I would want to resubmit - possibly to a charity anthology, so in the somewhat unlikely case of my story being accepted by WW, I will have to think very hard about this. I'm sure it'll be a no from me. Not just for myself, but for all the others too. The more that say no, the more likely they are to reconsider, although I'm sure there are writers, especially newer writers, who are just keen to be published and will accept these terms.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I haven't submitted to any of the womags for a couple of years (busy with other writing) but recently thought I'd try my luck again - until I read this!
    When I started writing it was standard practice for a writer to offer First British Serial Rights when submitting a short story and the magazines accepted this without question. This allowed the writer to then offer rights to magazines in other countries and still retain British reprint/ film/ radio etc. rights in case they ever had the opportunity to sell those as well. I think things started changing when digital publishing appeared and publishers realised a story published in one country could be read all over the world. I'm guessing that most magazines have no intention of using all the rights to a story but want them 'just in case'.
    The biggest problem is that all the time some writers give up their rights without question the magazines will continue taking them. And how will they deal with writers who dare to object? Unfortunately it is a buyer's market.
    I've just had a look at the WW submission guidelines and couldn't find any mention of payments or rights. If a company expects their suppliers to sign a legally binding contract shouldn't they at least publish their terms & conditions?

    ReplyDelete
  39. I've read with interest all the comments and agree wholeheartedly. But I think WW have given Writers a clear choice:agree to their new terms, sign the contract and wave goodbye to all your rights as creator of the work and accept the pay cut, haggle about rights and be declined, or refuse to give all rights and not be published.

    Personally,if WW don't reverse their decision, the only resonable response to me is to not sub to them in the first place and explore other avenues of writing where you will retain some of your rights.

    We can try and campaign to get this decision reversed but, as many here have pointed out, there will be many other writers who will accept the low payment and losing their rights. It seems the publishers can exploit Writers as much as they like, and you can bet your life if you are one of the writers complaining and calling them out on their appalling treatment of Writers, then they might not look too kindly on your submissions anyway!

    I think they are struggling to keep a foothold in the current market and this is just one more cost cutting exercise. When they initially stopped certain Writers from submitting a while ago, I was convinced this mag wouldn't be publishing fiction for much longer, or the standard would go down - but now I am even more convinced, if the rights thing and reduced pay go ahead, the standard will drop if regular, experienced writers then refuse their terms and aren't published by them anymore.

    Thinking positively, though, this is a chance for writers to explore other avunues for their writing which aren't so punishing writing and payment wise.

    As Patsy said, Writers need to read the contracts carefully and make sure that they understand what it means for them and other writers if they do sign. It's a sorry state of affairs, that's for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Blog post now updated with the response from ALCS.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The first story I had accepted by a womag was in Yours (this makes it sound like I've had loads of stories published - I haven't, only two others in Prima). Yours is one of those magazines that makes it clear they buy stories on an 'All Rights' basis, and Patsy has also made this clear in the past. I thought I understood what this meant but, naively, I didn't realise that this meant I couldn't log it with ALCS. I wonder how lucrative womag stories are once they're logged with ALCS. I write non-fiction articles and assumed that non-fiction was more profitable than fiction, mainly because they're more likely to be photocopied, but others' posts suggest that stories are equally profitable.
    Simon has raised a question which I have pondered before and would really appreciate people's thoughts on. To what extent do you have to tweak a story in order to make it into a different story? If the answer is not very much, then maybe this offers a partial solution to this troubling All Rights issue.

    ReplyDelete
  42. To me it's the loss of ACLS payments that is more troubling than losing the rights. Saying that I do not invest a great deal of time in a story and I do write a lot of them. However I understand that others invest a great deal of effort getting them just right and to lose that ownership is a major issue.
    To answer your question Amanda, I understand that there is no copyright on ideas only the words in a particular order. I have taken the same idea and completely rewritten it without referring to the first story. This hopefully would avoid reusing chunks of it as even the same sentence might be a problem. As i found out yesterday I'm very ignorant on copyright law so don't accept what I say as correct. I should point out that none of my rewritten stories have been sold as yet and I have done only a few o those. To me it's more exciting to explore new ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @ Amanda, a tweaked or amended version of a story, is still that story. How much do you think you'd have to alter a Harry Potter book for example, before you wouldn't risk being in trouble for breach of copyright? You will no longer own that story, so tweaking one you wrote and sold the rights to is no better, legally, than doing the same to one owned by another writer. (Yes, I know some people just change the title and character names and get away with it, but they're taking a risk.)

    Non fiction is different. The same research and facts can be presented in a very different manner and become a completely new article.

    ReplyDelete
  44. That's really helpful. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Has anyone who has heard about the new contracts asked WW about the ALCS payments yet? If so, have they replied?
    Wondering if the Society of Authors has responded to anyone yet?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Soc of Authors have responded to me asking for more information as they've not heard about this.

    ReplyDelete
  47. If people are writing to the All Party Writers Group it may be a good idea to copy in the Society of Authors and ALCS. No doubt their addresses can be found on their websites.

    ReplyDelete
  48. If, as seems apparent, TI Media are blackmailing writers by attaching a copy of the new contract to an acceptance email from Desknet, which you have no choice but to sign if you want your money, may I suggest that you keep them waiting for you acceptance. If we all stick together on this they're going to have to rethink their unconscionable actions.

    ReplyDelete
  49. When did it all kick off? see my post on other Blog above, but I have 'commission' acceptance for my usual (longer story) fee and 'First Use with extensions' as their rights with a 're-use' time of 90 days from publication. Dated 1st June.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Two further clarifications I have received after querying:-

    i) Translations count as the same work so you will not be allowed to resell the story in translation either.

    ii) They will no longer accept stories that have been published elsewhere. If you have an acceptance outstanding for a story that had been published elsewhere, even though it was accepted on that basis at the time, they will no longer proceed with publication i.e. they will be withdrawing their offer.

    It just keeps on coming.

    AngryAnon

    ReplyDelete
  51. Celia, as far as I know it kicked off on Monday of this week.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Patsy,
    Firstly, my thanks for all your past work on this blog. It is an unselfish act indeed to share information and give advice, in your own time (when you could be writing!) to those of us who are less generous and less industrious.
    I don't think I've posted before - I am a quiet sort of person when it comes to social media - but I have very much appreciated the existence of the blog.
    I am published on a fairly regular basis in WW, and I naively felt, when I learned about the new all-rights arrangement, that it would have very little impact on me: I almost never use my material elsewhere. BUT other sharper writers pointed out that I will lose the right to add my works to the ALCS database.
    Can you, or other readers of this blog, suggest how we might talk (possibly as a body) to WW, in the hope of making an arrangement whereby we CAN collect? It seems that WW can make no money from ALCS funds (not being creators, but merely publishers) and so it would be no skin, as they say, off their nose (beyond perhaps an initial little effort in set-up).
    If I am again being naive here, I'm sure blog readers will tell me so. But I have a vague understanding that such arrangements can be made …
    Alison Carter
    P.S. I have submitted almost nothing to WW for some time, and so feel lucky to have no current contractual dilemma. I have the luxury of being able to think about it. There was a peculiar period (this year, in essence) during which the editors accepted everything for three months (which surprised me), and then nothing for the following three months (which made me wonder if they simply had enough fiction 'backed up' and were returning stories almost automatically), and so I decided on a hiatus.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Like Alison, I am mainly concerned about the ALCS payment. There is, apparently, an agreement that can be made so that we can claim with ALCS. This is what ALCS told you, Patsy, is it not? How about an email asking Time Inc (via WW) for this? I think, having read all of the posts on here, that a lot of us would put our names to such a communication.

    AngieM

    ReplyDelete
  54. I understand the concerns re ALCS, but would like to point out that selling All Rights and copyright and waiving moral rights (which is what they are asking for)doesn't just mean that you can't resell elsewhere. It means that you have handed over your work in it's entirety to an organisation who can do what it likes with it. You no longer have the right to be identified as the author. You no longer have any control over how that work is used, or where, or in what format, or to be advised that it has been used, for ever. You no longer have the right to any further payment no matter how the work is used or resold. You can't change your mind later.
    That is a whole lot of rights to be giving up for a decrease or, at best, the same amount of money.

    Anon99

    ReplyDelete
  55. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  56. was told personally by the Editor that I would be unable to sell on serials to Ulverscroft Large Print, which means I would lose my PLR. Nor would we be able to claim ALCS. As Anon 99 writes above, All Rights is just what it says on the tin.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @ Anon99 – I know. That's what I keep saying and why I'm so against the whole thing. All rights means ALL rights. Absolutely everything. It's no longer the author's story.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I’m just grateful that WW has never been my main market so it’s not as difficult a decision for me to make as it is for those of you who write regularly for them. My own recent selling pattern has almost exactly mirrored Alison Carter’s above and once the rejections started coming in after the flurry of acceptances, had stopped sending. It’s a sad, sad time for womag writers.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I left a comment yesterday but it seems to have disappeared into the ether...

    Like so many of the writers above I was dismayed when I read about this new contract. It's greedy. Heavy-handed. And unfair of any publication to ask for All Rights with no additional payment (and actually, in the case of writers new to WW, a reduced one). In principle I would go along with the majority who are suggesting writers don't submit their work there any more. But I am also a realist. When I first started writing twenty-five years ago there were a dozen UK mags we could submit to (Woman, Woman's Own, Best, That's Life, The Lady, Candis, etc). None of those short story markets exist now. The mags are still there but the fiction opportunities aren't, or they only want it from novelists with a book to plug. And of the remaining handful, Fiction Feast and My Weekly will only consider work from writers whose stories they have used before. So it's a big deal to turn our backs on those that are still taking fiction without any such provisos.

    Much has been made of the fact that signing this contract will mean we'll no longer be able to submit our work overseas. But again, the overseas markets aren't what they were. Fast Fiction (Australia) used to be my first choice for a second bite of the cherry once a story had been published here, but they stopped accepting previously published work a couple of years ago. You magazine in S. Africa was another dependable, but then the SA banks demanded copies of our passport details before they would honour BACS payments, so I stopped submitting there. Woman's World in America only consider unpublished work... the list goes on. The reality is that once a story has been published here, whether in Woman's Weekly, People's Friend, My Weekly, or any other British mag, it is effectively unpublishable in any other major title overseas.

    The other issue under discussion is the ALCS one. I only registered with ALCS last year (yes, I know, should have done it years ago) and received a pleasing amount from them as my first payment. I wouldn't want to lose out on future payments, so I emailed Emma Shacklock, Woman's Weekly Fiction Writing Co-ordinator, on Friday to check the situation. She responded within two hours, saying, "We have been informed by the ALCS that you can continue to claim from them as long as you have confirmation from us, which we are happy to give." So it seems there would be no problem there.

    I'm not in any way saying that what Ti-Media are doing is okay. On the contrary, it really angers me. But since I don't know of any overseas magazines that are prepared to publish my work after its publication here (and pay a reasonable sum for it), I can't help but wonder how much I'm really losing out on by continuing to submit to WW under these new terms. It's a tricky one and I'm still undecided.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I understand your points, Chris, and resales are a lot harder than they used to be (everything is harder!!). I resell to You and Allas and I'm sure there are other markets too (I don't sub to them so don't know their T&C). About half of my WW stories have been sold on (or pre-sold) to either one or both of these. There are also other things like anthologies or publishing on your own blog which don't make much/any money for most people but nevertheless you will lose. If a new market does emerge (you never know) any stories you have sold under All Rights are unusable there. And, as I said above, it's not just about the resales - there are lots of other rights you lose, forever. And it's the principle, of course.

    However, as long as people understand what they are giving up, then of course everyone must do what is right for them.

    Anon99

    ReplyDelete
  61. Chris, if you search the guidelines on this blog, you'll find overseas markets which will buy previously published stories (assuming you hold the rights).

    At least they currently do. If TI can ask for all rights, and still have plenty of stories submitted, what's to stop all the other publishers doing the same? It wouldn't be the first time an unpopular action by one womag publisher was swiftly followed by something similar from another.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hi - just a thought here for everyone who is looking for a way to convince themselves that giving up all rights to WW is OK. It really isn't. How would any writer feel to discover, given that you've given away all rights, moral and otherwise, that your work is then sold under someone else's name, sold to countries worldwide, sold in collections - without your name on... etc etc? There are principles at stake for all writers now and in the future. Can anyone from WW tell us why they want us to relinquish our rights to be known as the creators of our work? Kate

    ReplyDelete
  63. You make a good point, Kate. As I said in my comment above, I am still undecided. Markets just aren't that plentiful now that we can cross off a major title from the list without giving it careful thought.

    I wonder, has everyone who has left a comment about this actually been in touch with Woman's Weekly to express the concerns put so forcefully here? It doesn't have to be done aggressively but I think asking those who make the decisions to justify their stance does hold up a mirror to their actions. Presumably they DO have a reason for wanting all rights, so what plans do they have for the work after it has been used in the magazine? If you haven't done this yet, PLEASE DO SO!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Lots of people have Chris and are receiving a standard reply about being brought into line with the rest of the company, and leaving a lot of questions unanswered and attempting to close down communication on the matter. There is no guarantee that the fee for established writers won't at some time in the near future be reduced - the answer there has been 'not yet'.
    Fran

    ReplyDelete
  65. I've just emailed Emma again, Fran. Clearly this isn't her doing, she has simply been placed in the unfortunate position of having to pass on the news and field all the questions. So I asked her if there was someone in a managerial, decision making, role that we should be contacting. More later perhaps...

    ReplyDelete
  66. Just had an email from Jane Kemp, Consumer and Lifestyle Editor on Woman's Weekly, saying that she hopes to be contacting all their contributors this week to clarify the situation.

    ReplyDelete
  67. That might be interesting, Chris.

    ReplyDelete
  68. It's about time a general notice went out - there will be people who don't read this blog or other forums who still know nothing about this.
    When I spoke to Jane last week she was very understanding and sympathetic but there was a lot left unanswered and she said that her hands were tied. It will be interesting to see if anything has changed.

    Anon99

    ReplyDelete
  69. Just because we are freelancers it doesn't mean we're not professionals. Would anyone think it acceptable to steal the copyright for 'intellectual property'in any other area of commerce?

    Linda

    ReplyDelete
  70. Hi. Anyone thinking of relinquishing copyright should have a read of the Solomon Linda story - the guy who sold his copyright to the "Lion Sleeps Tonight' song, for ten shillings - it went on to make billions!!!! Not saying it could happen to any of us, but I sometimes read stories in WW, which would make fabulous films. Also don't forget that the novel 'Shades Of Grey' was lifted and made millions for the person who appropriated it - nothing for the author!!!!
    ,.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Chris, I have emailed Marcus.Rich@ti-media.com who is the Chief Executive Officer. Sadly, he has not done me the courtesy of replying. Similarly I've emailed mark.winterton@ti-media.com who is the Managing Director and have had back the same email he sent to to others who have written to him. My second email has gone unanswered.

    Everyone must do what they must do, I agree. As a serial writer I stand to lose all PLR as I sell my serials on to Ulverscroft, the large print publishers, so it's no easy decision for me to throw away my rights. I still can't see how writing a serial or a story - which involves coming up with the plot and characters from scratch and which is not commissioned but sent in on spec - can be compared to the journalist or photographer's job, where they are directed what to photograph or write about and commissioned to do it, which means they know they will get paid once the commission is accepted.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Another thought... I know that some of the writers for WW are published novelists, I'd be interested to know how their publishers are reacting to a request for all rights? Kate

    ReplyDelete


  73. A man who works with his hands is a laborer; a man who works with his hands and his mind is a craftsman; but a man who works with his hands and his brain and his heart is an artist. (St. Thomas Aquinas)

    ReplyDelete
  74. That was then. Sadly this is now.

    ReplyDelete



If you are commenting anonymously PLEASE give yourself a nickname, number or initials. With so many people unwilling to use their own name it gets really confusing if there isn't some way to differentiate between you all.