Transcon clarifies issue of term "promotional use"
A follow-up on an earlier post about the apparently sweeping interpretation that Transcontinental Media had put on its rights to provide promotional access to articles. As readers may recall, writer Kim Pittaway had been told that Transcon had given permission for the full text of an article she had written for More magazine to be reprinted, without payment or consultation, in a publication of the Rotman School (the subject of the article).
Well Pittaway says she has received the following statement and that it is more in line with what she had understood herself to be agreeing to when she signed the More contract:
Well Pittaway says she has received the following statement and that it is more in line with what she had understood herself to be agreeing to when she signed the More contract:
"Our policy is that we may authorize a third party site to make reference to, or limited partial reproduction of, one of our stories provided they put a link which brings the reader back to our site for the full text; it’s deemed promotional use.
In cases where a third party wishes to reproduce the full text of a freelancer on their site, it is Transcontinental’s policy to refer the requestor to the copyright holders (writer and photographer/illustrator) for approval. I’m sorry for the error and I hope that this clarifies the situation."
posted by D. B. Scott at
9:20 am
7 Comments:
But the fact of the matter is that most magazine editors won't allow the freelancer to make clarifying notations on the contract. It's all fine and dandy for a spokesperson for a magazine to say "this is what it really means" but ultimately, if the issue ever came up in a court of law, lawyers for both parties would use the actual contract language as the basis for their interpretation. And besides, the writer might not want that "promotion" which still may be a violation of moral copyright.
can you spell out moral copywrite, or post a link to an explaination? I don't think I understand what it is, and I would like to.
Moral rights, which are included in Canadian copyright law, include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work. So, when a magazine's contract asks a writer to give away their moral rights, it effectively gives the magazine the ability to change the article or repurpose it without consultation or permission. That's my understanding.
Here's a link: http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33333
That makes sense, but I still don't understand how it applies to the example posted above - did they want to change the text of the More article?
A writer may not want their work or their name associated with a certain product or company, and especially may not want their work/name used to promote that product or company. It's the writer's choice, not the publication's.
It applies in terms of moral copyright with respect to the author retaining:
"the right to the integrity of the work..."
That is, the context in which a person's creative work is placed can infringe on its integrity. This is how I understand the law would/should be applied.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home